BACKGROUND: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk model is an established prognostic tool for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma that integrates clinical and laboratory data, but is agnostic to tumour genomics. Several mutations, including BAP1 and PBRM1, have prognostic value in renal-cell carcinoma. Using two independent clinical trial datasets of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, we aimed to study whether the addition of the mutation status for several candidate prognostic genes to the MSKCC model could improve the model's prognostic performance. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue and clinical outcome data from patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma assigned to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the COMPARZ trial (training cohort; n=357) and RECORD-3 trial (validation cohort; n=258). Eligible patients in both trials were treatment-naive; had histologically confirmed, advanced, or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma; and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. For each cohort, data from patients in all treatment groups (sunitinib and pazopanib in the training cohort, and everolimus and sunitinib in the validation cohort) were pooled for this analysis. In the training cohort, tumour tissue was used to evaluate somatic mutations by next-generation sequencing, and the association between cancer-specific outcomes (overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response) and the mutation status of six genes of interest (BAP1, PBRM1, TP53, TERT, KDM5C, and SETD2) was tested. Only those genes with prognostic value in this setting were added to the MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. The validation cohort was used to independently test the prognostic value of the annotated model compared with the original MSKCC risk model. FINDINGS: 357 (32%) of 1110 patients assigned to protocol treatment in the COMPARZ study between August, 2008, and September, 2011, were evaluable for mutation status and clinical outcomes in the training cohort. The independent validation cohort included 258 (55%) of 471 evaluable patients, enrolled between October, 2009, and June, 2011, on the RECORD-3 study. In the training cohort, the presence of any mutation in BAP1 or TP53, or both, and absence of any mutation in PBRM1 were prognostic in terms of overall survival (TP53wt/BAP1mut, TP53mut/BAP1wt o TP53mut/BAP1mut vs TP53wt/BAP1wt hazard ratio [HR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·21-2·04; p=0·0008; PBRM1wt vs PBRMmut, HR 1·58, 1·16-2·14; p=0·0035). The mutation status for these three prognostic genes were added to the original MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. Distribution of participants in the training cohort into the three risk groups of the original MSKCC model changed from 87 (24%) of 357 patients deemed at favourable risk, 217 (61%) at intermediate risk, and 53 (15%) at poor risk, to distribution across four risk groups in the genomically annotated risk model, with 36 (10%) of 357 deemed at favourable risk, 77 (22%) at good risk, 108 (30%) at intermediate risk, and 136 (38%) at poor risk. Addition of genomic information improved model performance for predicting overall survival (C-index: original model, 0·595 [95% CI 0·557-0·634] vs new model, 0·637 [0·595-0·679]) and progression-free survival (0·567 [95% CI 0·529-0·604] vs 0·602 [0·560-0·643]) with adequate discrimination of the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response (Cochran-Armitage one-sided p=0·0014). Analyses in the validation cohort confirmed the superiority of the genomically annotated risk model over the original version. INTERPRETATION: The mutation status of BAP1, PBRM1, and TP53 has independent prognostic value in patients with advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Improved stratification of patients across risk groups by use of a genomically annotated model including the mutational status of these three genes warrants further investigation in prospective trials and could be of use as a model to stratify patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in clinical trials. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, MSKCC Support Grant/Core Grant, and the J Randall & Kathleen L MacDonald Research Fund.
BACKGROUND: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk model is an established prognostic tool for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma that integrates clinical and laboratory data, but is agnostic to tumour genomics. Several mutations, including BAP1 and PBRM1, have prognostic value in renal-cell carcinoma. Using two independent clinical trial datasets of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, we aimed to study whether the addition of the mutation status for several candidate prognostic genes to the MSKCC model could improve the model's prognostic performance. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue and clinical outcome data from patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma assigned to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the COMPARZ trial (training cohort; n=357) and RECORD-3 trial (validation cohort; n=258). Eligible patients in both trials were treatment-naive; had histologically confirmed, advanced, or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma; and a Karnofsky performance status score of at least 70. For each cohort, data from patients in all treatment groups (sunitinib and pazopanib in the training cohort, and everolimus and sunitinib in the validation cohort) were pooled for this analysis. In the training cohort, tumour tissue was used to evaluate somatic mutations by next-generation sequencing, and the association between cancer-specific outcomes (overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response) and the mutation status of six genes of interest (BAP1, PBRM1, TP53, TERT, KDM5C, and SETD2) was tested. Only those genes with prognostic value in this setting were added to the MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. The validation cohort was used to independently test the prognostic value of the annotated model compared with the original MSKCC risk model. FINDINGS: 357 (32%) of 1110 patients assigned to protocol treatment in the COMPARZ study between August, 2008, and September, 2011, were evaluable for mutation status and clinical outcomes in the training cohort. The independent validation cohort included 258 (55%) of 471 evaluable patients, enrolled between October, 2009, and June, 2011, on the RECORD-3 study. In the training cohort, the presence of any mutation in BAP1 or TP53, or both, and absence of any mutation in PBRM1 were prognostic in terms of overall survival (TP53wt/BAP1mut, TP53mut/BAP1wt o TP53mut/BAP1mut vs TP53wt/BAP1wt hazard ratio [HR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·21-2·04; p=0·0008; PBRM1wt vs PBRMmut, HR 1·58, 1·16-2·14; p=0·0035). The mutation status for these three prognostic genes were added to the original MSKCC risk model to create a genomically annotated version. Distribution of participants in the training cohort into the three risk groups of the original MSKCC model changed from 87 (24%) of 357 patients deemed at favourable risk, 217 (61%) at intermediate risk, and 53 (15%) at poor risk, to distribution across four risk groups in the genomically annotated risk model, with 36 (10%) of 357 deemed at favourable risk, 77 (22%) at good risk, 108 (30%) at intermediate risk, and 136 (38%) at poor risk. Addition of genomic information improved model performance for predicting overall survival (C-index: original model, 0·595 [95% CI 0·557-0·634] vs new model, 0·637 [0·595-0·679]) and progression-free survival (0·567 [95% CI 0·529-0·604] vs 0·602 [0·560-0·643]) with adequate discrimination of the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response (Cochran-Armitage one-sided p=0·0014). Analyses in the validation cohort confirmed the superiority of the genomically annotated risk model over the original version. INTERPRETATION: The mutation status of BAP1, PBRM1, and TP53 has independent prognostic value in patients with advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Improved stratification of patients across risk groups by use of a genomically annotated model including the mutational status of these three genes warrants further investigation in prospective trials and could be of use as a model to stratify patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in clinical trials. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, MSKCC Support Grant/Core Grant, and the J Randall & Kathleen L MacDonald Research Fund.
Authors: A Ari Hakimi; Irina Ostrovnaya; Boris Reva; Nikolaus Schultz; Ying-Bei Chen; Mithat Gonen; Han Liu; Shugaku Takeda; Martin H Voss; Satish K Tickoo; Victor E Reuter; Paul Russo; Emily H Cheng; Chris Sander; Robert J Motzer; James J Hsieh Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Judith Manola; Patrick Royston; Paul Elson; Jennifer Bacik McCormack; Madhu Mazumdar; Sylvie Négrier; Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Janice Dutcher; Michael Atkins; Daniel Y C Heng; Toni K Choueiri; Robert Motzer; Ronald Bukowski Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; David J Figueroa; André P Fay; Sabina Signoretti; Yuan Liu; Robert Gagnon; Keith Deen; Christopher Carpenter; Peter Benson; Thai H Ho; Lini Pandite; Paul de Souza; Thomas Powles; Robert J Motzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: James J Hsieh; David Chen; Patricia I Wang; Mahtab Marker; Almedina Redzematovic; Ying-Bei Chen; S Duygu Selcuklu; Nils Weinhold; Nancy Bouvier; Kety H Huberman; Umesh Bhanot; Michael S Chevinsky; Parul Patel; Patrizia Pinciroli; Helen H Won; Daoqi You; Agnes Viale; William Lee; A Ari Hakimi; Michael F Berger; Nicholas D Socci; Emily H Cheng; Jennifer Knox; Martin H Voss; Maurizio Voi; Robert J Motzer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Mark A Warren; Ali Reza Golshayan; Chakshu Sahi; Bernhard J Eigl; J Dean Ruether; Tina Cheng; Scott North; Peter Venner; Jennifer J Knox; Kim N Chi; Christian Kollmannsberger; David F McDermott; William K Oh; Michael B Atkins; Ronald M Bukowski; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard W Joseph; Payal Kapur; Daniel J Serie; Mansi Parasramka; Thai H Ho; John C Cheville; Eugene Frenkel; Alexander S Parker; James Brugarolas Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Martin H Voss; David Chen; Mahtab Marker; A Ari Hakimi; Chung-Han Lee; James J Hsieh; Jennifer J Knox; Maurizio Voi; Robert J Motzer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A J Zurita; R C Gagnon; Y Liu; H T Tran; R A Figlin; T E Hutson; A M D'Amelio; C N Sternberg; L N Pandite; J V Heymach Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: J J Knox; C H Barrios; T M Kim; T Cosgriff; V Srimuninnimit; K Pittman; R Sabbatini; S Y Rha; T W Flaig; R D Page; J T Beck; F Cheung; S Yadav; P Patel; L Geoffrois; J Niolat; N Berkowitz; M Marker; D Chen; R J Motzer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Maria I Carlo; A Ari Hakimi; Grant D Stewart; Gennady Bratslavsky; James Brugarolas; Ying-Bei Chen; W Marston Linehan; Eamonn R Maher; Maria J Merino; Kenneth Offit; Victor E Reuter; Brian Shuch; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew W Silagy; Alejandro Sanchez; Brandon J Manley; Karim Bensalah; Axel Bex; Jose A Karam; Börje Ljungberg; Brian Shuch; A Ari Hakimi Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2019-04-28
Authors: Renzo G DiNatale; Alexander N Gorelick; Vladimir Makarov; Kyle A Blum; Andrew W Silagy; Benjamin Freeman; Diego Chowell; Julian Marcon; Roy Mano; Alex Sanchez; Kyrollis Attalla; Stanley Weng; Martin Voss; Robert J Motzer; Paul Russo; Jonathan A Coleman; Victor E Reuter; Ying-Bei Chen; Timothy A Chan; Ed Reznik; Satish K Tickoo; A Ari Hakimi Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2019-12-06