Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Chun Loo Gan , Shaan Dudani , J Connor Wells , Andrew Lachlan Schmidt , Ziad Bakouny , Bernadett Szabados , Francis Parnis , Shirley Wong , Jae-Lyun Lee , Guillermo de Velasco , Sumanta K. Pal , Ian D. Davis , Ravindran Kanesvaran , Lori Wood , Christian K. Kollmannsberger , Rana R. McKay , Benoit Beuselinck , Frede Donskov , Toni K. Choueiri , Daniel Yick Chin Heng
Background: Ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and IO/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations (IOVE) are now standard of care 1L treatment options for mRCC. However, there is limited head-to-head comparative evidence between these strategies. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients treated with a 1L IOVE combination (pembrolizumab axitinib, avelumab axitinib and nivolumab cabozantinib) were compared with those treated with IPI-NIVO. The outcomes of interest were overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A preplanned subgroup analysis of the IMDC intermediate/poor risk population was conducted. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors. Results: 723 patients were included for analysis (N=571 for IPI-NIVO and N=152 for IOVE). The median age was 60 in both groups. The proportion of patients with IMDC favorable, intermediate and poor risk disease in IPI-NIVO vs. IOVE groups were 9% vs. 33%, 58% vs. 53%, 33% vs. 14%, respectively. In the intermediate/poor risk groups (Table), ORR and median TD were lower and shorter in IPI-NIVO vs IOVE while no difference in median TTNT and OS was detected. The HR for death adjusting for IMDC criteria for IPI-NIVO vs. IOVE was 0.92 (95% CI 0.61-1.40, p=0.71). IMDC risk groups and the presence or absence of sarcomatoid histology, brain, liver or bone metastases were not associated with differences in OS between these treatments (all p>0.2). Patients that had dose delays or steroid use (defined as >40mg of prednisone equivalent/day) for immune related adverse events (irAEs) were associated with longer median TTNT (21.6 vs. 9.5 mons, p=0.02) and OS (NR vs. 44.4 mons, p=0.01) despite similar treatment durations (7.6 vs. 8.9 mons, p=0.77) compared to those without dose delays or steroid use. Conclusions: We were unable to detect any differences in OS between IPI-NIVO and IOVE regimens in the IMDC intermediate/poor risk groups and amongst various subgroups. Patients who experienced irAEs requiring dose delay or steroids had longer overall survival.
Clinical Outcome | IPI-NIVO % (n/n) or median (mons) (95% CI) | IOVE % (n/n) or median (mons) (95% CI) | P value |
---|---|---|---|
ORR | 37 (143/382) | 59 (43/73) | < 0.01 |
Best response | |||
CR | 4 (16/382) | 4 (3/73) | |
PR | 33 (127/382) | 55 (40/73) | |
SD | 32 (120/382) | 26 (19/73) | |
PD | 31 (119/382) | 15 (11//73) | |
Median TD | 4.6 (3.8-6.0) | 15.0 (10.9-21.4) | < 0.01 |
Median TTNT | 10.1 (8.3-12.0) | 18.6 (13.9-24.8) | 0.08 |
Median OS | 40.2 (22.6-53.5) | 39.7 (30.4-55.9) | 0.17 |
Adjusted Hazard Ratios* (IOVE vs. IPI-NIVO) | |||
TD | 0.54 (0.39-0.73) | <0.01 | |
TTNT | 0.76 (0.55-1.07) | 0.11 | |
OS | 0.92 (0.61-1.40) | 0.71 |
*Hazard ratio <1 means longer for IOVE
CR = complete response; PD = progressive disease; PR = partial response; SD = stable disease
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
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Connor Wells
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Audreylie Lemelin
2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Ana-Alicia Beltran-Bless
2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: Joseph Vento