Abstract 1900P
Background
The effectiveness of CN is still uncertain despite two significant trials, SURTIME and CARMENA, which aimed to demonstrate its benefits for mccRCC. These trials, conducted with Sunitinib as the standard treatment, did not provide evidence supporting the use of CN.
Methods
We identified stage IV mccRCC only patients (pts) who received IO with or without surgery in the NCDB 2004-2020. Overall survival (OS) was calculated among three groups of IO alone (group (gr)1), IO followed by CN (gr2), CN followed by IO (gr3). Cox models compared OS by treatment group after adjusting for sociodemographic, health, and facility variables.
Results
From 1,549,101 renal cancer cases, 7,367 met our criteria. 2.8% of ccRCC had sarcomatoid histology. Pts in the gr 2 and gr 3 had 63%, 95% CI [0.304 - 0.460] and 47%, 95% CI [0.492-0.571] (P= 0.001) risk reduction in mortality compared to gr 1.Black race compared to white race, Medicare pts compared to privately insured, and pts treated at a comprehensive community cancer center compared to academic center had an increased mortality risk by 15%, 95% CI [1.025-1.290] (P= 0.017), 12%, 95% CI [1.017-1.242] (P= 0.021), 17%, 95% CI [1.092-1.260] (P= 0.001) respectively. Median income quartiles ranging > 63k, had 22% reduction in mortality over income quartiles < 40k, 95% CI [0.696-0.888] (P= 0.044). Regardless of the sequence of CN, partial nephrectomy was minimally used. Pts in gr 3 had a 40% increased mortality risk compared to pts in gr 3, 95% CI [1.126-1.735] (P= 0.002).
Conclusions
Pts receiving CN regardless of sequence with IO did better than IO alone in this national registry-based adjusted analysis for mccRCC. Over the past few decades, the understanding of the role of CN has undergone changes, and while we await additional trial outcomes, the current evidence supports the notion that select mRCC patients can benefit from CN.
Table: 1900P
IO (%) 95% CI | IO⋄CN (%) 95% CI | CN⋄IO (%) 95% CI | |
2 YRS FOLLOW UP | 35.82 [34.44-37.20] | 73.87 [68.48-78.49] | 58.78 [56.75-60.74] |
5 YRS FOLLOW UP | 13.01 [11.32-14.82] | 43.17 [33.94-52.05] | 34 [31.32-36.39] |
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1716P - Addressing clinical trial disparities in Spain: A digital solution
Presenter: Max Hardy-Werbin
Session: Poster session 23
1717P - Management of patients during a digital healthcare record system transition: A phase I unit experience
Presenter: Lyra Del Rosario
Session: Poster session 23
1718P - Impact of the economic status of the patient's country of residence on the outcome of oncology clinical trials
Presenter: Saki Nishiyama
Session: Poster session 23
1719P - Decentralized clinical trials: Is there a space in Italy?
Presenter: Celeste Cagnazzo
Session: Poster session 23
1720P - Experience in the provision of oncology services immediately after a major disaster
Presenter: Burak Aktas
Session: Poster session 23
1721P - Self-assessment tool and best-practice sharing to support hospitals in improving the quality of multi-disciplinary teams in lung cancer care
Presenter: Ernest Nadal
Session: Poster session 23
1722P - Factors contributing to differences in evidence compliance rate in cancer treatment among second opinion cases
Presenter: Tomomi Sanomachi
Session: Poster session 23
1723P - Improving access to molecular tumour boards for complex genomic profiles: A healthcare policy from the Netherlands
Presenter: Sahar van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani
Session: Poster session 23
1724P - Improving access to breast cancer diagnosis and treatment through navigation: Evaluation of a one-year pilot project in Botswana
Presenter: Ariane Migeotte
Session: Poster session 23
1725P - Genetic counselling for cancer in EU member states: Review and foundation for consensus recommendations
Presenter: J. Matt McCrary
Session: Poster session 23