Search

Moshe C Ornstein,1 Lisa C Rosenblatt,2 Xin Yin,2 Viviana Del Tejo,2 Sarah B Guttenplan,2 Flavia Ejzykowicz,2 Kathleen Beusterien,3 Oliver Will,3 deMauri S Mackie,3 Grace Skiles,3 Marc DeCongelio3 1Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 2Global HEOR Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA; 3Real World Evidence, Oracle Life Sciences, Austin, TX, USACorrespondence: Marc DeCongelio, Oracle Life Sciences, 2800 Rock Creek Parkway, North Kansas City, MO, 64117, USA, Tel +18162011975, Email marc.decongelio@oracle.comIntroduction: The treatment landscape for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has evolved quickly with the introduction of immunotherapies as a first-line treatment option. This study examined the preferences of patients with aRCC to better understand the characteristics of preferred treatments and the tradeoffs patients are willing to make when choosing treatment.Methods and Materials: An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted in the US from May to August 2022 with adult patients with aRCC. A discrete-choice experiment assessed treatment preferences for aRCC. Attributes were identified through literature review and qualitative interviews and included progression-free survival, survival time, objective response rate, duration of response, risk of serious side effects, quality of life (QoL), and treatment regimen.Results: Survey results from 299 patients with aRCC were analyzed. Patients had a mean age of 55.7 years, were primarily White (50.5%) and were evenly representative of males (49.8%) and females (48.8%). Improvements in all attributes influenced treatment choice. On average, increasing survival time from 10% to 55% was most important, followed by improvements in QoL (ie, from worsens a lot to improves) and improvements to treatment regimen convenience (ie, less frequent infusions). Risk of serious adverse events and increased progression-free time, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were of lesser importance.Conclusion: In this study, patients highlighted that improving survival time was the most important and that QoL is also an important consideration. Discussions during treatment decision-making may benefit from broader conversations around treatment characteristics, including impacts on QoL and convenience of the regimen.Keywords: discrete choice experiment, patient preference, treatment preference, renal cell carcinoma

Purpose: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) is a first-in-class combination immunotherapy for the treatment of intermediate- or poor (I/P)-risk advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Currently, there are limited real-world data regarding clinical effectiveness beyond 12-24 months from treatment initiation. In this real-world study, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were evaluated for NIVO + IPI in a community oncology setting., Methods: A retrospective analysis using electronic medical record data from The US Oncology Network examined patients with I/P-risk clear cell mRCC who initiated first-line (1L) NIVO + IPI between January 4, 2018, and December 31, 2019, with follow-up until June 30, 2022. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical effectiveness, and safety outcomes were assessed descriptively. Overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: Among 187 patients identified (median follow-up, 22.4 months), with median age 63 (range, 30-89) years, 74 (39.6%) patients had poor risk and 37 (19.8%) patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score ≥2. Of 86 patients who received second-line therapy, 54.7% received cabozantinib and 10.5% received pazopanib. The median (95% CI) OS and rwPFS were 38.4 (24.7-46.1) months and 11.1 (7.5-15.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 89 (47.6%) patients, including fatigue (n = 25, 13.4%) and rash (n = 19, 10.2%)., Conclusion: This study provides data to support the understanding of the real-world utilization and long-term effectiveness of 1L NIVO + IPI in patients with I/P-risk mRCC. TRAE rates were low relative to clinical trials.

Background: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials., Objective: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426., Intervention: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib., Results and Limitations: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC., Patient Summary: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking., Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars., Results: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU., Conclusion: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Objectives: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC., Methods: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms., Results: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Patients discontinuing immuno-oncology regimens may experience periods of disease control without need for ongoing anticancer therapy, but toxicity may persist. We describe treatment-free survival (TFS), with and without toxicity., Patients and Methods: Data were analyzed from the randomized phase III CheckMate 214 trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab ( n = 550) versus sunitinib ( n = 546) for treatment-naïve, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). TFS was estimated by the 42-month restricted mean times defined by the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for two time-to-event endpoints defined from randomization: time to protocol therapy cessation and time to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death. TFS was subdivided as TFS with and without toxicity by counting days with ≥1 grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE)., Results: At 42 months since randomization, 52% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 39% of sunitinib intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive; 18% and 5% surviving treatment-free, respectively. Among favorable-risk patients, 70% and 73% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and sunitinib patients were alive; 20% and 9% treatment-free. Over the 42-month period, mean TFS was over twice as long after nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk (6.9 vs. 3.1 months) and three times as long for favorable-risk patients (11.0 vs. 3.7 months). Mean TFS with grade ≥3 TRAEs was a small proportion of time for both treatments (0.6 vs. 0.3 months after nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. sunitinib for intermediate/poor-risk, and 0.9 vs. 0.3 months for favorable-risk patients)., Conclusions: Patients initiating first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for aRCC spent more survival time treatment-free without toxicity versus those on sunitinib, regardless of risk group., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)