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?
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
37481365
DOI
10.1016/j.euo.2023.07.003
PII: S2588-9311(23)00145-1
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- ARON-1 study, Immune-oncology combinations, Immunotherapy, Intermediate-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, NCT05287464, Poor-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, Renal cell carcinoma, Survival,
- MeSH
- inhibitory tyrosinkinasy MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk * farmakoterapie patologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory ledvin * farmakoterapie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Názvy látek
- inhibitory tyrosinkinasy MeSH
BACKGROUND: Renal 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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 PARTICIPANTS: Data 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 ANALYSIS: Overall 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 LIMITATIONS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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 SUMMARY: Renal 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.
Azienda Ospedaliero Universitario Mater Domini Policlinico of Catanzaro Catanzaro Italy
Clinical Oncology Sociedad de oncología y hematología del Cesar Valledupar Colombia
Department of Internal Medicine Hematology Oncology Ochsner Medical Center New Orleans LA USA
Department of Medical Oncology Army Hospital Research and Referral New Delhi India
Department of Medical Oncology Centre Hospitalier de Jolimont Haine Saint Paul Belgium
Department of Medical Oncology Hospital Ramón y Cajal Madrid Spain
Department of Medical Oncology Maggiore della Carità University Hospital Novara Italy
Department of Medical Oncology MD Anderson Cancer Center Madrid Madrid Spain
Department of Oncology San Camillo Forlanini Hospital Rome Italy
Department of Oncology Tays Cancer Center Tampere University Hospital Tampere Finland
Department of Urology Medical University of Innsbruck Innsbruck Austria
Department of Urology University Hospital Bonn Bonn Germany
Division of Medical Oncology A O U Consorziale Policlinico di Bari Bari Italy
Division of Medical Oncology National Cancer Centre Singapore Singapore
Division of Oncology Department of Internal Medicine Medical University of Graz Graz Austria
Division of Oncology Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment Alba Brà Italy
IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino Genoa Italy
Klinik für Urologie Lübeck Germany
Markey Cancer Center University of Kentucky Lexington KY USA
Medical and Translational Oncology Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria Terni Italy
Medical Oncology 1 IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute Rome Italy
Medical Oncology Department La Paz University Hospital Madrid Spain
Medical Oncology IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna Bologna Italia
Medical Oncology Tawam Hospital Al Ain United Arab Emirates
Medical Oncology Unit Gemelli Molise Hospital Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Campobasso Italy
Medical Oncology Unit Santa Chiara Hospital Trento Italy
Oncologia Medica Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS Roma Italy
Oncology 3 Unit Department of Oncology Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS Padova Italy
Oncology Candiolo Cancer Institute IRCCS FPO Torino Italy
Oncology Unit 2 University Hospital of Pisa Pisa Italy
Oncology Unit A R N A S Civico Palermo Italy
Oncology Unit Macerata Hospital Macerata Italy
Unità di Oncologia Medica Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari Cagliari Italy
UOC di Oncologia Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale Cardarelli di Napoli Naples Italy
UOC Oncologia Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord Italy
UOC Oncologia Medica Ospedale A Murri Fermo Italy
Urologic Oncology Champalimaud Clinical Center Lisbon Portugal
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org