Comparative Effectiveness of Front-Line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab or Axitinib and Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Real-world effectiveness of first- and second-line anti-angiogenesis therapy in RCC: analysis of a UK-based population

Aim: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the seventh commonest cancer in the UK, where first-line (1L) sunitinib and second-line (2L) axitinib are treatment options.Methods: Retrospective, non-interventional data from the Christie NHS Foundation Trust (Manchester, UK). The primary end point was median progression-free survival (mPFS).Results: For 1L sunitinib (n = 622) and 2L axitinib (n = 121), mPFS (95% CI) was 8.4 (7.6, 9.9) and 6.2 (4.9, 9.3) months, respectively. In 1L, Karnofsky performance status, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophils, hemoglobin, time from diagnosis to treatment and age were predictors (p < 0.05) of PFS. In 2L, LDH and platelets were predictors of PFS (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Sunitinib and axitinib were effective treatments for RCC. PFS predictors varied between 1L and 2L; LDH was a predictor for both.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04033991 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Soluble CD206 in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Relation to clinical-biochemical parameters and patient outcome

The mannose receptor (MR/CD206) is a marker of M2-like tumor-associated macrophages. Membrane CD206 can be shed, releasing the receptor as a soluble protein (sCD206), which can be measured in serum. Here, we investigated the biomarker potential of sCD206 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Serum sCD206 was measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 88 mRCC patients and 20 healthy controls (HCs). At diagnosis, serum sCD206 was elevated in patients with intermediate-risk mRCC according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk score, compared to both HCs and patients with favorable MSKCC risk score. Furthermore, sCD206 levels correlated with both sCD163 and C-reactive protein. Soluble CD206 levels decreased after treatment initiation (p < .0001 at 5 weeks) but with a tendency toward elevated levels at time of progression, compared to baseline (p = .06). In univariate survival analysis, high levels of serum sCD206 at baseline was a significant risk factor associated with reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.67, p = .002). Stratified by clinical risk scores, increased sCD206 was still a statistically significant risk factor of overall mortality (p < .01) in the intermediate-risk group by both the MSKCC (HR = 1.48) and the newer International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (HR = 1.53). Furthermore, addition of sCD206 as a dichotomized variable to the IMDC risk score enabled separation of the intermediate-risk group into two groups with survival comparable to those with favorable and poor risk, respectively. Overall, sCD206 is a potential add-on biomarker for mRCC patients in the intermediate-risk group of the current clinical risk scores.

Long-Term Temporal Trends of Real-World Healthcare Costs Associated with Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab and Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) are first-line (1L) treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), although the long-term trends in their associated real-world healthcare costs are not well defined. We compared the real-world healthcare costs of patients with aRCC who received 1L NIVO + IPI or PEM + AXI over 24 months.

METHODS

Adults with RCC and secondary malignancy who initiated 1L NIVO + IPI or PEM + AXI were identified in the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (01/01/2004 to 09/30/2021). All-cause and RCC-related healthcare costs (unadjusted and adjusted) were assessed per patient per month (PPPM) at 6-month intervals post-treatment initiation (index date) up to 24 months, and differences between the NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI cohorts were compared.

RESULTS

Of 325 patients with aRCC, 219 received NIVO + IPI and 106 received PEM + AXI as the 1L treatment. According to patients' follow-up length, the analyses for months 7-12 included 210 patients in the NIVO + IPI cohort and 103 in the PEM + AXI cohort; months 13-18 included 119 and 48 patients, respectively; and months 19-24 included 81 and 25 patients. PPPM unadjusted all-cause total costs were $46,348 for NIVO + IPI and $38,097 for PEM + AXI in months 1-6; $26,840 versus $27,983, respectively, in months 7-12; $22,899 versus $25,137 in months 13-18; and $22,279 versus $27,947 in months 19-24. PPPM unadjusted RCC-related costs were $44,059 for NIVO + IPI and $36,456 for PEM + AXI in months 1-6; $25,144 versus $26,692, respectively, in months 7-12; $21,645 versus $23,709 in months 13-18; and $20,486 versus $25,515 in months 19-24. PPPM costs declined more rapidly for patients receiving NIVO + IPI compared to those receiving PEM + AXI, resulting in significantly lower all-cause costs associated with NIVO + IPI during months 19-24 (difference - $10,914 [95% confidence interval - $21,436, - $1091]) and RCC-related costs during months 7-12 (- $4747 [(- $8929, - $512]) and 19-24 (- $10,261 [- $20,842, - $421]) after adjustment. Cost savings for NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI were driven by differences in drug costs which, after adjustment, were significantly lower in months 7-12 (difference - $5555 [all-cause], - $5689 [RCC-related]); 13-18 (- $7217 and - $6870, respectively); and 19-24 (- $16,682 and - $16,125).

CONCLUSION

Although the real-world PPPM healthcare costs of 1L NIVO + IPI were higher compared with PEM + AXI in the first 6 months of treatment, the costs associated with NIVO + IPI rapidly declined thereafter, resulting in significantly lower costs vs. PEM + AXI from months 7 to 24.

Health Care Resource Use for Modern First-Line Treatments in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Importance

Immuno-oncology agents have changed the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Such therapies improve survival but can impose considerable health care resource use (HCRU) and associated costs, necessitating their examination.

Objective

To compare HCRU, costs, and clinical outcomes among patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P+A) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (I+N).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from an administrative claims database on patients with mRCC receiving first-line P+A or I+N that was initiated between January 2018 and May 2020. Data were analyzed from February 2021 to July 2022.

Exposure

First-line P+A or I+N.

Main Outcome and Measures

HCRU and costs during the first 90 days, full first-line treatment, and full follow-up periods were assessed. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, time on treatment, overall survival, time to first emergency department (ED) visit, and time to first inpatient stay were compared.

Results

Among 507 patients, there were 126 patients receiving P+A (91 male [72.2%]; mean [SD] age, 67.93 [9.66] y) and 381 patients receiving I+N (271 male [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.52 [9.94] years). The median time on treatment was longer for the P+A compared with I+N group (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.40 months to not estimable] vs 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.07 to 5.30 months]; P < .001). The median time to first ED visit was longer for the P+A than I+N group (7.2 months [95% CI 3.9 to 11.1 months ] vs 3.3 months [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.9 months]; P = .005), as was time to first inpatient stay (9.0 months [95% CI 6.5 months to not estimable] vs 5.6 months [95% CI, 3.9 to 7.9 months]; P = .02). During the first 90 days, a lower proportion of the P+A than N+I group had ED visits (43 patients [34.1%] vs 182 patients [47.8%] and inpatient stays (24 patients [19.1%) vs144 patients [37.8%]; P < .001). During full follow-up, mean total adjusted costs were similar for P+A and I+N groups, but adjusted 12-month estimated total costs were higher for P+A than I+N groups ($325 574 vs $ 263 803; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, treatment with P+A was associated with longer time on treatment, time to first ED visit, and inpatient stay, while 12-month estimated costs were higher for the P+A group. This is among the first clinical studies to evaluate economic burden associated with modern treatments for mRCC.

First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies versus combination therapies comprising immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced renal cell carcinoma: a comparative analysis of the effectiveness using real-world data

BACKGROUND

There are few comparative studies on dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (i.e., IO-IO) and combination therapies comprising ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (i.e., IO-TKI) for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), especially in real-world settings.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data of 175 patients with IMDC intermediate-risk or poor-risk RCC; as first-line therapy, 103 received IO-IO, and 72 received IO-TKI. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was conducted to balance patients' backgrounds in the IO-IO and IO-TKI groups.

RESULTS

Based on the IPTW analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (median: 15.6 vs. 8.3 months; p = 0.0386). In contrast, overall survival was not different between groups (median: 46.7 vs. 49.0 months; p = 0.465). Although the IPTW-adjusted objective response rate was not significantly different (51.2% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.359), the progressive disease rate as the best overall response was lower in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (3.3% vs. 27.4%; p < 0.0001). Regarding the safety profile, the treatment interruption rate was higher in the IO-TKI group than in the IO-IO group (70.3% vs. 49.2%; p = 0.005). In contrast, the IO-IO group had a higher corticosteroid administration rate (43.3% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

IO-TKI therapy exhibited superior effectiveness over IO-IO therapy in terms of PFS improvement and immediate disease progression prevention and was associated with a higher risk of treatment interruption and a lower risk of needing corticosteroids.

Prognostic Impact of Immune-Related Adverse Events as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause various immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This study aimed to evaluate the association between the incidence of irAEs and oncological outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 69 patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy between September 2018 and September 2021 at 4 institutions. Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate the important factors affecting overall survival (OS) in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy.

RESULTS

During observation with a median follow-up of 9.1 months, the median OS was not reached, while the median progression-free survival was 6.0 months. Patients with irAEs had significantly prolonged OS and progression-free survival than those without irAEs (p = .012 and .002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that 3 independent factors, including C-reactive protein (CRP), irAEs, and performance status (PS), were significantly associated with OS (p = .04, .02, and .01, respectively). The patients were subsequently divided into 3 groups as follows: group 1, 20 patients with all 3 independent OS predictors; group 2, 18 patients with irAE predictors alone or 2 positive independent OS predictors (irAEs + CRP or irAEs + PS); group 3, 31 patients with 3 negative independent S predictors. OS varied significantly among the 3 groups (p = .004).

CONCLUSION

The appearance of irAEs could predict OS in patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as the first-line therapy.

Real world treatment sequences and outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma changed a lot in the last few years. This study aimed to assess the treatment sequences and outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomawho received first-line systemic treatment with tyrosin kinase inhibitors monotherapy, ipilimumab plus nivolumab, or pembrolizumab plus axitinibbetween January2009 and May 2023 on the database of TriNetX network. Overall survival, time on treatment and time to next treatment were evaluated using Kaplan-Meiermethod.

RESULTS

Totally, 4183 received tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy, 1555 received ipilimumab plus nivolumab, and 559 received axitinib plus pembrolizumab. Median time on treatment was 2.5 months for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, 5.4 months for the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort, and 8.3 months for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. Median time to next treatment was 16.6 months for both the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy and ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohorts, and 22.1 months for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. Median overall survival was 42.2 months for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, 39.7monthsfor the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort, and not reached for the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort. In comparison with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy cohort, patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib cohort showed survival benefit (log-rank p = 0.0168) in overall survival, but not the case in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort.

CONCLUSION

There was a trend toward using first-line immuno-oncology based therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a real-world practice. Axitinib plus pembrolizumuab cohort had survival benefits over tyrosine kinase inhibitor and ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohorts, while patients in the ipilimumab plus nivolumab cohort had more distant metastases and comorbidities.

Real-world clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving pembrolizumab + axitinib vs. ipilimumab + nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Immune-Oncology (IO) therapies have changed first-line (1L) treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in last few years with robust clinical trial data. We examined clinical outcomes among clear cell mRCC (mccRCC) patients who received pembrolizumab + axitinib (pembro-axi) or ipilimumab + nivolumab (ipi-nivo) in the US community oncology setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized data from electronic health records and chart review within The US Oncology Network to identify adult patients with mccRCC initiating 1L pembro-axi or ipi-nivo from January 01, 2019 to December 31, 2020 and followed through March 31, 2021. Physician-recorded response (real-world overall response rate [rwORR] and real-world disease control rate [rwDCR]) was assessed descriptively. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world time to next treatment (rwTTNT) and time on treatment (rwToT) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Association of 1L systemic treatment with time-to-event outcomes was examined using multivariable cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Study included 331 mccRCC patients (pembro-axi:44%, ipi-nivo:56%). Median age was 65 years, 75.5% were male, and 82.5% had intermediate/poor (I/P) IMDC risk score. RwORR and rwDCR were 71.0% and 80.0% for pembro-axi and 45.2% and 58.6% for ipi-nivo. In multivariable analysis, pembro-axi was associated with longer rwToT (aHR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40, 0.71]), rwTTNT (aHR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.87]), and rwPFS (aHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49, 0.99]) compared to ipi-nivo (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides insight into newer mccRCC treatment tolerability and effectiveness in the real-world US community setting. Our real-world results were comparable to data from clinical trials, which is encouraging for mccRCC patients.

Sequential treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy in a real-world setting: epidemiologic, noninterventional, retrospective-prospective cohort multicentre study

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to determine whether data on the clinical effectiveness of second-line therapy collected in a real-world setting provide additional valuable information on the optimal sequence of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy with either sunitinib or pazopanib and with at least one dose of second-line everolimus, axitinib, nivolumab, or cabozantinib were included. The efficacy of different treatment sequences was analyzed based on the time to the second objective disease progression (PFS2) and the time to the first objective disease progression (PFS).

RESULTS

Data from 172 subjects were available for analysis. PFS2 was 23.29 months. The 1-year PFS2 rate was 85.3%, and the 3-year PFS2 rate was 25.9%. The 1-year overall survival rate was 97.0%, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 78.6%. Patients with a lower IMDC prognostic risk group had a significantly (p < 0.001) longer PFS2. Patients with metastases in the liver had a shorter PFS2 than patients with metastases in the other sites (p = 0.024). Patients with metastases in the lungs and lymph nodes (p = 0.045) and patients with metastases in the liver and bones (p = 0.030) had lower PFS2 rates than patients with metastases in other sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a better IMDC prognosis have a longer PFS2. Metastases in the liver lead to a shorter PFS2 than metastases in other sites. One metastasis site means a longer PFS2 than 3 or more metastasis sites. Nephrectomy performed in an earlier stage of disease or metastatic setting means higher PFS and higher PFS2. No PFS2 difference was found between different treatment sequences of TKI-TKI or TKI-immune therapy.

Progression-Free and Overall Survival of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Indirect Comparison of Six Combination Regimens

Background: Recently, numerous combination therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have been proposed as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of these combination regimens by the application of an innovative method that reconstructs individual patient data. Methods: Six phase III studies describing different combination regimens for aRCC were selected. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves through the “Shiny method”. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared among combination treatments and sunitinib. Results were summarized as multi-treatment KM curves. Standard statistical testing was used, including hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity. Results: In the overall population of aRCC patients, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib showed the longest median PFS and was expected to determine the longest OS. Pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + cabozantinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab were similar in terms of PFS, but pembrolizumab + axitinib also demonstrated a better OS. Our subgroup analysis showed that sunitinib is still a valuable option, whereas, in intermediate-poor risk patients, pembrolizumab + axitinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly improve OS compared to sunitinib. Conclusion: The Shiny method allowed us to perform all head-to-head indirect comparisons between these agents in a context in which “real” comparative trials have not been performed.

Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Current Treatment Era

Background

Immuno-oncology (IO) agents and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data on real-world usage and outcomes are limited.

Objective

To examine real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for mRCC.

Design setting and participants

This retrospective cohort study included 1538 patients with mRCC who received first-line treatment with pembrolizumab + axitinib (P + A; n = 279, 18%), ipilimumab + nivolumab (I + N; n = 618, 40%), or TKI monotherapy (TKIm; cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib, or axitinib; n = 641, 42%) between January 1, 2018 and September 30, 2020 in US Oncology Network/non-network practices.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The relationship with outcomes, time on treatment (ToT), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results and limitations

The median age of the cohort was 67 yr (interquartile range 59.5-74.4), 70% were male, 79% had clear cell RCC, and 87% had an intermediate or poor International mRCC Database Consortium risk score. The median ToT was 13.6 for P + A versus 5.8 for I + N versus 3.4 mo for TKIm (p < 0.001) and the median TTNT was 16.4 for P + A versus 8.3 for I + N versus 8.4 mo for TKIm (p < 0.001) . Median OS was not reached for P + A, 27.6 mo for I + N, and 26.9 mo for TKIm (p = 0.237). On adjusted multivariable analysis, treatment with P + A was associated with better ToT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.72 vs I + N; 0.37, 95% CI, 0.30-0.45 vs TKIm; p < 0.0001) and better TTNT (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.77 vs I + N; 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67 vs TKIm; p < 0.0001). Limitations include the retrospective design and the limited follow-up for characterization of survival.

Conclusions

We noted substantial uptake of IO-based therapies in the first-line community oncology setting since their approval. In addition, the study provides insights into clinical effectiveness, tolerability, and/or compliance of IO-based therapies.

Patient summary

We examined the use of immunotherapy for patients with metastatic kidney cancer. The findings suggest rapid implementation of these new treatments by oncologists working in the community setting, which is reassuring for patients with this disease.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.