Comparison of outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC). METHODS: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Model for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification tools for patients with advanced melanoma (AM) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are lacking. We identified a new prognostic model associated with overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 318 treatment naïve patients with AM receiving ICI were collected from a multi-centre retrospective cohort study. LASSO Cox regression identified independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Model validation was carried out on 500 iterations of bootstrapped samples. Harrel's C-index was calculated and internally validated to outline the model's discriminatory performance. External validation was carried out in 142 advanced melanoma patients receiving ICI in later lines. RESULTS: High white blood cell count (WBC), high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥1, and the presence of liver metastases were included in the model. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups: favorable (0-1 factors) OS of 52.9 months, intermediate (2-3 factors) OS 13.0 months, and poor (≥4 factors) OS 2.7 months. The C-index of the model from the discovery cohort was 0.69. External validation in later-lines (N = 142) of therapy demonstrated a c-index of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases, low albumin, high LDH, high WBC, and ECOG≥1 can be combined into a prognostic model for AM patients treated with ICI.

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.

Melanoma: An immunotherapy journey from bench to bedside.

Melanoma gave science a window into the role immune evasion plays in the development of malignancy. The entire spectrum of immune focused anti-cancer therapies has been subjected to clinical trials in this disease, with limited success until the immune checkpoint blockade era. That revolution launched first in melanoma, heralded a landscape change throughout cancer that continues to reverberate today.

Business as unusual: medical oncology services adapt and deliver during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged cancer care globally, introducing resource limitations and competing risks into clinical practice. AIMS: To describe the COVID-19 impact on medical oncology care provision in an Australian setting. METHODS: Calvary Mater Newcastle and Newcastle Private Hospital medical oncology data from 1 February to 31 April 2019 versus 2020 were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-four inpatient admissions occurred in 2020, 21% less than in 2019. Total inpatient days decreased by 22% (2842 vs 2203). April was most impacted (36% and 44% fewer admissions and inpatient days respectively). Mean length of stay remained unchanged (6.4 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.7). In all, 5072 outpatient consultations were conducted, including 417 new-patient consultations (4% and 6% increase on 2019 respectively). Telephone consultations (0 vs 1380) replaced one-quarter of face-to-face consultations (4859 vs 3623, -25%), with minimal telehealth use (6 vs 69). Day Treatment Centre encounters remained stable (3751 vs 3444, -8%). The proportion of new patients planned for palliative treatment decreased (35% vs 28%, P = 0.04), observation increased (16% vs 23%, P = 0.04) and curative intent treatment was unchanged (both 41%). Recruiting clinical trials decreased by one-third (45 vs 30), two trials were activated (vs 5 in 2019) and 45% fewer patients consented to trial participation (62 vs 34). CONCLUSION: Our medical oncology teams adapted rapidly to COVID-19 with significant changes to care provision, including fewer hospital admissions, a notable transition to telephone-based outpatient clinics and reduced clinical trial activity. The continuum of care was largely defended despite pandemic considerations and growing service volumes.

Immune checkpoint blockade in solid organ tumours: Choice, dose and predictors of response.

Immune checkpoint blockade has transformed outcomes across solid organ tumours. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the negative inhibitory cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed-death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 axis can lead to deep and durable responses across several tumour streams in the advanced setting. This immunotherapy approach is increasingly used earlier in the treatment paradigm. A rapidly evolving regulatory, reimbursement and drug development landscape has accompanied this novel class of immunotherapy. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of patients respond meaningfully to these agents. Here we review how the underlying tumoural genomic, histological and immunological characteristics interact within various patient phenotypes, leading to variations in response to checkpoint blockade. Concurrently, we outline the clinical trial and real-world evidence that allows for appropriate selection of agent, dose and schedule in solid organ malignancies. An exploration of current trends in basic and translational research in immune checkpoint blockade accompanies a commentary on future clinical directions for checkpoint blockade in oncology.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

Imaging response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma: a retrospective observational cohort study.

Background: The association between objective imaging response and first line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimes in advanced melanoma remains uncharacterized in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort analysis of advanced melanoma patients receiving first line ICI therapy from August 2013-May 2020 in Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome was likelihood of RECIST v1.1 assessed objective imaging response between patients receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD1) monotherapy and those receiving combination ipilimumab-nivolumab. Secondary outcomes were identification of baseline characteristics associated with non-response and the association of imaging response with overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Results: 198 patients were included, 41/198 (20.7%) had complete response, 86/198 (43.4%) had partial response, 23/198 (11.6%) had stable disease, and 48/198 (24.2%) had progressive disease. Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI 49.0-NR) months for complete responders, NR (95%CI 52.9-NR) months for partial responders, 33.7 (95%CI 15.8-NR) months for stable disease, and 6.4 (95%CI 5.2-10.1) months for progressive disease (log-rank p<0.001). Likelihood of objective imaging response remained similar between anti-PD1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab groups (OR 1.95 95%CI 0.85-4.63, p=0.121). Elevated LDH level (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.21-0.98, p=0.043), mucosal primary site (OR 0.14; 95%CI 0.03-0.48, p=0.003), and BRAF V600E mutation status (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.13-0.72, p=0.007) were associated with decreased likelihood of response. Conclusion: No significant difference in likelihood of imaging response between anti-PD1 monotherapy and combination ipilimumab-nivolumab was observed. Elevated LDH level, mucosal primary site, and BRAF V600E mutation status were associated with decreased likelihood of response. Given that pivotal clinical trials of ipilimumab-nivolumab did not formally compare ipilimumab-nivolumab with nivolumab monotherapy, this work adds context to differences in outcomes when these agents are used. These results may inform treatment selection, and aid in counseling of patients treated with first-line ICI therapy in routine clinical practice settings.

Real-World Analysis of Post-Progression Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for EGFR Mutation-Positive Patients Treated with First-Line Osimertinib.

Introduction: The use of osimertinib in the first-line (1L) setting is an effective treatment option for sensitizing EGFR-mutations (EGFRm+) and has significantly altered the standard of care practice for EGFRm+ disease in Canada. Unfortunately, acquired resistance to osimertinib is almost universal, and outcomes are disparate. Post-progression treatment patterns and the outcome of real-world Canadian EGFRm+ patients receiving 1L osimertinib were the focus of this retrospective review. Methods: The Glans-Look Lung Cancer Research database was used to identify and collect demographic, clinical, treatment, and outcome data on EGFRm+ patients who received 1L osimertinib in the Canadian province of Alberta between 2018 and 2022. Results: A total of 150 patients receiving 1L osimertinib were identified. In total, 86 developed progressive disease, with 56 (65%) continuing systemic therapy, 73% continuing osimertinib, and 27% switching to second-line (2L) systemic therapy. Patients were similar both in clinical characteristics at 1L osimertinib initiation and patterns of treatment failure at progression; those continuing 1L osimertinib post-progression had a longer time to progression (13.5 vs. 8.8 months, p = 0.05) and subsequent post-osimertinib initiation survival (34.7 vs. 22.8 months, p = 0.11). Conclusions: The continuation of osimertinib post-progression is an effective disease management strategy for select real-world EGFRm+ patients, providing continued clinical benefit, potentially due to different underlying disease pathogenesis.

Real-World Treatment Patterns, Health Outcomes, and Healthcare Resource Use in Advanced Common EGFR-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Osimertinib in Alberta.

There is limited information on the treatment trajectory and outcomes of patients with advanced cEGFRm NSCLC treated with osimertinib in routine clinical practice in Canada. By using and analyzing population-based administrative data and detailed chart abstraction in the province of Alberta, our objective was to capture Canadian-specific real-world treatment patterns, health outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in advanced cEGFRm NSCLC patients who were (a) treated with osimertinib and (b) those receiving treatment after osimertinib. In our study cohort, we found that the overall survival rates for real-world patients receiving osimertinib were less favorable than those observed in clinical trials (24.0 versus 38.6 months). The attrition rate after osimertinib was substantial and high HCRU persisted across many years after diagnosis and treatment. This study provides important real-world evidence on contemporary survival, treatment patterns, and healthcare use among cEGFRm NSCLC patients treated with osimertinib and suggests that further research efforts are needed to improve therapeutic options in both the first and subsequent line settings.

Immune-Related Adverse Events and Survival Among Patients With Metastatic NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy reportedly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, studies have been small and the association between irAE severity and OS remains poorly defined. Objective: To examine the association between irAEs and their severity with OS in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study included patients with NSCLC receiving ICIs between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2021, with follow-up until March 31, 2023. Data analysis was completed April 26, 2023. The Alberta Immunotherapy Database, a provincial, multicenter cohort, was used to capture data from patients receiving ICIs in Alberta, Canada. Participants included 803 patients 18 years or older who received at least 1 cycle of ICI (alone or with chemotherapy), agnostic to treatment line. Exposure: Developing an irAE mandating delay or discontinuation of ICI therapy and/or systematic corticosteroids for management of toxic effects (hereinafter referred to as clinically meaningful irAEs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was association between irAEs and OS according to Kaplan-Meier analysis. Clinically meaningful irAEs were identified. Patients with poor prognosis (survival <3 months) who may have died prior to irAE development were excluded from OS analysis, mitigating immortal time bias. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses ascertained variables associated with OS. Results: Among the 803 patients included in the analysis, the median age of patients with irAEs was 69.7 (IQR, 63.1-75.2) years and the median age of those without irAEs was 67.5 (IQR, 60.4-73.3) years, with comparable sex distribution (139 of 295 men [47.1%] and 156 of 295 women [52.9%] with irAEs vs 254 of 505 men [50.3%] and 251 of 505 women [49.7%] without irAEs). Mitigating immortal time bias (n = 611), irAEs were associated with OS (median OS with irAEs, 23.7 [95% CI, 19.3-29.1] months; median OS without irAEs, 9.8 [95% CI, 8.7-11.4] months; P < .001). No OS difference was associated with treatment in hospital vs as outpatients for an irAE (median OS, 20.8 [95% CI, 11.7-30.6] vs 25.6 [95% CI, 20.1-29.8] months; P = .33). Developing irAEs remained associated with OS in the total cohort after Cox proportional hazards regression with known prognostic characteristics (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40-0.70]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 803 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC receiving ICIs, developing a clinically meaningful irAE was associated with improved OS. This association was not compromised by hospitalization for severe toxic effects. Whether and how ICI therapy resumption after an irAE is associated with OS warrants further study.

New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC patients previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A Canada-wide real-world, multi-center, retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: KRAS mutations, particularly KRASG12C, are prevalent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a frontline treatment, but recently developed KRASG12C-selective inhibitors, such as sotorasib, present new therapeutic options. We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study to gain insights into real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC receiving systemic therapy post-ICI treatment. METHODS: From the CAnadian CAncers With Rare Molecular Alterations-Basket Real-world Observational Study (CARMA-BROS), a cohort of 102 patients with KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC across 9 Canadian centers diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 was analyzed. Clinico-demographic and treatment data were obtained from electronic health records. Survival outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The patients (median age 66 years; 58 % female; 99 % current/former tobacco exposure; 59 % PD-L1 ≥ 50 %), exhibited heterogeneous treatment patterns post-ICI. Most patients received ICIs as a first-line therapy, with varying subsequent lines including chemotherapy and targeted therapy. In patients receiving systemic therapy post-ICI, median overall survival was 12.6 months, and real-world progression-free survival was 4.7 months. KRASG12C-selective targeted therapy post-ICI (n = 20) showed longer real-world progression-free survival compared to single-agent chemotherapy (aHR = 0.39, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: This study contributes valuable real-world data on KRASG12C-positive advanced NSCLC post-ICI treatment. The absence of a standard treatment sequencing post-ICI underscores the need for further investigation and consensus-building in the evolving landscape of KRASG12C-targeted therapies.

Mechanisms and clinical implications in renal carcinoma resistance: narrative review of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common histological subtype of renal cell carcinoma. The prognosis for patients with ccRCC has improved over recent years with the use of combination therapies with an anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) backbone. This has enhanced the quality of life and life expectancy of patients with this disease. Unfortunately, not all patients benefit; eventually, most patients will develop resistance to therapy and progress. Recent molecular, biochemical, and immunological research has extensively researched anti-angiogenic and immune-based treatment resistance mechanisms. This analysis offers an overview of the principles underpinning the resistance pathways related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Additionally, novel approaches to overcome resistance that may be considered for the trial context are discussed.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Effectiveness of Targeted and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Systemic Therapy in BRAF Mutation-Positive NSCLC.

Introduction: BRAF mutations (present in 2%-3% of NSCLC) are a known oncogenic driver and emerging therapeutic target. There is a scarcity of real-world data describing the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and effectiveness of targeted BRAF-inhibiting and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based systemic therapies, yet this is required for appropriate treatment decisions that optimize patient outcome. Methods: Demographic, clinical, treatment, and outcome data of patients with BRAF mutation-positive NSCLC diagnosed between 2018 and 2022 were identified from the Glans-Look Lung Cancer Research database and included in this analysis. Results: A total of 53 BRAF mutation-positive patients were identified (V600E, n = 35; non-V600E, n = 18). Furthermore, 46 patients (87%) were diagnosed with metastatic disease, of whom 61% were treated with systemic anticancer therapy, which significantly improved overall survival (34.1 versus 2.2 mo, p = 0.01). ICI-based regimens were found to have effectiveness in the first-line setting for both V600E and non-V600E cohorts (objective response rate: 38%-43%; real-world calculations of median progression-free survival: 10.5-10.8 mo, respectively). Dual-targeted BRAF/MEK inhibition was also found to have effectiveness in the first-line setting for V600E patients (objective response rate: 33%, real-world calculations of median progression-free survival: 15.2 mo). Conclusions: This study of real-world patients with BRAF mutations confirms the importance of effective systemic therapies. Both dual-targeted BRAF/MEK inhibition and ICI-based regimens have evidence of benefit in this population revealing that real-world populations can experience similar clinical response and outcome to clinical trial cohorts on these treatment regimens. Future studies to clarify the role of co-mutations on response to both dual-targeted BRAF/MEK inhibition and ICI-based regimens may be important to treatment selection and optimization of patient outcome.

Treatment-Free Survival After Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab vs Nivolumab-Ipilimumab for Advanced Melanoma.

Importance: Treatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting. Objective: To evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022. Exposures: Patients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up. Results: A total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Impact of Performance Status on Survival Outcomes and Health Care Utilization in Patients With Advanced NSCLC Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Introduction: Landmark trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced NSCLC are difficult to extrapolate to real-world practice given the exclusion of patients with poor (i.e., ≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). We sought to evaluate the impact of ECOG PS on clinical outcomes and health care utilization in patients with NSCLC treated with ICIs in real-world practice. Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab were retrospectively identified from the Alberta Immunotherapy Database. The primary outcome was median overall survival, as stratified by ECOG PS. Secondary outcomes included median time-to-treatment failure and metrics of health care utilization, including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death in hospital. Results: A total of 790 patients were included, with 29.2% having poor ECOG PS at initiation of ICI. These patients had significantly lower median overall survival (3.3 versus 13.4 mo) and median time-to-treatment failure (1.4 versus 4.9 mo) compared with those with favorable ECOG PS (p < 0.0001 for both outcomes). Patients with poor ECOG PS were also more likely to present to the emergency department, be admitted to the hospital, and die in the hospital during their first admission (risk ratio = 1.6, 2.3-2.7, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with NSCLC with poor ECOG PS treated with ICI had significantly worse survival outcomes and were significantly more likely to use health care services than those with favorable ECOG PS. The large proportion of patients with poor ECOG PS further justifies the urgent need for randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of ICI in this high-risk population.

Lung Immune Therapy Evaluation (LITE) Risk, a Novel Prognostic Model for Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to identify baseline characteristics, that are prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC treated with ICI monotherapy, in order to derive the Lung Immune Therapy Evaluation (LITE) risk, a prognostic model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-center observational cohort study of patients with advanced NSCLC that received ≥1 dose of ICI monotherapy. The training set (n=342) consisted of patients with NSCLC who received first line ICI. The test set (n=153) used for external validation was a discrete cohort of patients who received second line ICI. 20 candidate prognostic factors were examined. Penalized Cox regression was used for variable selection. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness. RESULTS: Three baseline characteristics populated the final model: ECOG (0, 1 or ≥2), lactate dehydrogenase>upper limit of normal, and derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ≥3. Patients were parsed into 3 risk groups; favorable (n=146, risk score 0-1), intermediate (n=101, risk score 2) and poor (n=95, risk score ≥3). The c-statistic of the training cohort was 0.702 and 0.694 after bootstrapping. The test cohort c-statistic was 0.664. The median OS for favorable, intermediate and poor LITE risk were; 28.3 months, 9.1 months and 2.1 months respectively. Improving LITE risk group was associated with improved OS, intermediate vs favorable HR 2.08 (95%CI 1.46-2.97, P < .001); poor vs favorable HR 5.21 (95%CI 3.69-7.34, P < .001). CONCLUSION: A simple prognostic model, utilizing accessible clinical data, can discriminate survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC.

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.