The CoVID-TE risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have increased risks of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Active cancer diagnosis and treatment are well-known risk factors; however, a risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of and risk factors for thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: Among patients with cancer in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry (CCC19) cohort study, we assessed the incidence of VTE and ATE within 90 days of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. A multivariable logistic regression model specifically for VTE was built using a priori determined clinical risk factors. A simplified RAM was derived and internally validated using bootstrap. RESULTS: From March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020, 2804 hospitalized patients were analyzed. The incidence of VTE and ATE was 7.6% and 3.9%, respectively. The incidence of VTE, but not ATE, was higher in patients receiving recent anti-cancer therapy. A simplified RAM for VTE was derived and named CoVID-TE (Cancer subtype high to very-high risk by original Khorana score +1, VTE history +2, ICU admission +2, D-dimer elevation +1, recent systemic anti-cancer Therapy +1, and non-Hispanic Ethnicity +1). The RAM stratified patients into two cohorts (low-risk, 0-2 points, n = 1423 vs. high-risk, 3+ points, n = 1034) where VTE occurred in 4.1% low-risk and 11.3% high-risk patients (c statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.71). The RAM performed similarly well in subgroups of patients not on anticoagulant prior to admission and moderately ill patients not requiring direct ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19 have elevated thrombotic risks. The CoVID-TE RAM for VTE prediction may help real-time data-driven decisions in this vulnerable population.

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up. METHODS: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory. RESULTS: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02231749.

Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) is important to gauge clinical benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVES: To estimate important difference (ID) in FKSI-DRS scores that is considered to be meaningful when comparing treatment effect between groups, using mRCC trial data. METHODS: Data were derived from two pivotal phase III mRCC trials comparing sunitinib versus interferon alfa (N = 750) in first-line mRCC, and axitinib versus sorafenib (N = 723) in second-line mRCC. The change from baseline in FKSI-DRS score was examined as a function of a set of anchors using the repeated-measures model. Several anchors were evaluated: FKSI item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment," EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score, and adverse events. RESULTS: When the "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" score was used as an anchor, the ID ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 points. When change in the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score was used as an anchor, the FKSI-DRS ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.63 points. Selecting the adverse events that corresponded to a maximum worsening in the FKSI-DRS score in either trial, the ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.74 points. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing treatment for mRCC, between-group differences in FKSI-DRS scores as low as 1 point might be meaningful.