Real-world outcomes of first-line dual immunotherapy versus combination VEGF immunotherapy in intermediate-poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Data Consortium (IMDC).

477 Background: Multiple phase 3 trials have established either dual immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immunotherapy with a VEGFR inhibitor (IO-VE) as standard-of-care first-line therapy for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We focused this analysis on patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk where either IPI-NIVO or IO-VE would be standard. Methods: Using the IMDC database, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with intermediate or poor risk disease (1 or more IMDC risk factors) who received first-line therapy with IPI-NIVO or an approved IO-VE combination (avelumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib). Baseline characteristics, objective response rates (ORR), time to next therapy (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were compared between IPI-NIVO and IO-VE regimens by Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 1,523 patients were identified of whom 72.9% received IPI-NIVO and 28.2% received IO-VE. Baseline characteristics of our cohort are summarized in the table. Median follow-up was 24 months. The ORR was lower with IPI-NIVO compared with IO-VE (39.1% vs 48.0%; p = 0.004). Median TTNT was shorter in IPI-NIVO than IO-VE (10.4 months, 95% CI 9.4-11.7 vs 18.6 months, 95% CI 16.3-24.6; p <0.0001). Median OS was similar between groups at 35.4 months (95% CI: 31.4-41.9) and 35.6 months (95% CI: 28.9-44.1) for IPI-NIVO and IO-VE respectively (p = 0.277), and there were no significant differences when intermediate and poor risk groups were analyzed separately. Median OS in IO-VE vs IPI-NIVO was not significantly different when adjusted by IMDC criteria, brain, bone and liver metastases (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.06; p=0.165). Conclusions: In a real-world setting amongst patients with IMDC intermediate-poor risk disease, IPI-NIVO and IO-VE strategies show similar survival outcomes although longer follow-up will be necessary to assess the tails of these survival curves. IO-VE is associated with a greater response rate compared with IPI-NIVO. Baseline characteristics. IPI-NIVON = 1110 IO-VEN = 413 p-value Male 808 (72.8) 303 (73.4) 0.823 IMDC Intermediate/Poor Risk 730/280 (65.8/34.2) 274/139 (66.3/33.7) 0.832 Pre-existing autoimmune condition 16 (2.6) 12 (4.6) 0.133 Non-clear cell histology 139 (15.9) 57 (16.4) 0.844 Sarcomatoid 147 (21.3) 50 (17.2) 0.1437 Nephrectomy 613 (55.3) 239 (57.9) 0.374 Brain metastasis 90 (8.4) 23 (5.7) 0.084 Bone metastasis 373 (34.3) 173 (42.5) 0.003 Liver metastasis 218 (20.2) 65 (16.0) 0.063

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.5_suppl.477
Primary Topic
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Real-world outcomes of first-line dual immunotherapy versus combination VEGF immunotherapy in intermediate-poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Data Consortium (IMDC).

Martín Zarbá, David Maj, Elizabeth Liow, Razane El Hajj Chehade et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
article

Real-world outcomes of first-line dual immunotherapy versus combination VEGF immunotherapy in intermediate-poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Data Consortium (IMDC).

Martín Zarbá, David Maj, Elizabeth Liow, Razane El Hajj Chehade, J. Connor Wells, Zeynep İrem Özay, Benoit Beuselinck, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Daniel Yick Chin Heng, Ajjai Alva, Arnoud J. Templeton, Toni K. Choueiri, Rana R. McKay, Georg A. Bjarnason, Jae‐Lyun Lee, Sumanta Kumar Pal, Lori Wood, Guillermo de Velasco, Thomas Powles, Cristina Suárez
article en

Abstract

477 Background: Multiple phase 3 trials have established either dual immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immunotherapy with a VEGFR inhibitor (IO-VE) as standard-of-care first-line therapy for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We focused this analysis on patients with IMDC intermediate or poor risk where either IPI-NIVO or IO-VE would be standard. Methods: Using the IMDC database, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with intermediate or poor risk disease (1 or more IMDC risk factors) who received first-line therapy with IPI-NIVO or an approved IO-VE combination (avelumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib). Baseline characteristics, objective response rates (ORR), time to next therapy (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were compared between IPI-NIVO and IO-VE regimens by Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 1,523 patients were identified of whom 72.9% received IPI-NIVO and 28.2% received IO-VE. Baseline characteristics of our cohort are summarized in the table. Median follow-up was 24 months. The ORR was lower with IPI-NIVO compared with IO-VE (39.1% vs 48.0%; p = 0.004). Median TTNT was shorter in IPI-NIVO than IO-VE (10.4 months, 95% CI 9.4-11.7 vs 18.6 months, 95% CI 16.3-24.6; p <0.0001). Median OS was similar between groups at 35.4 months (95% CI: 31.4-41.9) and 35.6 months (95% CI: 28.9-44.1) for IPI-NIVO and IO-VE respectively (p = 0.277), and there were no significant differences when intermediate and poor risk groups were analyzed separately. Median OS in IO-VE vs IPI-NIVO was not significantly different when adjusted by IMDC criteria, brain, bone and liver metastases (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.06; p=0.165). Conclusions: In a real-world setting amongst patients with IMDC intermediate-poor risk disease, IPI-NIVO and IO-VE strategies show similar survival outcomes although longer follow-up will be necessary to assess the tails of these survival curves. IO-VE is associated with a greater response rate compared with IPI-NIVO. Baseline characteristics. IPI-NIVON = 1110 IO-VEN = 413 p-value Male 808 (72.8) 303 (73.4) 0.823 IMDC Intermediate/Poor Risk 730/280 (65.8/34.2) 274/139 (66.3/33.7) 0.832 Pre-existing autoimmune condition 16 (2.6) 12 (4.6) 0.133 Non-clear cell histology 139 (15.9) 57 (16.4) 0.844 Sarcomatoid 147 (21.3) 50 (17.2) 0.1437 Nephrectomy 613 (55.3) 239 (57.9) 0.374 Brain metastasis 90 (8.4) 23 (5.7) 0.084 Bone metastasis 373 (34.3) 173 (42.5) 0.003 Liver metastasis 218 (20.2) 65 (16.0) 0.063

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(5_suppl)
Ulsan College (KR), National Health Service (GB), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Dalhousie University (CA), Harvard University (US), Queen Mary University of London (GB), University of Calgary (CA), University of Basel (CH), University of Utah (US), University of Michigan (US), Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre (CA), The Royal Free Hospital (GB), Huntsman Cancer Institute (US), Cancer Research UK (GB), Asan Medical Center (KR), University of California San Diego (US), University of Ulsan (KR), Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre (ES), City of Hope (US), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US), Michigan Center for Translational Pathology (US), Monash Health (AU), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES), St. Claraspital (CH), National Cancer Centre Singapore (SG), Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center (US), Sunnybrook Hospital (CA), Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (ES), Sunnybrook Research Institute, University College London (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Renal cell carcinoma treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.