Outcomes for International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Groups in Contemporary First-line Combination Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Ernst MS, Navani V, Wells JC] Department of Medical Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [Donskov F] Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital & University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark. [Basappa N] Cross Cancer Clinic, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. [Labaki C] Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. [Suarez C] Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2023-06-26T07:33:55Z

2023-06-26T07:33:55Z

2023-07



Abstract

Immunotherapy; Prognostication; Metastatic renal cell carcinoma


Immunoteràpia; Pronòstic; Carcinoma de cèl·lules renals metastàtic


Inmunoterapia; Pronóstico; Carcinoma de células renales metastásico


Background The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Objective To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Design, setting, and participants Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo. Results and limitations In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Elsevier

Related items

European Urology;84(1)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.01.001

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)