Back to Search Start Over

First-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the international mRCC database consortium (IMDC)

Authors :
Shaan Dudani
Jeffrey Graham
Connor Wells
Ziad Bakouny
Sumanta K. Pal
Nazli Dizman
Frede Donskov
Camillo Porta
Guillermo de Velasco
Aaron Richard Hansen
Marco Adelmo James Iafolla
Benoit Beuselinck
Ulka N. Vaishampayan
Lori Wood
Elizabeth Chien Hern Liow
Flora Yan
Takeshi Yuasa
Georg A. Bjarnason
Toni K. Choueiri
Daniel Yick Chin Heng
Source :
Journal of Clinical Oncology. 37:4577-4577
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2019.

Abstract

4577 Background: In mRCC, ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) is a 1L treatment option. Recent data have also shown efficacy of 1L IO-VEGF (IOVE) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these two strategies are limited and the efficacy of subsequent therapies remains unknown. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients (pts) treated with any 1L IOVE combination were compared to those treated with ipi-nivo. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in IMDC risk factors. Results: 188 pts received 1L IO combination therapy: 113 treated with IOVE combinations and 75 with ipi-nivo. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were comparable between groups. When comparing IOVE combinations vs ipi-nivo, 1L response rate (RR) was 33% vs 40% (p=0.39), time to treatment failure (TTF) was 14.3 (95% CI 9.2-16.1) vs 10.2 months (95% CI 6.7-15.1, p=0.23), and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 22.3-NR) vs NR (95% CI 35.1-NR, p=0.17). When adjusted for IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) for TTF was 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.12, p=0.14) and the HR for death was 1.74 (95% CI 0.82-3.68, p=0.14). Second-line (2L) treatments were varied. In pts receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, 2L RR was lower in the IOVE (n=20) versus ipi-nivo (n=20) cohort (15% vs 45%; p=0.04), though 2L TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 months, p=0.40, n=55). The use of IO post IOVE was uncommon and 3/5 pts had PD as best response; 2/5 had PR/SD but their 1L IOVE exposure was short at

Subjects

Subjects :
Cancer Research
Oncology

Details

ISSN :
15277755 and 0732183X
Volume :
37
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi...........caa8a937b57e0a2f26f3754e67e83ad8
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.4577