First-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) combination therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Preliminary results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC)

584

Background: In mRCC, ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) is a 1L treatment option. Recent data have also shown efficacy of 1L PD(L)1-VEGF (PV) inhibitor combinations. The efficacy of these two strategies has not been compared. Methods: Using the IMDC dataset, patients (pts) treated with any 1L PV combination were compared to those treated with ipi-nivo. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in IMDC risk factors. Results: 164 pts received 1L IO combination therapy: 104 treated with PV combinations and 60 with ipi-nivo. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were comparable between groups (Table). When comparing PV combinations vs ipi-nivo, 1L response rates (RR) were 30% vs 39% (p = 0.29), time to treatment failure (TTF) was 13.2 (95% CI 8.3-16.1) vs 8.5 months (95% CI 5.7-14.0, p = 0.31), and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 19.7-NR) vs NR (95% CI 27.6-NR, p = 0.39). When adjusted for IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) for TTF was 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.35, p = 0.36) and the HR for death was 0.94 (95% CI 0.33-2.71, p = 0.91). Similar results were seen when restricting the cohort to IMDC intermediate/poor risk pts only. In pts receiving subsequent VEGF TKI monotherapy, second-line (2L) RR (13% vs 45%, p = 0.07) and TTF (5.5 vs 5.4 months, p = 0.80) for PV combinations (n = 15) vs ipi-nivo (n = 20) were not significantly different. Conclusions: There does not appear to be a superior 1L IO combination strategy in mRCC, as PV combinations and ipi-nivo have comparable RR, TTF and OS. Although there is a trend towards differences in RR, there does not appear to be a significant difference in TTF for patients receiving 2L VEGF TKI therapy. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of targeted therapy (TT) after checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis)

568

Background: While the use of CPI has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with mRCC, data showing the efficacy of subsequent TT is limited. This real-world analysis evaluated the efficacy of TT post CPI in mRCC patients. Methods: Data was collected and analyzed from CKCis. Patients with mRCC who received TT after CPI were identified and analyzed based on line of therapy. Time to treatment failure (TTF – time from starting first subsequent TT to stopping TT) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Hazard Ratio (HR) calculations were adjusted for IMDC group and age. Results: 102 patients were treated with TT post CPI (table). Those who received first-line ipilimumab + nivolumab (I/N) versus a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) + CPI combination prior to second-line TT had a median TTF of 8.0 vs 5.2 months (m) (HR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.13-1.44) and median OS of 16.5 m vs not reached (HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.11-5.24). Patients who received a VEGFi versus a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) as third-line TT had a median TTF of 7.6 vs 4.4 m (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.24-1.10) and median OS of 21.7 vs 16.2 m (HR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.08). All third-line TT patients received first-line VEGFi and second-line nivolumab. Of the third-line VEGFi TT patients, 24 received axitinib (TTF 7.1 m, OS 21.7 m) and 22 received cabozantinib (data immature). Conclusions: Activity of TT in mRCC patients after CPI is demonstrated in multiple lines. In second-line, VEGFi TT had numerically better outcomes after I/N than after VEGFi+CPI combination. Efficacy of third-line TT was seen with a trend favoring VEGFi over mTORi. Axitinib in the third-line has notable activity after CPI, while data on cabozantinib and fourth-line TT are maturing. These results support the use of VEGFi after CPI in mRCC patients. [Table: see text]

Trends in intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: Comparison of a 669 record Australian dataset with the multinational Benchmark Counterpulsation Outcomes Registry

The aim of this study was to review and describe indications for intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) use and identify the impact these have on outcomes at an Australian cardiothoracic tertiary referral hospital. A secondary aim was comparison of the Australian practice with a large multinational IABP data registry. Patient demographics, IABP indication, IABP complication rate and mortality in 662 patients treated with IABP at The Prince Charles Hospital (TPCH), Brisbane, between January 1994 and December 2004 inclusive were compared with The Benchmark Counterpulsation Outcomes Registry. Data were collected between 1994 and 2000 by retrospective patient record review and prospectively using the Benchmark database from 2001 to 2004. Statistical analysis was undertaken usingSAS (v8.2) software. The mean age of patients managed with IABP at TPCH (71.6% male) was 63.4 years (SD 12.4). In-hospital mortality rate was 22% and the complication rate was 10.3%. TPCH indications for IABP were: weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (34.2%); cardiogenic shock (24.4%); preoperative support (13%); catheter laboratory support (10.6%); refractory ventricular failure (7.3%); ischaemia related to intractable ventricular arrhythmias (4.5%); unstable refractory angina (4%); mechanical complications due to acute myocardial infarction (1.2%) and other (0.4%) (0.4% not reported). In comparison to Benchmark, IABP at TPCH demonstrated a prejudice toward intraoperative use (34.2% versus 16.6%; P= <0.0001) and an aversion to catheter laboratory support (10.6% versus 19%; P= <0.0001). TPCH and Benchmark IABP outcomes demonstrated comparable mortality (22% versus 20.8%; P=ns) but increased TPCH complications (10.3% vs. 6.2%; P= <0.0001) owing to a 2% difference in observed insertion site bleeding.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective.

RESULTS

The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

Use of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical and economic impact in a Canadian real-life setting

Introduction

Outside of randomized controlled clinical trials, the understanding of the effectiveness and costs associated with targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) is limited in Canada. The purpose of the present study was to use real-world prospective data to assess the effectiveness and cost of targeted therapies for patients with mrcc.

Methods

The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System, a pan-Canadian database, was used to identify prospectively collected data relating to patients with mrcc. First- and subsequent-line time to treatment termination (ttt) was determined from therapy initiation time (sunitinib or pazopanib) to discontinuation of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (os) by treatment. Unit treatment cost was used to estimate the cost by line of treatment and the total cost of therapy for the management of patients with mrcc.

Results

The study included 475 patients receiving sunitinib or pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patients were treated mostly with sunitinib (81%); 19% of patients were treated with pazopanib. The median ttt in the first line was 7.7 months for patients receiving sunitinib and 4.6 months for those receiving pazopanib (p < 0.001). The adjusted os was 32 months with sunitinib and 21 months with pazopanib (hazard ratio: 1.61; p < 0.01). The total median cost of first- and second-line treatments was $56,476 (interquartile range: $23,738-$130,447) for patients in the sunitinib group and $46,251 (interquartile range: $28,167-$91,394) for those in the pazopanib group.

Conclusions

For the two therapies, os differed significantly, with a higher median os being observed in the sunitinib group. The cost of treatment was higher in the sunitinib group, which is to be expected with longer survival.

Survival patterns and cancer determinants in families with myotonic dystrophy type 1

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Research indicates that patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) are at increased risk of cancer and early death. Family data may provide insights given DM1 phenotypic heterogeneity, the broad range of non-muscular manifestations and the usual delays in the diagnosis of DM1.

METHOD

Family history data were collected from 397 genetically and/or clinically confirmed DM1 patients (respondents) enrolled in the US or UK myotonic dystrophy registries. Standardized mortality ratios were calculated for DM1 first-degree relatives (parents, siblings and offspring) by their reported DM1 status (affected, unaffected or unknown). For cancer-related analyses, mixed effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with cancer development in DM1 families, including familial clustering.

RESULTS

A total of 467 deaths and 337 cancers were reported amongst 1737 first-degree DM1 relatives. Mortality risk amongst relatives reported as DM1-unaffected was comparable to that of the general population [standardized mortality ratio (SMR) 0.82, P = 0.06], whilst significantly higher mortality risks were noted in DM1-affected relatives (SMR = 2.47, P < 0.0001) and in those whose DM1 status was unknown (SMR = 1.60, P < 0.0001). In cancer risk analyses, risk was higher amongst families in which the DM1 respondent had cancer (odds ratio 1.95, P = 0.0001). Unknown DM1 status in the siblings (odds ratio 2.59, P = 0.004) was associated with higher cancer risk.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased risk of death, and probably cancer, in relatives with DM1 and in those whose DM1 status is unknown. This suggests a need to perform a careful history and physical examination, supplemented by genetic testing, to identify family members at risk for DM1 and who might benefit from disease-specific clinical care and surveillance.

External validation of a predictive model of survival after cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Recent trials have emphasized the importance of a precise patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN). In 2013, a nomogram was developed for pre- and postoperative prediction of the probability of death (PoD) after CN in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. To date, the single-institutional nomogram which included mostly patients from the cytokine era has not been externally validated. Our objective is to validate the predictive model in contemporary patients in the targeted therapy era.

METHODS

Multi-institutional European and North American data from patients who underwent CN between 2006 and 2013 were used for external validation. Variables evaluated included preoperative serum albumin and lactate dehydrogenase levels, intraoperative blood transfusions (yes/no) and postoperative pathologic stage (primary tumour and nodes). In addition, patient characteristics and MSKCC risk factors were collected. Using the original calibration indices and quantiles of the distribution of predictions, Kaplan-Meier estimates and calibration plots of observed versus predicted PoD were calculated. For the preoperative model a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed.

RESULTS

Of 1108 patients [median OS of 27 months (95% CI 24.6-29.4)], 536 and 469 patients had full data for the validation of the pre- and postoperative models, respectively. The AUC for the pre- and postoperative model was 0.68 (95% CI 0.62-0.74) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.68-0.78), respectively. In the DCA the preoperative model performs well within threshold survival probabilities of 20-50%. Most important limitation was the retrospective collection of this external validation dataset.

CONCLUSIONS

In this external validation, the pre- and postoperative nomograms predicting PoD following CN were well calibrated. Although performance of the preoperative nomogram was lower than in the internal validation, it retains the ability to predict early death after CN.

Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada consensus statement on the role of adjuvant therapy after nephrectomy for high-risk, non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A comprehensive analysis of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) collaborated to prepare this consensus statement about the use of target agents as adjuvant therapy in patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC) after nephrectomy. We reviewed the published data and performed a meta-analysis of studies that focused on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified seven trials on adjuvant target therapy in nmRCC. Three trials, the ASSURE, S-TRAC, and PROTECT, focused on VEGFR TKIs and represented the focus of the study, including a meta-analysis combining their data on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The ASSURE trial showed no DFS or OS benefit of TKIs over placebo after one year of adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib. In contrast, the S-TRAC trial showed improved DFS after one year of adjuvant sunitinib using central review process, but not using investigator review process. No OS benefit was recorded in either study. Recently, the PROTECT trial also showed no DFS or OS benefit when one year of adjuvant pazopanib was compared to placebo. Meta-analyses of the pooled DFS and OS estimates from all three trials resulted in DFS and OS hazard ratios of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.04) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.89-1.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from three available clinical trials of adjuvant VEGFR TKIs vs. placebo do not currently support the use of adjuvant TKI therapy as standard of care after nephrectomy for nmRCC. At this time, adjuvant TKI-based adjuvant therapy is not recommended for routine use after nephrectomy for high-risk nmRCC, but highly motivated patients may benefit from a discussion with their oncologist regarding the risks and benefits of adjuvant TKI.

Real world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC)

615

Background: The immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) cabozantinib have both been shown in phase III clinical trials to be effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after progression on first-line therapy. We sought to explore the real-world efficacy of these therapies in second-line mRCC. Methods: Using the IMDC database, a retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients treated with second-line nivolumab or cabozantinib. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were collected. Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and response rates were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences. Results: 225 patients were treated with nivolumab and 53 with cabozantinib. There was no significant difference in OS identified, with a mOS for nivolumab of 22.1 months (95% CI 17.18 – NR) and 23.7 months (95% CI 15.52 vs. NR) for cabozantinib, p = 0.6053. The TTF was also similar, with 6.90 months (95% CI 4.60 – 9.20) for nivolumab versus 7.39 months (95% CI 5.52 – 12.85) for cabozantinib, p = 0.1983. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab vs. cabozantinib was 1.297 (95% CI – 0.728 – 2.312), p = 0.3775. Conclusions: Nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to have similar efficacy in terms of OS and TTF in this real-world patient population, thus both novel agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line therapy. [Table: see text]

Application of Canadian hereditary renal cell carcinoma risk criteria to a population database

621

Background: Canadian criteria for identifying patients (pts) and families at risk for hereditary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were published in 2013. They included characteristics for pts with RCC (age ≤ 45 years, bilateral or multifocal tumours, associated medical conditions and non-clear cell histologies with unusual features) and for any pts who have a family history of specific clinical or genetic diagnoses associated with renal neoplasms. The clinical impact of these criteria on genetic testing had yet to be evaluated. Methods: The Canadian hereditary RCC risk criteria were applied to pts from 16 centres in the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System prospective database. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts who met at least one criterion. Secondary endpoints included the number of pts with more than one criterion and the number of pts receiving genetic testing (with or without at risk criteria). Results: From January 2011 to May 2017, 8097 pts were entered in the database. 2827 (35%) met at least one criterion for genetic testing. The majority (83%) met just 1 criterion, while 16% met 2 criteria. The criterion of non-clear cell histology with unusual features contributed the largest proportion of at risk pts (59%), followed by age ≤ 45 years (29%), then first or second degree relative with renal tumour (16%). 69 pts underwent genetic testing, with 59 being classified at risk ( < 3% of at risk). Details about the genetic testing results will be presented. Conclusions: The application of the Canadian hereditary RCC risk criteria to a population database resulted in 35% of pts being identified at risk for hereditary RCC. However, the true incidence of hereditary RCC in this population is unknown as most pts did not undergo genetic testing, and thus the sensitivity or specificity of the criteria cannot be determined. The low proportion of at risk pts that underwent genetic testing was disappointing and highlights that there may be gaps in reporting, knowledge and/or barriers in access to genetic testing. The results have helped determine the proportion of at risk pts in Canada, what criteria are most common, and importantly, have established a foundation and benchmark to improve upon.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC)

581

Background: There is evidence that cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) may be beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but the role of CN in patients with papillary histology is unclear. Methods: Using the IMDC database, a retrospective analysis was performed on patients with papillary mRCC treated with or without CN. Baseline characteristics and IMDC risk factors were collected. Median overall survival (OS) was determined for both patient groups. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in individual IMDC risk factors. Results: In total, 353 patients with papillary mRCC with (n = 75) or without (n = 278) a component of clear cell histology were identified. Median follow-up time was 57.1 months (95% CI 32.9-77.8) and the OS from the start of first-line targeted therapy for the entire cohort was 13.2 months (95% CI 12.0-16.1). Baseline characteristics are in Table 1 and patients who had CN were more likely to be younger, with better KPS, and have sarcomatoid histology. Median OS in patients with CN was 16.3 months (95% CI 13.1-19.2), compared to 8.6 months (95% CI 6.1-12.2; p < 0.0001) in the no CN group. When adjusted for individual IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for CN was 0.62 (95% CI 0.45-0.85; p = 0.0031). Conclusions: The use of CN in patients with mRCC and papillary histology appears to be associated with improved survival when compared to no CN after adjustment for risk criteria. A clinical trial in this rare population may not be possible but this data does corroborate with clear cell literature. [Table: see text]

Impact of tumor size on survival outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients (mRCC) treated with targeted therapy

667

Background: Recent research suggested that patients (pts) with small renal masses (4cm or less) were at low risk of disease recurrence after surgery. The impact of tumor size on survival in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (TKI) is unclear. Methods: Two cohorts were identified from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). Cohort 1 pts had initial nephrectomy for M0 RCC and subsequently developed metastasis during follow-up. Cohort 2 pts presented with de novo metastasis with or without cytoreductive nephrectomy. Cox regression was performed to assess the associations of primary tumor size (≤4 vs > 4cm) and overall survival (OS) on first line TKI, adjusted for histology, sarcomatoid features, tumor stage, number of metastasis, IMDC risk groups and age at TKI initiation. Results: 4089 pts with mRCC treated with first line TKI had primary tumor size data available. Patient characteristics were generally balanced between tumor size groups (≤4 vs > 4cm), except pts with ≤4cm tumors were more likely to have single metastasis (29% vs 18%, p = 0.001) and less likely to have IMDC poor risk (32% vs 39%, p = 0.04) in pts from cohort 2. For pts from cohort 1, tumor size at initial nephrectomy did not impact OS after TKI initiation (p = 0.689). However, in pts presenting with de novo metastasis (cohort 2), small primary tumors were associated with improved OS after TKI initiation, but only in T1-2 tumors (Table). Conclusions: Tumor size impacts survival outcome with targeted therapy in mRCC patients presenting with de novo metastasis and T1-2 disease. This may need to be taken in consideration in clinical trial designs. [Table: see text]

The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Management of advanced kidney cancer: Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum (CKCF) consensus update 2017

N/A