Head-to-head comparison of pembrolizumab-axitinib versus pembrolizumab-lenvatinib in metastatic RCC: Real world data from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database.

A Alexandre da Silva Faco (McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada) M Mohammad Amin Salehi M Mohammad Hassan Mahmoud Hodroj (McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada) F Feras Ayman Moria (King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) S Sunita Ghosh V Vincent Castonguay (Hotel Dieu de Quebec, Quebec, QC, Canada) E Eric Winquist J Jacob Taylor A Aly-Khan A. Lalani (Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada) A Antonio Finelli (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada) D Daniel Yick Chin Heng (Department of Medical Oncology, Arthur JE Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada) B Bimal Bhindi (Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, Calgary, AB, Canada) N Naveen S. Basappa C Christian K. Kollmannsberger (BC Cancer Vancouver Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada) G Georg A. Bjarnason (Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada) J Jeffrey Graham (Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States) R Rodney H. Breau (University of Ottawa, Ottawa) D Dominick Bosse (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada) S Simon Tanguay (McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada) R Ramy Saleh (Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada)

Abstract

460 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO-TKI) combinations have transformed first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab-axitinib (PA) and pembrolizumab-lenvatinib (PL) have each demonstrated efficacy in randomized trials, but real-world comparative data remain limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the CKCis registry. Patients with confirmed mRCC who received first-line PA or PL were included. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: A total of 632 patients were identified (median age 66; 73.5% male), including 516 (81.6%) with clear cell and 116 (18.4%) with non-clear cell histology. Of these, 549 (86.9%) received PA and 83 (13.1%) received PL. Median follow-up was 28.9 months. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable between groups, although differences were observed in histology, performance status and the distribution of brain and lung metastases. At 12 months, the PFS rate was higher with PL compared with PA (75.9% vs. 57.1%); 5-year PFS was 36.2% vs. 25.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). 12-month OS was 93.9% for PL and 85.2% for PA; 5-year OS was 65.9% vs. 51.4% (P = 0.0172). For non-clear cell histology, 12-month OS was 91.6% for PL and 78% for PA (P = 0.0335). Among clear cell histology, 12-month OS was 94.9% for PL and 86.6% for PA (P = 0.0884). In the IMDC favourable-risk group, 12-month OS rate was 100% with PL and 95.2% with PA (P = 0.5994). For intermediate/poor IMDC risk, 12-month OS rate was 92% with PL and 82.3% with PA (P = 0.0145). Multivariable Cox analysis adjusting for age and IMDC risk showed that PA was associated with an increased risk of death compared with PL (HR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.14-4.06; P = 0.019). IMDC risk was an independent predictor of OS, with patients in the intermediate/poor-risk group demonstrating a 94% higher hazard of death relative to those in the favourable-risk group (HR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.32–2.87; P = 0.001). Dose reductions of the TKI occurred more frequent with PL (50%) than with PA (35.3%). Both regimens were associated with manageable but frequent toxicities. Fatigue, diarrhea, and anorexia were commonly observed with PA. PL showed a similar overall profile but a higher rate of Grade 3 proteinuria. No Grade 5 events occurred. Conclusions: In this real-world mRCC cohort, treatment with PL was associated with better PFS and OS compared to PA, but higher dose modification rates. These findings align with outcomes observed in pivotal trials and suggest that PL may offer a clinically meaningful benefit in routine practice. Prospective studies are needed to validate these results and to further explore the balance between efficacy and tolerability among first-line IO-TKI combinations.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 460-460
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

A

Alexandre da Silva Faco

McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada

M

Mohammad Amin Salehi

M

Mohammad Hassan Mahmoud Hodroj

McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada

F

Feras Ayman Moria

King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

S

Sunita Ghosh

V

Vincent Castonguay

Hotel Dieu de Quebec, Quebec, QC, Canada

E

Eric Winquist

J

Jacob Taylor

A

Aly-Khan A. Lalani

Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

A

Antonio Finelli

University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

D

Daniel Yick Chin Heng

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

B

Bimal Bhindi

Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, Calgary, AB, Canada

N

Naveen S. Basappa

C

Christian K. Kollmannsberger

BC Cancer Vancouver Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

G

Georg A. Bjarnason

Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

J

Jeffrey Graham

Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

R

Rodney H. Breau

University of Ottawa, Ottawa

D

Dominick Bosse

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

S

Simon Tanguay

McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada

R

Ramy Saleh

Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada