Up-front Nivolumab With or Without Salvage Ipilimumab Across International Metastatic Database Consortium Risk Groups in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Up-front Nivolumab With or Without Salvage Ipilimumab Across International Metastatic Database Consortium Risk Groups in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Project description:PurposeImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The safety and activity of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients who have received prior ICI targeting the programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway remains unknown. We evaluated ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with metastatic RCC after prior treatment with anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy.Patients and methodsPatients with metastatic RCC who received prior anti-PD-1 pathway-targeted therapy and subsequently received ipilimumab and nivolumab were reviewed. Objective response rate and progression-free survival per investigator assessment were recorded. Toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab was also assessed.ResultsForty-five patients with metastatic RCC were included. All patients (100%) received prior ICIs targeting the PD-1 pathway. The median age was 62 years (range, 21-82 years). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the objective response rate to ipilimumab and nivolumab was 20%. The median progression-free survival while on ipilimumab and nivolumab was 4 months (range, 0.8-19 months). Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade with ipilimumab and nivolumab were recorded in 29 (64%) of the 45 patients; grade 3 irAEs were recorded in 6 (13%) of the 45 patients.ConclusionIpilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated antitumor activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with metastatic RCC who had prior treatment with checkpoint inhibition.
Project description:Background and purposeThis study aims to evaluate neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio (NER) as a prognostic and/or predictive biomarker in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) treated with nivolumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab.Patients/materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective study on m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab (2012-2022). Baseline NER was calculated and correlated with clinical outcomes: response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Corresponding transcriptomic data were analysed.ResultsWe included 201 m-ccRCC patients, 76 treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and 125 with nivolumab. Baseline NER was statistically significantly associated with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. Increased NER was associated with shorter PFS and OS in the total patient series and nivolumab-treated patients. In patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab, increased NER was only statistically significantly associated with shorter OS. The impact of baseline NER on PFS and OS was independent of IMDC risk stratification. No clear correlation was found between baseline NER and RECIST response or maximal tumour shrinkage. In two additional databases, NER was also associated with PFS and OS in first-line vascular-endothelial-growth-factor-receptor tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), but not to disease-free survival in the post-nephrectomy setting. Lower NER was associated with intratumoural molecular features possibly associated with better outcome on immune checkpoint inhibitors.InterpretationLower baseline NER is associated with better PFS and OS, independent of IMDC risk score, in m-ccRCC patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab or nivolumab. It correlates with intratumoural molecular features possibly associated with better outcome on immune checkpoint inhibitors. The predictive power of this biomarker is probably limited and insufficient for patient selection.
Project description:PurposeTo determine the value of tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker of nivolumab monotherapy efficacy in treatment-naive patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and the efficacy of salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with tumors unresponsive to nivolumab monotherapy.MethodsEligible patients with treatment-naive ccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completing 96 treatment weeks (part A). Patients with PD before or stable disease at 48 weeks could receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (part B). The primary end point was improvement in 1-year progression-free survival in patients with tumor PD-L1 expression > 20% versus 0%.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.1% (95% CI, 25.8 to 43.2). ORR by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium category was favorable-risk 57.1%, intermediate-risk/poor-risk 25.0%, and by sarcomatoid features 36.4%. The ORR was 26.9%, 50.0%, and 75.0% for patients with the tumor PD-L1 expression of 0, 1-20, or > 20%, respectively (trend test P value = .002). The median duration of response was 27.6 (19.3 to not reached) months, with 26 of 42 responders including 17 of 20 with favorable-risk disease remaining progression-free. The 1-year progression-free survival was 34.6% and 75.0% in the PD-L1 = 0% and > 20% categories, respectively (P = .050). Ninety-seven patients with PD or prolonged stable disease were potentially eligible for part B, and 35 were enrolled. The ORR for part B was 11.4%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35% of patients on nivolumab and 43% of those on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab.ConclusionNivolumab monotherapy is active in treatment-naive ccRCC. Although efficacy appears to be less than that of nivolumab/ipilimumab in patients with intermediate-risk/poor-risk disease, favorable-risk patients had notable benefit. Efficacy correlated with tumor PD-L1 status. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab was frequently not feasible and of limited benefit.
Project description:BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) is a standard of care first-line (1 L) therapy for patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), but its role in patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC has not been fully defined. We report a single-institution experience with nivo/ipi in non-ccRCC.MethodsBetween November 2017 and February 2024, 55 patients with metastatic non-ccRCC received nivo/ipi at MD Anderson Cancer Center. The tumor response was assessed by blinded radiologists using RECIST v1.1. The overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), PFS milestone, duration of response (DoR), and overall survival (OS) were determined. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on available tumor specimens.ResultsTwenty-five (45.5%) patients had papillary histology (pRCC), 12 (21.8%) patients had chromophobe (chRCC), and 18 (32.7%) patients had unclassified RCC (uRCC). Fifty-two (94.5%) patients received nivo/ipi in 1 L. Sarcomatoid features (SF) were found in 20 (36.4%) cases. ORR was 48% (12/25) in pRCC, 25% (3/12) in chRCC (all 3 cases had SF), 27.8% (5/18) in uRCC, and 55% (11/20) across histologies with SF.The median PFS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 2.8 to 22.8) in pRCC, 3.6 months (95% CI: 0.9 - NE) in chRCC, and 3 months (95% CI: 2.1 to 7) in uRCC; 6-month milestone PFS was 56% (95% CI: 36.3 to 75.7), 41.7% (95% CI: 22 to 61.3), and 38.9% (95% CI: 21.7 to 56.1) in pRCC, chRCC, and uRCC, respectively. The median DoR for the entire cohort was 8.5 months (95% CI: 8 - NE). The median OS was 36.7 months (95% CI: 11.5 to 54.8) in pRCC, 25.7 months (95% CI: 0.9 - NE) in chRCC, and 11.1 months (95% CI: 6.5 - NE) in uRCC.Ten (18.2%) patients discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs were noted in 17 (30.9%) patients. We performed NGS on 26 cases: TP53 (42%), PTEN (23%), and TERT (23%) alterations were most frequently found, with TERT and TP53 mutations enriched in pRCC and chRCC, respectively.ConclusionNivo/ipi produced favorable outcomes in patients with pRCC supporting its use as 1 L therapy. Responses in patients with chRCC were noted exclusively with SF. Despite achieving an ORR of 27.8% with nivo/ipi, patients with uRCC had short PFS and inferior OS.
Project description:BackgroundSalvage nivolumab and ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy is frequently used off-label for clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, limited data are available to guide such therapy. We performed a meta-analysis to characterize further the safety and efficacy of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA. Studies of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with mRCC published in English before June 1, 2021 were included. We also included patients treated at the Ohio State University from 2012 to 2020 through a retrospective chart review. The included studies were further stratified into adaptive and standard groups based on their designs. We calculated objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) via pooled data and quantitative synthesis using the Stata metaprop procedure. A conservative random effect model was used to combine values.ResultsA total of 7 studies and 310 patients were included. Salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab had an ORR of 14% (95% CI, 0.09-0.21) and median progression-free survival ranged between 3.7 and 5.5 months. Four out of the seven studies were standard design, whereas the other three studies were adaptive. The ORR was numerically higher in the standard group compared with the adaptive group (21% and 9-10%, respectively). The responses to salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab did not correlate with the initial anti-PD-1/PD-L1 responses (odds ratio = 1.45; p = 0.5). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 26% of the patients (95% CI, 0.19-0.33). There were no new safety signals observed in this study.ConclusionSalvage nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrated moderate antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with mRCC who had prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.Implication for practicePatients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options after progressive disease on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. The role of salvage nivolumab and ipilimumab in this patient population is poorly defined. The studies on this highly important and clinically relevant topic are limited by small sample sizes. The results from our meta-analysis suggest that nivolumab and ipilimumab are feasible in the salvage setting with moderate efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile. The response rates differ with different treatment designs. This information will be beneficial to guide clinical decision-making and accurately estimating toxicity.
Project description:BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab.Patients and methodsEligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsThe analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start.ConclusionA small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.
Project description:ObjectivesIn the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting.MethodsUsing the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment.ResultsThe analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35.ConclusionsReal-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.
Project description:Majority of patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) at first line (1L) treatment are classified in the intermediate-risk (IR) subgroup according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score. As these patients have different prognosis, the aim of this study is to better characterize IR patients in order to better tailor the treatment. Retrospective analysis was performed from IGReCC (Institut Gustave Roussy Renal Cell Carcinoma) database. Overall survival (OS) was defined from start of 1L therapy to death or last follow-up. A multivariable Cox model with backward selection procedure (α = 0.01) and a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis were performed to identify which prognostic factors were associated to OS in IR patients. From 2005 to 2017, 777 patients with ccRCC were treated with an anti-VEGF 1L therapy. Among 571 evaluable patients for IMDC score, 290 (51%) were classified as IR. With median follow-up 5.8 years (min: 0, max: 12.4) 212 deaths (73%) were observed and median OS was 25 months. Only platelet count was significantly associated to OS (hazard ratio 1.88 [95% CI 1.27-2.88] p = 0.0017). Median OS for patients with PLT > UNL was 18 months [95% CI 12-23] versus 29 months [95% CI 21.4-35.7] for patients with normal PLT count. The selection of PLT count was confirmed on bootstrap samples and was also selected for the first split of the CART-tree analysis. Patients in the IR group have a heterogeneous prognosis. Elevated PLT count seems identifies a subgroup of patients with poor outcome in the IMDC intermediate-risk population with ccRCC.
Project description:IntroductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progressive disease often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Patients and Methods. This ambispective multicenter study included 45 mRCC patients rechallenged with nivolumab ± ipilimumab between 2014 and 2020. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR) for ICI rechallenge (ICI-2). Factors associated with ICI-2 progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated with multivariate Cox models.ResultsORR was 51% (n = 23) at first ICI therapy (ICI-1) and 16% (n = 7) for ICI-2. Median PFS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.8-23.5) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.7), and median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 37.8-NR) and 24 months (95% CI, 9.9-NR) for ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. Factors associated with poorer ICI-2 PFS were a high number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, use of an intervening treatment between ICI regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at ICI-2 start. Conversely, ICI-1 PFS >6 months was associated with better ICI-2 PFS. In multivariate analysis, there were only statistical trends toward better ICI-2 PFS in patients with ICI-1 PFS >6 months (p=0.07) and toward poorer ICI-2 PFS in patients who received a treatment between ICI regimens (p=0.07).ConclusionRechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. We identified various prognostic factors in univariate analysis but only statistical trends in multivariate analysis. Our findings bring new evidence on ICI rechallenge and preliminary but unique data that may help clinicians to select patients who will benefit from this strategy.
Project description:The therapeutic landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma has rapidly evolved over the years, and we are now in an era of combination therapy strategies employing immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis targeted therapy. Since 2018, we have gained regulatory approval for four distinct combination therapies, all with survival benefits, and with guideline recommendation for use in the front-line setting. As such, treatment selection has become increasingly complex with a myriad of treatment choices but little high-level head-to-head data to guide treatment selection. Heterogeneity in tumor biology further complicates treatment selection as tumors vary in behavior and treatment responsiveness. Ongoing development of biomarkers will certainly assist in this setting, and validation of predictive markers represents an unmet need. In their absence, we highlight features of disease and nuances to datasets from landmark prospective clinical trials to help inform treatment selection. There is growing evidence to support deferring upfront systemic therapy in some patients, with opportunities for active surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy. In others, upfront systemic therapy is warranted and necessitates thoughtful consideration of multiple clinicopathologic parameters to inform optimal patient-centered decision making.