Impact of smoking status on clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens.

BACKGROUND: Current tobacco smoking is independently associated with decreased overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted monotherapy (VEGF-TKI). Herein, we assess the influence of smoking status on the outcomes of patients with mRCC treated with the current first-line standard of care of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Real-world data from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were collected retrospectively. Patients with mRCC who received either dual ICI therapy or ICI with VEGF-TKI in the first-line setting were included and were categorized as current, former, or nonsmokers. The primary outcomes were OS, time to treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR). OS and TTF were compared between groups using the log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression models. ORR was assessed between the 3 groups using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 989 eligible patients were included in the analysis, with 438 (44.3%) nonsmokers, 415 (42%) former, and 136 (13.7%) current smokers. Former smokers were older and included more males, while other baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median follow-up for OS was 21.2 months. In the univariate analysis, a significant difference between groups was observed for OS (P = .027) but not for TTF (P = .9), with current smokers having the worse 2-year OS rate (62.8% vs 70.8% and 73.1% in never and former smokers, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, no significant differences in OS or TTF were observed among the 3 groups. However, former smokers demonstrated a higher ORR compared to never smokers (OR 1.45, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Smoking status does not appear to independently influence the clinical outcomes to first-line ICI-based regimens in patients with mRCC. Nonetheless, patient counseling on tobacco cessation remains a crucial aspect of managing patients with mRCC, as it significantly reduces all-cause mortality.

Outcomes of Patients with Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Therapies: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival.

Characterization of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Deferred, Upfront, or No Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Era of Combination Immunotherapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has not yet been well characterized in the era of combination immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy according to CN status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), patients with mRCC who received frontline IO-based combinations were included. Upfront CN was defined as CN up to 3 mo before diagnosis of metastatic disease but before systemic therapy initiation. Deferred CN was defined as CN after systemic therapy initiation. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) from initiation of systemic therapy was estimated via Cox proportional-hazards regression. A 12-mo landmark time and a time-varying covariate for CN status were used to mitigate potential bias. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 385 patients eligible for landmark analysis, 24, 182, and 179 underwent deferred CN, upfront CN, and no CN, respectively. Patients in the no CN subgroup were older (63 yr vs 57 yr in the deferred CN subgroup and 60 yr in the upfront CN subgroup; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion had bone metastases (44% vs 26% in the deferred CN subgroup and 23% in the upfront CN subgroup; p < 0.001). A lower proportion of patients in the upfront CN subgroup had IMDC poor risk (23% vs 43% in the no CN subgroup and 47% in the deferred CN subgroup; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, CN receipt was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.78; p = 0.005). The study is limited by the lack of randomization and its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in practice patterns with the advent of novel therapeutic agents, CN may still serve as an effective surgical intervention in carefully selected patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients with metastatic kidney cancer, surgery to remove the primary tumor was traditionally the treatment of choice, but immunotherapy drugs are now another option for these patients. We analyzed data for contemporary patients with metastatic kidney cancer who received combination immunotherapy as their first treatment. We found that in selected patients receiving immunotherapy, surgery to remove the primary tumor as well can result in better prognosis.

Outcomes for International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Groups in Contemporary First-line Combination Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVE: To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks. PATIENT SUMMARY: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting.

Characterization of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Experiencing Complete Response to First-line Therapies: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have demonstrated higher complete response rates in the immuno-oncology-based combination arms than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor arms in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to characterize real-world patients who experienced complete response to the contemporary first-line therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium, response-evaluable patients who received frontline immuno-oncology-based combination therapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy were analyzed. Baseline characteristics of patients and post-landmark overall survival were compared based on best overall response, as per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 52 (4.6%) of 1,126 and 223 (3.0%) of 7,557 patients experienced complete response to immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies, respectively (P = .005). An adjusted odds ratio for complete response achieved by immuno-oncology-based combination therapy (vs tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.17; P = .009). Among patients who experienced complete response, the immuno-oncology-based cohort had a higher proportion of non-clear cell histology (15.9% and 4.7%; P = .016), sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (29.8% and 13.5%; P = .014), and multiple sites of metastases (80.4% and 50.0%; P < .001) than the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was independently associated with post-landmark overall survival benefit in both the immuno-oncology-based and tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohorts, giving respective adjusted hazard ratios of 0.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.72; P = .016) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.21-0.38; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The complete response rate was not as high in the real-world population as in the clinical trial population. Among those who experienced complete response, several adverse clinicopathological features were more frequently observed in the immuno-oncology-based cohort than in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort. Complete response was an indicator of favorable overall survival.

CABOSEQ: The Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in Patients With Treatment Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC).

BACKGROUND: There are limited data evaluating the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) combinations (IOVE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the IMDC database, we sought to identify the objective response rate, time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, IOVE combinations, pazopanib or sunitinib (PAZ/SUN) or other first line (1L) therapies. Multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for underlying differences in IMDC groups, was used to compare differences in OS for 2L CABO based on preceding therapy. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-six patients received 2L CABO (78 post IPI NIVO, 46 post IOVE, 161 post PAZ/SUN, 61 post Other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6%, and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively. Patients that received 1L IPI-NIVO had a median OS of 21.4 (95% CI, 12.1 - NE [Not evaluable]) months compared to 15.7 (95% CI, 9.3 - NE) months in 1L IOVE and 20.7 (95% CI, 15.6 - 35.6) months in 1L PAZ/SUN, P = .28. Median TTF from the initiation of 2L CABO in the overall population was 7.6 (95% CI, 6.6 - 9.0) months. We were unable to detect a significant difference in 2L CABO OS based on type of 1L therapy received: 1L IPI-NIVO (reference group) vs. 1L IOVE HR 1.73 (95% CI, 0.83 - 3.62 P = .14), 1L PAZ/SUN 1.16 (95% CI, 0.67 - 2.00 P = .60), however given the retrospective observational nature of this work a lack of sufficient power may contribute to this. CONCLUSION: In a large real world dataset, we identified clinically meaningful activity of 2L CABO after all evaluated contemporary 1L therapies, irrespective of whether the 1L regimen included a VEGFi. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients.

Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: The association between treatment with first-line immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies and physician-assessed objective imaging response among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains uncharacterized. Objective: To compare the likelihood of objective imaging response (ie, complete or partial response) to first-line IO combination ipilimumab-nivolumab (IOIO) therapy vs approved IO with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (IOVE) combination therapies among patients with mRCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter international cohort study was nested in routine clinical practice. A data set from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) was used to identify consecutive patients with mRCC who received treatment with IO combination therapies between May 30, 2013, and September 9, 2021. A total of 899 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC who received treatment with a first-line IOVE or IOIO regimen and had evaluable responses were included. Exposures: Best overall response to first-line IO combination therapy based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in treating physician-assessed objective imaging response based on the type of first-line IO combination therapy received. Secondary outcomes included the identification of baseline characteristics positively associated with objective imaging response and the association of objective imaging response with overall survival. Results: Among 1085 patients with mRCC who received first-line IO combination therapies, 899 patients (median age, 62.8 years [IQR, 55.9-69.2 years]; 666 male [74.2%]) had evaluable responses. A total of 794 patients had information available on IMDC risk classification; of those, 127 patients (16.0%) had favorable risk, 442 (55.7%) had intermediate risk, and 225 (28.3%) had poor risk. With regard to best overall response among all participants, 37 patients (4.1%) had complete response, 344 (38.3%) had partial response, 315 (35.0%) had stable disease, and 203 (22.6%) had progressive disease. Corresponding median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI, 53.3 months to not estimable) among patients with complete response, 55.9 months (95% CI, 44.1 months to not estimable) among patients with partial response, 48.1 months (95% CI, 33.4 months to not estimable) among patients with stable disease, and 13.0 months (95% CI, 8.4-18.1 months) among patients with progressive disease (log rank P < .001). Treatment with IOVE therapy was found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining response (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.81; P = .002) compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20), receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.04-2.43), and favorable IMDC risk (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.39) were independently associated with an increased likelihood of response. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with IOVE therapy was associated with significantly increased odds of objective imaging response compared with IOIO therapy. The presence of lung metastases, receipt of cytoreductive nephrectomy, and favorable IMDC risk were associated with increased odds of experiencing objective imaging response. These findings may help inform treatment selection, especially in clinical contexts associated with high-volume multisite metastatic disease, in which obtaining objective imaging response is important.

Randomized Controlled Trials in Lung, Gastrointestinal, and Breast Cancers: An Overview of Global Research Activity.

Background: In this study, we compared and contrasted design characteristics, results, and publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and breast cancer. Methods: A PUBMED search identified phase III RCTs of anticancer therapy in GI, lung, and breast cancer published globally during the period 2014−2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and the Kruskal−Wallis test were used to compare RCT design, results, and output across the cancer sites. Results: A total of 352 RCTs were conducted on GI (36%), lung (29%), and breast (35%) cancer. Surrogate endpoints were used in 55% of trials; this was most common in breast trials (72%) compared to GI (47%) and lung trials (43%, p < 0.001). Breast trials more often met their primary endpoint (54%) than GI (41%) and lung trials (41%) (p = 0.024). When graded with the ESMO-MCBS, lung cancer trials (50%, 15/30) were more likely to meet the threshold for substantial benefit. GI trials were published in journals with a substantially lower impact factor (IF; median IF 13) than lung (median IF 21) and breast cancer trials (median IF 21) (p = 0.038). Conclusions: Important differences in RCT design and output exist between the three major cancer sites. Use of surrogate endpoints and the magnitude of benefit associated with new treatments vary substantially across cancer sites.

Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown. METHODS: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available. CONCLUSION: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

Interactive Data Visualization Tool for Patient-Centered Decision Making in Kidney Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients and providers often lack clinical decision tools to enable effective shared decision making. This is especially true in the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape of metastatic kidney cancer. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria, a validated risk prediction tool for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, we created and user-tested a novel interactive visualization for clinical use. METHODS: An interactive visualization depicting IMDC criteria was created, with the final version including data for more than 4,500 patients. Usability testing was performed with nonmedical lay-users and medical oncology fellow physicians. Subjects used the tool to calculate median survival times based on IMDC criteria. User confidence was surveyed. An iterative user feedback implementation cycle was completed and informed revision of the tool. RESULTS: The tool is available at CloViz-IMDC. Initially, 400 lay-users and 15 physicians completed clinical scenarios and surveys. Cumulative accuracy across scenarios was higher for physicians than lay-users (84% v 74%; P = .03). Eighty-three percent of lay-users and 87% of physicians thought the tool became intuitive with use. Sixty-eight percent of lay-users wanted to use the tool clinically compared with 87% of physicians. After revisions, the updated tool was user-tested with 100 lay-users and 15 physicians. Physicians, but not lay-users, showed significant improvement in accuracy in the updated version of the tool (90% v 67%; P = .008). Seventy-two percent of lay-users and 93% of physicians wanted to use the updated tool in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION: A graphical method of interacting with a validated nomogram provides prognosis results that can be used by nonmedical lay-users and physicians, and has the potential for expanded use across many clinical conditions.

Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials.

Canada has a long tradition of leading practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Here, we describe methodology, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs with Canadian involvement compared to RCTs from other high-income countries (HICs). A literature search identified all RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies published 2014-2017. RCTs were classified based on the country affiliation of first authors. The study cohort included 636 HIC-led RCTs; 155 (24%) had Canadian authors. Three-quarters (112/155, 72%) of Canadian RCTs were conducted in the palliative setting, compared to two thirds (299/481, 62%) of RCTs from other HICs (p = 0.022). Canadian RCTs were more likely than those from other HICs to be supported by industry (85% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). The proportion of positive Canadian trials that met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit was comparable to RCTs without Canadian authors (29% vs. 32%, p = 0.137). Thirteen percent (20/155) of all Canadian trials were affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Canada plays a meaningful role in the global cancer research ecosystem but is overly reliant on industry support. The very low proportion of trials that identify a new treatment with substantial clinical benefit is worrisome. A renewed investment in cancer clinical trials is needed in Canada.

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported. RESULTS: Among 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%. CONCLUSION: Despite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the treatment of older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) - an International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC) are underrepresented in immune-checkpoint inhibitor(ICI) registration trials. Here we compare the efficacy of ICI treatments in older vs. younger adults with mRCC. METHODS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium(IMDC), patients treated with a PD(L)-1 based ICI were identified. Older adult was defined as ≥70-years at the time of treatment. Descriptive statistics were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), time-to-next treatment(TNT), and overall response rate(ORR). Hazards ratios were adjusted(aHR) for IMDC risk factors, histology, line of treatment and older age. RESULTS: Of 1427 included patients, 397(28%) were older adults. ICI was used as 1st line(1 L) in 40%, 2nd line(2 L) in 49% and 3rd line(3 L) in 11% of patients. In univariable analysis, older adults had inferior OS compared to younger adults(25.1 m vs. 30.8 m, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TTF (6.9 m vs. 6.9 m, p = 0.4) or TNT(9.1 m vs 10 m, p = 0.3) between groups. In multivariable analyses, older age was not independently associated with worse OS(aHR = 1.02, p = 0.8), TTF(aHR = 0.95, p = 0.6) or TNT(aHR = 0.93, p = 0.5). Older adults had a lower ORR compared to younger adults(24% vs. 31%, p = 0.01), which was mainly driven by responses in 1 L(31% vs. 44%, p = 0.02) and not observed in 2 L/3 L. CONCLUSIONS: After multivariable analyses, older adults with mRCC treated with ICI had no difference in OS, TTF or TNT when compared to younger adults. Our data support that chronological older age should not preclude patients from receiving ICI based therapies.

An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries.

IMPORTANCE: The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden. OBJECTIVES: To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

Cabozantinib real-world effectiveness in the first-through fourth-line settings for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on the METEOR and CABOSUN trials. However, real-world effectiveness and dosing patterns of cabozantinib are not well characterized. METHODS: Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib between 2011 and 2019 were identified and stratified using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. First- (1L), second- (2L), third- (3L), and fourth-line (4L) overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Dose reduction rates and their association with TTF and OS were determined. RESULTS: A total of 413 patients were identified. The ORRs across 1L to 4L were 32%, 26%, 25%, and 29%, respectively, and the median TTF rates were 8.3, 7.3, 7.0, and 8.0 months, respectively. The median OS (mOS) rates in 1L to 4L were 30.7, 17.8, 12.6, and 14.9 months, respectively. For patients treated with 1L PD(L)1 combination agent (n = 31), 2L cabozantinib had ORR of 22%, median TTF of 5.4 months, and mOS of 17.4 months. About 50% (129/258) of patients required dose reductions. The TTF and mOS were significantly longer for patients who required dose reduction vs. patients who did not, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.202-0.672, p < 0.01) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.215-0.980, p = 0.04), respectively. Limitations include the retrospective study design and the lack of central radiology review. CONCLUSION: The ORR and TTF of cabozantinib were maintained from the 1L to 4L settings. Dose reductions due to toxicity were associated with improved TTF and OS. Cabozantinib has clinical activity after 1L Immuno-oncology combination agents.

Evaluation of Clear Cell, Papillary, and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasis Sites and Association With Survival.

Importance: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse. Objective: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020. Exposures: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases. Results: A total of 10 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site. Conclusions and Relevance: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged.

Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Targeted Therapy After Immuno-oncology Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have changed the treatment standards of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of targeted therapy following discontinuation of IO therapy in real-world settings has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment sequence and assess clinical effectiveness of targeted therapy for mRCC patients who received prior IO therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study using data from eight international cancer centers was conducted. Patients with mRCC were ≥18yr old, received IO therapy in any line, and initiated targeted therapy following IO therapy discontinuation. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORIs). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Models were adjusted for age, sex, therapy line, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 314 patients, 276 (87.9%) and 38 (12.1%) were treated with VEGFR-TKI and mTORI therapy, respectively. The most common tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments were axitinib, cabozantinib, and sunitinib following IO therapy. In adjusted models, patients treated with VEGFR-TKI versus mTORI therapy had lower hazard of TTD after IO treatment (aHR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71; p < 0.01). One-year OS probability (65% vs 47%, p < 0.01) and proportion of ORR (29.8% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01) were significantly greater for patients treated with VEGFR-TKIs versus those treated with mTORIs. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapy has clinical activity following IO treatment. Patients who received VEGFR-TKIs versus mTORIs following IO therapy had improved clinical outcomes. These findings may help inform treatment guidelines and clinical practice for patients post-IO therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients may continue to experience clinical benefits from targeted therapies after progression on immuno-oncology treatment.

Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The use of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) selectively for patients who show a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy may be an approach to select optimal candidates with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are most likely to benefit. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize outcomes of deferred CN (dCN) after upfront sunitinib, outcomes relative to sunitinib alone, and outcomes of CN followed by sunitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the prospectively maintained International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database to identify patients with newly diagnosed mRCC (2006-2018). INTERVENTION: Sunitinib alone, upfront CN followed by sunitinib, sunitinib followed by dCN. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to sunitinib treatment failure (TTF). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed; dCN was analyzed as a time-varying covariate to account for immortal time bias. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We evaluated 1541 patients, of whom 651 (42%) received sunitinib alone, 805 (52%) underwent CN followed by sunitinib, and 85 (5.5%) received sunitinib followed by dCN, at a median of 7.8 mo from diagnosis. Median OS periods for patients treated with sunitinib alone, CN followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by dCN were 10, 19, and 46 mo, respectively, while the median TTF values were 4, 8, and 13 mo, respectively. In multivariable regression analyses, sunitinib followed by dCN was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.60, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85, p = 0.003) versus sunitinib alone. Among CN-treated patients, sunitinib followed by dCN was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90, p = 0.005) compared with upfront CN followed by sunitinib. In various sensitivity analyses, dCN remained significantly associated with improved OS and TTF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received dCN were carefully selected and achieved long OS. With these benchmark outcomes, optimal selection criteria need to be identified and confirmation of the role of dCN in a clinical trial is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We characterized benchmark survival outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with sunitinib alone, nephrectomy (kidney removal) followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by nephrectomy. Patients who had their nephrectomy after an initial course of sunitinib had prolonged survival.

Outcomes in Black and White Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Insights From Two Large Cohorts.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether black race is an independent predictor of overall survival (OS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective 2-cohort (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium [IMDC] and trial-database) study of patients with mRCC treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Unmatched (UM) and matched (M) analyses accounting for imbalances in region, year of treatment, age, and sex between races were performed. Cox models adjusting for histology, number of metastatic sites, nephrectomy, and IMDC risk compared time to treatment failure (TTF; IMDC cohort), progression-free survival (PFS; trial-database cohort), and OS. RESULTS: The IMDC cohort included 73 black versus 3,381 (UM) and 1,236 (M) white patients. The trial-database cohort included 21 black versus 1,040 (UM) and 431 (M) white patients. Median OS for black versus white patients was 18.5 versus 25.8 months in the IMDC group and 21.0 versus 25.6 months in the trial-database group. Differences in OS were not significant in multivariable analysis in the IMDC group (hazard ratio [HR]M, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; HRUM, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4) and trial-database (HRM, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.7; HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6) cohorts. TTF for black patients was shorter in the UM IMDC cohort (HRUM, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8; P = .003), but not in the M analysis. PFS was shorter for black patients in both analyses in the trial-database cohort (HRM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002; HRUM, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Black patients had more IMDC risk factors and worse outcomes with TKIs versus white patients. Race was not an independent predictor of OS. Strategies to understand biologic determinants of outcomes for minority patients are needed to optimize care.