International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Risk Research Articles

8 Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: 8-year follow-up with analyses in favorable risk patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial

Abstract Background First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has provided substantial long-term survival benefits over sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in CheckMate 214. With a median follow-up of 8 years, the longest follow-up to date for any phase 3 trial of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in patients with aRCC, we report survival, response per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and safety in all randomized patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable risk. Methods Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Key study endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRRC-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (primary), ITT (secondary), and favorable-risk (exploratory) patients. Cancer-specific survival was evaluated in ITT patients by censoring all causes of death other than RCC. Post hoc exploratory analyses in patients with favorable risk were performed. Results With 8 years (99.1 months) median follow-up, OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN remained superior in ITT patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; Table). The HR for PFS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.88. ORR was higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (Table), with more complete responses (12% vs 3%) and a longer median duration of response (DOR) in the combination arm versus SUN. In patients with favorable risk, OS benefits were similar between arms (HR, 0.82; Table). The HR for PFS favored SUN (HR, 1.76). ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, yet more patients achieved complete responses (13% vs 6%, respectively) and median DOR was longer with NIVO+IPI. Median cancer-specific survival (95% CI) in ITT patients was 73.7 (62.8-91.2) months with NIVO+IPI versus 45.1 (37.8-53.3) months with SUN (HR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.82). In exploratory post hoc analyses of patients with favorable risk, 75/125 (60.0%) patients in the NIVO+IPI arm and 85/124 (68.5%) patients in the SUN arm died over 8 years of follow-up. Of these patients, 31 in the NIVO+IPI arm and 27 in the SUN arm died within 3 years of randomization; the primary reason for death was disease in either arm (71.0% and 85.2%, respectively). Furthermore, among 27 patients in the NIVO+IPI arm with favorable risk who died after disease progression within 3 years, 12 patients did not receive second-line systemic therapy. Beyond 3 years, only 2 of 43 patients who died after disease progression did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Among all treated patients, incidence of any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events remained largely unchanged. No new drug-related deaths occurred in either arm since the previous database lock. Table Conclusions With a median follow-up up of 8 years, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate sustained survival and more durable response benefits versus SUN in the ITT population, including a further reduction in the risk of death with NIVO+IPI as measured by cancer-specific survival. Long-term exploratory data in patients with favorable risk have shown a steady improvement in the HR for OS, and a marked improvement in median DOR and complete response rates with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, thus contributing to the survival and response benefits reported in the ITT population. Furthermore, the disproportionate number of patients with favorable risk who died within 3 years of randomization after documented progression without receiving subsequent therapy may have affected the HR for OS in this patient population early on. NIVO+IPI offers the potential for positive long-term outcomes, regardless of IMDC risk, and with no emergence of new safety signals.

Survival by depth of response and efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: analysis of the phase 3 randomized CLEAR study

Background: The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival.Objective: To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups.Design, setting, and participants: CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC.Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.Results and limitations: Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75 % target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of 91.7 %. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4 % vs 28.8 %) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified.Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS.Patient summary: In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a ‘‘complete response’’ or had their tumors shrunk by >75 % within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P+L) versus alternative therapies in first-line (1L) advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) by IMDC risk status: A network meta-analysis (NMA).

421 Background: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk criteria is a widely used prognostic model in advanced RCC. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P+L) demonstrated a significant improvement in ORR, PFS, and OS versus sunitinib in subjects with cc aRCC in the KEYNOTE-581/CLEAR trial. This NMA indirectly compared the efficacy of P+L to other therapies in 1L aRCC subjects within IMDC risk groups using data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify systemic therapies in 1L aRCC. Trials reporting results for IMDC favorable risk and/or intermediate+poor risk groups were included. A Bayesian NMA with fixed-effect models was performed to indirectly compare P+L to alternate therapies using sunitinib as the common comparator. Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were calculated with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The NMAs assuming constant hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were performed for all IMDC risk group categories. For the proportion of patients experiencing response, a binomial likelihood and logit link were used, and relative effects were expressed as odds ratios (OR). Results: For the IMDC favorable risk subgroup, P+L demonstrated statistically significant increase in ORR compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab (N+I) (OR=5.35; 95% CrI: 2.59, 11.41) and nivolumab (OR=8.41; 95% CrI: 1.84, 43.77). For PFS, P+L resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to N+I (HR=0.31, 95% CrI: 0.17-0.56). For OS, no significant differences were observed compared to other alternatives in the network. For the IMDC intermediate+poor risk subgroup, P+L demonstrated statistically significant increase in ORR compared to nivolumab + cabozantinib (N+C) (OR=1.77; 95% CrI: 1.02, 3.10), N+I (OR=3.15; 95% CrI: 1.94, 5.10), and nivolumab + ipilimumab + cabozantinib (N+I+C) (OR=2.34; 95% CrI: 1.34, 4.12), pembrolizumab + axitinib (P+A) (OR=2.65; 95% CrI: 1.57, 4.44) and nivolumab (OR=4.68; 95% CrI: 1.84, 12.02). For PFS, P+L resulted in a statistically significant improvement compared to N+I (HR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.41, 0.84) (P+A) (HR=0.64; 95% CrI: 0.44, 0.93), and avelumab + axitinib (A+A) (HR=0.65; 95% CrI: 0.46, 0.93). For OS, no significant differences were observed compared to other alternatives in the network. Conclusions: PFS analysis favored P+L over all alternative therapies in the network in favorable or intermediate+poor IMDC risk groups. ORR analysis favored P+L over all alternative therapies in the network in intermediate+poor IMDC risk groups. No significant difference in OS was observed between P+L and other alternative therapies in the network.

Assessing the prognostic value of IMDC risk score for nivolumab-treated patients with renal cancer and malignant melanoma.

The response of Renal Cell Cancer (RCC) to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has been well established. Although these stratifications have been established for TKI response and prognosis, these parameters have recently been used to predict immunotherapy response in RCC. We aimed to use a combination of clinical parameters of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups and metastatic sites at the time of diagnosis to predict the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignant melanoma (MM). In this cross-sectional study, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic information, metastatic sites, and IMDC risk group data. The blood parameters were included in the first cycle of nivolumab treatment. The OS was statistically different between the RCC and MM groups in terms of the IMDC. In univariate analysis of stage at diagnosis, CRP levels and bone and bone marrow metastases were confirmed to be prognostic factors in the MM population in terms of OS. Brain metastasis was a prognostic factor for RCC, whereas sex, line of treatment, LDH, bone, and splenic metastasis remained significant in patients with MM in terms of OS. Brain metastasis was prognostic in both cancer types in multivariate analysis in terms of PFS. In addition to brain metastasis, LDH levels and lung, liver, and splenic metastases also affect PFS in patients with MM undergoing nivolumab treatment. In our study, the IMDC was confirmed to be a prognostic factor for MM. The IMDC groups were similar, except for the favorable RCC and MM groups. Different metastatic sites were prognostic, similar to the IMDC risk group in the MM group.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundNearly 30% of new renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases are diagnosed at an advanced or metastatic stage. Recent approvals of immunotherapies (IO) have significantly impacted patient care, but real-world outcomes of these treatments have not been widely evaluated. MethodsEligible physicians abstracted demographic and clinical data from patient medical records for patients with advanced clear and non-clear cell RCC (aRCC) who initiated treatment between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox regression model was developed to assess the impact of treatment category on clinical outcomes while controlling for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, histology, and other patient characteristics. ResultsA total of 498 patients were included (201 from US, 62 from Canada, 58 from UK, 59 from France, 58 from Germany, 60 from Spain). Of these, 250 received tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, 197 received immunotherapy (IO) combination (119 IO+TKI, 78 IO+IO), and 32 received IO monotherapy as first-line treatment for aRCC; 19 patients received various other regimens. 16% of patients had a favorable IMDC risk score. Based on results of multivariable Cox regression, PFS (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.50 [0.36-0.72]) (P < .001) and time to next treatment (TTNT) were significantly longer (HR [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.39-0.73]) (P < .001) for patients treated with IO combination versus TKI monotherapy. IO combination had a numerically reduced, but statistically insignificant, risk of death versus TKI monotherapy (HR: 0.66; P = .114). IO+TKI combination was associated with significantly longer PFS and reduced risk of progression (HR: 0.52; P = .04) versus IO+IO combination; similar results were observed for TTNT (HR: 0.57; P = .03). ConclusionOur evaluation of real-world treatment outcomes in aRCC revealed that IO + TKI combination is associated with improved PFS and prolonged TTNT compared with TKI monotherapy and IO+IO combination.

Prognostic impact of the radiological infiltrative feature of primary renal tumor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Recent studies suggest that the radiological infiltrative feature (r-IF) of renal tumors is strongly correlated with poor oncologic outcomes in locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study investigated the prognostic impact of r-IF of primary renal tumors in metastatic RCC (mRCC) in comparison with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model. We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients with previously untreated mRCC. Dynamic computed tomography of the primary renal tumor was reviewed to assess r-IF, defined as a focally/extensively ill-defined tumor interface with normal renal parenchyma. The median age was 67 years, and 69 patients (76%) were men. Prior nephrectomy was performed in 47 patients (52%). The median size of the primary renal tumor was 6.7 cm, and 50 patients (55%) presented with cT3-4 stage. Overall, 25 (28%)/52 (57%)/14 (15%) patients were classified into IMDC favorable/intermediate/poor-risk groups, respectively. An image review identified r-IFs in the primary renal tumor in 40 patients (44%). The incidences of r-IFs were 28%/46%/64% in IMDC favorable/intermediate/poor-risk groups, respectively. During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 31 patients (34%) died of RCC. On multivariable analysis, r-IF and IMDC intermediate-poor risks were independently associated with poor cancer-specific survival (CSS). Two-year CSS were 64%/87% in patients with/without r-IF, respectively. C-index was improved from 0.73 to 0.81 by adding r-IF to the IMDC risk factors. R-IF of the primary renal tumor was an independent risk factor for poor CSS in patients with mRCC, which may improve the prognostic accuracy when combined with the IMDC risk model.

A novel prognostic model for oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma: COMPARZ study post-hoc analysis.

e16521 Background: International metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC) is the most commonly used prognostic model for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), however, its clinical application has been limited due to the cumbersome design and vague recommendation of treatment decisions for patients in the IMDC intermediate risk group. Previous studies indicated the favorable prognosis of oligometastatic RCC, but the definition of oligometastasis has not been clarified. This study aims to construct a new prognostic model of oligometastatic RCC based on the COMPARZ study cohort. Methods: Patients from the COMPARZ study (which was a randomized phase III non-inferiority study comparing pazopanib and sunitinib in advanced RCC or mRCC patients). Patients (N=1038) were divided into two cohorts for models construction respectively, Cohort A (n=293) with primary kidney tumor; Cohort B (n=745) without primary kidney tumor. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the independent prognostic risk factors for each model with overall survival (OS) as primary endpoint. Uno’s C-statistics was utilized to compare the novel risk model with IMDC risk. These models were then used to examine and stratify the patients in IMDC intermediate risk group. Results: In Cohort A, four risk factors were identified independent predictors for short survival. Patients were segregated into the oligo group and the non-oligo group. The concordance index (C-index) for Model A and IMDC risk model was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.59-0.67) and 0.65 (95%CI: 0.61-0.69), respectively (p=0.389). In Cohort B, three risk factors were identified as independent predictors of short survival. Patients were also divided into the oligo group and the non-oligo group. The C-index between Model B and IMDC risk model was 0.62 (95%CI: 0.59-0.64) and 0.61 (95%CI: 0.58-0.64), respectively (p=0.650). For Model A, mOS for non-oligo group was 13.4 months vs NR in oligo group (3y OS: 25.3 vs 51.8%), while for model B, mOS was 18.5 vs NR respectively (3y OS: 24.3 vs 57.5%). With the novel prognostic models, patients in the IMDC intermediate risk group could be further stratified into oligo group (mOS: NR; 3y OS: 55.6%) that had a better outcome than patients in non-oligo group (mOS: 19.2 month; 3y OS: 24.9%; p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Compared with the current IMDC model, the novel prognostic models of oligometastatic mRCC could well distinguish patients into favorable and poor prognostic groups with fewer risk factors and comparable predictive power. Meanwhile, the novel models can better stratify the IMDC intermediate risk group into oligo and non-oligo groups with significantly different OS outcomes, and is more conductive to the comprehensive treatment of patients with mRCC.

Impact of smoking status (SS) on the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO)-combination regimens: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

4555 Background: Active smoking is associated with decreased overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mRCC treated with VEGF targeted therapy (VEGF-TT) (Kroeger N. et al. 2019, IMDC investigators). Conversely, smoking history has been linked to improved OS in pts with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) receiving 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy (Popat S. et al., 2022). Herein, we assess the association between SS and outcomes in pts with mRCC treated with 1L standard of care (SOC) IO-based regimens. Methods: Real-world data from the IMDC were collected retrospectively. We included mRCC pts who received either dual IO therapy or IO + VEGF-TT in the 1L setting and known SS at disease diagnosis. Pts were categorized as current, former and non-smokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) on 1L IO-based regimens. OS and TTF were evaluated using Cox regression, adjusting for age at 1L treatment, IMDC risk groups, BMI, histological type and time from diagnosis to 1L treatment initiation. ORR was compared between the SS groups using a logistic regression, adjusting for the same confounders. Results: 989 pts were eligible and included. 438 (44.3%), 415 (42%), and 136 (13.7%) pts were non-smokers, former, and current smokers at diagnosis, respectively. Median time from diagnosis to initiation of 1L IO-based treatment was 0.47 years (IQR 0.13-2.15). At baseline, there were no significant differences in age at 1L, IMDC risk groups, KPS status, BMI, and presence of sarcomatoid features across the 3 groups (p&gt;0.05). Median follow up was 21.2 months from 1L IO-based treatment initiation. On multivariable analysis, no significant differences in OS, TTF or ORR were seen between the SS groups (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the first and largest effort to evaluate the impact of smoking on clinical outcomes in pts with mRCC treated with IO-based regimens. There was no association between SS at diagnosis and the clinical outcomes of patients with mRCC receiving current 1L SOC IO-based regimens. As opposed to other cancer types (i.e., NSCLC), current or past smoking history did not appear to be predictive of benefit from IO-based therapy. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of first-line (1L) immunotherapy (IO)-based regimens in patients with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC): Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

4519 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. [Table: see text]

Hemoglobin and neutrophil levels stratified according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk predict the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

To identify biomarkers associated with the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab against advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 75 patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at seven hospitals between August 2018 and April 2021. Prognostic biomarkers were assessed prior to initiating treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of disease progression. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk factors most important for predicting disease progression were determined using classification and regression tree analysis. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were longer in the intermediate IMDC risk group than in the poor IMDC risk group (overall: not reached vs. 18.3 months; progression-free: not reached vs. 13.5 months). The multivariate analysis identified poor IMDC risk as a risk factor for disease progression (hazard ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-6.51). Based on the results of the classification and regression tree analysis, the cohort was divided into non-anemia, anemia + neutro-Low, and anemia + neutro-High groups. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were longer in the non-anemia and anemia + neutro-Low groups than in the anemia + neutro-High group (overall: not reached vs. 29.3 months vs. 4.3 months: progression-free: not reached vs. 29.0 months vs. 3.9 months). Hemoglobin and neutrophil levels may represent crucial biomarkers for predicting the effectiveness of ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Extended follow-up from JAVELIN Renal 101: subgroup analysis of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

We report updated data for avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the third interim analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response per investigator assessment (RECIST version 1.1) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the overall population and in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups; safety was also assessed. Overall, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was not reached [42.2 months-not estimable (NE)] with avelumab plus axitinib versus 37.8 months (31.4-NE) with sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.643-0.969; one-sided P= 0.0116], and median PFS (95% CI) was 13.9 months (11.1-16.6 months) versus 8.5 months (8.2-9.7 months), respectively (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.568-0.785; one-sided P < 0.0001). In patients with IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, poor-, or intermediate plus poor-risk disease, respectively, HRs (95% CI) for OS with avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib were 0.66 (0.356-1.223), 0.84 (0.649-1.084), 0.60 (0.399-0.912), and 0.79 (0.636-0.983), and HRs (95% CIs) for PFS were 0.71 (0.490-1.016), 0.71 (0.578-0.866), 0.45 (0.304-0.678), and 0.66 (0.550-0.787), respectively. ORRs, complete response rates, and durations of response favored avelumab plus axitinib overall and across all risk groups. In the avelumab plus axitinib arm, 81.1% had a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and incidences of TEAEs and immune-related AEs were highest <6 months after randomization. Avelumab plus axitinib continues to show improved efficacy versus sunitinib and a tolerable safety profile overall and across IMDC risk groups. The OS trend favors avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib, but data remain immature; follow-up is ongoing. ClinicalTrials.govNCT02684006; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02684006.

External Validation of a Novel Risk Model in Patients With Favorable Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Defined by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC): Results From the Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) Database.

A novel prognostic model was recommended for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC). In this study, we aimed to externally validate a novel risk model for the IMDC-favorable risk group in patients with mRCC. The Turkish Oncology Group Kidney Cancer Consortium (TKCC) is a multicenter registry that includes 13 cancer centers in Turkey. As described by Schmidt etal., 3 parameters (ie, time from diagnosis to systemic therapy <3 vs. ≥3 years, Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] 80 vs. >80, and the presence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) were used to divide the IMDC favorable risk group into 2 new categories: very favorable and favorable risk groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) in the very favorable and favorable risk groups were the secondary endpoints. A total of 545 patients with mRCC from all IMDC risk groups and 112 patients from the favorable risk group were included in this study. According to the novel classification model, 44 (39.3%) and 68 (60.7%) patients with former favorable risk were categorized into very favorable and favorable risk groups, respectively. The median OS (55.8 months vs. 34.2 months, P=.025) and TTF (25.5 months vs. 15.5 months, P=.010) were longer in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group. The concordance index of the new IMDC model in all patients was 0.65 for OS. Despite the higher ORR in the very favorable risk group than in the favorable risk group, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (52.4% vs. 44.7, P=.573). This was the first study to externally validate the novel IMDC risk model presented in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium 2021.

Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study

BackgroundThe extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival. ObjectiveTo perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups. Design, setting, and participantsCLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC. InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisLandmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results and limitationsLandmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified. ConclusionsLenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS. Patient summaryIn this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a “complete response” or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Prognostic significance of 18F-FDG PET/CT indices in metastatic renal cell cancer and evaluation of revised IMDC risk model by including 18F-FDG PET-CT parameters.

Prognostic markers in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) are still insufficient. Any prognostic model objectively determines disease burden. To investigate the relationship between 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) parameters and outcomes in mRCC, and to define a revised International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model for the intermediate-risk group. A retrospective study of mRCC was conducted. To investigate the prognostic significance of 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were determined in pre-treatment images. Cutoff values were defined by ROC curve analyses and their association with outcomes was analyzed. Additionally, a TLG-adjusted IMDC model was created by stratifying intermediate-risk group patients according to TLG levels. The study included 52 patients. The disease control rate (DCR) was 61.5% and median overall survival (OS) was 18 months (95% confidence interval=9.2-25.8). In the univariate analyses, IMDC score, MTV, and TLG were prognostic factors for Disease Control Rate (DCR), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-Performance Status (PS), IMDC score, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), treatment option, MTV, and TLG were prognostic factors for OS (P < 0.05 each). In the multivariate analyses, MTV was an independent prognostic factor for DCR, and ECOG-PS, LDH, IMDC score, and TLG were independent prognostic factors for OS. According to the revised-IMDC model, the intermediate-favorable group showed longer OS than the intermediate-unfavorable group. Pretreatment MTV was independent prognostic factor for DCR and ECOG-PS, LDH, IMDC score, and TLG were independent prognostic factors for OS. Revised-IMDC model could identify patients with a worse prognosis among the IMDC intermediate-risk group.

Is CRP/Albumin Ratio (CAR) a New Parameter to be Added to Risk Stratification Systems in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients?

To evaluate the effect of pretreatment C-reactive protein (CRP)/Albumin ratio (CAR) on prognosis and its association with IMDC (International metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium) risk score and overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Descriptive study. Department of Medical Oncology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, between 2007 and 2020. Clinico-pathological and treatment-related data of mRCC patients were retrospectively evaluated and included in the study. CAR was used as a prognostic inflammatory score. CAR threshold value for OS has been obtained by ROC analysis. The prognostic value of CAR was tested using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression models. IMDC-CAR model was created by adding CAR to IMDC risk stratification. OS was 91 months in patients with CAR below the threshold value of 0.072 (<0.072), while OS was 51 months in patients with CAR of 0.072 and above (p=0.005). According to IMDC risk stratification, intermediate and poor risk groups showed similar survival times (p>0.05). However, when CAR was added to the IMDC risk score in the intermediate group, it was divided into 3 subgroups with different prognoses (p=0.02). CAR is an independent predictor of OS in mRCC patients. In this study, it has been demonstrated that more accurate prognosis prediction could be made by adding CAR to IMDC indicators in the intermediate risk group, which constitutes a highly heterogeneous group according to IMDC risk stratification. Renal cell cancer, Albumin, C-reactive protein, IMDC, Prognosis.

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.

Prognostic factors for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in the era of first-line (1L) treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

4544 Background: The most commonly used prognostic models in aRCC, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk scores, were developed when cytokines and VEGF targeted monotherapies were standard of care, respectively. aRCC 1L treatment now includes combination therapy with 2 ICIs or ICI+VEGF receptor inhibitor. Re-evaluation of the MSKCC and IMDC prognostic models in the era of ICI therapy and identification of additional prognostic factors are overdue. Methods: Data from 1052 patients with aRCC treated on the CheckMate-214 (CM214) clinical trial with 1L nivolumab/ipilimumab (NIVO/IPI) or sunitinib (SUN) were analyzed retrospectively at median follow-up 5 yrs. For each treatment group, multivariable Cox model hazard ratios (HR) were compared to the published MSKCC and IMDC model HRs. Discrimination (c index) was assessed based upon the continuous scores obtained as the weighted combination of regression parameters from the published MSKCC &amp; IMDC models. Results: KPS &lt; 80% remained highly prognostic in both treatment groups (HRs &gt; 2.5). With the exception of high calcium, the other factors of time from dx to treatment &lt; 1 yr, hemoglobin &lt; lower limit of normal (LLN), neutrophils &gt; upper limit of normal (ULN), platelets &gt; ULN and LDH &gt; 1.5xULN consistently retained prognostic value for SUN (HRs ≥ published model HRs) but had diminished prognostic value for NIVO/IPI (each HR &lt; published model HR). High calcium had diminished prognostic value for SUN and retained prognostic value for NIVO/IPI. The c-indices for discrimination were 0.61 and 0.64 for the MSKCC model in the NIVO/IPI and SUN treatment groups, respectively, and were 0.63 and 0.67 for the IMDC model in the NIVO/IPI and SUN treatment groups compared to reported IMDC c-index of 0.73 (Heng 2009). (Table) Conclusions: The prognostic ability of the MSKCC and IMDC risk models is reduced with combination ICI treatment. Evaluation of additional prognostic factors and development of new risk scores are needed and this work is ongoing. [Table: see text]

Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in IMDC favorable- and intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study of Chinese patients.

BackgroundPazopanib was recommended as first-line treatment option for Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), while evidence from strictly selected patients has poor external validity and clinical characteristics are complex in real-world clinical practice. This study aimed to illustrate the survival benefits and safety of pazopanib monotherapy using real-world data of mRCC patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective, multicenter, cohort study. We recruited adult patients with International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable- and intermediate-risk mRCC receiving first-line pazopanib from May 2017 to February 2020. Patients were treated with pazopanib 800 mg or 600 mg orally once daily. Treatment efficacy, and drug safety were analyzed. Response was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Drug safety was assessed according to the grade of treatment-related adverse reactions.ResultsBased on IMDC risk stratification, there were 46 (32.2%) patients in the favorable-risk group and 97 (67.8%) patients in the intermediate-risk group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the entire cohort, favorable- and intermediate risk groups was 21.2, 27.1 and 17.2 months, respectively. In the intermediate-risk group, PFS was much longer in patients with 1 risk factor than in patients with 2 risk factors, with a median of 25.9 months versus 11.2 months (P<0.0001). Patients with lung metastasis only had longer PFS than those with bone metastasis only, with a median PFS of 25.9 vs. 21.2 months, respectively. Furthermore, local therapy for the metastatic site appeared to benefit patients in the IMDC favorable-risk group but not those in the IMDC intermediate-risk group. The best response was 40/140 (29%) partial response (PR), 86/140 (61%) stable disease (SD), and 14/140 (10%) progressive disease (PD). The most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were change in hair color (47.7%), hypertension (40.0%), diarrhea (40.0%), proteinuria (38.5%), elevation of transaminase (35.4%), and hand–foot skin reaction (32.3%).ConclusionsThis real-world data analysis recommended that patients in intermediate-risk group need to be further stratified according to the number of risk factors. Pazopanib was most suitable for patients with lung metastasis only. Local treatment for metastatic lesions should only be recommended in IMDC favorable patients.

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]

First-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with pancreatic metastases: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

317 Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with pancreatic metastases (PM) is characterised by heightened angiogenesis, which is associated with improved outcomes with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. We aimed to compare the efficacy of first-line (1L) ipilimumab/nivolumab (IOIO) vs. anti-PD(L)1/anti-VEGF (IOVE) vs. VEGF monotherapy (VE) in mRCC patients with and without PM. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with and without PM, using the IMDC. Sites of metastases were captured at initiation of 1L. Patients with PM could also have metastases at other sites. We studied overall survival (OS) from start of 1L therapy using Cox regression, adjusted for IMDC risk groups. Kaplan Meier survival curves were generated. Results: 543/7,634 (7%) patients had PM. Patients with PM in the overall population had improved OS compared to those without, 56 vs 25.6 months respectively (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55-0.73, p&lt;0.0001). When examining the effect of PM within 1L options, those treated with IOVE exhibited a longer OS if PM were present vs absent, median not reached vs 45 months respectively (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.93 p=0.03). This association was also seen in patients with treated with 1L VE, in those with PM vs absent, median 53.1 vs 25.1 months respectively (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55-0.76, p &lt;0.0001). Contrastingly there was no difference in median OS of patients with or without PM in patients receiving IOIO, 41.4 vs 44.4 months respectively (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.56, p=0.62). Comparing the outcomes between 1L therapies in patients with PM the median OS of IOVE vs VE was not reached vs 53.1 months respectively (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.83 p=0.02). Conversely, upfront VE and IOIO had a similar median OS of 53.1 vs 41.4 months respectively (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45-1.47 p=0.49). We were unable to find any difference in OS between those treated with IOVE vs IOIO, median not reached vs 41.4 months respectively (HR 0.52 95%, CI 0.19-1.45, p=0.21), but the low event rate limited this interpretation. Conclusions: We found that the presence of PM leads to an indolent biological behavior and was associated with improved outcomes when 1L therapy included a VE component. PM patients had comparable OS outcomes on 1L VE and 1L IOIO therapy, but improved OS when treated with 1L IOVE. Anti-angiogenic therapy may be necessary to optimize outcomes in PM and this warrants prospective evaluation. [Table: see text]