Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Research Articles

First-Line Immune Combination Therapies for Nonclear Cell Versus Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Multicenter Data From Germany

IntroductionThe aim was to compare treatment outcomes of clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (ccmRCC) versus non-ccmRCC (nccmRCC) patients who received first-line immune combination therapies. Materials and MethodsWithin our retrospective multi-institutional consecutive database of eight tertiary-care centers, we identified mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combination therapies between 11/2017 and 12/2022. Using log-rank analysis and multivariable Cox regression, we tested for differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of nccmRCC versus ccmRCC patients. Covariables consisted of age at diagnosis, sex, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and sarcomatoid feature. ResultsOf 289 study patients, 39 (13%) patients harbored nccmRCC. Median OS was 37 months versus not reached for ccmRCC versus nccmRCC patients (P = .6). Median PFS was 13 versus15 months (P = .9). Multivariable Cox regression models did not identify nccmRCC as an independent predictor of higher overall mortality in mRCC patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.23; P = .6) or a higher progression rate (HR: 1.0; P = 1.0). ConclusionIn our real-world multi-institutional study, no differences between ccmRCC and nccmRCC patients receiving first-line immune combination treatment were observed, even after adjustment for important patient and tumor characteristics. More prospective trials in nccmRCC patients are needed.

Impact of smoking status on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens.

Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model. A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02). Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality.

Real World Analysis of Peritoneal Metastasis From Renal Cell Carcinoma. Meet-Uro27

BackgroundPeritoneal metastases (PM) have been reported in approximately 1% of patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). Outcome data are limited due to the rarity of this metastatic site. Therefore, the aim of our study is to describe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with PM treated as per clinical practice. Materials and MethodsBaseline characteristics and outcome data of patients with PM from RCC were retrospectively collected from 18 Italian oncological referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from January 2016 to January 2023. ResultsWe collect 81 RCC patients with PM. 78/81 received systemic treatment, 3/81 only best supportive care. First line treatment included tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI) (46/78), ImmuneOncology (IO)-TKI (26/78) and IO-IO (6/78), with different Objective Response Rate (ORR) (43.4% in TKI monotherapy group vs 50% in IO-TKI group, respectively) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) (60.8% in TKI treated patients vs. 76.9% in IO-TKI treated patients). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95%CI 4.18-14.8) in patients treated with TKI monotherapy vs 23.7 months (95%CI 11.1-NR) in patients treated with IO-TKI (p < 0.015). The median OS (mOS) was 22.7 months (95%CI 13.32 – 64.7) in the TKI monotherapy group vs 34.5 mo (95%CI NR-NR) in the IO-TKI group with 53.8% of patients alive at 1 years in the latter group, (p < 0.16). Primary refractory patients were 36.9% for TKI and 15.3% for IO-TKI. According to International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, mPFS and mOS were consistent among risk categories. Median PFS was 36.6 months (95%CI 10.9-NR) for good risk patients compared to 10 months (95%CI 7.5-29.8) for intermediate risk and 2.96 months (95%CI 2.43-11.28) for poor risk population (p < 0.0005) whereas mOS was NR (95%CI 28.65-NR) for good risk patients compared to 35.3 months (95%CI 24.6-NA) and 12.4 months (95%CI 3.52-NR) for intermediate and poor risk population, respectively, (p < 0.0002). Only 34/78 (43.5%) received a second line treatment that was TKI (ORR 8.3% and DCR 41.6%) or IO (ORR 18.1% and DCR 40.9%). ConclusionWe report one of the largest case series regarding PM from RCC. Characteristics of patients suggest a more aggressive behavior of PM from mRCC. Outcome data suggest that TKI-IO as first line treatment, and TKI as second line, confirm their activity for these patients with dismal prognosis.

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 &gt;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 &gt;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.

Natural history of bone-only metastasis in renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundBone metastasis (BM) is considered a poor prognostic factor of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Confusion exists regarding how to deal with RCC patients with bone-only metastasis. Patients and MethodsThe clinical data of consecutive RCC patients with bone-only metastasis at Peking University Cancer Hospital between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. ResultsFifty-four eligible patients were screened from an RCC database of 1,878 metastatic patients. After a median follow-up of 43.6 m, 61.1% of the patients were presented with progression of prior BM or new BM. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 16.2 m (95%CI: 11.4–21.0) and 65.2 m, respectively. For the 30 patients with oligo-metastasis (≤3 loci) and 24 ones with multiple-metastasis (>3 loci), the median OS was not reached and 42.0m (95%CI: 12.7–71.2) with statistical difference (P < 0.001). In the oligo-metastasis group, the median PFS of the 15 patients treated with local therapy and of the 13 patients treated with systemic therapy was 14.2 m (95%CI: 5.3–23.3) and 18.0 m (95%CI:15.4–20.6), respectively. In the multiple-metastasis group, the median PFS and OS of the 18 patients treated with systemic therapy was 16.6 m (95%CI: 7.5–25.7) and 63.9 m (95%CI: 21.8–106.0), respectively. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis showed that the number of metastatic sites (oligo/multiple) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score, RCC pathological subtype were significantly associated with prognosis (P < 0.05). ConclusionRCC patients with bone-only metastases have a favorable prognosis. The number of metastatic sites, IMDC, RCC pathological subtype could serve as survival predictors, which might provide clue of treatment modality.

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study.

Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy. The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS. Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59). We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Assessing the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: insights from the RELIEVE study's analysis of heavily pretreated patients.

The treatment of heavily pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) represents an unmet medical need and is still challenging. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of the lenvatinib plus everolimus combination and the secondary objective was the toxicity profile of this combination. We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study examining mRCC patients pre-treated with one or more lines of therapy among different cancer centers in Italy. The study included patients who received the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus as either a second-line treatment or beyond. We assessed progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and toxicity profile. In addition, we explored the potential relationship between treatment effectiveness and clinical and laboratory parameters. In all, 33 patients were assessed, the median age was 60 years, 57% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1-2 and. 63% received ⩾ 3 prior lines of therapy. 62% were 'intermediate risk' according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium and 30% were 'poor risk'. The RR was 42% (no complete response), 18% stable disease. Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI 6.8-19.9), median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI 0.6-30.8), and median TTF was 6.7 months (95% CI 4.8-16.6). A shorter OS was significantly associated with lymph node metastases (p = 0.043, 95% CI), neutrophils/ lymphocytes ratio (NLR) ⩾ 3 (p = 0.007), hemoglobin/red cell distribution width ratio cutoff value <0.7 was significant (p = 0.03) while a shorter PFS was associated with lung (p = 0.048) and brain metastases (p = 0.023). The most frequent G1 toxicity was diarrhea (24%), G2 was fatigue (30%), and hypertension and skin toxicity (6%) for G3. Our findings suggest a clinically relevant effectiveness of lenvatinib plus everolimus combination with an acceptable toxicity profile for heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

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.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients: data with a minimum of 3years of follow-up.

Long-term follow-up data regarding treatment outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma as a first-line therapy are limited in real-world Japanese populations. We retrospectively evaluated data of 56 advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with a follow-up of at least 3years. Survival, tumour response and adverse event profiles were assessed. A total of 41 patients (73%) were histopathologically diagnosed with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and 34 (61%) were categorized into the International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk group. The median follow-up period was 34.4months. Regarding an effectiveness profile, median progression-free survival, time to treatment failure and overall survival were 9.01, 12.5 and 49.0months, respectively. Objective response was observed in 27 patients (48%), including eight patients with complete response (14%), and the median duration of response was 30.8months. Multivariate analyses showed that clear-cell histology was an independent factor of longer overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.23, P=0.0013). Regarding safety profiles, adverse events of any grade and those with grade≥3 developed in 40 (71%) and 25 patients (45%), respectively. Median time to adverse event development was 1.68months. Treatment was interrupted in 28 patients (50%), and corticosteroid administration was needed in 25 (45%). The 3-year follow-up data showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy exhibited a feasible effectiveness in real-world Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, the high risk of adverse event development, which often requires treatment withdrawal and corticosteroid administration, should be considered.

Anemia in patients ≥ 75 years with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: an important poor prognostic factor in the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium model

BackgroundDue to an increase in life expectancy, the incidence of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in patients aged ≥75 years has been increasing. In this study we investigated the characteristics before treatment and the outcomes of systemic therapies for patients aged ≥75 years with mRCC and compared the results with those for patients aged < 75 years in order to determine whether differences in age influenced survival.MethodsA total of 206 consecutive Japanese patients with mRCC, including 47 patients aged ≥75 years, who received systemic therapy were included. Clinical data from medical records were retrieved and analyzed retrospectively. Survival analyses were determined using a Kaplan–Meier method, and analyzed with a log-rank test.ResultsElderly patients categorized as favorable risk group based on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) stratification system were significantly lower. Among IMDC risk factors, the rate of anemia was significantly higher in elderly patients. No statistically significant benefit in progression free survival for first and second line treatment was observed, whereas improvements in overall survival as well as cancer specific survival were seen in patients aged < 75 years.ConclusionsFor mRCC patients aged ≥75 years, a higher proportion of base line anemia, which resulted in higher rates of IMDC intermediate/poor risk, would be responsible for shorter OS/CSS. Furthermore, mRCC patients aged ≥75 years tend to receive BSC instead of second line active treatment. Overcoming under-treatment in elderly patients might help to prolong survival in mRCC.

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.

213P Prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line combination immunotherapies: Results from the International metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC)

213P Prognostic significance of absolute lymphocyte count in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line combination immunotherapies: Results from the International metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC)

Comparison of second-line treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: A single-center experience.

Renal cell carcinoma is the 10th most common type of cancer, accounting for 3.7% of all cancers. Our study examines patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received Axitinib or Nivolumab as second-line treatment. This study was designed as a retrospective analysis. Patients who received Axitinib or Nivolumab as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at the Istanbul University Oncology Institute Medical Oncology outpatient clinic were included in the study. A total of 81 patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up period of 18.5 months (2-260 months). Of these patients, 29 (35.8%) received Axitinib as second-line treatment, while 52 (64.2%) received Nivolumab. The median duration of second-line treatment was 14 months (6-52) for Axitinib and 13.5 months (3-77) for Nivolumab. In our study, Nivolumab was found to have statistically better PFS and OS outcomes than Axitinib in male patients, patients diagnosed with metastatic disease, those with a favorable or intermediate International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk score, patients diagnosed with metastatic disease or who developed metastasis within 12 months of diagnosis, those who developed metastasis ≥ 24 months after diagnosis, and patients with metastasis in a single organ. Both drugs are recommended as monotherapy for second-line and later treatments in the current NCCN guidelines for kidney cancers. Although there is no study in the literature showing that axitinib is more effective than nivolumab, nivolumab was found to be much more effective than axitinib in our study. Prospective studies with higher number of patients are needed on this subject.

Characterization of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Deferred, Upfront, or No Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Era of Combination Immunotherapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BackgroundThe role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy. ObjectiveTo evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status. Design, setting, and participantsUsing the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation. Outcomes measurements and statistical analysisOverall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias. Results and limitationsOf the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26–0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature. ConclusionsDespite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients. Patient summaryFor patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis.

Real-world Outcome of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Intermediate- or Poor-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Criteria Treated by Immune-oncology Combinations: Differential Effectiveness by Risk Group?

BackgroundRenal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions. ObjectiveThe objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC. Design, setting, and participantsData from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOverall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method. Results and limitationsThe median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4–55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6–51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5–55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6–51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature. ConclusionsOur results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations. Patient summaryRenal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients.

Impact of First Line Antiangiogenic Therapy Duration on Nivolumab Outcome in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated in the GETUG—AFU 26 NIVOREN

BackgroundIn metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (ccRCC), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and immune checkpoint are 2 main therapeutic targets. We investigated the impact of duration exposure to antiangiogenic on immunotherapy clinical outcomes in metastatic ccRCC. MethodsPatients from NIVOREN trial who received nivolumab after only 1 prior antiangiogenic therapy were included. Response rate, clinical benefit, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were prospectively analyzed depending on the duration of the first line (< 6 months, ≥6 months) and exploratory in patients with long first line exposure (≥18 months). The circulating levels of 8 plasma proteins and cytokines at baseline were collected and compared according to first line antiangiogenic duration. ResultsAmong 354 patients, 127 (36%) and 227 (64%) patients had received first line antiangiogenic for < 6months and ≥ 6months respectively. Respective duration of first line therapy was not associated with objective response to nivolumab (20.5% vs. 23.9%, P = .50), or PFS (HR 0.92; P = .421). Median OS was respectively 16.6 and 31.3 months in the <6 and ≥6 months subgroups respectively. Adjusted on international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk, age and metastatic site, OS was longer in patients with longer treatment duration in the first line setting (HR 0.73; P = .017). Duration of first line VEGFR TKI was independent from circulating levels of 8 proteins and cytokines at nivolumab baseline. ConclusionNivolumab activity in second line is independent from first-line duration of VEGFR TKI. However, first line VEGFR TKI duration ≥ 6 months is associated with longer OS.

Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, yet optimised treatment of patients whose disease progresses after these therapies is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine whether adding atezolizumab to cabozantinib delayed disease progression and prolonged survival in patients with disease progression on or after previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. CONTACT-03 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, done in 135 study sites in 15 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed with immune checkpoint inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus cabozantinib (60 mg orally once daily) or cabozantinib alone. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-response or web-response system in permuted blocks (block size four) and stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk group, line of previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and renal cell carcinoma histology. The two primary endpoints were progression-free survival per blinded independent central review and overall survival. The primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338269, and is closed to further accrual. From July 28, 2020, to Dec 27, 2021, 692 patients were screened for eligibility, 522 of whom were assigned to receive atezolizumab-cabozantinib (263 patients) or cabozantinib (259 patients). 401 (77%) patients were male and 121 (23%) patients were female. At data cutoff (Jan 3, 2023), median follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 10·7-19·3). 171 (65%) patients receiving atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 166 (64%) patients receiving cabozantinib had disease progression per central review or died. Median progression-free survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·8-12·3) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 10·8 months (10·0-12·5) with cabozantinib (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 1·03 [95% CI 0·83-1·28]; p=0·78). 89 (34%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and 87 (34%) in the cabozantinib group died. Median overall survival was 25·7 months (95% CI 21·5-not evaluable) with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and was not evaluable (21·1-not evaluable) with cabozantinib (HR for death 0·94 [95% CI 0·70-1·27]; p=0·69). Serious adverse events occurred in 126 (48%) of 262 patients treated with atezolizumab-cabozantinib and 84 (33%) of 256 patients treated with cabozantinib; adverse events leading to death occurred in 17 (6%) patients in the atezolizumab-cabozantinib group and nine (4%) in the cabozantinib group. The addition of atezolizumab to cabozantinib did not improve clinical outcomes and led to increased toxicity. These results should discourage sequential use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with renal cell carcinoma outside of clinical trials. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Exelixis.

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]

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.