Outcomes for International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Groups in Contemporary First-line Combination Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Immunotherapy; Prognostication; Metastatic renal cell carcinomaImmunoteràpia; Pronòstic; Carcinoma de cèl·lules renals metastàticInmunoterapia; Pronóstico; Carcinoma de células renales metastásicoBackground The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Objective To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Design, setting, and participants Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo. Results and limitations In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks

Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Combination Therapies; Metastatic Renal Cell CarcinomaTerapias combinadas; Carcinoma metastásico de células renalesTeràpies combinades; Carcinoma metastàtic de cèl·lules renalsImportance The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized. Objective To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included. Exposures Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician–assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival. Results Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P < .001). Treatment with IOVE therapy was found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining response (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.81; P = .002) compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.39) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of response. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, treatment with IOVE therapy was associated with significantly increased odds of objective imaging response compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases, receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy, and favorable IMDC risk were associated with increased odds of experiencing objective imaging response. These findings may help inform treatment selection, especially in clinical contexts associated with high-volume multisite metastatic disease, in which obtaining objective imaging response is important

Improved overall survival after implementation of targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the Danish Renal Cancer Group (DARENCA) study-2

AbstractAimTo evaluate the implementation of targeted therapy on overall survival (OS) in a complete national cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).MethodsAll Danish patients with mRCC referred for first line treatment with immunotherapy, TKIs or mTOR-inhibitors between 2006 and 2010 were included. Baseline and outcome data were collected retrospectively. Prognostics factors were identified using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard model. Differences in distributions were tested with the Chi-square test.Results1049 patients were referred; 744 patients received first line treatment. From 2006 to 2010 we observed a significant increase in the number of referred patients; a significant increase in treated patients (64% versus 75%, P=0.0188); a significant increase in first line targeted therapy (22% versus 75%, P<0.0001); a significant increase in second line treatment (20% versus 40%, P=0.0104), a significant increased median OS (11.5 versus 17.2 months, P=0.0435) whereas survival for untreated patients remained unchanged. Multivariate analysis validated known prognostic factors. Moreover, treatment start years 2008 (HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.55–0.99; P=0.0415), 2009 (HR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.54–0.96; P=0.0277) and 2010 (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47–0.86; P=0.0035) compared to 2006, and more than two treatment lines received for patients with performance status 0–1 (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P=0.0397) and performance status 2–3 (HR 0.19, 95% CI, 0.06–0.60; P=0.0051) were significantly associated with longer OS.ConclusionThis retrospective study documents that the implementation of targeted therapy has resulted in significantly improved treatment rates and overall survival in a complete national cohort of treated mRCC patients

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

This randomised phase III trial compared standard of care Everolimus with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody Nivolumab in previously treated patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic clear cell renal cancer. 810 patients were randomised to receive either Everolimus 10 mg orally daily or 3 mg/kg of Nivolumab intravenously every two weeks. Patients were treated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients could be treated beyond progression if the investigator believed that the patient was gaining clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 25 months for Nivolumab and 19.8 months for Everolimus (p=0.002). The objective response rate was higher for Nivolumab (25 versus 5%; p=&#60;0.001).The median progression free survivals were 4.6 & 4.4 months (p=0.11). Grade 3 & 4 treatment related toxicities were observed in 19 & 37% of patients on Nivolumab or Everolimus respectively. In patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma Nivolumab produced superior survival and more tolerable treatment than Everolimus

Fourth-Line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC)

Background: Fourth-line therapy (4LT) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) varies significantly due to the lack of data and recommendations to guide treatment decisions. Objective: To evaluate the use and efficacy of 4LT in mRCC patients. Methods: The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset was used to identify patients with mRCC treated with 4LT. This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Patients were evaluated for overall response. The six prognostic variables included in the IMDC prognostic model were used to stratify patients into favorable-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups. Exploratory analyses were performed examining the elderly (>70 years old) and non-clear cell RCC subgroups. Proportional hazards regression modelling was performed adjusting these covariates by IMDC criteria measured at initiation of 4th line therapy. Results: 7498 patients were treated with first line targeted therapy and out of these 594 (7.9%) received 4LT. Everolimus was the most frequently used 4LT (16.8%). Sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib and clinical trial drugs were also used in >10% of patients. The OS of patients on any 4LT was 12.8 months, with a PFS of 4.4 months. The overall response rate (ORR) was 13.7%. Favorable-risk patients using IMDC criteria (5%) displayed an OS of 23.1 months, intermediate-risk patients (66%) had an OS of 13.8 months and poor-risk patients (29%) had an OS of 7.8 (p 70 years and non-clear cell histology did not impact OS. Our study is limited by its retrospective design. Conclusions: 4LT use appears to have activity in mRCC patients. The IMDC continues to be of prognostic value in the fourth-line setting for OS. This study helps to set a benchmark for response rate and survival for which clinical trials can plan sample size calculations and aim to improve upon