Background: Over the past decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become foundational to aRCC management. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remain a mainstay, resulting in the potential for ICI/TKI combination regimens. Four ICI/TKI combinations (pembrolizumab/axitinib [PA], nivolumab/cabozantinib [NC], pembrolizumab/lenvatinib [PL], and avelumab/axitinib [AA]) have shown promising results compared to single-agent sunitinib in randomized clinical trials (KEYNOTE-426 [KN426], CheckMate 9ER [CM9ER], CLEAR, and JAVELIN RENAL 101 [JR101], respectively); national guidelines recommend them as 1L options. Further, an ICI-based regimen of nivolumab/ipilumumab (NI) is a treatment option for poor-risk RCC based on CheckMate 214 (CM214) results. We sought to understand how community oncologists perceive data from these trials and what aspects influence their clinical decisions. Methods: In May 2021, medical oncologists experienced in treating aRCC were presented with key results from these trials and 2 clinical vignettes. Treatment preferences and reasons for decisions were captured via an audience response system. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 103 U.S. medical oncologists participated; most risk-stratify their patients with either IMDC (44%), MSKCC (34%), or both (14%). When presented with simulated case studies, most (76%) indicated they are not likely to order PD-L1 testing, yet 81% will treat with an ICI-based regimen. Participants are more likely to prescribe ICI/TKI over ICI/ICI (65% vs 47%) in favorable-risk aRCC. Yet in poor-risk RCC, they are more likely to prescribe ICI/ICI over ICI/TKI (52% vs 15%). Among ICI/TKI regimen, participants showed a small preference toward PA over NC for both the poor-risk (21% vs 20%) and intermediate-risk (30% vs 23%) patient case. In the favorable-risk case, PA was significantly preferred over NC, 46% vs 19%. Most participants were aware of the trial data (91% KN426, 82% CM9ER, 57% CLEAR, 96% CM214); and more found the data from CM9ER most compelling compared to KN426 and CM214 (32%, 29%, and 23%, respectively). The participants viewed trials that met primary or survival endpoints as strong. Major limitations in each trial commonly identified were trial design (KN426, 27%); short follow-up (CM9ER, 48%); short follow-up and no OS data (CLEAR, 39% and 38%, respectively), and high discontinuation rate (CM214, 42%). Conclusions: Providers typically will treat aRCC patients with ICI-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 status and are more likely to prescribe an ICI/TKI regimen for favorable-risk and an ICI/ICI regimen for poor-risk aRCC. Meeting primary endpoints is a strong influencer in providers’ decision-making. Given the nonsignificant difference in preference for PA over NC, further research is needed to assess factors influencing providers’ decisions.