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
1726P - Optimizing oncology drug spending in a cancer centre in Ireland
Presenter: Ruth Kieran
Session: Poster session 23
1727P - Barriers and facilitators of physician involvement in clinical oncology database management in Ukraine
Presenter: Inesa Huivaniuk
Session: Poster session 23
1728P - Implementation of a comprehensive oncology unit: Needs detected in cancer survivors during follow-up
Presenter: Francisco J Jimenez-ruiz
Session: Poster session 23
1729P - Targeted interventions in registration and reporting of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT) in oncology help to improve tumor board decisions
Presenter: Lars Galonska
Session: Poster session 23
1730P - Dealing with digital paralysis: Surviving a cyberattack in a cancer centre
Presenter: Rachel J. Keogh
Session: Poster session 23
1731P - Providing access to anticancer drugs within an armed conflict: The experience of Mission Kharkiv (MK) and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) in Ukraine
Presenter: Stanislav Polozov
Session: Poster session 23
1732P - War and the fragility of anticancer drug supply networks in Ukraine
Presenter: Olha Kostenchak-Svystak
Session: Poster session 23
1733P - Two wars at time: Fight against cancer during war time - experience of Ukraine
Presenter: Veronika Patsko
Session: Poster session 23
1734P - Early impact of a personalized lung cancer interception program for heavy smokers
Presenter: Pamela Abdayem
Session: Poster session 23
1735P - Impact of revised US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2021 lung cancer screening guideline on long-term cancer survivors in the United States
Presenter: Qian Wang
Session: Poster session 23