Refining the Post-IO Strategy in mRCC: The Role of TKIs and the Nuance of Timing

Karan Jatwani, MD George Washington University Hospital | Urvi Patel, DO, MPH The George Washington University Cancer Center

Key Points

• After progression on frontline immuno-oncology (IO)–based regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), evidence supports switching to optimally dosed VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy as the standard next-line approach instead of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge or combination therapy.

• The phase 3 trials TiNivo-2 and CONTACT-03 showed no survival benefit—and potential harm—from adding immunotherapy to TKIs post-IO.

• Emerging real-world data suggest that delayed ICI rechallenge (at least 6 months after prior exposure), often after an intervening TKI, may retain clinical value in select patients, highlighting timing as a critical factor in sequencing decisions.

The treatment landscape for mRCC has been fundamentally reshaped by ICI-based combination regimens, which now represent the standard of care in the frontline setting. Four category 1 preferred regimens: axitinib plus pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-426), cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CheckMate 9ER), lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR), and ipilimumab plus nivolumab (CheckMate 214), have each demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit. As these frontline regimens become universal, the central clinical challenge has shifted downstream to how best to sequence therapy after IO exposure.

One fundamental dilemma clinicians face is whether immunotherapy should be abandoned entirely in subsequent lines, or whether there is still a role for ICI rechallenge. Recent prospective data have seemingly closed the door on immediate rechallenge, establishing targeted therapies like tivozanib as the standard of care in the immediate post-ICI setting. Currently approved second-line therapies include cabozantinib, axitinib, lenvatinib plus everolimus, tivozanib, and belzutifan. However, navigating this landscape requires not only familiarity with available agents, but a nuanced understanding of the timing, depth, and duration of prior IO response. Emerging global real-world evidence suggests that the timing of IO rechallenge may keep that door slightly ajar.

The enthusiasm for sequentially stacking ICIs alongside targeted therapies was definitively tested and challenged in two landmark phase 3 trials.

TiNivo-2 Trial: Nivolumab plus Tivozanib

The phase 3 TiNivo-2 trial sought to answer a similar question using the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab combined with the highly selective VEGFR-TKI tivozanib. The study randomized 343 patients with advanced RCC who had progressed following one or two prior lines of therapy (including one ICI) to receive either tivozanib plus nivolumab or tivozanib monotherapy.

At a median follow-up of 12 months, the trial did not meet its primary end point. TiNivo-2 failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit from ICI rechallenge. Median PFS was 5.7 months with the combination compared with 7.4 months with tivozanib alone (HR, 1.10). This finding was consistent across subgroups, including patients whose most recent prior therapy had been an ICI.

In the predefined subgroup of patients whose immediate previous therapy was an ICI, the difference was even more pronounced in favor of monotherapy: a median PFS of 7.4 months for the combination versus 9.2 months for tivozanib alone.

Secondary end points included OS, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DoR), as well as safety and tolerability. At the initial analysis (median follow-up 12 months), OS data were immature. At the final analysis (median follow-up ~28.4 months), there was no significant difference in median OS between the two arms: 23.9 months with tivozanib plus nivolumab versus 22.9 months with tivozanib monotherapy. 

At initial analysis, ORRwere nearly identical between arms: 19% with tivozanib plus nivolumab and 20% with tivozanib monotherapy, with each arm producing only a single complete response. DoR was not reached with tivozanib monotherapy compared with 15.8 months in the combination arm, suggesting more durable responses with the TKI-alone approach despite comparable initial response rates.

Overall response data from a TiNivo-2 subgroup analysis further supported monotherapy superiority. Among patients who had progressed on frontline ipilimumab plus nivolumab, tivozanib monotherapy achieved an ORR of 32.4% versus 24.2% for the combination, while in those who had received a prior TKI/ICI regimen, the gap widened to 22% versus 9.5%, respectively. More patients in the tivozanib monotherapy arm achieved target tumor reductions of greater than 30% and greater than 50% compared with the combination arm.

Toxicity profiles were comparable between arms and remained consistent across initial and final analysis. At initial analysis serious adverse events (AEs) were slightly lower in the combination arm (32% vs 37%), likely because of a reduced TKI dose. Notably, the tivozanib dose was reduced to 0.89 mg daily in the combination arm to manage overlapping toxicities, while the monotherapy arm received the standard 1.34 mg dose. At final analysis, the most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs was hypertension (22.8% tivozanib vs 22.6% tivozanib plus nivolumab). Other grade 3 or higher events included diarrhea (2.3% vs 3.6%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (0.6% vs 1.2%). Treatment-related serious AEsoccurred in 8.8% (tivozanib) versus 10.7% (Tivo plus Nivo). One treatment-related death occurred in the tivozanib monotherapy group (in a single patient with sepsis, renal failure, hematuria, and hypertension).

In the CONTACT-03 trial, the addition of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab to cabozantinib yielded no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or OS, while substantially increasing toxicity.

The TiNivo-2 trial underscored the importance of using the full, optimal dose of a VEGFR-TKI to maintain maximal efficacy. Ultimately, when taken together with ORR data, the results validate the use of potent, optimally dosed VEGFR-TKIs like tivozanib, which deliver robust disease control when frontline immunotherapy fails.

Real-World Evidence on Delayed ICI Rechallenge

Despite the negative prospective trials, a new global real-world evidence study by Cigliola et al. complicates the absolute rejection of immunotherapy rechallenge. Analyzing 288 patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC who were treated with multiple ICI regimens, researchers found that timing is a critical driver of rechallenge efficacy. Patients who received a second ICI regimen at least six months after discontinuing their prior ICI achieved a median OS of 34.9 months compared with 19.4 months for those rechallenged sooner.

Biologically, this treatment-free interval, often bridged by an intervening TKI like tivozanib, may allow the immune system to recover from functional exhaustion, restore antigen presentation, and recruit new immune clones, thereby reviving sensitivity to checkpoint blockade. Because neither CONTACT-03 nor TiNivo-2 stratified their outcomes by the interval between ICI exposures, this real-world data fills a crucial gap, indicating that a delayed rechallenge might still be viable.

Implications for Community Oncologists

For community oncologists these data carry immediate practical relevance. The clear message from TiNivo-2 and CONTACT-03 is that adding an ICI to a TKI in the post-progression setting should not be pursued outside of a clinical trial, a pattern that may be tempting given familiarity with frontline IO-based combinations. 

Equally important is dose optimization: delivering tivozanib at its full approved dose (1.34 mg) is essential to preserving the efficacy signal demonstrated in the trial, and dose reductions driven by combination toxicity represent a real-world pitfall to avoid. 

The real-world rechallenge data from Cigliola et al. also have practical sequencing implications. In patients who have been off immunotherapy for six months or more and have received an intervening TKI, reintroduction of checkpoint blockade may be  reasonable. This approach is particularly appropriate in the context of a multidisciplinary discussion or referral to an academic center with access to clinical trials. Documenting the duration and reason for ICI discontinuation in the medical record is a simple but valuable habit that can meaningfully inform downstream treatment decisions.

Key Takeaways

The clinical approach to post-IO mRCC must be strategic and evidence-based. Following the immediate failure of upfront immunotherapy, clinicians should transition away from ICIs and confidently utilize established targeted therapies like tivozanib. 

However, for selected patients who have experienced a prolonged ICI break of at least six months, an immunotherapy rechallenge should not be categorically dismissed and warrants rigorous exploration in future biomarker-driven prospective trials.

References 

1. Choueiri TK, Albiges L, Barthélémy P, et al. Tivozanib plus nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma following an immune checkpoint inhibitor: results of the phase 3 TiNivo-2 study. Lancet. 2024;404(10460):1309-1320. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01758-6

2. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):829–841. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2026982 

3. Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(14):1289–1300. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2035716 

4. Cigliola A, Maiorano BA, Rossari F, et al. Outcomes of immune-checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: results from a global real-world evidence study. ESMO Open. 2026;11(5):106901. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2026.106901

5. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277–1290. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1712126 

6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Kidney Cancer. Version 2.2026. https://www.nccn.org

7. Pal SK, Albiges L, Tomczak P, et al. Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023;402(10397):185-195. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00922-4

8. Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V, et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(12):1116–1127. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1816714 

9. Chehrazi-Raffle A, Motzer RJ, Beckermann K, et al. Efficacy of second line (2L) treatment with tivozanib (Tivo) as monotherapy or with nivolumab (Nivo) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination of ipilimumab (Ipi)/Nivo or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI)/ICI in the phase 3 TiNivo-2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(16_suppl):4540. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.4540

10. Motzer RJ, McGregor BA, Albiges L, et al. Final analysis of the TiNivo-2 phase 3 trial: Long-term outcome of tivozanib (Tivo) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Presented at: The 2026 ASCO Annual Meeting; May 19-June 2, 2026; Chicago, IL. Abstract 262664.