Abstract

Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progressive disease often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Patients and Methods. This ambispective multicenter study included 45 mRCC patients rechallenged with nivolumab ± ipilimumab between 2014 and 2020. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR) for ICI rechallenge (ICI-2). Factors associated with ICI-2 progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated with multivariate Cox models. Results ORR was 51% (n = 23) at first ICI therapy (ICI-1) and 16% (n = 7) for ICI-2. Median PFS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.8–23.5) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8–9.7), and median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 37.8–NR) and 24 months (95% CI, 9.9–NR) for ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. Factors associated with poorer ICI-2 PFS were a high number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, use of an intervening treatment between ICI regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at ICI-2 start. Conversely, ICI-1 PFS >6 months was associated with better ICI-2 PFS. In multivariate analysis, there were only statistical trends toward better ICI-2 PFS in patients with ICI-1 PFS >6 months (p=0.07) and toward poorer ICI-2 PFS in patients who received a treatment between ICI regimens (p=0.07). Conclusion Rechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. We identified various prognostic factors in univariate analysis but only statistical trends in multivariate analysis. Our findings bring new evidence on ICI rechallenge and preliminary but unique data that may help clinicians to select patients who will benefit from this strategy.

Highlights

  • Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

  • We included a total of 45 patients with nivolumab ± ipilimumab rechallenge

  • In our cohort of 45 patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) rechallenged with an immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we showed some efficacy with a 16% objective response rate and a favorable safety profile. e CHECKMATE 025 study [3], comparing nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated ICI-naive mRCC, showed an ORR of 25%, a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.6 months, and a median overall survival (OS) of 25 months

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Rechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved in mRCC treatment. Nivolumab-ipilimumab (an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte antigen-4 antibody (CTLA-4)) combination improved overall survival (OS) for intermediate and poor IMDC prognostic score of clear cell RCC patients [4]. Different TKI-ICI combinations as axitinib-pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 therapy), axitinibavelumab (an anti-programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody), or, more recently, cabozantinib-nivolumab and lenvatinib-pembrolizumab improved outcomes in firstline treatment [5,6,7,8]. Most of them focused only on ICIs combination rechallenge and no prognostic factors of response were assessed

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.