Comparative analysis of efficacy and safety of combined immunotherapy and immune targeted therapy in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: a real-world study
- Authors: Pokataev I.A.1, Stativko O.A.1, Volkova M.I.1,2, Fedorova A.N.1, Zueva E.V.1, Ibragimova M.R.1, Tsareva E.V.1, Antonova T.G.1, Sinitsyna O.R.1, Cherniaev V.A.1, Gridneva Y.V.1,3, Oskarev A.V.1, Galkin V.N.1
-
Affiliations:
- Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
- Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
- Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)
- Issue: Vol 26, No 3 (2024)
- Pages: 353-359
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/1815-1434/article/view/275839
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.26442/18151434.2024.3.202888
- ID: 275839
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Aim. To compare of efficacy and safety of combined immune therapy (dual immune-oncology – IO combination therapies, IO-IO) and immune targeted therapy (ITT) in the first line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real world clinical practice.
Materials and methods. The ambispective study enrolled patients with metastatic RCC aged ≥18 years, with measurable neoplastic lesions, who were treated with first-line IO-IO therapy or ITT. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).
Results. The study included data from 126 patients treated with IO-IO [46 (36.5%) patients of the IMDC intermediate and poor prognostic groups] or ITT [80 (63.5%) patients of all IMDC prognostic groups]. In a median follow-up of all patients of 16.1 (0.1–44.9) months, the median PFS was 16.1 (10.9–21.3) months, the median overall survival (OS) was not reached; one-year OS was 83.0%; the objective response rate on the first line of therapy was 44.4% with a complete response rate of 3.2%. The rate of tumor control was 88.1%. In the overall population, ITT versus IO-IO provided a significant benefit in terms of ORR (51.2% vs 32.6%; p=0.032), PFS (median 22.9 months vs 8.0 months; p=0.004) and one-year OS (87.5% vs 65.2%; p=0.042). In the IPTW population, multivariate analysis confirmed the independent prognostic significance of the treatment regimen for PFS (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.8; p=0.037) and OS (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1–4.8; p=0.037). No difference in the safety profile of IO-IO and ITT was identified.
Conclusion. The results support the hypothesis that ITT is more effective than IO-IO in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC in patients of IMDC intermediate and poor prognostic groups.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Ilya A. Pokataev
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Author for correspondence.
Email: pokia@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9864-3837
SPIN-code: 7338-9428
D. Sci. (Med.), Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowOlesya A. Stativko
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: olesya_stativko@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-1084-1551
SPIN-code: 3627-0262
oncologist, Department Head, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowMaria I. Volkova
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Email: mivolkova@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7754-6624
SPIN-code: 8942-0678
D. Sci. (Med.), Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1 of Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department", Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Russian Federation, Moscow; MoscowAlina N. Fedorova
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: fedorova_an89@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-2569-7632
oncologist, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowElena V. Zueva
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: elena.zyeva@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-7926-2798
Cand. Sci. (Med.), Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowMulaim R. Ibragimova
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: imulaim@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1615-2055
oncologist, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowElena V. Tsareva
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: md.tsareva@gmail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0006-0637-9826
oncologist, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowTatiana G. Antonova
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: tattg@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-6646-7454
oncologist, Department Head, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowOgulshat R. Sinitsyna
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: ogulshat@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-7184-0410
oncologist, Department Head, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowVitalii A. Cherniaev
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: chercrc@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1258-0922
Cand. Sci. (Med.), Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowYana V. Gridneva
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department; Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)
Email: gridnevyana@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9015-2002
SPIN-code: 4189-6387
Cand. Sci. (Med.), Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1 of Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department", Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation, Moscow; MoscowAlbert V. Oskarev
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: oskarev.albert@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0847-4449
oncourologist, Department Head, Moscow State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "Oncological Center No. 1
Russian Federation, MoscowVsevolod N. Galkin
Moscow City Hospital named after S.S. Yudin, Moscow Healthcare Department
Email: vsgalkin@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6619-6179
D. Sci. (Med.), Prof.
Russian Federation, MoscowReferences
- Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2022 году. Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, А.О. Шахзадовой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена − филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2022 [Sostoianie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniiu Rossii v 2022 godu. Pod red. AD Kaprina, VV Starinskogo, AO Shakhzadovoi. Moscow: MNIOI im. PA Gertsena − filial FGBU «NMITs radiologii» Minzdrava Rossii, 2022 (in Russian)].
- Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5794-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.4809
- Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY, et al.; CLEAR Trial Investigators. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(14):1289-300. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2035716
- Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V, et al. Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(Suppl. 15):abstr 4500.
- Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, et al.; CheckMate 9ER Investigators. Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(9):829-41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026982
- Larkin J, Oya M, Martignoni M, et al. Avelumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Results from the JAVELIN Renal 100 Phase Ib Trial. Oncologist. 2023;28(4):333-40. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac243
- Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al.; CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(14):1277-90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1712126
- Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2024;22(1):4-16. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2024.0008
- Волкова М.И., Алексеев Б.Я., Гладков О.А., и др. Практические рекомендации по лекарственному лечению почечноклеточного рака. Злокачественные опухоли: Практические рекомендации RUSSCO. 2022;12(#3s2):579-88 [Volkova MI, Alekseev BIa, Gladkov OA, et al. Prakticheskie rekomendatsii po lekarstvennomu lecheniiu pochechnokletochnogo raka. Zlokachestvennye Opukholi: Prakticheskie Rekomendatsii RUSSCO. 2022;12(#3s2):579-88 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-579-588
- Рак паренхимы почки. Клинические рекомендации. 2023 [Rak parenkhimy pochki. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. 2023 (in Russian)].
- Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). Version 5.0. National Cancer Institute. Available at: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x7.pdf. Accessed: 28.05.2024.
- Tannir NM, Escudier B, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs sunitinib (SUN) for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(Suppl. 4):abstr 363. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.363
- Plimack ER, Powles T, Stus V, et al. Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study. Eur Urol. 2023;84(5):449-54. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.06.006. Erratum in: Eur Urol. 2023;84(5):e123-4. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.010. Erratum in: Eur Urol. 2024;85(2):e58-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.016
- Hoeh B, Flammia RS, Hohenhorst L, et al. IO-IO vs IO-TKI efficacy in metastatic kidney cancer patients: A structured systematic review over time. Semin Oncol. 2022;49(5):394-9. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.10.001
- Yanagisawa T, Mori K, Matsukawa A, et al. Updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with extended follow-up data. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2024;73(2):38. doi: 10.1007/s00262-023-03621-1
- Bolan P, Hui G, Low Y, et al. Real world evidence comparison of first-line (1L) immune-oncology(IO)/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) vs IO/IO combination therapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2024;42(Suppl. 4): abstr 402. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.402
- Nocera L, Karakiewicz PI, Wenzel M, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events after First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2022;207(1):16-24. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002252
Supplementary files
