Real world, multicentre patterns of treatment and survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with the UK Renal Oncology Collaborative ( UK ROC ): Is it time to look favourably on first‐line immunotherapy containing combinations in all IMDC groups?

Introduction: Clinical trials show improved progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in first‐line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with immunotherapy containing systemic anti‐cancer therapies (SACT). However, in the favourable international metastatic renal cell cancer database consortium (IMDC) group there is no trial evidence for OS benefit despite clear PFS improvement when comparing anti‐VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy and (immunotherapy and TKI) IO/TKI combinations. Objective: To assess the impact of first‐line SACT choice on the clinical outcomes of PFS and OS in mRCC. To evaluate this impact of initial SACT for allcomers and the favourable IMDC group. Methods: A multicentre retrospective review of patients who started SACT for mRCC (01/01/2018–30/06/2021) at 17 UK NHS trusts. Patient demographics and IMDC group were analysed. Survival data were compared using Kaplan–Meier curves, and the statistical significance of differences in outcome between the groups was assessed with the log‐rank test. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard modelling estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes associated with IMDC and treatment subtype. Results: One thousand three hundred and nineteen patients were identified with a median age of 64. 294 (22.3%), 695 (52.7%) and 321 (24.3%) were IMDC group favourable, intermediate and poor, respectively. 311 (23.6%), 197 (14.9%) and 778 (59%) patients received checkpoint inhibitor and anti‐CTLA4 monoclonal antibody (IO/IO), IO/TKI and TKI first‐line SACT across all IMDC groups. Significant PFS improvement favouring IO/TKI versus TKI was demonstrated in allcomers HR = 0.61. In the favourable risk group, Log rank testing demonstrated a significant benefit for IO/TKI over TKI for PFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI [0.39, 0.91]) and OS (HR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.18, 0.99]). Conclusion: In this real‐world evidence cohort, we have shown OS and PFS benefit with IO/TKI versus TKI in the favourable IMDC risk group. This has not been previously reported from trial outcomes and would support use of front‐line IO/TKI in mRCC favourable risk patients