Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

e-Poster Display Session

69P - Outcomes with durvalumab and savolitinib in metastatic papillary renal cancer (mPRC) according to international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium (IMDC) risk groups

Date

09 Dec 2020

Session

e-Poster Display Session

Topics

Tumour Site

Renal Cell Cancer

Presenters

Julia Choy

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_7): S1441-S1451. 10.1016/annonc/annonc392

Authors

J. Choy1, C. Suarez Rodriguez2, J. Larkin3, P. Patel4, B. Perez Valderrama5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Barts Cancer Institute, London/GB
  • 2 Vall d`Hebron University Hospital Institut d'Oncologia, Barcelona/ES
  • 3 The Royal Marsden Hospital - NHS Foundation Trust, London/GB
  • 4 Nottingham University NHS Trust, Nottingham/GB
  • 5 Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio, Sevilla/ES
More

Abstract 69P

Background

Recent studies have shown the important role of MET and PD-L1 inhibition in mPRC. Response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for Savolitinib and Durvalumab combined have previously been reported in a papillary cohort. Here we present RR, PFS and OS data according to risk classification using IMDC criteria based on interim data available 12 months after the last patient was enrolled.

Methods

This arm within a phase I/II trial investigated Durvalumab and Savolitinib in both treatment naïve and previously treated patients with mPRC. Confirmed RR (RECIST v 1.1), PFS (RECIST v 1.1) and OS according to IMDC risk score were then analysed. Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox regression analysis were performed.

Results

Data from 41 patients were evaluated over a median follow-up period of 14.3 months and a comparison between good (N=12) versus intermediate/poor (N=29) was made. 2 patients stopped treatment due to toxicity in the good IMDC risk group and 5 in the intermediate/poor risk group. Overall RR was 27%, median PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-12.0) and median OS was 12.3 months (95% CI: 5.8-21.3). RR was 42% and 21% in patients with good and intermediate/poor IMDC classification, respectively. Twelve-month PFS was 53.7% in good IMDC risk disease(95% CI: 15.5-18.3) and 22.5% in the intermediate/poor risk IMDC cohort (95% CI: 9.2-39.4). Twelve-month OS was 78.8% in those with good risk disease(95% CI: 38.1-94.3) and 42.0% in the intermediate/poor risk group (95% CI: 23.5-59.5). In regression analysis, the survival results in the good IMDC risk group were superior to those in the intermediate/poor IMDC group (hazard ratio for death 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.92; p=0.037; hazard ratio for progression 0.33, 95% CI: 0.11-0.96; p=0.042).

Conclusions

The combination of Savolitinib and Durvalumab is active across IMDC risk groups, this appears more marked in good risk disease.

Clinical trial identification

NCT02819596; Release date 30 June 2016.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Queen Mary University of London.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Disclosure

T.B. Powles: Research grant/Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant/Funding (institution): F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.