Patients with treatment-naive mRCC are treated with IO-based regimens, usually a combination of either IO/IO or IO/TKI. Both IO and TKI therapies are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, however, there are no head-to-head trials comparing IO/IO to IO/TKI regimens. Our study did not show a significant difference in the rate of TE between patients treated with IO/IO or IO/TKI. Background: Most patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receive combination-based immunotherapy with either 2 immune-oncology checkpoint inhibitors (IO/IO) or an IO agent in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI). The rates of thromboembolism (TE) in these cohorts are not clear ly descr ibed and can potentially impact decision-making between IO/IO and IO/TKI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective investigation of patients with treatment-naive mRCC treated with IO-based combinations between January 2015 and April 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic. TE events, including venous and arterial, were identified in each group. Competing risk regression was done to identify factors associated with the development of TE following therapy, with all -cause mortality treated as a competing event. Results: Of 180 patients identified, 77 (43%) received IO/TKI and 103 (57%) received IO/IO. Median age was 65 years, 75% were male, and 80% had clear cell histology. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. At a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 10.0% of all patients had a TE. The one-year incidence of TE was 8.1% (95% CI: 3.3%-15.8%) with IO/TKI and 9.8% (95% CI: 5.0%-16.5%) with IO/IO and was not significantly different between the 2 groups (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.35%-2.28%). Occurrence of TE was associated with decreased overall survival regardless of IO/IO or IO/TKI therapy (HR 2.80, 95% CI: 1.57-5.02). There was no difference in incidence of TE based on patient age, gender, prior history of TE, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (IMDC) risk group, or Khorana score. Conclusions: Incidence of TE is similar between IO/IO and IO/TKI regimens in treatment-naive mRCC and is also associated with decreased overall survival. While risk of TE may not guide decision-making in choice of front-line mRCC therapy, careful attention should be given to the high risk of TE in this population.

Androgen deprivation therapy is a cornerstone of treatment for advanced prostate cancer, and the development of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the primary cause of prostate cancer-related mortality. While CRPC typically develops through a gain in androgen receptor (AR) signaling, a subset of CRPC will lose reliance on the AR. This process involves genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal changes that promote cellular plasticity, leading to AR-indifferent disease, with neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) being the quintessential example. NEPC is enriched following treatment with second-generation anti-androgens and exhibits resistance to endocrine therapy. Loss of RB1, TP53, and PTEN expression and MYCN and AURKA amplification appear to be key drivers for NEPC differentiation. Epigenetic modifications also play an important role in the transition to a neuroendocrine phenotype. DNA methylation of specific gene promoters can regulate lineage commitment and differentiation. Histone methylation can suppress AR expression and promote neuroendocrine-specific gene expression. Emerging data suggest that EZH2 is a key regulator of this epigenetic rewiring. Several mechanisms drive AR-dependent castration resistance, notably AR splice variant expression, expression of the adrenal-permissive 3βHSD1 allele, and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Aberrant epigenetic regulation also promotes radioresistance by altering the expression of DNA repair- and cell cycle-related genes. Novel therapies are currently being developed to target these diverse genetic, epigenetic, and hormonal mechanisms promoting lineage plasticity-driven NEPC.