Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma according to risk factors: Analysis of the STAR TOR registry.

Authors

Michael Moran

Michael Moran

Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Berlin, Germany

Michael Moran , Marcus Hubbe , Michael Rink , Lothar Bergmann , Arne Strauss , Stephan Bernhardt , Marianne Schmid , Martin Boegemann , Katrin Schlack

Organizations

Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Berlin, Germany, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Pfizer Inc

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment is partly informed by risk group. The two most commonly used prognostic models, the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), stratify patients (pts) into favorable (0 risk factors [RFs]), intermediate (1–2 RFs) or high risk (≥3 RFs) groups. This study examined real-world outcomes according to IMDC and MSKCC RFs in sunitinib-treated pts with mRCC. Methods: Data were extracted on 19 June 2019 from a large, prospective German multicenter registry (STAR-TOR). Only pts with sufficient data for risk stratification by IMDC and MSKCC were included in this analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The impact of RFs on survival was assessed using Cox’s regression analysis and the chi square test. Results: According to IMDC or MSKCC, 16.7% and 15.3%, 26.2% and 30.8%, 18.7% and 24.7%, and 38.5% and 29.2 of pts had 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 RFs, respectively. In IMDC intermediate pts, only < 1 year diagnosis to therapy (24.8%) was the most common RF; in MSKCC intermediate pts, < 1 year diagnosis to therapy with low hemoglobin (19.9%) were the most common. OS was not significantly different for pts with 0 vs 1 (p = 0.24), or 2 vs ≥3 (p = 0.16) IMDC RFs, but was significant according to MSKCC RFs (0 vs 1, p = 0.04; 2 vs ≥3, p < 0.01). OS was significantly longer for pts with 1 vs 2 RFs for IMDC (p = 0.03) and MSKCC (p = 0.04), but PFS was not (IMDC, p = 0.29; MSKCC, p = 0.12). OS was significantly longer for 0 vs 2, 0 vs ≥3, and 1 vs ≥3 RFs for IMDC and MSKCC RFs (all comparisons, p < 0.01). Similar results were observed for PFS with the exception of 0 vs 1 IMDC RF (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The intermediate risk group appears to be heterogeneous. OS for pts with 1 RF may align with the favorable risk group and pts with 2 RFs may align with the poor risk group.

ModelRFs, nPts, n (%)mPFS, momOS, moORR, %
IMDC042 (16.7)13.637.039.5
166 (26.2)7.229.241.9
247 (18.7)6.118.529.5
≥397 (38.5)3.88.713.1
MSKCC047 (15.3)15.037.051.2
195 (30.8)8.230.234.4
276 (24.7)5.619.931.0
≥390 (29.2)3.57.714.3

mOS, median OS; mPFS, median PFS; ORR, objective response rate.

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 Details

Meeting

2020 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session C: Renal Cell Cancer

Track

Renal Cell Cancer

Sub Track

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38, 2020 (suppl 6; abstr 628)

Abstract #

628

Poster Bd #

D14

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Daniel M. Geynisman

First Author: Hyejee Ohm

First Author: Saby George