Abstract 1711P
Background
In the current landscape IMDC prognostic group has been used as a surrogate for treatment choices in 1st line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in clinical trials. This has resulted in distinction between IMDC intermediate & poor risk (IR/PR) group compared to IMDC favourable risk (FR) group wherein, IR/PR IMDC groups get analysed as one treatment group. With clinical equipoise with IOTKI and IOIO in IR/PR group, we have dissected outcomes of 1st line systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) in mRCC by IMDC groups.
Methods
Multicentre retrospective study (UKROC) of patients commencing SACT for mRCC between 01/01/2018-30/06/2021 at 17 UK NHS trusts. Patient demographics, tumour histology and IMDC group were analysed. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the statistical significance of differences in outcome between the IMDC groups was assessed with the cox-regression testing, stratified by 1st line SACT choice.
Results
1319 patients were identified with a median age of 64 years. 294 (22.3%), 695 (52.7%), 321 (24.3%) patients were IMDC FR, IR and PR respectively. 311, 196 and 778 patients received IOIO, IOTKI and single agent TKI respectively in the 1st line setting (total=1286). IMDC PR In the IOIO group 30.9% of patients were IMDC PR compared to 17.3% and 23.8% in IOTKI and TKI groups respectively. In the IMDC PR group, there was a statistically significant OS advantage of IOIO compared to IOTKI and TKI therapy. Median OS was IOIO (21.8m), IOTKI (7.3m), TKI (8.6m). HR = 0.48 in favour of IOIO compared to IOTKI [CI 0.3-0.78]. Median PFS was IOIO (6.5m), IOTKI (4.2m), TKI(4.1) – not significant. IMDC IR No major statistical OS difference between treatment groups however, IOTKI was numerically trending higher - IOTKI (NR), IOIO (27.6m), TKI (22.2m). Median PFS in intermediate – IOTKI (11.7m), IOIO (7.6m), TKI (7.6m) – not significant.
Conclusions
In the IMDC PR group we have demonstrated a significant OS benefit for IOIO compared to IOTKI. In the IMDC IR group there is a trend in favour of IOTKI over other treatments. This suggests that the IMDC groups should be viewed separately for treatment and IO/IO should be the standard of care in the real world for IMDC PR mRCC patients.
Clinical trial identification
UK Renal Oncology Collaborative - Real world review of therapy choices and outcomes in metastatic renal cancer; REC reference:24/SC/0038; Protocol number: V0.2; IRAS project ID: 338935 Health Research Authority – NHS.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Royal Cornwall Hospital.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
J. McGrane: Financial Interests, Institutional, Invited Speaker, Astellas, Beyer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, MSD, Roche: Royal Cormwall Hospital. R. Frazer: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier: Velindre Cancer Centre Cardiff. A. Challapalli: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, Bayer, Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Novartis, Eusa, Eisai Ltd, Merck: Royal Bristol Infirmary. M. Tuthill: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, Eisai, BMS: Oxford NHS Trust. C. Forde: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, Ipsen, MSD: Belfast City Hospital. J.M. Malik: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck-Pfizer, Ipsen, Eusa Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas: Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. D. Parslow: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, BMS: University Hospital Plymouth. D. Lee: Financial Interests, Advisory Board, 1. Associate Professor of Health Economics and Health Policy 2. PenTAG, University of Exeter 3. Employee of University of Exeter who receive funding from the NIHR to undertake NICE appraisals including the pathways pilot in RCC: University of Exeter. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1636P - Health-related quality of life outcomes of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors versus taxanes versus standard of care in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Results from the ProBio trial
Presenter: Renée Bultijnck
Session: Poster session 11
1637P - Efficacy of talazoparib and enzalutamide in mCRPC patients previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) or docetaxel: Post hoc analysis from both cohorts in TALAPRO-2 study
Presenter: Neeraj Agarwal
Session: Poster session 11
1638P - Enzalutamide (enza) with or without leuprolide in patients (pts) with high-risk biochemically recurrent (hrBCR) prostate cancer (PC): EMBARK post hoc analysis by age
Presenter: Neal Shore
Session: Poster session 11
1639P - Self efficacy in people with prostate cancer in the UK: A large, digital survey
Presenter: Joe O'Sullivan
Session: Poster session 11
1640P - Development and validation of a machine learning-based risk model for metastatic disease in nmCRPC patients
Presenter: Ziyun Wang
Session: Poster session 11
1641P - Phase I/II trial of oral masofaniten (EPI-7386) in combination with enzalutamide (Enz) compared to enz alone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) subjects
Presenter: Christos Kyriakopoulos
Session: Poster session 11
1642P - Integrated prognostic score in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with cabazitaxel: A CABASTY posthoc analysis
Presenter: Charles Vauchier
Session: Poster session 11
1643P - Impact of PTEN alterations on clinical outcomes in patients (pts) with de novo metastatic prostate cancer (mPC)
Presenter: Bicky Thapa
Session: Poster session 11
1644P - PSA trajectories and prediction of time to no-longer clinically benefitting in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Insights from the ProBio trial
Presenter: Lana Broer
Session: Poster session 11
1645P - Tumour suppressor gene signature predicts early progression in metastatic hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients
Presenter: Marta Garcia De Herreros
Session: Poster session 11