First-line Immuno-Oncology Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND:

In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.

INTERVENTION:

All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:

In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8% to 22%, p =  0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p =  0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p =  0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.12, p =  0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38-1.11, p =  0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82-3.68, p =  0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3-57%, p =  0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p =  0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study’s retrospective design and sample size.

CONCLUSIONS:

There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.

PATIENT SUMMARY:

There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinomareceiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.