Dataset Information

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated.

Results

After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2).

Conclusion

After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

SUBMITTER: Roviello G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9385587 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

Roviello Giandomenico G Gambale Elisabetta E Giorgione Roberta R Santini Daniele D Stellato Marco M Fornarini Giuseppe G Rebuzzi Sara Elena SE Basso Umberto U Bimbatti Davide D Doni Laura L Nesi Gabriella G Bersanelli Melissa M Buti Sebastiano S De Giorgi Ugo U Galli Luca L Sbrana Andrea A Conca Raffaele R Carella Claudia C Naglieri Emanuele E Pignata Sandro S Procopio Giuseppe G Antonuzzo Lorenzo L

Cancer medicine 20220320 16

<h4>Background</h4>Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC.<h4>Methods</h4>In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall surviva ...[more]

PMID: 35312175

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prognostic value of the Geriatric 8 (G8) screening score in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving first-line immunotherapy remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of G8 within the context of the Meet-URO classification in mRCC patients treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab.MethodsThis retrospective multicentre study analysed 106 mRCC patients treated with first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab. G8 and Meet-URO scores were calculated before treatment initiation. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), defined as duration from first administration of Nivolumab to death. OS was analysed in relation to age groups, G8 scores, and Meet-URO score categories, with data censored for patients still alive at the last follow-up. The secondary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was measured from initiating Nivolumab to the earliest instance of disease progression or death. OS and PFS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression analyses. The reporting of this study conforms to the REMARK guidelines.ResultsPatients with G8 > 14 had more favorable IMDC and Meet-URO risk classifications and lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios. While PFS did not differ significantly between G8 ≤ 14 and >14 groups (1-year 29.3% vs 46.2%, p = 0.2), OS was significantly longer in G8 > 14 group (1-year 76.1% vs 58.6%, p = 0.006). In multivariable analysis, G8 ≤ 14 was independently associated with worse OS (HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.06-5.08, p = 0.03) but not PFS. The Meet-URO score was prognostic for both PFS and OS. In patients ≥70 years, G8 lost its prognostic value, while Meet-URO remained prognostic for OS.ConclusionsThe G8 score is an independent prognostic factor for OS but not PFS in mRCC patients receiving first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab. The Meet-URO score shows consistent prognostic ability for PFS and OS across age groups. These findings suggest that while G8 may be useful for individual patient-level OS prediction, the Meet-URO score may be superior for guiding treatment decisions in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently the standard of care for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after the failure of previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The choice of further therapy after ICI progression is a new challenge, and scarce data support it. We aimed to examine the outcomes of mUC patients after progression to ICI, especially when receiving chemotherapy.MethodsData were retrospectively collected from clinical records of mUC patients whose disease progressed to anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy at 14 Italian centers. Patients were grouped according to ICI therapy setting into SALVAGE (ie, ICI delivered ⩾ second-line therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy) and NAÏVE (ie, first-line therapy) groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among subgroups. Cox regression assessed the effect of treatments after progression to ICI on OS. Objective response rate (ORR) was calculated as the sum of partial and complete radiologic responses.ResultsThe study population consisted of 201 mUC patients who progressed after ICI: 59 in the NAÏVE cohort and 142 in the SALVAGE cohort. Overall, 52 patients received chemotherapy after ICI progression (25.9%), 20 (9.9%) received ICI beyond progression, 115 (57.2%) received best supportive care only, and 14 (7.0%) received investigational drugs. Objective response rate to chemotherapy in the post-ICI setting was 23.1% (28.0% in the NAÏVE group and 18.5% in the SALVAGE group). Median PFS and OS to chemotherapy after ICI-PD was 5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3-11) and 13 months (95% CI: 7-NA) for the NAÏVE group; 3 months (95% CI: 2-NA) and 9 months (95% CI: 6-NA) for the SALVAGE group, respectively. Overall survival from ICI initiation was 17 months for patients receiving chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.09, p < 0.001), versus 8 months for patients receiving ICI beyond progression (HR = 0.13, p < 0.001), and 2 months for patients who did not receive further active treatment (p < 0.001).ConclusionsChemotherapy administered after ICI progression for mUC patients is advisable irrespective of the treatment line.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the survival advantage, not all metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients achieve a long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Moreover, the identification of prognostic biomarkers is still an unmet clinical need.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study investigated the prognostic role of peripheral-blood inflammatory indices and clinical factors to develop a novel prognostic score in mRCC patients receiving at least second-line nivolumab. The complete blood count before the first cycle of therapy was assessed by calculating neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived NLR (dNLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammation index (SII), and systemic inflammation response index (SIRI). Clinical factors included pre-treatment International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score, line of therapy, and metastatic sites.ResultsFrom October 2015 to November 2019, 571 mRCC patients received nivolumab as second- and further-line treatment in 69% and 31% of cases. In univariable and multivariable analyses all inflammatory indices, IMDC score, and bone metastases significantly correlated with overall survival (OS). The multivariable model with NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had the highest c-index (0.697) and was chosen for the developing of the score (Schneeweiss scoring system). After internal validation (bootstrap re-sampling), the final index (Meet-URO score) composed by NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had a c-index of 0.691. It identified five categories with distinctive OSs: group 1 (median OS - mOS = not reached), group 2 (mOS = 43.9 months), group 3 (mOS = 22.4 months), group 4 (mOS = 10.3 months), and group 5 (mOS = 3.2 months). Moreover, the Meet-URO score allowed for a fine risk-stratification across all three IMDC groups.ConclusionThe Meet-URO score allowed for the accurate stratification of pretreated mRCC patients receiving nivolumab and is easily applicable for clinical practice at no additional cost. Future steps include its external validation, the assessment of its predictivity, and its application to first-line combinations.

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:ImportanceMetastatic collecting duct carcinoma (mCDC) is a rare type of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ncRCC) with poor prognosis and no standard treatments. Despite retrospective series that have documented the benefit of cabozantinib in ncRCC, no prospective trials have evaluated this treatment in mCDC.ObjectiveTo determine whether cabozantinib is an active treatment in patients with mCDC.Design, setting, and participantsThe caBozantinib in cOllectiNg ductS Renal Cell cArcInoma (BONSAI) trial was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial carried out between January 2018 and November 2020 at a single academic center with data cut off in September 2021 on behalf of the the Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO 2). Eligible patients had histologic diagnosis of centrally confirmed mCDC with measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1). In total, 25 patients were screened.InterventionsPatients received cabozantinib, 60 mg orally once daily, until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1.ResultsAt data cut off, of 25 patients enrolled, 23 started treatment because 2 were excluded after failing the screening process at pathologic review. The median follow-up cannot be estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier estimator. The median time to censoring was 11 months (95% CI, 0-22 months). Median (range) age was 66 (53-74) years. As best overall response, 3 patients presented stable disease, 1 patient achieved a complete response, and 7 a partial response. The ORR was 35% (95% CI, 16%-57%). The median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI, 3-13 months). The median OS was 7 months (95% CI, 3-31 months). All patients reported at least 1 grade (G) 1 to 2 adverse event (AE). The most common G1 to G2 AEs were fatigue (14 [60%]), anorexia (9 [39%]), hand-foot syndrome (7 [30%]), hypothyroidism (7 [30%]), mucositis (7 [30%]), diarrhea (5 [22%]), and hypertension (3 [13%]). Six G3 AEs were reported: 2 arterial hyperthension, 1 pulmonary thromboembolism, 1 bleeding, and 2 fatigue. There were no permanent discontinuations from the study owing to AEs. Four patients (17%) required dose reduction to 40 mg, and 4 (17%) required a transitory interruption to manage toxic effects.Conclusions and relevanceThe study met the ORR primary end point, showing encouraging efficacy of cabozantinib in untreated patients with mCDC. Further investigations to advance the molecular understanding of this tumor are ongoing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354884.

Project description:BackgroundRelative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment.Methodology & findingsSystematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year's treatment and then decreased over time to zero.ConclusionWith all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months.

Dataset Information

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets