Download PDF

Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

Publication date: 2023-02-01
Volume: 21
Publisher: Elsevier

Author:

Navani, Vishal
Wells, J Connor ; Boyne, Devon J ; Cheung, Winson Y ; Brenner, Darren M ; McGregor, Bradley A ; Labaki, Chris ; Schmidt, Andrew L ; McKay, Rana R ; Meza, Luis ; Pal, Sumanta K ; Donskov, Frede ; Beuselinck, Benoit ; Otiato, Maxwell ; Ludwig, Lisa ; Powles, Thomas ; Szabados, Bernadett E ; Choueiri, Toni K ; Heng, Daniel YC

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Oncology, Urology & Nephrology, Targeted therapy, Renal cell carcinoma, Cabozantinib, Immunotherapy, Real world data, VEGF, OPEN-LABEL, SUNITINIB, INHIBITOR, CRITERIA, OUTCOMES, THERAPY, TKI, Humans, Carcinoma, Renal Cell, Kidney Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Sunitinib, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, G077622N#56762580, 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, Oncology & Carcinogenesis, 3211 Oncology and carcinogenesis

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are limited data evaluating the activity of cabozantinib (CABO) as second line (2L) therapy post standard of care ipilimumab-nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) or immuno-oncology(IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) combinations (IOVE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the IMDC database, we sought to identify the objective response rate, time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) of 2L CABO after IPI-NIVO, IOVE combinations, pazopanib or sunitinib (PAZ/SUN) or other first line (1L) therapies. Multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for underlying differences in IMDC groups, was used to compare differences in OS for 2L CABO based on preceding therapy. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-six patients received 2L CABO (78 post IPI NIVO, 46 post IOVE, 161 post PAZ/SUN, 61 post Other). Of the entire cohort, 12.6%, 62.6%, and 24.8% were IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk, respectively. Patients that received 1L IPI-NIVO had a median OS of 21.4 (95% CI, 12.1 - NE [Not evaluable]) months compared to 15.7 (95% CI, 9.3 - NE) months in 1L IOVE and 20.7 (95% CI, 15.6 - 35.6) months in 1L PAZ/SUN, P = .28. Median TTF from the initiation of 2L CABO in the overall population was 7.6 (95% CI, 6.6 - 9.0) months. We were unable to detect a significant difference in 2L CABO OS based on type of 1L therapy received: 1L IPI-NIVO (reference group) vs. 1L IOVE HR 1.73 (95% CI, 0.83 - 3.62 P = .14), 1L PAZ/SUN 1.16 (95% CI, 0.67 - 2.00 P = .60), however given the retrospective observational nature of this work a lack of sufficient power may contribute to this. CONCLUSION: In a large real world dataset, we identified clinically meaningful activity of 2L CABO after all evaluated contemporary 1L therapies, irrespective of whether the 1L regimen included a VEGFi. These are real world benchmarks with which to counsel our patients.