Immuno-oncology Combination Research Articles

Impact of number of treatment lines following first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) combination on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

673 Background: Across the world, treatment of patients with mRCC is heterogeneous with different access to treatment sequences and number of lines of therapy (LOTs) employed. For instance, patients receiving first line (1L) nivolumab+ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) may be offered second-line (2L) and third line (3L) vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeted kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI), whereas patients receiving 1L pembrolizumab or avelumab in combination with axitinib (IO+AXI) may only receive one subsequent VEGFR-TKI in 2L. We aimed to examine whether these different treatment strategies impact overall survival (OS). Methods: Adult mRCC patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI or at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI from the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers were included. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate median OS (time from 1L to death). Results were stratified by 1L IMDC prognostic risk. Results: Among 128 patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI (median age 61 years, 77% White, 77% male, 37% from the US), 14% had favorable, 61% had intermediate, and 26% had poor IMDC risk. The most common 2L treatments following 1L NIVO+IPI were sunitinib (38%), cabozantinib (27%), and pazopanib (20%). Among 104 patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI (median age 62 years, 75% White, 67% male, 38% from the US), 28% had favorable, 48% had intermediate, and 25% had poor IMDC risk. The most common 2L treatments following 1L IO+AXI were cabozantinib (57%) and sunitinib (10%). Median OS are presented in the table, which suggested no difference in survival for patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI compared to patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI. Conclusions: Treatment for patients with mRCC varies depending on the 1L regimen chosen and by country. Our results demonstrate that, even with potential guaranteed time bias and IMDC imbalances, there is no statistically significant difference in OS for patients who received at least three LOTs starting with 1L NIVO+IPI and patients who received at least two LOTs starting with 1L IO+AXI, suggesting that selecting effective treatments in 1L resulting in fewer LOTs may have similar clinical outcomes as multiple LOTs. [Table: see text]

Comparative analysis of the molecular profile and tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) low (L)- versus high (H)-expressing gastroesophageal cancers (GEC).

287 Background: Addition of immune checkpoint blockade to anti-HER2 therapy has improved outcomes in HER2-positive GEC. Anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates have shown activity in some HER2-L tumors in other tumor types. We aimed to compare the molecular profile and TIME of HER2-L and HER-H GEC. Methods: 8678 GEC (gastric, GE junction, and esophageal) adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma samples were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of RNA (whole transcriptome, NovaSeq), DNA (592 genes, NextSeq, or whole exome sequencing, NovaSeq), and immunohistochemistry (IHC, Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). Cohorts were stratified by IHC HER2 values of 0 (non-expressors), 1-2+ (HER2-L), or 3+ (HER2-H) and compared using X2 or Fisher-Exact. Statistical significance was determined as P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons (q < 0.05). Microenvironment cell population (MCP) counter was used to quantify immune cell infiltration. Results: Tumor were grouped into HER2 non-expressors (N = 5217), L (N = 2660), and H (N = 801). Mutations of TP53 (72% vs 92%) and amplification of MYC (4% vs 7%), CCNE1 (7% vs 12%), CCND3 (2% vs 4%), CDK6 (3% vs 6%), SMARCE1 (2% vs 25%) and RARA (3% vs 24%) were significantly lower in HER2-L compared to HER2-H (q < 0.05). ARID1A (14% vs 9%), PIK3CA (8% vs 3%), KRAS (9% vs 2%), GNAS (2% vs 0.3%), KMT2D (6% vs 1%), CDH1 (5% vs 1%), and ATM (4% vs 1%) mutations were significantly higher in HER2-L compared to HER2-H (q < 0.05). HER2-L was associated with more TMB-H (9.3% vs. 5%; q<0.05), MSI-H (4.7% vs. 0.6%; q<0.05), and a trend towards higher PD-L1 expression than in HER2-H (80.8% vs 76.1%, p < 0.05 but q > 0.05). Immuno-oncology (IO)-related gene expression inversely correlated with HER2 expression with lowest expression of PDCD1LG2, CD274, CTLA4, PDCD1, HAVCR2, CD80, IFNG, LAG3, and CD86 in HER2-H (q < 0.05). HER2-L had significantly higher median immune infiltration of B cells (fold change [FC]: 1.22), T cells (FC: 1.16), CD8+ T cells (FC: 1.56), NK cells (FC: 1.12), neutrophils (FC: 1.10), cytotoxic lymphocytes (FC: 1.36), and myeloid dendritic cells (FC: 1.34), compared to HER2-H (q < 0.05). HER2 non-expressors showed similar immune cell infiltrates compared to HER2-H. HER2-H was associated with lower T-cell inflamed scores and IFN gamma signature when compared to HER2-L and non-expressors (q < 0.05). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest comparison of molecular profile and TIME in HER2-expressing GEC. We demonstrated distinct molecular and TIME profiles with higher immunogenic profiles in HER-L as compared to HER2-H. IO-related gene expression and TIME cell distribution differences in HER2-H GEC suggest that response to IO and HER2 therapy combinations is likely related to HER2-targeted treatment effect on TIME rather than baseline immunogenicity of the tumor.

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

BackgroundThe 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). ObjectiveTo establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Design, setting, and participantsPatients 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 analysisOverall 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 limitationsIn 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. ConclusionsThis 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. Patient summaryThe International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Complete remissions following immunotherapy or immuno-oncology combinations in cancer patients: the MOUSEION-03 meta-analysis.

Immunotherapy has determined unprecedented long-term responses in several hematological and solid tumors. In the MOUSEION-03 study, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the possibility of achieving complete remissions (CR) with immunotherapy or immuno-oncology combinations in cancer patients. The primary endpoint was to assess the incidence of CR in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with other agents versus control treatments. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for CR rate were extracted. A total of 12,130 potentially relevant trials were identified; 5 phase II and 80 phase III randomized studies (37 monotherapies and 48 combinations) and 49,425 cancer patients were included. The most frequent types of malignancies were non-small cell lung cancer (n = 14,249; 29%), urothelial cancer (n = 6536; 13%), renal cell carcinoma (n = 5743; 12%), and melanoma (n = 2904; 6%). In patients treated with immunotherapy (as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer agents), the pooled OR was 1.67 (1.52-1.84). The highest OR was registered by immune-based combinations with two ICIs (3.56, 95% CI 1.28-9.90). To the best of the authors' knowledge, no comprehensive meta-analysis on the use of ICIs and ICI-based combinations in solid tumors to systematically investigate the probability to achieve CR has been published so far. Although CR is not a common event in several cancer patients receiving immunotherapy, the MOUSEION-03 suggests that the use of ICIs may significantly increase the chance of achieving CR in comparison with control treatments.

Capture of common adverse events (AEs) by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials of immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapies in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

263 Background: IO-based combination therapies have improved clinical outcomes in aRCC; several are approved for first-line use. AEs can significantly impact quality of life, and IO therapy is associated with AEs that differ from prior standard treatment toxicities. PROMs capture health status directly from patients and often include the symptoms and severity of AEs. Our aim was to assess the extent to which the PROMs used in pivotal trials covered the most common AEs associated with IO combinations. Methods: This was a review of data from four phase 3, randomized, open-label studies of IO-based combinations in previously untreated advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC (CheckMate 214, CheckMate 9ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR [KEYNOTE-581]). The 10 most common all-grade, all-cause AEs (%) and the PROMs used in each trial were identified. The inclusion of the most common AEs in the PROMs was explored descriptively. Results: The most common AEs and their frequencies varied among the different combination regimens. There was also variation across trials in the PROMs used. Capture of the most common AEs by the PROMs used in each study is summarized in the Table. Conclusions: Current PROMs used in clinical trials of IO combinations for aRCC tend to capture more of the common AEs for IO-IO vs IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor regimens. PROMs that reflect the unique AE profiles of IO therapies, especially from the patient perspective, may be needed for future trials.[Table: see text]

1464P The impact of impaired renal function on the effectiveness of first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the international metastatic RCC database consortium (IMDC)

1464P The impact of impaired renal function on the effectiveness of first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the international metastatic RCC database consortium (IMDC)

1455P Characterization of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma achieving complete response to first-line therapies: Results from the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC)

Clinical trials of immuno-oncology (IO) agents have demonstrated higher complete response (CR) rates in the IO combination arms. We aimed to characterize patients achieving CR to first-line therapies in real-world settings.

Improved Survival of Real-world Japanese Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Immuno-oncology Combination Therapy.

Immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapy has become the standard of treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this retrospective study, we compared the efficacy of first-line molecular targeted therapy (MTT), administered as monotherapy, and IO combination therapy using real-world data of Japanese patients. The clinical information of 202 patients with RCC who received MTT (n=144) or IO combination therapy (n=58) at the Kurume University Hospital from May 2008 to May 2022 was collected and retrospectively analyzed. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated. The patients treated with IO combination therapy had a prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those treated with MTT (p=0.0038). IO combination therapy was significantly associated with a better PFS in patients with intermediate (p=0.0072) and poor risk (p=0.0411) but not in those with favorable risk (p=0.5434). Furthermore, overall survival with IO combination therapy was significantly better in patients at poor risk (p=0.0335). Multivariate analyses suggested that prior nephrectomy (HR=1.501, 95%CI=1.048-2.150, p=0.0268) and first-line therapy (HR=1.962, 95%CI=1.288-2.986, p=0.0017) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. IO combination therapy significantly improved the PFS of patients with advanced RCC, especially those with intermediate- and poor-risk disease. Further investigations focusing on the improvement of survival are warranted.

Concomitant Use of Statins, Metformin, or Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-Line Combination Therapies.

Drug-drug interactions are a major concern in oncology and may potentially affect the outcome of patients with cancer. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the concomitant use of statins, metformin, or proton pump inhibitors affects survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line combination therapies. Medical records of patients with documented metastatic renal cell carcinoma between January 2016 and November 2021 were reviewed at 17 participating centers. This research was conducted in ten institutions, including both referral centers and local hospitals. Patients were assessed for overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall clinical benefit. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to explore the association of variables of interest with overall survival and progression-free survival. A total of 304 patients receiving dual immunotherapy (51%) or immunotherapy/vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (49%) combinations were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective study. Statin use was a significant prognostic factor for longer overall survival in a univariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.87; p = 0.016) and a multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.74; p < 0.001) and was significantly associated with an overall clinical benefit (83% in statin users vs 71% in non-users; p = 0.045). Otherwise, the use of metformin or proton pump inhibitors did not affect the outcome of these patients. Our study suggests a prognostic impact of statin use in patients receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized. To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC. This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included. Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician-assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival. Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P < .001). Treatment with IOVE therapy was found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining response (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.81; P = .002) compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.39) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of response. In this study, treatment with IOVE therapy was associated with significantly increased odds of objective imaging response compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases, receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy, and favorable IMDC risk were associated with increased odds of experiencing objective imaging response. These findings may help inform treatment selection, especially in clinical contexts associated with high-volume multisite metastatic disease, in which obtaining objective imaging response is important.

How Compatible Are Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Thermal Ablation for Liver Metastases?

Simple SummaryAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have achieved great progression in cancer treatment, the efficacy of ICI monotherapy is still limited. Meanwhile, the negative efficacy of thermal ablation for liver metastases is the high rate of local tumor progression. Since thermal ablation-induced inflammation and increases in tumor antigens have been suggested to promote the cancer-immunity cycle, thermal ablation and ICI can boost the immune response against cancer cells as one of the positive synergy effects. The findings of preclinical and clinical research have provided supportive evidence for the combination of ICIs with thermal ablation reversing T-cell exhaustion and demonstrating synergy. However, the clinical feasibility of immune response activation by combination therapy with ICI monotherapy and thermal ablation appears to be limited, it may be not very common phenomena.Cancer immunotherapy, which reactivates the weakened immune cells of cancer patients, has achieved great success, and several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now available in clinical practice. Despite promising clinical outcomes, favorable responses are only observed in a fraction of patients, and resistance mechanisms, including the absence of tumor antigens, have been reported. Thermal ablation involves the induction of irreversible damage to cancer cells by localized heat and may result in the release of tumor antigens. The combination of immunotherapy and thermal ablation is an emerging therapeutic option with enhanced efficacy. Since thermal ablation-induced inflammation and increases in tumor antigens have been suggested to promote the cancer-immunity cycle, the combination of immuno-oncology (IO) therapy and thermal ablation may be mutually beneficial. In preclinical and clinical studies, the combination of ICI and thermal ablation significantly inhibited tumor growth, and synergistic antitumor effects appeared to prolong the survival of patients with secondary liver cancer. However, evidence for the efficacy of ICI monotherapy combined with thermal ablation is currently insufficient. Therefore, the clinical feasibility of immune response activation by ICI monotherapy combined with thermal ablation may be limited, and thermal ablation may be more compatible with dual ICIs (the IO–IO combination) to induce strong immune responses.

Immuno-oncology (IO) combinations +/- VEGF targeted therapy (VEGF TT) in patients (pts) with advanced mit family translocation renal cell carcinomas (tRCC): Results from an international multicenter study.

343 Background: IO combinations are standard of care for first-line therapy of clear-cell RCC; however, non-clear cell histologies including tRCC were not included in the registrational trials. We previously reported a modest efficacy (objective response rate [ORR] &lt;20%) with IO monotherapy (PD-1 blockade) in tRCC (Boilève et al, JITC. 2018). The efficacy of IO combinations +/- VEGF TT has not been reported. Methods: This is a retrospective, international, multicenter study of pts with tRCC treated with IO-IO or IO+VEGF TT at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only pts with confirmed TFE3 or TFEB translocation by fluorescent-in-situ hybridization (FISH) were included. ORR and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. OS was measured from initiation of therapy till death or last follow up. We also assessed the association between OS and baseline prognostic variables. Results: 29 patients with metastatic tRCC were included in this analysis. Median age at starting therapy was 38 (IQR 27, 53) years. Female:Male ratio was 0.9:1. FISH revealed a translocation involving TFE3 and TFEB in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Most frequent metastatic sites at diagnosis were lungs (76%), liver (52%), retroperitoneal adenopathy (48%), and bone (38%). IMDC risk at diagnosis was favorable (31%), intermediate (45%) and poor (24%). Combinations of IO+VEGF TT and anti-PD1 (L1) + anti-CTLA-4 (IO+IO) were used in 11 and 18 pts, respectively. 17 (59%) pts received IO combinations as 1L, 7 (24%) pts as 2L and 5 (17%) pts as ≥3L. ORR in the IO+IO group was 1/18 (5.5%), while in IO+VEGF TT group was 4/11 (36%). For 20 (69%) pts, progressive disease was the best overall response. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months (mo), median PFS was 3.2 mo and median OS was 13.5 mo for all 29 pts (Table). Median PFS in the IO+IO group was 2.8 mo, and 5.4 mo in IO+VEGF TT group (HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.35-1.84). Conclusions: In this small retrospective study of tRCC, IO+IO therapy produced modest activity based on low ORR and short PFS while IO+VEGF TT produced numerically higher ORR and longer PFS. Insights into the biological basis of tRCC are necessary to develop more effective therapies for this rare and aggressive RCC variant.[Table: see text]

Predictors of objective response to first-line immuno-oncology combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the international metastatic renal cell database consortium (IMDC).

310 Background: Predictors of objective response to first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies remain elusive. We sought to characterise clinical variables and their association with investigator assessed best overall response. Methods: Using the IMDC, we retrospectively identified patients treated with 1L ipilimumab nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or approved IO/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations (IOVE). Patients were classified, per RECIST v1.1, as responders (complete or partial response (CR or PR)) or non-responders (stable or progressive disease (SD or PD)). Logistic regression was used to adjust for IMDC criteria. Results: Out of 1084 patients, 794 (73%) received IPI-NIVO and 290 (27%) received IOVE (axitinib+pembrolizumab, cabozantinib+nivolumab, axitinib+avelumab, lenvatinib+pembrolizumab). Favourable, intermediate and poor IMDC risk comprised 147 (16%), 517 (55%) and 272 (29%) respectively. Of the 898 patients with evaluable responses, 37 (4%) achieved a best response of CR, 343 (38%) PR, 315 (35%) SD and 203 (23%) PD. Corresponding median overall survival from time of 1L initiation was: not reached, 55.9, 48.1, and 13 months respectively (logrank p &lt; 0.0001). In a multivariable model, lung metastases and cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) (performed after diagnosis of metastatic disease and before 1L therapy) retained independent association with response, after adjustment for IMDC criteria. Factors not associated with response included (with univariable p values): gender (p = 0.58), age (p = 0.06), sarcomatoid histology (p = 0.99), smoking status (p = 0.39), liver (p = 0.63) and brain (p = 0.12) metastases. As in the VEGF monotherapy era, improved IMDC prognostic risk was associated with response. Results were similar when restricted to the IPI-NIVO cohort. Conclusions: Presence of lung metastases, CN and better IMDC risk group are associated with a higher probability of response to 1L immunotherapy combination regimens. Further work to identify reliable predictors of response to guide treatment selection and patient counselling is warranted.[Table: see text]

US physician perceptions of treatment decision making for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

311 Background: The immuno-oncology (IO) therapy combination nivolumab + ipilimumab, and the IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combination pembrolizumab + axitinib, received US FDA approvals in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We examined physician perceptions of concerns about and barriers to 1L treatment by class of regimen (IO-IO, IO-TKI, and single-agent TKI [SA-TKI]) in the United States. Methods: US-based oncologists treating ≥ 5 aRCC patients in the prior 12 months were identified from the Cardinal Health network, a community of &gt; 800 oncologists. Physicians were surveyed about concerns in prescribing and barriers to treating by class (scale of 1–5; 1 = no concern/not a barrier, 5 = most concerning/major barrier); mean scores are reported. Adverse events (AEs) of concern were selected from a prespecified list and respondents rank-ordered from most to least concerning by class. Physicians were also asked to gauge affordability and to rank-order 13 characteristics to identify key factors in prescribing preference. The impact of COVID-19 on aRCC care in practice was also assessed. Results: A total of 49 providers (84% community, 16% academic) treating a median of 20 (IQR 14–30) aRCC patients from across the United States participated. For IO-IO, the top 3 concerns in prescribing were AEs (4.3), patient out-of-pocket costs (OOP; 3.7), and unexpected late AEs (3.6), whereas patient OOP (4.3), AEs (4.1), and patient adherence (3.9) were of most concern for IO-TKI. For SA-TKIs, the top 3 concerns were patient adherence (3.9), patient OOP (3.9), and AEs (3.6). High patient OOP and impact on quality of life were the top 2 barriers in using IO-TKI therapy. The most concerning AEs were colitis, pneumonitis, and hypertension for IO-IO or IO-TKI, and diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, and hypertension for SA-TKI. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and complete response (CR) were ranked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd factors in prescribing preferences while patient compliance, patient preference, and practice reimbursement ranked 11th, 12th, and 13th. Patient OOP and drug acquisition costs (DAC) were the most important factors when considering the affordability of treatment, with the perception that IO-IO was the most expensive among the classes of therapy. The overall impact of COVID-19 on caring for aRCC patients was very limited, with a moderate increased use of telemedicine and a slight impact on the timing and number of routine care visits. Conclusions: OS, PFS, and CR ranked highest among the most important factors influencing selection of 1L treatment for aRCC. Factors of concern and barriers varied by class of treatment, with patient adherence and OOP affecting use of TKI or IO-TKI therapies, and AEs affecting the use of IO-based therapy. This study revealed perceptions of high patient OOP and DAC of IO-IO therapy, in contrast to our expectations.

CABOSEQ: The efficacy of cabozantinib post up-front immuno-oncology combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

318 Background: There are limited data to understand the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations (IOVE). The activity of subsequent 3L approved therapies post CABO has not been established. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, we examined all patients who received 2L CABO. We sought to identify the overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, approved IOVE combinations and other 1L approaches. Additionally, we examined these outcomes for patients that received an approved 3L treatment post 2L CABO. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk groups. Results: 346 patients were identified who had all received 2L CABO (78 post 1L IPI NIVO, 46 post 1L IOVE, 222 post 1L other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6% and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively. 84% had clear cell histology, 18.5% had a sarcomatoid component and 38.3% had bone metastases at diagnosis. Outcomes for patients that received 2L CABO, stratified by 1L therapy are outlined in the table, followed by outcomes for patients that received subsequent 3L therapy post 2L CABO. After adjustment for IMDC criteria, the HR for 2L CABO OS and TTF for IOVE vs IPI-NIVO were 1.73 (95% CI 0.83-3.62 p = 0.14) and 1.62 (0.89-2.95 p = 0.11), respectively. Conclusions: There is clinically meaningful activity of CABO post IPI-NIVO, IOVE and other standard 1L approved therapies. Broadly, time to event endpoints and response rates are similar irrespective of 1L therapy. Approved systemic therapies post CABO, mainly single agent VEGF inhibitors also have activity, though as expected this is diminished compared to earlier lines of therapy. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients when using single agent CABO.[Table: see text]

POSA150 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line (1L) Systemic Treatments in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC) in France

First-line treatment of aRCC has evolved from tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy in recent years, following approvals of immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies. Dual IO combination (nivolumab+ipilimumab [NIVO+IPI]) and IO+TKI therapies (pembrolizumab+axitinib [PEMBRO+AXI] and nivolumab+cabozantinib [NIVO+CABO]) have demonstrated clinical benefit over sunitinib and are now recommended in international treatment guidelines. Pazopanib showed non-inferiority to sunitinib. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of 1L aRCC treatments for an intention-to-treat population utilized in France from an all-payer perspective.

First-Line Immuno-Oncology Combinations for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): A Systematic Review of Phase III Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors rapidly changed treatment for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). First-line treatment now includes multiple immuno-oncology (IO) combinations that were approved over a short time period and were not directly compared in randomized clinical trials. Thus, clinicians face a challenge in individualizing first-line treatment to optimize clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically review clinical outcomes for first-line IO combinations for patients with mRCC. METHODS: Literature reporting outcomes from phase III clinical trials that evaluated first-line IO combination therapies was identified through a search of the PubMed electronic database following PRISMA guidelines. Abstracts were screened to identify manuscripts that fit the search criteria, and then, a descriptive review was performed. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 2,229 abstracts that met the initial search criteria, and then, it was narrowed to 431 abstracts using filters for “clinical trial” and a “ten year” time window. After review of the abstracts, six manuscripts were selected for data extraction and subsequent review. CONCLUSION: When compared to sunitinib, four IO combinations improved overall survival as first-line treatment, and five improved progression free survival for patients with mRCC. These IO combination therapies have unique characteristics, so clinicians should take into account patient and cancer factors to individualize treatment recommendations.

Venous thromboembolism events in patients with advanced cancer on immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Aim: To evaluate the correlation between venous thromboembolism events (VTEs) and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 403 patients withadvanced cancer on ICI-based regimens. Results: We report8% VTE incidence post-ICI initiation over a median of11.1months offollow-up. Compared withsingle-agent ICI, dual-ICI was significantly correlated with higher incidence ofVTE (odds ratio [OR]: 4.196, 95% CI: 1.527-11.529, p=0.005), but chemotherapy-immuno-oncologycombination was not(OR: 1.374, 95% CI: 0.285-6.632, p=0.693). Subsequent systemic therapy post-ICI was also independently associated with higher VTE incidence (OR: 2.599, 95% CI: 1.169-5.777, p=0.019). Conclusion: Our findings suggest potential underreporting ofVTE incidence in ICI clinical trials. As dual-ICI is becoming more prevalent in cancer management, clinicians should maintain vigilance regarding VTE in patients with advanced cancer on ICI-based regimens.

The use of immuno-oncologic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of liver transplantation. An interdisciplinary benefit/risk assessment

Multiple systemic therapy options have been recently approved for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In particular, immuno-oncology combination therapies can now achieve impressive response rates and significantly prolonged survival with good tolerability. These immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations are currently not only evaluated for the therapy of advanced HCC, but increasingly also in earlier stages in terms of peri-interventional therapy concepts and also for down-sizing to local therapies. In the context of liver transplantation (LTx), a particularly critical benefit/risk assessment must be made before the use of immunotherapeutics in the context of multimodal concepts, since the risk of a potentially lethal rejection can be significantly increased by immunotherapy. This review is based on a selective literature search performed between December 2020 and April 2021 in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Guidelines, expert opinions, and recommendations from professional societies were given special consideration. Nearly one in five LTx in Germany are performed due to HCCs. In this context, LTx is a curative therapy option not only for the underlying liver disease but also for the malignant tumor. Individual case reports indicate that IO therapy prior to LTx may increase the risk of rejection or liver failure after subsequent liver transplantation. Since 2015, immunotherapeutics have also been widely used for tumor therapy in patients after LTx. In small case series, rejection rates of 36%, associated with rejection-related mortality of 20% of treated patients, have been described. A similar incidence of rejection has also been described following the use of immunotherapeutics in patients after other organ transplantations. In the context of organ transplantation, IO therapy carries the risk of graft rejection, which can lead to graft loss and also patient death. However, from today's point of view, IO-based therapy can be considered in the context of organ transplantation with a careful benefit/risk assessment.