Kunal Desai1, Landon Brown2,3, Wei Wei4, Matthew Tucker5,6, Chester Kao2,3, Emily Kinsey2,3, Brian Rini6, Kathryn Beckermann5,6, Tian Zhang2,3, Moshe C Ornstein7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, NA10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, DUMC Box 103861, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9620 Carnegie Ave., Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 777 PRB, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA. 7. Genitourinary Oncology, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, CA-60, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. ornstem@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients are associated with poor outcomes. There are limited published data on outcomes in these patients with immunotherapy agents. We present a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis of metastatic RCC patients with BM treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab (I + N). OBJECTIVE: Patient, tumor, and treatment-related variables were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records of patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of RCC and at least one radiographically confirmed BM prior to initiation of I + N. Best objective response was assessed by clinical chart review, imaging reports, and treating physician evaluation; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded as of 31 December 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and BM-related variables. Kaplan-Meier method and Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test were used to compare survival among groups. Cox regression univariable and multivariable models were used to correlate patient- and treatment-related variables to outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients with RCC and BM treated with I + N were identified. Patients were predominantly male and Caucasian presenting primarily with IMDC intermediate or poor-risk clear-cell RCC. Best response to I + N was progressive disease (46%), stable disease (28%), partial response (21%), and not evaluable (5%). Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI 3.8-8.9 months) with the majority of patients (65%) discontinuing I + N due to disease progression. Median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI 14.9-NA) with median follow-up of 25.2 months. A multivariable regression model for PFS showed several variables to be significantly associated with worse PFS including female gender [p = 0.02; hazard ratio (HR) 2.16; 95% CI 1.14-4.12], metastases to other sites (p = 0.006; HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24-3.62) and presence of BM to ribs (p = 0.0007; HR 2.61; 95% CI 1.50-4.52). A multivariable Cox model of OS showed no prior radiation therapy to BM (p = 0.02; HR 2.17; 95% CI 1.13-4.17) and presence of liver metastases (p = 0.0006; HR 3.19; 95% CI 1.65-6.19) to be significantly associated with worse OS. CONCLUSION: RCC patients with ≥ 1 BM who received I + N therapy had a relatively low response rate, PFS, and OS. Strategies to improve outcomes in this subset of patients are needed.
BACKGROUND: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients are associated with poor outcomes. There are limited published data on outcomes in these patients with immunotherapy agents. We present a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis of metastatic RCC patients with BM treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab (I + N). OBJECTIVE: Patient, tumor, and treatment-related variables were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records of patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of RCC and at least one radiographically confirmed BM prior to initiation of I + N. Best objective response was assessed by clinical chart review, imaging reports, and treating physician evaluation; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were recorded as of 31 December 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and BM-related variables. Kaplan-Meier method and Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test were used to compare survival among groups. Cox regression univariable and multivariable models were used to correlate patient- and treatment-related variables to outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients with RCC and BM treated with I + N were identified. Patients were predominantly male and Caucasian presenting primarily with IMDC intermediate or poor-risk clear-cell RCC. Best response to I + N was progressive disease (46%), stable disease (28%), partial response (21%), and not evaluable (5%). Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI 3.8-8.9 months) with the majority of patients (65%) discontinuing I + N due to disease progression. Median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI 14.9-NA) with median follow-up of 25.2 months. A multivariable regression model for PFS showed several variables to be significantly associated with worse PFS including female gender [p = 0.02; hazard ratio (HR) 2.16; 95% CI 1.14-4.12], metastases to other sites (p = 0.006; HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24-3.62) and presence of BM to ribs (p = 0.0007; HR 2.61; 95% CI 1.50-4.52). A multivariable Cox model of OS showed no prior radiation therapy to BM (p = 0.02; HR 2.17; 95% CI 1.13-4.17) and presence of liver metastases (p = 0.0006; HR 3.19; 95% CI 1.65-6.19) to be significantly associated with worse OS. CONCLUSION: RCC patients with ≥ 1 BM who received I + N therapy had a relatively low response rate, PFS, and OS. Strategies to improve outcomes in this subset of patients are needed.
Authors: Sarathi Kalra; Jonathan Verma; Bradley J Atkinson; Surena F Matin; Christopher G Wood; Jose A Karam; Sue-Hwa Lin; Robert L Satcher; Pheroze Tamboli; Kanishka Sircar; Priya Rao; Paul G Corn; Nizar M Tannir; Eric Jonasch Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Emma Woodward; Satinder Jagdev; Lucy McParland; Katy Clark; Walter Gregory; Alex Newsham; Suzanne Rogerson; Kate Hayward; Peter Selby; Janet Brown Journal: Bone Date: 2010-09-18 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: B Beuselinck; S Oudard; O Rixe; P Wolter; A Blesius; J Ayllon; R Elaidi; P Schöffski; E Barrascout; A Morel; B Escudier; H Lang; J Zucman-Rossi; J Medioni Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-10-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Amna Ibrahim; Nancy Scher; Grant Williams; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Ning Li; Gang Chen; John Leighton; Brian Booth; Jogarao V S Gobburu; Atiqur Rahman; Yung Hsieh; Rebecca Wood; Debra Vause; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rana R McKay; Nils Kroeger; Wanling Xie; Jae-Lyun Lee; Jennifer J Knox; Georg A Bjarnason; Mary J MacKenzie; Lori Wood; Sandy Srinivas; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Sun-Young Rha; Sumanta K Pal; Frede Donskov; Srinivas K Tantravahi; Brian I Rini; Daniel Y C Heng; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 20.096