Baseline radiological tumor burden to sub-stratify IMDC risk groups in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line therapy: A post hoc analysis from a randomized phase III trial.

R Rashad Nawfal (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) R Razane El Hajj Chehade (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) K Karl Semaan (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) M Marc Eid (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) L Liliana Ascione (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA) E Eddy Saad W Wassim Daoud Khatoun (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA) M Mustafa Jamal Saleh (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA) J Jad El Masri W Wenxin Xu (Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA) E Emre Yekedüz M Maxine Sun (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA) D David A. Braun S Saurabh Gupta D Daniel Yick Chin Heng (Department of Medical Oncology, Arthur JE Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada) K Katherine Krajewski (Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) T Toni K. Choueiri (Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA)

Abstract

4544 Background: Baseline radiological tumor burden (BRTB) is a measurement derived from routine CT scans and reflects baseline tumor burden. Herein we assess the utility of BRTB to help with risk assessment within IMDC risk subgroups from a randomized prospective phase III study. Methods: We reviewed data of 701 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from the CheckMate 9ER trial (Choueiri, NEJM 2021). Patients with BRTB measurement per investigator using RECIST v1.1 at baseline were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). To evaluate the impact of BRTB on OS and PFS, we used univariate and multivariable Cox regression models for each IMDC subgroup accounting for age, sex, race, stage at diagnosis, sarcomatoid features and regimen type (IO+VEGFi, VEGFi). Results: Favorable, intermediate and poor risk IMDC subgroups included 157/701, 392/701 and 132/701 patients, respectively. This cohort included 63, 187 and 94 OS events and 112, 290 and 103 PFS events in favorable, intermediate and poor risk groups, respectively. For the favorable risk group, BRTB was not associated with OS or PFS on multivariable analysis (HR adjusted = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.68 and HR adjusted = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99 – 1.00, p = 0.99, respectively). Similarly for the poor risk group, BRTB was not associated with OS or PFS on multivariable analysis (HR adjusted = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.99-1.06, p = 0.06 and HR adjusted = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.98 – 1.04, p = 0.54, respectively). However, in the intermediate risk group, higher BRTB was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.05 for each 1 cm increase in BRTB, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07, p < 0.0001) and PFS (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 1.01-1.05, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BRTB remained associated with both OS and PFS (HR adjusted = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.04-1.07, p < 0.0001 and HR adjusted = 1.03, 95%CI: 1.02 – 1.05, p < 0.0001, respectively). Further, we stratified IMDC intermediate risk group outcomes according to BRTB median value of 6.33cm (Table). Conclusions: While BRTB does not appear to predict outcomes in favorable and poor-risk subgroups in this study, BRTB is a useful metric for sub-stratification of the intermediate-risk IMDC subgroup. External validation is imperative to validate these findings and explore BRTB integration into clinical decision-making in mRCC. Stratification of the intermediate IMDC risk group according to baseline radiological tumor burden median (6.33cm). Intermediate low BRTB (n=196) Intermediate high BRTB (n=196) Log rank p value Median OS, months(95% CI) NR (49.5 – NR) 30.9 (24.4 – 40) p < 0.0001 Median PFS, months(95% CI) 15.84 (11.83 – 18.3) 8.41 (6.97 – 11.1) p < 0.001

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 4544-4544
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

R

Rashad Nawfal

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

R

Razane El Hajj Chehade

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

K

Karl Semaan

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

M

Marc Eid

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

L

Liliana Ascione

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

E

Eddy Saad

W

Wassim Daoud Khatoun

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

M

Mustafa Jamal Saleh

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

J

Jad El Masri

W

Wenxin Xu

Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA

E

Emre Yekedüz

M

Maxine Sun

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

D

David A. Braun

S

Saurabh Gupta

D

Daniel Yick Chin Heng

Department of Medical Oncology, Arthur JE Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

K

Katherine Krajewski

Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

T

Toni K. Choueiri

Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA