Outcomes of first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).

Authors

null

Chun Loo Gan

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

Organizations

Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, Liz Plummer Cancer Centre, Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service, Cairns, QLD, Australia, Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, Barts Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, Western Health, Footscray, Australia, Asan Medical Center and University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, VIC, Australia, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, BC Cancer-Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada, University of California San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA, Leuven Cancer Institute, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen, Leuven, Belgium, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Research Funding

No funding received
None.

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 of IMDC intermediate/poor risk patients treated with IPI-NIVO vs. IOVE.

Clinical OutcomeIPI-NIVO
% (n/n) or median (mons)
(95% CI)
IOVE
% (n/n) or median (mons)
(95% CI)
P value
ORR37 (143/382)59 (43/73)< 0.01
Best response
CR4 (16/382)4 (3/73)
PR33 (127/382)55 (40/73)
SD32 (120/382)26 (19/73)
PD31 (119/382)15 (11//73)
Median TD4.6 (3.8-6.0)15.0 (10.9-21.4)< 0.01
Median TTNT10.1 (8.3-12.0)18.6 (13.9-24.8)0.08
Median OS40.2 (22.6-53.5)39.7 (30.4-55.9)0.17
Adjusted Hazard Ratios* (IOVE vs. IPI-NIVO)
TD0.54 (0.39-0.73)<0.01
TTNT0.76 (0.55-1.07)0.11
OS0.92 (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 Details

Meeting

2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Rapid Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Rapid Abstract Session: Renal Cell Cancer

Track

Renal Cell Cancer

Sub Track

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 6; abstr 276)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.6_suppl.276

Abstract #

276

Abstract Disclosures