Dataset Information

Novel risk scoring system for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with cabozantinib.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cabozantinib is an effective treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The international mRCC database consortium (IMDC) criteria is the gold standard for risk stratification in mRCC. We created a risk scoring system specific for mRCC patients treated with cabozantinib.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of 87 patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2019. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were used to measure clinical outcomes. Upon variable selection in multivariable analysis (MVA), elevated baseline monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), sarcomatoid histologic component, ECOG PS > 1, and absence of bone metastases were each assigned 1 point. A three-group risk scoring system was then created: low (score=0-1), intermediate (score=2), and high risk (score=3-4). The Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival analyses.

Results

The median age was 62 years-old and the majority were males (71%) with clear-cell RCC (75%). Most (67%) received at least 1 prior line of systemic therapy. High risk and intermediate risk pts had significantly shorter OS (high risk HR: 13.84, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 3.50, p = 0.004) and PFS (high risk HR: 7.31, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 1.87, p = 0.053) compared to low risk patients in MVA.

Conclusions

RCC patients treated with cabozantinib may benefit from specific risk stratification criteria using RCC histology, ECOG PS, sites of metastatic disease, and MLR. These variables are easily accessible in the clinical setting and may be helpful to determine which mRCC patients may benefit from treatment with cabozantinib.

SUBMITTER: Martini DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8405548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria are the gold standard for risk-stratifying patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). We developed a novel risk scoring system for patients with mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 100 ICI-treated patients with mRCC at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2018. Several baseline variables were collected, including markers of inflammation, body mass index (BMI), and sites of metastatic disease, and all were considered for inclusion in our risk scoring system. Upon variable selection in multivariable model, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), BMI, and number and sites of metastases at baseline were used for risk score calculation. Patients were categorized using four-level risk groups as good (risk score = 0), intermediate (risk score = 1), poor (risk score = 2), or very poor (risk score = 3-4). Cox's proportional hazard model and the Kaplan-Meier method were implemented for survival outcomes.ResultsMost patients were male (66%) with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (72%). The majority (71%) received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 monotherapy. Our risk scoring criteria had higher Uno's concordance statistics than IMDC in predicting overall survival (OS; 0.71 vs. 0.57) and progression-free survival (0.61 vs. 0.58). Setting good risk (MLR <0.93, BMI ≥24, and D_Met = 0) as the reference, the OS hazard ratios were 29.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.64-238.9), 6.58 (95% CI, 0.84-51.68), and 3.75 (95% CI, 0.49-28.57) for very poor, poor, and intermediate risk groups, respectively.ConclusionRisk scoring using MLR, BMI, and number and sites of metastases may be an effective way to predict survival in patients with mRCC receiving ICI. These results should be validated in a larger, prospective study.Implications for practiceA risk scoring system was created for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The results of this study have significant implications for practicing oncologists in the community and academic setting. Importantly, these results identify readily available risk factors that can be used clinically to risk-stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Project description:Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) affects over 330,000 new patients every year, of whom 1/3 present with metastatic RCC (mRCC) at diagnosis. Most mRCC patients treated with a first-line agent relapse within 1 year and need second-line therapy. The present study aims to compare overall survival (OS) between nivolumab and cabozantinib from two recent pivotal studies comparing, respectively, each one of the two emerging treatments against everolimus in patients who relapse following first-line treatment. Comparison is traditionally carried out using the Bucher method, which assumes proportional hazard. Since OS curves intersected in one of the pivotal studies, models not assuming proportional hazards were also considered to refine the comparison. Four Bayesian parametric survival network meta-analysis models were implemented on overall survival (OS) data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves reported in the studies. Three models allowing hazard ratios (HR) to vary over time were assessed against a fixed-HR model. The Bucher method favored cabozantinib, with a fixed HR for OS vs. nivolumab of 1.09 (95% confidence interval: [0.77, 1.54]). However, all models with time-varying HR showed better fits than the fixed-HR model. The log-logistic model fitted the data best, exhibiting a HR for OS initially favoring cabozantinib, the trend inverting to favor nivolumab after month 5 (95% credible interval <1 from 10 months). The initial probability of cabozantinib conferring superior OS was 54%, falling to 41.5% by month 24. Numerical differences in study-adjusted OS estimates between the two treatments remained small. This study evidences that HR for OS of nivolumab vs. cabozantinib varies over time, favoring cabozantinib in the first months of treatment but nivolumab afterwards, a possible indication that patients with poor prognosis benefit more from cabozantinib in terms of survival, nivolumab benefiting patients with better prognosis. More evidence, including real-world observational data, is needed to compare effectiveness between cabozantinib and nivolumab.

Project description:The purpose of the study was to identify a comprehensive prognostic system of pretreatment clinical parameters in 425 patients (pts) with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with different subcutaneous (s.c.) recombinant cytokine-based home therapies in consecutive trials. Treatment consisted of (A) s.c. interferon-alpha 2a (INF-alpha), s.c. interleukin-2 (IL-2) (n=102 pts), (B) s.c. IFN-alpha 2a, s.c. IL-2, and i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (n=235 pts) or (C) s.c. IFN-alpha 2a, s.c. IL-2, and i.v. 5-FU combined with p.o. 13-cis-retinoic acid (13cRA) (n=88 pts). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank statistics, and Cox regression analysis were employed to identify risk factors and to create a multiple risk factor model. The following pretreatment risk factors were identified by univariate analysis: (1) three and more metastatic sites, (2) presence of liver, lymph node or bone metastases, (3) neutrophil count > or = 6500 cells microl(-1), (4) serum lactate dehydrogenase level (LDH) > or = 220 U l(-1), and (5) serum C-reactive protein level (CRP) > or = 11 mg l(-1). Cox regression analysis with forward stepwise variable selection identified neutrophil count as the major prognostic factor (hazard ratio=1.9, P<0.001), while serum levels of LDH and CRP, time between diagnosis of tumour and onset of metastatic disease, number of metastatic sites, and bone metastases were significant but somewhat less important prognostic variables within the multiple risk factor model (hazard ratio < or = 1.5). Patients were assigned to one of the three risk groups according to cumulative risk defined as the sum of simplified risk s.c.ores for six pretreatment variables. Low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients achieved a median overall survival of 32+ months (95% CI 24, 43; 5-year survival of 27%), 18+ months (95% CI 15, 20; 5-year survival of 11%), and 8+ months (95% CI 6, 10; 5-year survival of 5%), respectively. These prognostic categories are helpful both in individual patient care and in the assessment of patients entering prospective clinical trials.