scholarly journals Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M Geynisman ◽  
Ella X Du ◽  
Xiaoran Yang ◽  
Selvam R Sendhil ◽  
Viviana Del Tejo ◽  
...  

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (NIVO + IPI, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received NIVO + IPI had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with NIVO + IPI was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16576-e16576
Author(s):  
Amit Rauthan ◽  
Poonam Patil ◽  
Nitin Yashas Murthy ◽  
SP Somashekhar ◽  
Shabber Zaveri ◽  
...  

e16576 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) agents in combination with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has become a standard first line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Various combinations such as pembrolizumab + axitinib, avelumab + axitinib, nivolumab + cabozantinib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib have all shown better results than sunitinib. There is very limited data about this from India. Methods: This is a single center, retrospective study of mRCC patients, who received first line treatment was nivolumab or pembrolizumab with axitinib or lenvatinib. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Results: Between Jan 2019 to Jan 2021, 22 patients were treated with IO + TKI combination. 12 patients received axitinib, and 10 lenvatinib. Age range was 35 to 78 years with 18 males and 4 females. IMDC risk stratification showed 3 favorable (13.6%), 13 intermediate (59%) and 6 poor risk (27.2%) patients. 2 patients (9%) achieved complete response(CR), 13 (59%) partial response (PR), 4 (18.2%) had stable disease and 3 (13.6%) progressed. The ORR was 68%. Median PFS was 22 months (1 month- 24 months). OS at 1 year was 92%, and median OS was not reached. Grade 3/4 immune related adverse events (AEs) were seen in 3 (14.2%) patients (1 colitis,1 pneumonitis,1 encephalitis), for whom the IO was discontinued. TKI related grade 3/4 AEs were seen in 8 patients (38%), and were managed with dose reductions. Conclusions: Combination IO + TKI is a very effective first line therapy in mRCC. An ORR of 68%, median PFS of 22 months and 1 year OS of 92% is the best we have seen in our patients. The efficacy of this combination is seen in all IMDC subgroups. The combination is well tolerated, and the TKI AEs are comfortably managed with dose reduction. IO combinations should be preferred over single agent TKIs (sunitinib or pazopanib) as first line therapy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A205-A206
Author(s):  
Vasilii Bushunow ◽  
Leonard Appleman ◽  
Roby Thomas

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are first-line therapy for tumors including metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Use of ICI is complicated by diverse immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can add significant morbidity but are also associated with improved efficacy of therapy.1 2 Risk factors for development of irAE are still poorly understood. We hypothesized that patients with mRCC treated with ICI as first-line therapy have higher rates of developing irAE’s than patients previously treated with other therapies.MethodsWe conducted a single-institution, retrospective medical record review of patients with mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors from March 2011 through April 15, 2020. We identified therapy duration, and presence, severity, and treatment of adverse events. We defined overall survival as time elapsed from date of diagnosis until death or until completion of study. We classified severity of adverse events according to CTCAE guidelines. Statistical methods included univariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for subgroups.ResultsA total of 64 unique charts were reviewed. 18 patients (28%) of patients were treated with ICI as first-line therapy. 28 patients (44%) experienced immune-related adverse events with a total of 40 irAE’s identified. Most irAE were grade I-II (78%), with 7 (17%) grade III and 1 (2.4%) grade IV irAE’s. Most common sites were skin (29%), thyroid (20%) and gastrointestinal (15%). Patients with irAE had increased survival compared to those who did not have irAE (median survival not reached, vs 139 weeks, p=0.0004) (figure 1). This finding remained after excluding patients who had only experienced dermatologic irAE (median survival not reached in non-derm irAE subgroup, vs 144 weeks for dermatologic or no irAE, p=0.01) (figure 2). Patients treated with ICI as first line therapy had greater rates of developing irAE (72%) than those who had prior therapies (32%) (OR 5.4; p = 0.006). There was no association between histology type and rate of irAE.Abstract 191 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with any irAE and those without any irAEAbstract 191 Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with non-dermatologic irAE and those without any irAE or only dermatologic irAEConclusionsThe development of irAE’s in patients with mRCC treated with ICI is associated with longer survival. This study joins the growing body of evidence showing that presence of irAE’s is associated with increased treatment efficacy. Use of ICI as first-line therapy is associated with higher risk of irAE. Given growing use of ICI as first-line therapy, further study to predict onset and severity of irAE’s is required.AcknowledgementsHong Wang, PhD, for statistical support.Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Approval number STUDY19100386.ReferencesElias R, Yan N, Singla N, Levonyack N, Formella J, Christie A, et al. Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated renal cell carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(7):S645.Verzoni E, Cartenì G, Cortesi E, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and association between immune-related adverse events and survival: the Italian expanded access program. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7(1):99.


BMC Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah L. Buckley ◽  
Fiona J. Collinson ◽  
Gemma Ainsworth ◽  
Heather Poad ◽  
Louise Flanagan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. Methods The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. Discussion The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. Trial registration PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). Trial status At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 666-666
Author(s):  
Ilya Tsimafeyeu ◽  
Pavel Borisov ◽  
Ahmed Abdelgafur ◽  
Roman Leonenkov ◽  
Olga Novikova ◽  
...  

666 Background: Targeted therapy with axitinib resulted in a greater objective response rate and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in AXIS study. 75% of patients had intermediate and poor IMDC prognosis. In this phase 2 study, we assessed the activity of axitinib in mRCC patients with favourable risk and a history of prior VEGFR-directed therapy. Methods: Patients were required to have clear cell mRCC, favourable risk according to IMDC criteria, and to have received first-line treatment with sunitinib or pazopanib. Prior treatment with other agents was not permitted. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. Additional endpoints included response rate, safety, and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 21 patients were enrolled, 62% of whom were male. Median age was 59 years. 11 (52%) patients had 2 and more metastatic sites. 67% and 33% of patients received first-line sunitinib or pazopanib with a median PFS of 17 months (95% CI 14-20). After a median follow-up of 16 months, the median PFS and OS was not yet reached. The current study did achieve its primary endpoint based on the 10-month PFS of 71.4%. 3 (14.3%) patients had confirmed partial responses and 14 (66.7%) had stable disease. No grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed; the most frequent grade 1/2 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (57.1%), fatigue (57.1%), GI (33%) and skin (19%) toxicity. 7 patients had dose-escalation of axitinib and 1 patient had dose reduction. Conclusions: The encouraging PFS and favorable safety profile observed in FavorAx study support the administration of axitinib in mRCC patients with favourable IMDC risk and a history of prior sunitinib or pazopanib. Clinical trial information: NCT02700568.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5049-5049 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Parasuraman ◽  
G. Hudes ◽  
D. Levy ◽  
A. Strahs ◽  
L. Moore ◽  
...  

5049 Background: In a phase 3, randomized, 3-arm study of TEMSR or IFN or the combination of TEMSR + IFN in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and poor-prognostic features, TEMSR improved overall survival (p=0.0069) and progression-free survival (p=0.0001) vs. IFN (Hudes et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:LBA4). Quality-adjusted survival was a pre-defined endpoint and is reported. Methods: Quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity (QTWiST) was estimated by partitioning overall survival into 3 distinct health states: time with serious toxicity, time with progression, and time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST). Survival was value-weighted when patients completed quality of life questionnaires (EQ-5D) at weeks 12 and 32, when a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) was reported, upon relapse or progression, or upon withdrawal from the study. Treatment group comparisons used restricted means analyses estimated from censored survival data. Restricted means were computed for duration of each health state by truncating data at median follow-up (17.9 months). Variance and covariance were estimated using bootstrap methods. Results: All 626 randomized patients in the study were included in computation of health state durations. EQ-5D questionnaires were obtained from 260/300 (87%) upon progression and 230/570 (40%) after a grade 3/4 AE. Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 38% greater TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=6.5 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.00048). There was no significant difference in TWiST between the combination arm and IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=5.4 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.1288). Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 23% greater Q-TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=7.0 months vs. IFN=5.7 months; p=0.0015). There was no significant difference in Q-TWiST for the combination arm compared with IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=6.1 months vs. IFN=5.7 months, p=0.3469). Conclusions: Patients with advanced RCC receiving TEMSR alone had significantly greater quality-adjusted survival than those receiving IFN alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 461-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Nozawa ◽  
Takashi Kikuchi ◽  
Mitsutoshi Nishimoto ◽  
Yasuyuki Kobayashi ◽  
Hirotsugu Uemura

461 Background: Everolimus and temsirolimus have proven their efficacy and are used for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). They both are rapamycin derivatives and are categorized as mTOR inhibitors. There have been few reports that examined the difference between these two agents regarding adverse events. Our objective was to investigate the difference in the safety of both agents on the basis of our clinical experience. Methods: We identified patients with mRCC who had been treated with everolimus or temsirolimus at our hospital. Treatment duration, relative dose intensity, laboratory data, and adverse events during treatment with each agent were evaluated. Results: A total of 55 patients were evaluable. 43 of those had been treated with everolimus, 22 with temsirolimus, and 10 with both agents. There was no significant difference in age and gender between the two treatment groups. Median treatment durations of the everolimus and temsirolimus groups were 2.4 months and 1.8 months, respectively. Relative dose intensities of the everolimus and temsirolimus groups were 71.6 % and 75.4 %, respectively. Anemia, hyperglycemia, stomatitis, and interstitial lung disease (ILD) were detected with higher frequency in the everolimus group. In the everolimus group, 31 % of patients developed any grade of ILD including 15 % of grade 3, whereas ILD was reported in only one patient treated with temsirolimus with no grade 3 or higher. Frequencies of adverse events of grade 3 or higher were 49 % in the everolimus group and 26 % in the temsirolimus group. Conclusions: Adverse-event profiles of everolimus and temsirolimus may differ from each other. Respiratory disorders may occur more frequently and severely in patients treated with everolimus than temsirolimus. These findings suggest the difference in the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and treatment regimen of these two agents may result in different adverse events even though they target the same molecule.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document