Head-to-head effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib vs. nivolumab plus ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United States.

Authors

null

Dvir Aran

Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Dvir Aran , Einat Granot-Hershkovitz , Shlomit Amar-Farkash , Keren Rosenberg-Katz

Organizations

Faculty of Biology, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, Carelon Digital Platforms, Tel Aviv, Israel

Research Funding

Institutional Funding
Caerlon Digital Platforms

Background: Two main first-line combination therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P+A) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I). No head-to-head clinical trial comparing these treatments has been performed, and the available real-world data (RWD) on their effectiveness is limited. Here, we used RWD to compare the overall survival and posttreatment hospitalization rates of mRCC patients receiving P+A vs. N+I. Methods: We included mRCC patients treated with N+I or P+A between 6/2018 and 3/2022, utilizing data from Elevance Health administrative claims and clinical data from AIM Cancer Care Quality Program. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation index (SDI), ECOG performance status (PS), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and metastatic sites. Real-world overall survival (rwOS) was defined from first treatment until death or last claim and was estimated using weighted Kaplan-Meier method. Favorable risk was defined based on PS (<2) and with a treatment initiated less than 1 year from diagnosis. Results: We identified 764 mRCC patients, of them 483 were treated with N+I (63%). The P+A group was slightly older (p=0.08), while other features were similar in both groups. Survival analysis using IPTW showed a borderline significant advantage of P+A vs. N+I (p-value=0.07). Inspection of the Kaplan-Meier curves suggested that P+A provides short-term survival benefit: 12-month rwOS was 86% for P+A vs. 77.8% for N+I (p<0.001), while at 24-months, where power was lower, the curves almost converged (rwOS: 68% in P+A vs. 65% in N+I; p=0.52). In a subset of patients with favorable risk (N=69 P+A, N=68 N+I), the P+A survival improvement extended to at least 24-months (p=0.06). Finally, the N+I group had significantly higher rates of posttreatment hospitalizations (3-months after treatment initiation) compared to the P+A group (31.9% vs. 19.6%; p-value<0.001). Conclusions: Our retrospective cohort study suggests that P+A may provide short-term survival benefits over N+I, and this benefit is extended in patients with favorable risk. P+A is also associated with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations. We argue that the higher toxicity of N+I may explain its lower short-term effectiveness and may also explain its lower effectiveness in patients with favorable risk.

Baseline characteristics of mRCC individuals who received P+A or N+I treatments.

P+AN+IP-Value
N281483
Gender, n (%)F64 (22.8)111 (23.0)1.000
Age, mean (SD)58.7 (7.4)57.6 (7.9)0.078
SDI, mean (SD)42.6 (25.6)44.2 (27.6)0.421
PS, n (%)0121 (43.1)231 (47.8)0.358
1146 (52.0)225 (46.6)
214 (5.0)27 (5.6)
CCI, mean (SD)0.9 (1.1)0.9 (1.1)0.587
No. metastatic sites, n (%)>=2176 (62.6)306 (63.4)0.903
1105 (37.4)177 (36.6)

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

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Genitourinary Cancer—Kidney and Bladder

Track

Genitourinary Cancer—Kidney and Bladder

Sub Track

Kidney Cancer

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 16; abstr 4532)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.4532

Abstract #

4532

Poster Bd #

24

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts