OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prognostic impact of tumor burden in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC, treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy at five affiliated institutions. Tumor burden was defined as the sum of diameters of baseline targeted lesions according to the RECIST version.1.1. We categorized the patients into two groups based on the median value of tumor burden (i.e., high vs. low). The association of tumor burden with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment was analyzed. RESULTS: The median tumor burden was 63.0 cm (interquartile range: 34.2-125.8). PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high tumor burden (n = 31) than in those with low tumor burden (n = 31) (median: 6.08 [95% CI: 2.73-9.70] vs. 12.5 [4.77-24.0] months, P = 0.0134). In addition, OS tended to be shorter in patients with high tumor burden; however, there was no statistically significant difference (1-year rate: 77.3 vs. 96.7%, P = 0.166). ORR was not significantly different between patients with high and low tumor burden (35 vs. 55%, P = 0.202). Multivariate analysis of PFS further showed that tumor burden was an independent factor (HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.11-4.45], P = 0.0242). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden might be a useful factor for outcome prediction, at least for PFS prediction, in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for mRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prognostic impact of tumor burden in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 62 patients with IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC, treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy at five affiliated institutions. Tumor burden was defined as the sum of diameters of baseline targeted lesions according to the RECIST version.1.1. We categorized the patients into two groups based on the median value of tumor burden (i.e., high vs. low). The association of tumor burden with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment was analyzed. RESULTS: The median tumor burden was 63.0 cm (interquartile range: 34.2-125.8). PFS was significantly shorter in patients with high tumor burden (n = 31) than in those with low tumor burden (n = 31) (median: 6.08 [95% CI: 2.73-9.70] vs. 12.5 [4.77-24.0] months, P = 0.0134). In addition, OS tended to be shorter in patients with high tumor burden; however, there was no statistically significant difference (1-year rate: 77.3 vs. 96.7%, P = 0.166). ORR was not significantly different between patients with high and low tumor burden (35 vs. 55%, P = 0.202). Multivariate analysis of PFS further showed that tumor burden was an independent factor (HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.11-4.45], P = 0.0242). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden might be a useful factor for outcome prediction, at least for PFS prediction, in patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab for mRCC. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.