Efficacy of subsequent treatment after combination therapy in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC).
Abstract
4545 Background: The treatment landscape of front-line nccRCC has evolved with recent trials demonstrating the efficacy of combination systemic therapy. However, the efficacy of treatment after combination therapy is unknown. This study evaluates the efficacy of VEGF-based regimens in nccRCC patients (pts) previously treated with combination regimens. Methods: ORACLE is a real-world, multi-center, retrospective database that includes nccRCC patients that received combination systemic therapies (IO+IO, IO+VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR) in any line. Subsequent treatments were categorized as VEGF only regimens (cabozantinib vs other VEGF), IO+ VEGF and VEGF+ mTOR. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review using RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete or partial responses or stable disease, time to treatment progression (TTP), calculated from the date of VEGF-based initiation to progression or last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were estimated with the log-rank test, and categorical outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Results: 105 pts who received VEGF – based regimens after combination therapy were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics: median age: 59years, 71 % male, 58% white, 25% black, 87% ECOG 0-2. IMDC-risk categories included:21% favorable, 59% intermediate and 20% poor risk. Histology included papillary (40%), unclassified (32%), chromophobe (16%) and other rare subtypes (12%). Prior combination therapies included IO+IO: 62%, IO+ VEGF: 34% and VEGF+ mTORi:4%. 70% pts received combination therapy in the first line setting while the remainder received combination therapy in a second or later line. Outcomes with subsequent treatments are described in Table1. IMDC risk score correlated with TTP. Conclusions: Modest antitumor activity was observed with VEGF- based approaches in combination therapy refractory nccRCC. Optimal management of nccRCC remains an unmet need. Outcomes of nccRCC patients by treatment and histologic type. Outcomes per Treatment n ORR (%) DCR (%) mTTP (mo.) Cabozantinib 56 18 47 3.6 VEGF/mTOR 19 16 42 9.3 IO+VEGF 17 29 47 5.6 Other VEGF 13 15 46 5.5 Outcomes per Histology Papillary 42 19 43 6.5 Unclassified 33 21 42 6.1 Chromophobe 17 29 59 8.9 Other * 13 0 46 NR
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Paulo Siqueira do Amaral
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Anikó Szabó
Clara Hwang
Pooja Ghatalia
Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
Abhishek Tripathi
Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte California USA
Hannah Dzimitrowicz McManus
Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Hamid Emamekhoo
Jennifer King
Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN
Benjamin L. Maughan
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
Yousef Zakharia
Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine Mayo Clinic Phoenix Arizona USA
Pedro C. Barata
Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland Ohio USA
Arpita Desai
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
Melissa A. Reimers
Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
Yasser Ged
Elisabeth I. Heath
Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
Mehmet Asim Bilen
From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...
James Brugarolas
Brian I. Rini
Rana R. McKay
Department of Medicine, Urology, and Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences University of California‐San Diego La Jolla California USA
Deepak Kilari
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI