Second-line VEGF TKI after IO combination therapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 684-684
Author(s):  
Igor Stukalin ◽  
Shaan Dudani ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Chun Loo Gan ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis

684 Background: Immuno-Oncology (IO) combinations are standard of care first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data on therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) post-progression on IO-combination therapy are limited. Methods: Using the IMDC, a retrospective analysis was done on mRCC patients treated with second-line VEGF TKIs after receiving IO combination therapy. Patients received first-line ipilimumab+nivolumab (IOIO) or anti-PD(L)1+anti-VEGF (IOVE). Baseline variables and second-line IMDC risk factors were collected. Overall response rates (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were determined. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed. Results: 142 patients were included. 75 patients received IOIO and 67 received IOVE pretreatment. The ORR of 2nd line therapy was 17/46 (37%) and 7/57 (12%) in the IOIO and IOVE pretreated groups, respectively (p<0.01). 2nd-line TTF was 5.4 months (95% CI 4.1-8.3) for the IOIO- and 4.6 months (95% CI 3.7-5.8) for the IOVE-pretreated group (p=0.37). 2nd-line median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI 10.8-35.1) and 11.8 months (95% CI 9.9-21.3) for the prior IOIO and IOVE groups, respectively (p=0.13). The hazard ratio adjusted by IMDC for IOVE vs IOIO pretreatment was 1.22 (95% CI 0.73-2.07, p=0.45) for 2nd line TTF and 1.43 (95% CI 0.74-2.8, p=0.29) for 2nd line OS. Conclusions: VEGF TKIs show activity after combination IO therapy. Response rates are higher in patients treated with VEGF TKIs after first-line IOIO compared to after IOVE. In patients with VEGF TKI after IOIO or IOVE, no difference in OS and TTF was observed.[Table: see text]

Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients including elderly subgroups: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4580-4580
Author(s):  
Steven Yip ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Raphael Brandao Moreira ◽  
Alex Wong ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Poor Risk

4580 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitor treatment outcomes are poorly characterized in the real world metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patient population, including geriatric patients. Methods: Using the IMDC database, a retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients treated with IO, as listed below. Patients received one or more lines of IO therapy, with or without a targeted agent. Duration of treatment (DOT) and overall response rates (ORR) were calculated. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the association between age as a continuous variable and DOT. Results: 312 mRCC patients treated with IO were included. In patients who were evaluable, ORR to IO therapy was 29% (32% first-, 22% second-, 33% third-, and 32% fourth-line treatment (Tx)). Patients treated with second-line IO therapy were divided into favorable, intermediate, and poor risk using IMDC criteria; the corresponding median DOT rates were not reached (NR), 8.6 mo, and 1.9 mo, respectively (p<0.0001). Based upon age, hazard ratios were calculated in the first- through fourth-line therapy setting, ranging from 1.03 to 0.97. Conclusions: The ORR to IO appears to remain consistent, regardless of line of therapy. In the second-line, IMDC criteria appear to appropriately stratify patients into favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups for DOT. Premature OS data will be updated. In contrast to clinical trial data, longer DOT is observed in real world practice. Age may not be a factor influencing DOT. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Stukalin ◽  
J. C. Wells ◽  
J. Graham ◽  
T. Yuasa ◽  
B. Beuselinck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting.Methods Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment.Results The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35.Conclusions Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

scholarly journals Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential First-Line Everolimus and Second-Line Sunitinib Versus First-Line Sunitinib and Second-Line Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (25) ◽  
pp. 2765-2772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Carlos H. Barrios ◽  
Tae Min Kim ◽  
Silvia Falcon ◽  
Thomas Cosgriff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy

Purpose A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients and Methods RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively). Conclusion Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.

scholarly journals STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TARGETED THERAPY IN METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA PATIENTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-141
Author(s):  
Galina N. Alekseeva ◽  
L. I Gurina ◽  
M. V Volkov ◽  
E. V Evtuchenko
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Favorable Prognosis ◽  
The One ◽  
Optimal Approach

Objective. To study the relapse-free overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients after the targeted therapy and to develop optimal approach to the treatment shedule. Material and methods. The research included 88 mRCC patients of mean age of 55.5 + 9.6 years, 63 (71.6%) men and 25 (28.4%) women. 42.0% patients had a favorable prognosis, 52.3% - intermediate one and 5.7% of the cases had poor prognosis. First line targeted therapy was carried out in 88 patients, the second line - in 26 patients, and the third line - in 7 patients. Results. The one or several lines of targeted therapy allowed to achieve 20 months of a median in survival without progression of the disease. Several lines of treatment increased a median of general survival up to 42 months in comparison with the patients who were involved in the one line of treatment (a median = 30 months), p = 0.001. Side effects of targeted therapy were reversible. In the first line targeted therapy the preference was given to sunitinib, in the second line - to sorafenib. Sorafenib had an advantage in case of not light-cellular forms of renal carcinoma. In cases with favorable prognosis factors, metastases into organ parenchyma, targeted therapy with bevacizumab was carried out.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document