Abstract 425P
Background
The obesity survival paradox refers to the unexpected association of obesity with improved cancer survival outcomes. This phenomenon has been previously reported in IO treated solid tumor malignancies. We aimed to assess the impact of obesity on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with contemporary 1L IO based therapy.
Methods
Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Database Consortium and Alberta Immunotherapy Database, patients with advanced RCC, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma treated with 1L PD-(L)1 inhibition +/- tyrosine kinase inhibitor (RCC), chemotherapy (NSCLC) or CTLA-4 inhibitor (RCC/Melanoma) were included. As has been done in other analyses in the obesity paradox field, a comparison with obese (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2) vs. normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) individuals was performed. Underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2) patients (to avoid cachexia as a confounder) and overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2) patients (to not dilute the effect of obesity) were excluded. Objective response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.
Results
Of 1067 patients, 30% and 33% of patients were found to be obese and normal weight, respectively. There were more males in obese vs. normal weight patients (66% vs. 55%, p<0.01). In NSCLC, PDL-1 expression was not different (p=0.39); and in RCC, there were less IMDC intermediate/poor risk patients among obese vs. normal weight patients (81% vs. 87%, p <0.01). In melanoma, there was no difference in BRAF status (p=0.68), LDH level (p=0.32), or metastatic burden (p=0.81) between obese vs. overweight patients. Overall, obese patients experienced a superior OS compared to normal weight patients (Table). Changing the BMI threshold to compare BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 vs. normal weight yielded a similar result (median OS of 31.6 vs. 21.8 mons, p <0.01, respectively). Subgroup analysis by tumor type showed that the observed benefit was primarily driven by NSCLC. We were unable to detect a significant difference in OS among obese vs. normal weight patients with RCC or melanoma. In the RCC subgroup, there was a higher response rate in obese patients compared to normal weight patients. Table: 425P
Clinical outcomes of patients with obesity vs normal weight
Clinical outcome | Obesity | Normal weight | P-value |
Overall cohort (N=669) | N=316 | N=353 | - |
ORR %, (n/n) | 47% (125/265) | 40% (107/271) | 0.07 |
mTTF (mon) (95% CI) | 6.0 (4.9-7.5) | 4.8 (3.5-7.4) | 0.41 |
mOS (mon) (95% CI) | 32.2 (25.1-53.4) | 21.8 (16.3-28.1)) | 0.01 |
RCC (N=250) | N=140 | N=110 | - |
ORR | 47% (58/123) | 31% (28/90) | 0.02 |
mTTF | 7.6 (6.0-11.0) | 6.8 (3.0-9.6) | 0.86 |
mOS | 47.8 (29.6-57.8) | 30.9 (20.0-41.4) | 0.41 |
NSCLC (N=238) | N=84 | N=154 | - |
ORR | 35% (24/69) | 34% (38/112) | 0.90 |
mTTF | 5.8 (3.6-11.3) | 3.7 (2.7-4.9) | 0.20 |
mOS | 24.8 (18.5-28.3) | 8.6 (6.4-20.4) | 0.02 |
Melanoma (N=181) | N=92 | N=89 | - |
ORR | 59% (43/73) | 59% (41/69) | 0.95 |
mTTF | 4.6 (3.2-5.7) | 6.9 (2.9-10.8) | 0.48 |
mOS | 22.2 (13.0-NR) | 26.9 (18.9-NR) | 0.62 |
mTTF=median TTF, mOS=median OS
Conclusions
The obesity paradox exists in NSCLC. We are unable to demonstrate this finding in RCC, although the response rate was higher in obese patients. In melanoma, there was no difference in outcomes among obese vs. normal weight patients. The effect of obesity on treatment outcomes may be dependent on primary tumor type.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Daniel Y.C. Heng.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
J.C. Wells: Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Pfizer. S.K. Pal: Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer, Novartis, Aveo, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai; Honoraria (self): Novartis, Medivation, Astellas Pharma; Research grant/Funding (institution): Medivation. F. Donskov: Research grant/Funding (institution): Pfizer, Ipsen. T.K. Choueiri: Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Prometheus Laboratories, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aven; Leadership role: Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, NCCN, Kidney Cancer Association, KidneyCan, ASCO; Shareholder/Stockholder/Stock options: Pionyr, Tempest Therapeutics; Honoraria (institution): NCCN, UpToDate, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, ASCO, Harborside Press, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Cor; Research grant/Funding (institution): Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Exelixis, Tracon Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Peleton Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Celldex, Agensys, Eisai, Takeda, Prometheus, Ipsen, Corvus Phaarmaceuticals, Cerulean Pharma, Seatlle Genetics/Ast; Speaker Bureau/Expert testimony: Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies such as ClinicalThinking, Health Interactions, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Parexel. D.Y.C. Heng: Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, Merck; Research grant/Funding (institution): Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
163P - Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) in adolescents and young adults (AYA) in an Asian institution from 2002 to 2018
Presenter: Evelyn Yi Ting Wong
Session: e-Poster Display Session
164P - The impact of sarcopenia on chemotherapy toxicity and survival rate among hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Presenter: Elizabeth Marcella
Session: e-Poster Display Session
165P - Prognostic factors in sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma: Multicentre analysis of a European population sample
Presenter: João Gramaça
Session: e-Poster Display Session
166P - Differences and similarities in presentation and management patterns in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) across Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand
Presenter: Pierce Chow
Session: e-Poster Display Session
167P - Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in tertiary level hospitals in Bangladesh
Presenter: Abdullah Al Mamun Khan
Session: e-Poster Display Session
168P - Response assessments in hepatocellular carcinoma: What are the best criteria to utilize? mRECIST or RECIST 1.1? A retrospective meta-analysis of multiple phase III trials
Presenter: Oliver Bohnsack
Session: e-Poster Display Session
169P - IMbrave150: Management of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) for atezolizumab (atezo) and bevacizumab (bev) in unresectable HCC
Presenter: Masatoshi Kudo
Session: e-Poster Display Session
170P - Sintilimab plus anlotinib as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC)
Presenter: Xiaofeng Chen
Session: e-Poster Display Session
171P - Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus lenvatinib versus TACE plus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumour thrombus (PVTT): A prospective randomized study
Presenter: Xiaoyan Ding
Session: e-Poster Display Session
172P - Triple combination therapy of lenvatinib, toripalimab, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
Presenter: Zhi-Cheng Lai
Session: e-Poster Display Session