Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Shaan Dudani , Jeffrey Graham , Connor Wells , Sumanta K. Pal , Nazli Dizman , Frede Donskov , Georg A. Bjarnason , Aaron Richard Hansen , Marco Adelmo James Iafolla , Ulka N. Vaishampayan , Camillo Porta , Benoit Beuselinck , Flora Yan , Lori Wood , Elizabeth Chien Hern Liow , Christian K. Kollmannsberger , Takeshi Yuasa , Chiyuan A Zhang , Toni K. Choueiri , Daniel Yick Chin Heng
Background: In mRCC, ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) is a 1L treatment option. Recent data have also shown efficacy of 1L PD(L)1-VEGF (PV) inhibitor combinations. The efficacy of these two strategies has not been compared. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients (pts) treated with any 1L PV combination were compared to those treated with ipi-nivo. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in IMDC risk factors. Results: 164 pts received 1L IO combination therapy: 104 treated with PV combinations and 60 with ipi-nivo. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were comparable between groups (Table). When comparing PV combinations vs ipi-nivo, 1L response rates (RR) were 30% vs 39% (p = 0.29), time to treatment failure (TTF) was 13.2 (95% CI 8.3-16.1) vs 8.5 months (95% CI 5.7-14.0, p = 0.31), and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 19.7-NR) vs NR (95% CI 27.6-NR, p = 0.39). When adjusted for IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) for TTF was 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.35, p = 0.36) and the HR for death was 0.94 (95% CI 0.33-2.71, p = 0.91). Similar results were seen when restricting the cohort to IMDC intermediate/poor risk pts only. In pts receiving subsequent VEGF TKI monotherapy, second-line (2L) RR (13% vs 45%, p = 0.07) and TTF (5.5 vs 5.4 months, p = 0.80) for PV combinations (n = 15) vs ipi-nivo (n = 20) were not significantly different. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a superior 1L IO combination strategy in mRCC, as PV combinations and ipi-nivo have comparable RR, TTF and OS. Although there is a trend towards differences in RR, there does not appear to be a significant difference in TTF for patients receiving 2L VEGF TKI therapy.
PD(L)1-VEGF (N = 104) | Ipi-Nivo (N = 60) | |
---|---|---|
IMDC Risk Groups | ||
Favourable | 25/61 (41%) | 10/42 (24%) |
Intermediate | 27/61 (44%) | 25/42 (60%) |
Poor | 9/61 (15%) | 7/42 (17%) |
IMDC Risk Factors | ||
KPS < 80 | 2/89 (2%) | 2/57 (4%) |
Diagnosis to therapy < 1 yr | 58/104 (56%) | 30/60 (50%) |
Calcium > ULN | 7/77 (9%) | 8/48 (17%) |
Hemoglobin < ULN | 35/94 (37%) | 25/55 (46%) |
Neutrophils > ULN | 11/87 (13%) | 7/49 (14%) |
Platelets > ULN | 11/93 (12%) | 9/54 (17%) |
*All non-significant (p > 0.05)
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Audreylie Lemelin
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Connor Wells
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Regina Barragan-Carrillo
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless