Purpose:

Immune-related RECIST (irRECIST) were designed to capture atypical responses seen with immunotherapy. We hypothesized that, in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response would show improved association with clinical endpoints capturing atypical responders (irRECIST) compared with standard clinical endpoints (RECISTv1.1).

Experimental Design:

Endpoints based on RECISTv1.1 [objective response rate (ORR)/progression-free survival (PFS)] or irRECIST [immune-related ORR (irORR)/immune-related PFS (irPFS)] were compared in patients enrolled in the CheckMate-010 trial. Pretreatment tumors were analyzed by PD-L1 and PD-L2 IHC, and by multiplex immunofluorescence for CD8, PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3. T-cell activation signatures were assessed by RNA sequencing.

Results:

Median irPFS was significantly longer than median PFS. irORR was not significantly different from ORR, but immune-related progressive disease (irPD) rate was significantly lower than progressive disease (PD) rate. Tumor cell (TC) PD-L1 expression was not associated with PFS or ORR, but patients with TC PD-L1 ≥1% had longer median irPFS and higher irORR. High percentage of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating cells (TIC) that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 (% CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC) correlated with high levels of T-cell activation and was associated with longer median irPFS and higher irORR. Notably, combination of TC PD-L1 expression with % CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC identified three groups of patients for which irPFS and irORR were significantly different.

Conclusions:

Atypical responders to nivolumab were identified in the CheckMate-010 trial. We observed improved association of candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response with endpoints defined by irRECIST compared with RECISTv1.1. TC PD-L1 expression in combination with PD-1 expression on CD8+ TIC may predict outcome on nivolumab in mccRCC.

Translational Relevance

The use of radiological response criteria capturing atypical responses to immunotherapy has been recently shown to be a better surrogate marker of antitumor effect with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents in melanoma and lung cancer. In line with these findings, our study demonstrates that atypical responses from nivolumab captured by immune-related RECIST translate into longer clinical benefit in patient with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Our results also indicate that the use of conventional RECIST is likely to negatively affect the association of candidate predictive biomarkers with outcome by failing to accurately identify patients benefiting from nivolumab therapy. Our findings support the more extensive use of immune-related response criteria in the assessment of response to immunotherapy in mccRCC setting and in the execution of correlative studies for predictive biomarker discovery and validation to immune-checkpoint blockade.

Cancer immunotherapy targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) signaling improves overall survival (OS) in several tumor types with manageable toxicity and durable responses in a subset of patients (1). In patients with previously treated metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), nivolumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against PD-1, demonstrated superior OS and fewer serious adverse events than everolimus in the CheckMate-025 trial, leading to its FDA approval (2). Although nivolumab's favorable therapeutic index makes it an appealing consideration for earlier disease settings, the lack of predictive biomarkers for selecting patients likely to achieve durable benefit limits the ability to establish the value of anti–PD-1s' monotherapy in treatment-naïve mccRCC patients.

World Health Organization (WHO) tumor response criteria and the most recent RECISTv1.1 are surrogates of survival routinely used by oncologists for clinical decision-making (3, 4). Compared with targeted agents and conventional chemotherapy, immune-checkpoint inhibitors can display an atypical pattern of response, where new lesions develop or established lesions grow before an objective response or stable disease is observed (5–10). Immune-related response criteria (irRC, adapted from WHO criteria) and subsequently irRECIST, immune-based therapeutics RECIST (iRECIST), and immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST; all adapted from RECISTv1.1) were therefore developed to prevent misclassification of atypical responders as early progressors by the conventional WHO and RECISTv1.1 criteria (11–14). Recent analyses demonstrated that compared with RECISTv1.1, immune-related response criteria may more accurately predict long-term survival outcomes in patients with melanoma and lung cancer treated by PD-1 blockade (15, 16). Although it is increasingly accepted that response per immune-related criteria can more accurately assess benefit from immunotherapy, efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for anti–PD-1 agents have exclusively utilized endpoints based on RECISTv1.1, potentially impairing biomarker discovery.

The present article is based on the analysis of the CheckMate-010 trial, a dose-finding study where patients with mccRCC were randomly assigned to three different doses of nivolumab. It should be noted that in the initial publication of the trial, although irRECIST-based endpoints were reported, they were solely used as exploratory efficacy endpoints to demonstrate that, similar to RECISTv1.1-based endpoints, nivolumab efficacy was dose-independent (17). In this study, we first evaluated whether atypical responses to nivolumab, defined by irRECIST, affected clinical outcome of patients with mccRCC enrolled in the trial. We further tested the hypothesis that candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response show improved association with clinical endpoints capturing atypical responders (i.e., irRECIST) compared with standard clinical endpoints (i.e., RECISTv1.1).

Patients and tissue specimen

We studied mccRCC patients from the CheckMate-010 trial (BMS-936558, ClinicalTrials.gov_NCT01354431; ref. 17). This trial is a multicenter phase II dose-finding study of nivolumab in patients with mccRCC who received previous regimen of agent targeting vascular endothelial growth factor pathway. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor sections were collected by the sponsor at the time of the trial. Institutional Review Board approval and individual written-informed consents were obtained before tissue acquisition, tissue staining, and analysis of clinical information in accord with an assurance filed with and approved by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Clinical endpoints

Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from randomization to documented disease progression per RECISTv1.1 or death. Patients alive and progression-free were censored at the date of last tumor assessment. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of randomized subjects whose best tumor response is either partial response or complete response per RECISTv1.1 (3). The definition of irRECIST has been previously published, and these criteria have been utilized in previous studies (12, 16–19). Briefly, irRECIST include the following major modifications from RECISTv1.1: (1) requirement to confirm progression ≥ 4 weeks after initial radiological progression and (2) not scoring new small nontarget lesions as progression but using the net tumor burden to define progression.

irRECIST definitions for PFS (irPFS) and ORR (irORR) are similar to PFS and ORR and were derived from modified RECIST (12, 17).

IHC analysis

Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 2 (PD-L2) IHC were performed using a verified assay developed by Dako (clone 28-8) and an in-house validated assay (clone D7U8C, Supplementary Materials and Methods and Supplementary Fig. S1), respectively. Membranous PD-L1 expression and membranous and/or cytoplasmic PD-L2 expression were independently scored as a percentage of positive tumor cells (TC) by S. Signoretti and J.-C. Pignon that were blinded to patient outcomes. Interscorer discrepancies were resolved by consensus review. Overall tumor PD-L1 expression was quantified using ImageScope Membranous v9-algorithm (Leica).

Multiplex immunofluorescence analysis

Performance of previously validated antibodies for cluster of differentiation 8 (CD8), PD-1, T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM-3) and lymphocyte activation protein-3 (LAG-3) was assessed by staining nonneoplastic tonsil tissue and obtaining a staining pattern overlapping with published data (20–24). CD8, PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 multiplex immunofluorescence (IF) was performed by serial staining using the Opal tyramide signal system from Perkin Elmer as described in the Supplementary Materials and Methods and Supplementary Table S1.

Multiplex IF-stained tissue sections were visualized with the Mantra Quantitative Pathology Workstation (Perkin Elmer). Multispectral images were acquired with the Mantra microscope using a 20x objective. Inform 2.2 software was then used in order to deconvolute the multispectral images, and to segment and phenotype cells (Supplementary Fig. S2). Briefly, for each fluorochrome, a spectral library was created on single stained tissue sections; this library was used to deconvolute the multispectral images in spectral images corresponding to a specific fluorochrome (Supplementary Fig. S2A). Cell segmentation based on nuclear DAPI signal, cell size, and CD8, PD-1, TIM3, and LAG-3 membranous staining signal was then applied (Supplementary Fig. S2B). The phenotyping step, based on machine-learning recognition algorithm, was performed by developing three algorithms recognizing: (1) cells monostained for CD8 or costained for CD8 and PD-1, (2) cells monostained for CD8 or costained for CD8 and TIM-3, and (3) cells monostained for CD8 or costained for CD8 and LAG-3 (Supplementary Fig. S2C). For each case, positive cells were manually identified until the learning recognition algorithm was concordant with visual count (concordance >90%). Of note, a cell was called CD8+ only if it was recognized as CD8+ by all three different algorithms. For each segmented cell, we therefore obtained information about the presence or the absence of CD8, PD-1, TIM3, or LAG3 staining. Unique phenotyping was performed for each tumor to account for intersample variability of signal intensities as previously described (25). The percentage and the density of CD8+ cells expressing PD-1, TIM-3, LAG-3, either alone or in different combinations were calculated on a minimum of 5 different 0.36 mm2 images acquired from tumor area containing the highest density of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ cells (26). Additional images were taken for tumors with low CD8+ cells to reach a minimum of 100 CD8+ cells counted. Tumor specimens with tumor area below 3.6 mm2 were not scored to minimize tissue selection bias.

Gene expression analysis

RNAs were extracted using the AllPrep DNA/RNA FFPE Mini Kit (Qiagen) from a 5 cm2 tumor-enriched area macrodissected from 4-μm-thick FFPE tissue sections prepared form a single tumor block. The tumor-enriched area contained an estimated percentage of TCs that ranged from 30% to 70%. Transcriptome capture analysis was performed as described in the Supplementary Materials and Methods. The cytolytic activity (CYT) signature, the effector-T cell (Teff) signature, and 18 IFNγ-responsive genes signature were defined based on previously published associations with the respective biology, and/or with clinical outcome (27–29). For each gene signature, an expression score for each patient sample was calculated as the geometric mean–normalized count of all component genes in the signature. The geometric mean of the signatures was then log2 transformed to obtain the final signature expression score.

Statistical analysis

Prentice–Wilcoxon and McNemar tests were used to assess difference between correlated pairs of irPFS and PFS, and irORR and ORR endpoints, respectively. The χ2 test of equal proportion was used to estimate the difference between the rate of responses using RECISTv1.1 or irRECIST.

Association of TC PD-L1 and TC PD-L2 positivity with Fuhrman nuclear grade (FNG) was assessed using the χ2 test. Correlation of TC PD-L1 and TC PD-L2 positivity was estimated by calculating Spearman rank correlation coefficient. PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression scores were categorized with frequently used PD-L1 cutoff points in immuno-oncology trial and correlated with clinical endpoints. The Fisher exact test was used for binary endpoints of irORR and ORR and the log-rank test for irPFS and PFS. Superiority of immune-related endpoints (irPFS and irORR) over nonimmune-related endpoints (PFS and ORR) was assessed graphically and also numerically via the appropriate test statistic. For example, log-rank test statistic comparing irPFS by PD-L1/PD-L2 was compared with log-rank test statistic comparing PFS by PD-L1/PD-L2.

Multiplex IF assay was performed in a total of five batches—Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA test was used to assess differences in median expression score across batches. Correlations of the different fractions or cell densities of CD8+ cells expressing PD-1, TIM-3, or LAG-3 either alone or in different combination were estimated by calculating Pearson rank correlation coefficient. Differences between the median percentages or densities of CD8+ cells expressing PD-1, TIM-3, or LAG-3 either alone or in different combination were estimated using the Sign test.

Expression scores of the proportion and density of CD8+ cells expressing PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 either alone or in different combinations were correlated with PFS/irPFS and ORR/irORR. The observed expression scores were positively skewed and therefore a cube root transformation of expression scores was taken to reduce the influence of extreme biomarker expression scores on model parameter estimates. There were a total of 33 different combinations of proportion and density of CD8+ PD-1, TIM-3, and/or LAG-3 expression scores. Transformed expression scores were correlated with PFS and irPFS using univariable Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. This approach to correlate continuous expression scores with clinical outcomes better utilizes the information contained in the continuous measurements and allows for assessment of a linear relationship between expression scores and clinical endpoints. In addition, it reduces the chances of false-positive results as a consequence of using various approaches to classify expression scores. The Holm–Bonferroni approach was also used to control the family-wise error rate (FWER; Type I error) at 5% for the hypotheses tests conducted (30). The Holm–Bonferroni approach is uniformly more powerful than the rather conservative classic Bonferroni approach. For interpretation and visualization purposes, each of the biomarkers that meet the FWER control screening threshold (i.e., declared statistically significant) specified above was also classified into binary variables by selecting an optimal threshold that maximizes specificity and sensitivity with respect to irORR (31). At optimized cutoffs, the Fisher exact test was used for binary endpoints of irORR and the log-rank test for irPFS.

The difference in gene signature expression score distribution between groups was evaluated using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Signature expression scores were correlated with irPFS and irORR using univariable Cox PH and binary logistic regression analysis, respectively.

One-sided P values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant for all analysis.

Patients

From May 2011 to January 2012, 167 previously treated mccRCC patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks as previously described (17). Median clinical follow-up of the present study was 38.4 months (min–max: 0.6–43.3 months). Baseline demographics, treatment arms, and clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1. Because no significant dose–response relationship of nivolumab with primary endpoint (PFS) and secondary endpoints (ORR, irPFS, and OS) were previously found, patient cohorts were pooled together in the present study (17). PD-L1 and PD-L2 expressions and positivity of the immune-checkpoint inhibitors PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 on CD8+ tumor-infiltrating cells (TIC) were assessed in 140, 127, and 98 patients, respectively (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Table 1.

Baseline demographics, treatment arm, and clinical characteristics per tumor cell PD-L1 expression levels and percentage levels of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3

TC PD-L1% of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC
CharacteristicTotal (n = 167)≥1%, n = 19<1%, n = 121High (≥36%), n = 74Low (<36%), n = 24
Age 
 Median 61.0 61 60 59.5 60.0 
  (Min–max) (37.0–81.0) (44–76) (37–81) (38.0–81.0) (37.0–78.0) 
Gender, (%) 
 Female 46 (27.5) 7 (36.8) 30 (24.8) 22 (29.7) 4 (16.7) 
 Male 121 (72.5) 12 (63.2) 91 (75.2) 52 (70.3) 20 (83.3) 
Race, (%) 
 Asian 7 (4.2) 1 (5.3) 4 (3.3) 2 (2.7) 
 Black 3 (1.8) 1 (5.3) 1 (0.8) 1 (1.4) 1 (4.2) 
 Other 1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 
 White 156 (93.4) 17 (89.5) 115 (95.0) 71 (95.9) 23 (95.8) 
Ethnicity, (%) 
 Non-Hispanic 159 (95.2) 18 (94.7) 116 (95.9) 71 (95.9) 23 (95.8) 
 Not reported 8 (4.8) 1 (5.3) 5 (4.1) 3 (4.1) 1 (4.2) 
Treatment arm, niv. dose, (%) 
 0.3 mg/kg 59 (35.3) 6 (31.6) 44 (36.4) 24 (32.4) 10 (41.7) 
 2 mg/kg 54 (32.3) 8 (42.1) 35 (28.9) 26 (35.1) 6 (25.0) 
 10 mg/kg 54 (32.3) 5 (26.3) 42 (34.7) 24 (32.4) 8 (33.3) 
MSKCC risk category, (%) 
 Favorable 54 (32.7) 5 (27.8) 41 (34.2) 29 (39.2) 4 (16.7) 
 Intermediate 68 (41.2) 6 (33.3) 51 (42.5) 25 (33.8) 12 (50.0) 
 Poor 43 (26.1) 7 (38.9) 28 (23.3) 20 (27.0) 8 (33.3) 
Missing 
ECOG PS, (%) 
 0 38 (22.9) 5 (27.8) 26 (21.5) 16 (21.9) 3 (12.5) 
 1 108 (65.1) 11 (61.1) 81 (66.9) 50 (68.5) 15 (62.5) 
 2 20 (12.1) 2 (11.11) 14 (11.6) 7 (9.6) 6 (25.0) 
Missing 
Number of prior therapy Adv/Met setting, (%) 
 1 50 (29.9) 5 (26.3) 34 (28.1) 24 (32.4) 9 (37.5) 
 >1 117 (70.1) 14 (73.7) 87 (71.9) 50 (67.6) 15 (62.5) 
Number of prior antiangiogenic therapy, (%) 
 1 104 (62.3) 13 (68.4) 72 (59.5) 50 (67.6) 15 (62.5) 
 >1 63 (37.7) 6 (31.6) 49 (40.5) 24 (32.4) 9 (37.5) 
TC PD-L1% of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC
CharacteristicTotal (n = 167)≥1%, n = 19<1%, n = 121High (≥36%), n = 74Low (<36%), n = 24
Age 
 Median 61.0 61 60 59.5 60.0 
  (Min–max) (37.0–81.0) (44–76) (37–81) (38.0–81.0) (37.0–78.0) 
Gender, (%) 
 Female 46 (27.5) 7 (36.8) 30 (24.8) 22 (29.7) 4 (16.7) 
 Male 121 (72.5) 12 (63.2) 91 (75.2) 52 (70.3) 20 (83.3) 
Race, (%) 
 Asian 7 (4.2) 1 (5.3) 4 (3.3) 2 (2.7) 
 Black 3 (1.8) 1 (5.3) 1 (0.8) 1 (1.4) 1 (4.2) 
 Other 1 (0.6) 1 (0.8) 
 White 156 (93.4) 17 (89.5) 115 (95.0) 71 (95.9) 23 (95.8) 
Ethnicity, (%) 
 Non-Hispanic 159 (95.2) 18 (94.7) 116 (95.9) 71 (95.9) 23 (95.8) 
 Not reported 8 (4.8) 1 (5.3) 5 (4.1) 3 (4.1) 1 (4.2) 
Treatment arm, niv. dose, (%) 
 0.3 mg/kg 59 (35.3) 6 (31.6) 44 (36.4) 24 (32.4) 10 (41.7) 
 2 mg/kg 54 (32.3) 8 (42.1) 35 (28.9) 26 (35.1) 6 (25.0) 
 10 mg/kg 54 (32.3) 5 (26.3) 42 (34.7) 24 (32.4) 8 (33.3) 
MSKCC risk category, (%) 
 Favorable 54 (32.7) 5 (27.8) 41 (34.2) 29 (39.2) 4 (16.7) 
 Intermediate 68 (41.2) 6 (33.3) 51 (42.5) 25 (33.8) 12 (50.0) 
 Poor 43 (26.1) 7 (38.9) 28 (23.3) 20 (27.0) 8 (33.3) 
Missing 
ECOG PS, (%) 
 0 38 (22.9) 5 (27.8) 26 (21.5) 16 (21.9) 3 (12.5) 
 1 108 (65.1) 11 (61.1) 81 (66.9) 50 (68.5) 15 (62.5) 
 2 20 (12.1) 2 (11.11) 14 (11.6) 7 (9.6) 6 (25.0) 
Missing 
Number of prior therapy Adv/Met setting, (%) 
 1 50 (29.9) 5 (26.3) 34 (28.1) 24 (32.4) 9 (37.5) 
 >1 117 (70.1) 14 (73.7) 87 (71.9) 50 (67.6) 15 (62.5) 
Number of prior antiangiogenic therapy, (%) 
 1 104 (62.3) 13 (68.4) 72 (59.5) 50 (67.6) 15 (62.5) 
 >1 63 (37.7) 6 (31.6) 49 (40.5) 24 (32.4) 9 (37.5) 

Abbreviations: ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; MSKCC, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; niv., nivolumab.

Comparison of clinical outcomes using RECISTv1.1 and irRECIST

We compared responses evaluated using RECISTv1.1 with those evaluated using irRECIST in the whole cohort (n = 167). RECISTv1.1 were used to calculate PFS and ORR, and irRECIST were used to calculate irPFS and irORR. irORR (22.8%) was not significantly different from ORR (21%). However, the percentage of patients with immune-related progressive disease (irPD) (24.6%) was significantly lower than the percentage of patients with progressive disease (PD) (35.3%, P = 0.03), and the percentage of patients with immune-related stable disease (irSD) (50.3%) tended to be higher than the percentage of patients with stable disease (SD) (41.3%; Supplementary Table S2). Median irPFS (5.5 months) was significantly longer than median PFS (3.3 months; P < 0.001; Fig. 1A).

Figure 1.

A, Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS and irPFS. Kaplan–Meier curves for (B) PFS and (C) irPFS per TC PD-L1 expression levels.

Figure 1.

A, Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS and irPFS. Kaplan–Meier curves for (B) PFS and (C) irPFS per TC PD-L1 expression levels.

Close modal

Expression of PD-L1 and PD-L2 and their association with clinical outcomes

In the initial study of the Checkmate-010, TC PD-L1 expression was evaluated in 107 patients using a prototype IHC assay based on the 28-8 clone (17). Here, PD-L1 was independently assessed in larger number of patients (n = 140; Supplementary Fig. S3) using a verified assay developed by Dako using the 28-8 clone. Tissue analyzed included 95 (67.9%) primary tumors, 36 (25.7%) metastases, and 9 (6.4%) lesions from unknown sites. TC PD-L1 expression ≥1% was observed in 19 (13.6 %) patients (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. S4) and was associated with high FNG (P = 0.003; Supplementary Table S3).

Table 2.

Summary of efficacy results per tumor cell PD-L1 expression levels, tumor cell PD-L2 expression levels, or percentage levels of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3

TC PD-L1 expressiona
<1% (n = 121b)≥1% (n = 19)
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
ORR 22 (18.8) 7 (36.8) 0.07 
 95% CI, % 12.2–27.1 16.3–61.6  
irORR 23 (19.3) 9 (47.4) 0.01 
 95% CI, % 12.7–27.6 24.4–71.1  
Median PFS, months 2.8 5.7 0.09 
 95% CI 1.8–4.1 1.6–17.1  
Median irPFS, months 4.3 15.4 0.04 
 95% CI 3.4–6.9 2.9–39.1  
 TC PD-L2 expressiond  
 < 1% (n = 81b≥ 1% (n = 46)  
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
ORR 19 (24.7) 9 (19.6) 0.81 
 95% CI, % 15.6–35.8 9.4–33.9  
irORR 19 (24.1) 11 (23.9) 0.59 
 95% CI, % 15.1–35.0 12.6–38.8  
Median PFS, months 3.9 2.6 0.88 
 95% CI 1.9–5.4 1.4–4.2  
Median irPFS, months 5.7 4.4 0.73 
 95% CI 4.1–8.5 2.4–8.3  
 % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TICe  
 Low (n = 24fHigh (n = 74g 
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
irORR 0 (0) 21 (28.8) 0.001 
 95% CI, % 0.0–14.8 18.8–40.6  
Median irPFS, months 2.6 6.9 0.005 
 95% CI 1.4–6.7 4.2–12.2  
TC PD-L1 expressiona
<1% (n = 121b)≥1% (n = 19)
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
ORR 22 (18.8) 7 (36.8) 0.07 
 95% CI, % 12.2–27.1 16.3–61.6  
irORR 23 (19.3) 9 (47.4) 0.01 
 95% CI, % 12.7–27.6 24.4–71.1  
Median PFS, months 2.8 5.7 0.09 
 95% CI 1.8–4.1 1.6–17.1  
Median irPFS, months 4.3 15.4 0.04 
 95% CI 3.4–6.9 2.9–39.1  
 TC PD-L2 expressiond  
 < 1% (n = 81b≥ 1% (n = 46)  
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
ORR 19 (24.7) 9 (19.6) 0.81 
 95% CI, % 15.6–35.8 9.4–33.9  
irORR 19 (24.1) 11 (23.9) 0.59 
 95% CI, % 15.1–35.0 12.6–38.8  
Median PFS, months 3.9 2.6 0.88 
 95% CI 1.9–5.4 1.4–4.2  
Median irPFS, months 5.7 4.4 0.73 
 95% CI 4.1–8.5 2.4–8.3  
 % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TICe  
 Low (n = 24fHigh (n = 74g 
Endpoints N (%) N (%) P valuec 
irORR 0 (0) 21 (28.8) 0.001 
 95% CI, % 0.0–14.8 18.8–40.6  
Median irPFS, months 2.6 6.9 0.005 
 95% CI 1.4–6.7 4.2–12.2  

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

aFor 27 patients, either tissues were not available, or staining was not assessable for analysis.

bORR data for 4 patients and irORR data for 2 patients were missing.

cFisher exact test was used to test the association with irORR, and the log-rank test was used to test the association with irPFS.

dFor 40 patients, either tissues were not available, or staining was not assessable for analysis.

eFor 69 patients, either tissues were not available, or staining was not assessable for analysis.

firORR data for 1 patient were missing.

girORR data for 1 patient were missing.

TC PD-L1 expression was not significantly associated with improved PFS (P = 0.09; Table 2 and Fig. 1B). In contrast, median irPFS was significantly longer in the TC PD-L1 expression ≥1% group (15.4 months) compared with the TC PD-L1 <1% group (4.3 months; P = 0.04; Table 2 and Fig. 1C). Although ORR tended to be higher in the TC PD-L1 expression ≥1% group (36.8%) compared with the TC PD-L1 expression <1% group (18.8%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07). On the other hand, irORR was significantly higher in the TC PD-L1–positive ≥1% group (47.4%) compared with the TC PD-L1 <1% group (19.3%; P = 0.01; Table 2). Although the patients randomly assigned to nivolumab 0.3, 2, or 10 mg/kg achieved similar clinical efficacy, we also aimed to demonstrate that the association between TC PD-L1 expression and clinical outcome was independent of drug dosing. Indeed, no significant difference in TC PD-L1 positivity score among the different arms of nivolumab-treated patients was observed. Of note, baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were also similar between TC PD-L1 expression groups (Table 1). When higher cutoffs were used to define TC PD-L1 positivity (5% and 10%), the proportion of patients with positive tumors became progressively smaller (8% and 5%, respectively), preventing meaningful correlations with clinical endpoints.

PD-L1 expressed on tumor immune cells (IC) can also bind to PD-1 and inhibit the antitumor immune response (1, 32). Therefore, we further evaluated overall PD-L1 expression by measuring membranous PD-L1 staining on both TC and IC in 131 patients (Supplementary Fig. S3). Using an arbitrary cutoff of ≥1% PD-L1–positive cells, overall (TC and IC) PD-L1 expression was observed in 29% of patients. No significant association between overall PD-L1 expression and clinical endpoints was found at any tested cutoff (Supplementary Table S4).

To test if TC expression of the second PD-1 ligand, PD-L2, could improve the identification of tumors that respond to anti–PD-1 therapy, TC PD-L2 expression was assessed by IHC in 127 patients (Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4; ref. 33).TC PD-L2 expression ≥1% was observed in 46 (36.5%) patients (Table 2) and was not associated with FNG (Supplementary Table S3). No significant association between overall PD-L2 expression and clinical outcomes was found at 1% positivity cutoff (Table 2) or any other tested cutoff (Supplementary Table S5). TC PD-L1 expression did not correlate with TC PD-L2 expression (Supplementary Fig. S5), and only 8 of 126 (6.34%) patients had tumors expressing both PD-L1 (≥1%) and PD-L2 (≥1%). Therefore, we evaluated whether combined TC PD-L1 and/or TC PD-L2 expression could better identify patients that respond to nivolumab. When TC positivity was defined as expression of either or both PD-L1 (≥1% cutoff) and PD-L2 (≥1% cutoff), 55 of 126 patients (43.65%) were categorized as positive. No significant association between PD-L1/PD-L2 positivity and clinical endpoints was found (Supplementary Table S6).

Expression of PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 on CD8+ TIC and their association with clinical outcomes

Human tumors have been shown to contain severely exhausted T cells expressing multiple immune checkpoints, and it has been proposed that these cells mediate resistance to PD-1 blockade (34, 35). For this reason, we evaluated CD8+ TIC for the expression of the immune checkpoints PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 in 98 patients (Supplementary Fig. S3). For each tumor, we measured both the absolute number (cell density per mm2) and the relative amount (percentage) of CD8+ TIC expressing the three immune checkpoints either alone or in various combinations by multiplex IF.

PD-1 was the immune checkpoint most frequently expressed on CD8+ TIC followed by TIM-3 and LAG-3 (Fig. 2A and C). In line with these findings, the median percentage (and median density) of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 alone was significantly higher than the median percentage (and median density) of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 and TIM-3 or PD-1 and LAG-3. Of note, TIM-3 and LAG-3 were detected more frequently on CD8+PD-1+ TIC compared with CD8+PD-1 TIC (Fig. 2B and D).

Figure 2.

(A and B) Vertical scatter plot comparing the median percentage and (C and D) the median density (cell per mm2) of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 either alone (A and C) or in different combinations (B and D). Error bars represent interquartile range. Stars indicate P value <0.001.

Figure 2.

(A and B) Vertical scatter plot comparing the median percentage and (C and D) the median density (cell per mm2) of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 either alone (A and C) or in different combinations (B and D). Error bars represent interquartile range. Stars indicate P value <0.001.

Close modal

We next investigated whether the expression of PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3 (in various combinations) on CD8+ TIC (Supplementary Table S7) was associated with outcome on nivolumab therapy. Biomarker analysis included both the mean percentage and mean density measurements as they were found to be weakly correlated with each other and therefore provide different information on the composition of the tumor microenvironment (Supplementary Fig. S6). To correlate these biomarkers with clinical endpoints, we utilized a stringent approach in which the candidate biomarkers were screened for the presence of a linear relationship between biomarker levels and PFS or irPFS. Chances of false-positive results were controlled using the Holm–Bonferroni criteria. Whereas no biomarker was found to be significantly correlated with PFS, three biomarkers (percentage of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3; density of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3; percentage of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+) significantly correlated with irPFS (Supplementary Table S8). Using a cutoff that maximizes sensitivity for irORR, the percentage of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 (hereafter called CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC) exhibited the best sensitivity and specificity (Table 2 and Supplementary Table S9) and was further explored. At the optimized cutoff of 36%, high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC was observed in 74 of 98 (75.5 %) patients. The median irPFS was significantly longer in the group with high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (6.9 months) compared with the group with low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (2.6 months; P = 0.005; Table 2; Fig. 3A). irORR was significantly higher in the group with high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (28.8%) compared with the group with low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (0%; P = 0.001; Table 2). Of note, no significant difference in biomarker expression scores among the three-dose arm of nivolumab-treated patients was observed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were also similar between groups of patients having a high or a low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (Table 1).

Figure 3.

A, Kaplan–Meier curves for irPFS per percentage levels of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 (CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC). B, Association between the percentage levels of CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC and T-cell activation signature scores. C, Kaplan–Meier curves for irPFS per TC PD-L1 expression levels combined with the percentage levels of CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC.

Figure 3.

A, Kaplan–Meier curves for irPFS per percentage levels of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 (CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC). B, Association between the percentage levels of CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC and T-cell activation signature scores. C, Kaplan–Meier curves for irPFS per TC PD-L1 expression levels combined with the percentage levels of CD8+ PD-1+ TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC.

Close modal

The high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC associated to nivolumab response might identify patients with an active antitumor immune response in their pretreatment tumors. To test this hypothesis, we performed RNA sequencing on a subset of tumors with available tissue (Supplementary Fig. S3) and interrogated three gene expression signatures associated with T-cell activation: the CYT signature, the Teff signature, and the IFNγ–responsive gene signature (27–29). Thirty-nine of 47 patients with gene expression signature data had also IF data. In line with our hypothesis, high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (≥36%) was found to be associated with high expression levels of the CYT, Teff, and IFNγ signatures (P = 0.004, 0.001, and 0.007, respectively; Fig. 3B). None of the three signatures were significantly associated with clinical outcomes.

Predictive value of TC PD-L1 expression combined with the percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC

We next tested whether the combination of TC PD-L1 expression with the percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC could improve the ability to identify patients that respond to nivolumab. Ninety-seven patients had data for both biomarkers. Among these, 11 patients had both high TC PD-L1 expression (≥1%) and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (≥36%), and 63 patients had low TC PD-L1 expression (<1%) and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC. All 23 patients with low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (<36%) were found to have low TC PD-L1 expression.

Both median irPFS and irORR were significantly different among three patient groups (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively; Fig. 3C; Table 3). Specifically, median irPFS was longest in the group with both high TC PD-L1 expression and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3 LAG-3 TIC (15.4 months), intermediate in the group with low TC PD-L1 expression and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (5.5 months), and shortest in the group with both low TC PD-L1 expression and low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (4.1 months). Similarly, irORR was highest in the group with both high TC PD-L1 expression and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (54.5%), intermediate in the group with low TC PD-L1 expression and high percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (24.2%), and lowest in the group with both low TC PD-L1 expression and low percentage of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (0%).

Table 3.

Summary of efficacy results per tumor cell PD-L1 expression levels combined with the percentage levels of CD8+ TIC that are PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3a

TC PD-L1 expression ≥1% and high % of CD8+ PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 11)TC PD-L1 expression <1% and high % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 63b)TC PD-L1 expression <1% and low % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 23)
EndpointsN (%)N (%)N (%)P valuec
irORR 6 (54.5) 15 (24.2) 0 (0.0) 0.001 
 95% CI, % 23.4–83.3 14.2–36.7 0.0–15.4  
Median irPFS, months 15.4 5.5 4.1 0.013 
 95% CI 1.6–39.1 4.1–10.2 1.4–6.7  
TC PD-L1 expression ≥1% and high % of CD8+ PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 11)TC PD-L1 expression <1% and high % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 63b)TC PD-L1 expression <1% and low % of CD8+PD-1+TIM-3LAG-3 TIC (n = 23)
EndpointsN (%)N (%)N (%)P valuec
irORR 6 (54.5) 15 (24.2) 0 (0.0) 0.001 
 95% CI, % 23.4–83.3 14.2–36.7 0.0–15.4  
Median irPFS, months 15.4 5.5 4.1 0.013 
 95% CI 1.6–39.1 4.1–10.2 1.4–6.7  

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

aTissue or staining for PD-L1 and multiplex IF was not available for 70 patients.

birORR data for 2 patients were missing.

cFisher exact test was used to test the association with irORR, and the log-rank test was used to test the association with irPFS.

Our analyses of the CheckMate-010 cohort show that irRECIST enable the capture of patients with mccRCC who displayed atypical responses to nivolumab therapy, which had a significant impact on median PFS. Furthermore, we showed that candidate biomarkers for nivolumab response had an improved association with clinical endpoints defined by irRECIST relative to RECISTv1.1. By utilizing irRECIST, we developed a novel model combining TC PD-L1 expression and percentage of CD8+ TIC that express PD-1 (but not the other immune checkpoints TIM-3 or LAG-3). This proposed model allowed stratification of nivolumab-treated patients in three groups with significantly different irPFS and irORR.

Clinical experience increasingly indicates that traditional response criteria cannot adequately assess benefit from immunotherapy. In line with results obtained in melanoma and lung cancer, our study showed that within the CheckMate-010 trial, a subset of patients with mccRCC treated with nivolumab experienced objective response or stable disease by irRECIST, but PD by RECISTv1.1 (14–16). Reclassification of the CheckMate-010 trial patient outcomes by irRECIST resulted in significantly longer irPFS compared with PFS. These data have important implications for clinical management of patients as well as for correlative biomarker studies. Our results indicate that utilization of RECISTv1.1 underestimates the number of mccRCC patients that benefit from nivolumab therapy. Our findings also support the concept that misclassification of atypical responders by RECISTv1.1 has the potential to confound biomarker analyses for immune-checkpoint inhibitors and thus undermines the development of robust patient selection criteria for these agents. Indeed, in line with previously published data, we found that TC PD-L1 expression was not correlated with clinical outcome by RECISTv1.1 in the CheckMate-010 trial patients (17). However, TC PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly associated with both higher irORR and longer irPFS. These associations are notable given that tumor PD-L1 expression has been associated with poor prognosis in patients with RCC treated with either prior ineffective therapies or VEGFR blockers (21, 36–38). Of note, overall PD-L1 expression (including expression in both TC and IC) was not associated with clinical endpoints, suggesting that in ccRCC, PD-L1 expression on TC (but not IC) is a major driver of immune evasion that is reversed by PD-1 blockade. However, further studies are needed to specifically address the role of IC PD-L1 expression in predicting response to nivolumab. In spite of the association of TC PD-L1 expression with clinical outcomes, our data show that this marker alone fails to reliably identify all patients likely to benefit from therapy.

For this reason, we tested other candidate biomarkers to develop a multimarker model that demonstrates a greater predictive value than PD-L1 expression alone. Persistent exposure to antigen during chronic infection or cancer induces T-cell exhaustion, a cell state characterized by coexpression of multiple immune checkpoints, and that has been shown to limit cell proliferation and reduced cytotoxic activities (34). Rejuvenation of exhausted T cells can be achieved by PD-1 blockade, and combined inhibition of PD-1 with TIM-3 or LAG-3 induces synergistic reduction of tumor growth (35, 39, 40). Here, we found that both high percentages of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 and high percentages of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 but not TIM-3 and LAG-3 are positively associated with longer irPFS on nivolumab. The association with higher irORR was strongest for the subset of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1, but not TIM-3 or LAG-3, suggesting that the higher predictive value of these cells might be related to their less exhausted phenotype and their ability to be more efficiently reactivated with PD-1 blockade. In line with these findings, we showed that a high percentage of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 but not TIM-3 and LAG-3 was associated with high levels of T-cell activation, as assessed by gene expression analysis. The rejuvenation of highly exhausted may require combination therapy including agents targeting PD-1, TIM-3, and LAG-3.

Remarkably, in our cohort, all patients with low percentage of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 (but not TIM-3 or LAG-3) were also negative for TC PD-L1 expression and did not respond to nivolumab. On the other hand, among patients with a high percentage of CD8+ TIC expressing PD-1 (but not TIM-3 or LAG-3), the subset of patients with positive TC PD-L1 expression displayed highest irORR and longest irPFS. Overall, our results suggest that (1) patients with high expression of the therapy target PD-1, on TIC, and of its ligand PD-L1, on TC, are the most likely to benefit from nivolumab; (2) patients with high expression of PD-1 on TIC in the absence of TC PD-L1 expression have an intermediate chance to respond to nivolumab; and (3) patients with neither high PD-1 expression on TIC nor TC PD-L1 expression are resistant to therapy. Validation of this model could help identify patients who would benefit sufficiently from nivolumab monotherapy in the treatment-naïve or adjuvant settings.

The analyses presented here have several potential limitations. First, in our cohort, patients were randomly assigned to receive three different doses of nivolumab. However, it was previously reported that all the tested clinical endpoints (ORR, PFS, and irPFS) were not significantly different in the three randomized arms (17). Moreover, we demonstrated that our candidate biomarkers' expression scores were similar between the three nivolumab treatment groups. Taken together, these data strongly suggest that the randomized drug dosing design of the trial has very limited impact on our results.

Another limitation of the study is the analysis of a single tumor sample for each patient. As intratumor heterogeneity is well-recognized in RCC, biomarker measurement in a single tumor region (mostly from the primary tumor) might not reflect its expression in the patient's metastatic lesions that are the target of systemic therapy (41). The design of clinical trials that include collection of both pretreatment primary tumors and metastatic lesions for correlative studies would be very helpful to address the impact of tumor heterogeneity in biomarker discovery and validation.

Further limitations of our work include the prospective–retrospective nature of the study and the use of samples from a noncontrolled clinical trial where postnivolumab therapy confounded an OS analysis. For this reason, we chose to focus on clinical endpoints more directly affected by the initial therapy (e.g., ORR/irORR and PFS/irPFS). In the CheckMate-025 trial, there was no association between PD-L1 expression and improved OS on nivolumab after a minimum follow-up of 14 months (2). It remains to be tested if the multifactorial model we developed by studying irRECIST endpoints in a mature CheckMate-010 cohort can identify durable responders more accurately than PD-L1 expression alone when the CheckMate-025 trial reaches longer follow-up. Ultimately, our model needs to be validated in prospective biomarker-driven trials such as Hoosier Clinical Research Network GU-260 (NCT03117309).

S.A. Shukla holds ownership interest (including patents) in 152 Therapeutics. D.A. Braun is a consultant/advisory board member for Octane Global, Defined Health, Dedham Group, Adept Field Solutions, Slingshot Insights, Blueprint Partnership, Charles River Associates/KC2 Medical, and Schlesinger Trinity Group. C.E. Horak is an employee of and holds ownership interest (including patents) in Bristol-Myers Squibb. M. Wind-Rotolo is an employee of and holds ownership interest (including patents) in Bristol-Myers Squibb. P.J. Catalano is a consultant/advisory board member for Eli Lilly. G.J. Freeman reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, VCB, and Ipsen; holds ownership interest (including patents) in Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amplimmune/AstraZeneca, Merck, EMD Serono, Beohringer Ingelheim, and Dako; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bethyl Laboratories, Xios Therapeutics, Quiet Therapeutics, and Seattle Genetics. A.H. Sharpe reports receiving commercial research grants from Novartis, UCB, Ipsen, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Quark; holds ownership interest (including patents) in Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amplimmune/AstraZeneca, Merck, EMD Serono, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Dako; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Novartis, Surface Oncology, Sqz Biotech, Adaptimmune, Elstar, Elpiscience, Selecta, Monopteros, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bethyl Laboratories, Xios Therapeutics, Quiet Therapeutics, and Seattle Genetics. F.S. Hodi reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis to his institution; holds ownership interest (including patents) in Apricity; is listed as an inventor on a patent regarding MICA-related disorders to be licensed to his institution; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Celldex, Novartis, Amgen, Incyte, Bayer, Aduro, Partners Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pionyr, 7 Hills Pharma, Torque, Compass, Takeda, and Surface. R.J. Motzer reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Eisai, and is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Exelixis. T.K. Choueiri reports receiving commercial research grants from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Hoffman-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; and is a consultant/advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Exlixis, Genentech, Heron Therapeutics, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, and Analysis Group. M.B. Atkins is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Eisai, Exelixis, Arrohead, COTA, and Agenus. D.F. McDermott reports receiving other commercial research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Prometheus Laboratories, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, Novartis, X4 Pharma, Alkermes, Inc., and Peloton; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Exelixis, Array BioPharma, Genentech BioOncology, Alkermes, Inc., Jounce Therapeutics, X4 Pharma, Eli Lilly, Peloton Therapeutics, and EMD Serono. S. Signoretti reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Exelixis; is a consultant/advisory board member for Merck, AstraZeneca, AACR, and NCI; and receives royalties from Biogenex. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: J.-C. Pignon, C.E. Horak, M. Wind-Rotolo, R.J. Motzer, T.K. Choueiri, M.B. Atkins, D.F. McDermott, S. Signoretti

Development of methodology: J.-C. Pignon, A. Flaifel, J.S. Novak, G.J. Freeman, T.K. Choueiri

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.-C. Pignon, C.E. Horak, Y. Ishii, J. Grosha, A. Flaifel, J.S. Novak, K.M. Mahoney, F.S. Hodi, R.J. Motzer, T.K. Choueiri, D.F. McDermott

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): J.-C. Pignon, O. Jegede, S.A. Shukla, D.A. Braun, M. Wind-Rotolo, P.J. Catalano, J. Grosha, A. Flaifel, F.S. Hodi, R.J. Motzer, C.J. Wu, M.B. Atkins, S. Signoretti

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J.-C. Pignon, O. Jegede, D.A. Braun, C.E. Horak, M. Wind-Rotolo, P.J. Catalano, K.M. Mahoney, G.J. Freeman, A.H. Sharpe, F.S. Hodi, R.J. Motzer, T.K. Choueiri, C.J. Wu, M.B. Atkins, D.F. McDermott, S. Signoretti

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J.-C. Pignon, J. Grosha, T.K. Choueiri

Study supervision: J.-C. Pignon, T.K. Choueiri, C.J. Wu, S. Signoretti

S. Signoretti, P.J. Catalano, G.J. Freeman, A.H. Sharpe, T.K. Choueiri, M.B. Atkins, and D.F. McDermott have received support from NIH/NCI DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50-CA101942. S.A. Shukla has received support from NIH/NCI R50CA211482. T.K. Choueiri has received support from The Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Balar
AV
,
Weber
JS
. 
PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies in cancer: current status and future directions
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2017
;
66
:
551
64
.
2.
Motzer
RJ
,
Escudier
B
,
McDermott
DF
,
George
S
,
Hammers
HJ
,
Srinivas
S
, et al
Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
373
:
1803
13
.
3.
Eisenhauer
EA
,
Therasse
P
,
Bogaerts
J
,
Schwartz
LH
,
Sargent
D
,
Ford
R
, et al
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
.
Eur J Cancer
2009
;
45
:
228
47
.
4.
Miller
AB
,
Hoogstraten
B
,
Staquet
M
,
Winkler
A
. 
Reporting results of cancer treatment
.
Cancer
1981
;
47
:
207
14
.
5.
Chiou
VL
,
Burotto
M
. 
Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
3541
3
.
6.
Blumenthal
GM
,
Theoret
MR
,
Pazdur
R
. 
Treatment beyond progression with immune checkpoint inhibitors-known unknowns
.
JAMA Oncol
2017
;
3
:
1473
4
.
7.
Hales
RK
,
Banchereau
J
,
Ribas
A
,
Tarhini
AA
,
Weber
JS
,
Fox
BA
, et al
Assessing oncologic benefit in clinical trials of immunotherapy agents
.
Ann Oncol
2010
;
21
:
1944
51
.
8.
Elias
R
,
Kapur
P
,
Pedrosa
I
,
Brugarolas
J
. 
Renal cell carcinoma pseudoprogression with clinical deterioration: to hospice and back
.
Clin Genitourin Cancer
2018
;
16
:
485
8
.
9.
Wong
AS
,
Thian
YL
,
Kapur
J
,
Leong
CN
,
Kee
P
,
Lee
CT
, et al
Pushing the limits of immune-related response: a case of "extreme pseudoprogression"
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2018
;
67
:
1105
11
.
10.
de Velasco
G
,
Krajewski
KM
,
Albiges
L
,
Awad
MM
,
Bellmunt
J
,
Hodi
FS
, et al
Radiologic heterogeneity in responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2016
;
4
:
12
7
.
11.
Wolchok
JD
,
Hoos
A
,
O'Day
S
,
Weber
JS
,
Hamid
O
,
Lebbe
C
, et al
Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria
.
Clin Cancer Res
2009
;
15
:
7412
20
.
12.
Bohnsack
O
,
Hoos
A
,
Ludajic
K
. 
Adaptation and modification of the immune related response criteria (IRRC): IrRECIST
.
J Clin Oncol
2014
;
32
:
e22121
.
13.
Seymour
L
,
Bogaerts
J
,
Perrone
A
,
Ford
R
,
Schwartz
LH
,
Mandrekar
S
, et al
iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics
.
Lancet Oncol
2017
;
18
:
e143
e52
.
14.
Hodi
FS
,
Ballinger
M
,
Lyons
B
,
Soria
JC
,
Nishino
M
,
Tabernero
J
, et al
Immune-modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (imRECIST): refining guidelines to assess the clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy
.
J Clin Oncol
2018
;
36
:
850
8
.
15.
Hodi
FS
,
Hwu
WJ
,
Kefford
R
,
Weber
JS
,
Daud
A
,
Hamid
O
, et al
Evaluation of immune-Related Response Criteria and RECIST v1.1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab
.
J Clin Oncol
2016
;
34
:
1510
7
.
16.
Tazdait
M
,
Mezquita
L
,
Lahmar
J
,
Ferrara
R
,
Bidault
F
,
Ammari
S
, et al
Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria
.
Eur J Cancer
2018
;
88
:
38
47
.
17.
Motzer
RJ
,
Rini
BI
,
McDermott
DF
,
Redman
BG
,
Kuzel
TM
,
Harrison
MR
, et al
Nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase II trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2015
;
33
:
1430
7
.
18.
Nishino
M
,
Gargano
M
,
Suda
M
,
Ramaiya
NH
,
Hodi
FS
. 
Optimizing immune-related tumor response assessment: does reducing the number of lesions impact response assessment in melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab?
J Immunother Cancer
2014
;
2
:
17
.
19.
Nishino
M
,
Ramaiya
NH
,
Chambers
ES
,
Adeni
AE
,
Hatabu
H
,
Janne
PA
, et al
Immune-related response assessment during PD-1 inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients
.
J Immunother Cancer
2016
;
4
:
84
.
20.
Ansell
SM
,
Lesokhin
AM
,
Borrello
I
,
Halwani
A
,
Scott
EC
,
Gutierrez
M
, et al
PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
372
:
311
9
.
21.
Giraldo
NA
,
Becht
E
,
Pages
F
,
Skliris
G
,
Verkarre
V
,
Vano
Y
, et al
Orchestration and prognostic significance of immune checkpoints in the microenvironment of primary and metastatic renal cell cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2015
;
21
:
3031
40
.
22.
Granier
C
,
Dariane
C
,
Combe
P
,
Verkarre
V
,
Urien
S
,
Badoual
C
, et al
Tim-3 expression on tumor-infiltrating PD-1+CD8+ T cells correlates with poor clinical outcome in renal cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Res
2017
;
77
:
1075
82
.
23.
Mason
DY
,
Cordell
JL
,
Gaulard
P
,
Tse
AG
,
Brown
MH
. 
Immunohistological detection of human cytotoxic/suppressor T cells using antibodies to a CD8 peptide sequence
.
J Clin Pathol
1992
;
45
:
1084
8
.
24.
Yan
J
,
Zhang
Y
,
Zhang
JP
,
Liang
J
,
Li
L
,
Zheng
L
. 
Tim-3 expression defines regulatory T cells in human tumors
.
PLoS One
2013
;
8
:
e58006
.
25.
Carey
CD
,
Gusenleitner
D
,
Lipschitz
M
,
Roemer
MGM
,
Stack
EC
,
Gjini
E
, et al
Topological analysis reveals a PD-L1-associated microenvironmental niche for Reed-Sternberg cells in Hodgkin lymphoma
.
Blood
2017
;
130
:
2420
30
.
26.
Nakano
O
,
Sato
M
,
Naito
Y
,
Suzuki
K
,
Orikasa
S
,
Aizawa
M
, et al
Proliferative activity of intratumoral CD8(+) T-lymphocytes as a prognostic factor in human renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic demonstration of antitumor immunity
.
Cancer Res
2001
;
61
:
5132
6
.
27.
Ayers
M
,
Lunceford
J
,
Nebozhyn
M
,
Murphy
E
,
Loboda
A
,
Kaufman
DR
, et al
IFN-gamma-related mRNA profile predicts clinical response to PD-1 blockade
.
J Clin Invest
2017
;
127
:
2930
40
.
28.
McDermott
DF
,
Huseni
MA
,
Atkins
MB
,
Motzer
RJ
,
Rini
BI
,
Escudier
B
, et al
Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma
.
Nat Med
2018
;
24
:
749
57
.
29.
Rooney
MS
,
Shukla
SA
,
Wu
CJ
,
Getz
G
,
Hacohen
N
. 
Molecular and genetic properties of tumors associated with local immune cytolytic activity
.
Cell
2015
;
160
:
48
61
.
30.
Holm
S
. 
A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure
.
Scandinavian J Stat
1979
;
6
:
65
70
.
31.
Lopez-Raton
M
,
Rodriguez-Alvarez
MX
,
Cadarso-Suarez
C
,
Gude-Sampedro
F
. 
OptimalCutpoints: an R package for selecting optimal cutpoints in diagnostic tests.
2014
;
61
:
36
.
32.
Boussiotis
VA
. 
Molecular and biochemical aspects of the PD-1 checkpoint pathway
.
N Engl J Med
2016
;
375
:
1767
78
.
33.
Rozali
EN
,
Hato
SV
,
Robinson
BW
,
Lake
RA
,
Lesterhuis
WJ
. 
Programmed death ligand 2 in cancer-induced immune suppression
.
Clin Dev Immunol
2012
;
2012
:
656340
.
34.
Wherry
EJ
,
Kurachi
M
. 
Molecular and cellular insights into T cell exhaustion
.
Nat Rev Immunol
2015
;
15
:
486
99
.
35.
Blackburn
SD
,
Shin
H
,
Freeman
GJ
,
Wherry
EJ
. 
Selective expansion of a subset of exhausted CD8 T cells by alphaPD-L1 blockade
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2008
;
105
:
15016
21
.
36.
Choueiri
TK
,
Figueroa
DJ
,
Fay
AP
,
Signoretti
S
,
Liu
Y
,
Gagnon
R
, et al
Correlation of PD-L1 tumor expression and treatment outcomes in patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib or pazopanib: results from COMPARZ, a randomized controlled trial
.
Clin Cancer Res
2015
;
21
:
1071
7
.
37.
Crispen
PL
,
Sheinin
Y
,
Roth
TJ
,
Lohse
CM
,
Kuntz
SM
,
Frigola
X
, et al
Tumor cell and tumor vasculature expression of B7-H3 predict survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma
.
Clin Cancer Res
2008
;
14
:
5150
7
.
38.
Thompson
RH
,
Kuntz
SM
,
Leibovich
BC
,
Dong
H
,
Lohse
CM
,
Webster
WS
, et al
Tumor B7-H1 is associated with poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma patients with long-term follow-up
.
Cancer Res
2006
;
66
:
3381
5
.
39.
Nguyen
LT
,
Ohashi
PS
. 
Clinical blockade of PD1 and LAG3–potential mechanisms of action
.
Nat Rev Immunol
2015
;
15
:
45
56
.
40.
Anderson
AC
,
Joller
N
,
Kuchroo
VK
. 
Lag-3, Tim-3, and TIGIT: co-inhibitory receptors with specialized functions in immune regulation
.
Immunity
2016
;
44
:
989
1004
.
41.
Callea
M
,
Albiges
L
,
Gupta
M
,
Cheng
SC
,
Genega
EM
,
Fay
AP
, et al
Differential expression of PD-L1 between primary and metastatic sites in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma
.
Cancer Immunol Res
2015
;
3
:
1158
64
.