The Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
Chris Labaki , Ziad Bakouny , Audreylie Lemelin , Matthew Scott Ernst , Kosuke Takemura , J Connor Wells , Sumanta Kumar Pal , Bernadett Szabados , Benoit Beuselinck , Rana R. McKay , Jae-Lyun Lee , Takeshi Yuasa , Francis Parnis , Georg A. Bjarnason , Bradley Alexander McGregor , David A. Braun , Wanling Xie , Wenxin Xu , Daniel Yick Chin Heng , Toni K. Choueiri
Background: Patients with advanced RCC with S/R components exhibit poor clinical outcomes. IO-based combination therapies demonstrated substantial efficacy among patients with metastatic S/R ccRCC, compared to VEGF targeted therapy (VEGF-TT). Recent trials showed promising activity of IO-based regimens in patients with advanced nccRCC. We sought to assess the efficacy of IO regimens among patients with S/R nccRCC. Methods: Patients with advanced nccRCC treated with 1L IO regimens (IO/IO or IO/VEGF-TT) or 1L VEGF-TT monotherapy (sunitinib or pazopanib) were included. Cases were categorized as S/R or non-S/R. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) in patients with S/R nccRCC receiving 1L IO or VEGF-TT. Overall response rate (ORR) was a secondary outcome. OS and TTF were compared between groups (IO vs. VEGF-TT) using Cox regression models adjusted for age, IMDC risk groups, and nccRCC subtype. ORR was compared between groups (IO vs. VEGF-TT) using a logistic regression adjusted for the same confounders. Results: Overall, 103 patients with S/R nccRCC were included, of whom 33 (32%) received 1L IO regimens. Median follow-up was 31 months. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with S/R nccRCC treated with IO regimens presented with significantly improved survival outcomes as compared to those receiving VEGF-TT (median OS [mOS]: NR vs. 7.1 and mTTF: 9.4 vs. 2.9 mos for IO regimens and VEGF-TT, respectively). Similarly, a higher ORR was seen in patients with S/R nccRCC receiving IO regimens versus VEGF-TT (34.1 vs. 10.9%, respectively). Among 430 patients with non-S/R nccRCC (IO regimens: n=44), no significant differences in survival outcomes between regimen classes were seen (mOS: 24.4 vs. 14.8 and mTTF: 4.2 vs. 5.0 mos for IO regimens and VEGF-TT, respectively). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the largest effort to characterize the outcomes of patients with S/R nccRCC treated with IO regimens. Patients with S/R nccRCC appear to derive a substantial and selective benefit from IO regimens (vs. VEGF-TT). These data support the use of IO-based regimens in patients with S/R nccRCC.
OS, TTF and ORR in patients with S/R and non-S/R nccRCC treated with 1L IO regimens vs. VEGF-TT. | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median OS – IO regimens, mos (95%CI) | Median OS – VEGF-TT, mos (95%CI) | Adjusted HR (95%CI) | Median TTF – IO regimens, mos (95%CI) | Median TTF – VEGF-TT, mos (95%CI) | Adjusted HR (95%CI) | ORR – IO regimens, % | ORR – VEGF-TT, % | p-value* | |
S/R nccRCC (N=103) | NR (19.3-NR) | 7.1 (3.9-13) | 0.25 (0.13-0.49) | 9.4 (2.8-NR) | 2.9 (2.2-4.3) | 0.34 (0.21-0.59) | 34.4 | 10.9 | 0.006 |
Non-S/R nccRCC (N=430) | 24.4 (16.6-NR) | 14.8 (12.7-18.1) | 0.74 (0.46-1.21) | 4.2 (2.8-12.9) | 5.0 (4.4-5.7) | 1.20 (0.85-1.71) | 22.5 | 17.5 | 0.94 |
*Logistic regression.
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
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Audreylie Lemelin
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Yann-Alexandre Vano
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Yann-Alexandre Vano
2021 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Amit Rauthan