Cargando…

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 res...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Navani, Vishal, Ernst, Matthew, Wells, J. Connor, Yuasa, Takeshi, Takemura, Kosuke, Donskov, Frede, Basappa, Naveen S., Schmidt, Andrew, Pal, Sumanta K., Meza, Luis, Wood, Lori A., Ernst, D. Scott, Szabados, Bernadett, Powles, Thomas, McKay, Rana R., Weickhardt, Andrew, Suarez, Cristina, Kapoor, Anil, Lee, Jae Lyun, Choueiri, Toni K., Heng, Daniel Y. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9187954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35687336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16379
_version_ 1784725269305622528
author Navani, Vishal
Ernst, Matthew
Wells, J. Connor
Yuasa, Takeshi
Takemura, Kosuke
Donskov, Frede
Basappa, Naveen S.
Schmidt, Andrew
Pal, Sumanta K.
Meza, Luis
Wood, Lori A.
Ernst, D. Scott
Szabados, Bernadett
Powles, Thomas
McKay, Rana R.
Weickhardt, Andrew
Suarez, Cristina
Kapoor, Anil
Lee, Jae Lyun
Choueiri, Toni K.
Heng, Daniel Y. C.
author_facet Navani, Vishal
Ernst, Matthew
Wells, J. Connor
Yuasa, Takeshi
Takemura, Kosuke
Donskov, Frede
Basappa, Naveen S.
Schmidt, Andrew
Pal, Sumanta K.
Meza, Luis
Wood, Lori A.
Ernst, D. Scott
Szabados, Bernadett
Powles, Thomas
McKay, Rana R.
Weickhardt, Andrew
Suarez, Cristina
Kapoor, Anil
Lee, Jae Lyun
Choueiri, Toni K.
Heng, Daniel Y. C.
author_sort Navani, Vishal
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9187954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91879542022-06-16 Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Navani, Vishal Ernst, Matthew Wells, J. Connor Yuasa, Takeshi Takemura, Kosuke Donskov, Frede Basappa, Naveen S. Schmidt, Andrew Pal, Sumanta K. Meza, Luis Wood, Lori A. Ernst, D. Scott Szabados, Bernadett Powles, Thomas McKay, Rana R. Weickhardt, Andrew Suarez, Cristina Kapoor, Anil Lee, Jae Lyun Choueiri, Toni K. Heng, Daniel Y. C. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation 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. American Medical Association 2022-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9187954/ /pubmed/35687336 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16379 Text en Copyright 2022 Navani V et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Navani, Vishal
Ernst, Matthew
Wells, J. Connor
Yuasa, Takeshi
Takemura, Kosuke
Donskov, Frede
Basappa, Naveen S.
Schmidt, Andrew
Pal, Sumanta K.
Meza, Luis
Wood, Lori A.
Ernst, D. Scott
Szabados, Bernadett
Powles, Thomas
McKay, Rana R.
Weickhardt, Andrew
Suarez, Cristina
Kapoor, Anil
Lee, Jae Lyun
Choueiri, Toni K.
Heng, Daniel Y. C.
Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_full Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_fullStr Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_full_unstemmed Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_short Imaging Response to Contemporary Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_sort imaging response to contemporary immuno-oncology combination therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9187954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35687336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16379
work_keys_str_mv AT navanivishal imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT ernstmatthew imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT wellsjconnor imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT yuasatakeshi imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT takemurakosuke imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT donskovfrede imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT basappanaveens imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT schmidtandrew imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT palsumantak imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT mezaluis imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT woodloria imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT ernstdscott imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT szabadosbernadett imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT powlesthomas imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT mckayranar imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT weickhardtandrew imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT suarezcristina imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT kapooranil imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT leejaelyun imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT choueiritonik imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma
AT hengdanielyc imagingresponsetocontemporaryimmunooncologycombinationtherapiesinpatientswithmetastaticrenalcellcarcinoma