{"title":"Significance of timing of therapeutic line on effectiveness of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.","authors":"Jun Teishima, Daiki Murata, Kazuma Yukihiro, Yohei Sekino, Shogo Inoue, Tetsutaro Hayashi, Koji Mita, Yasuhisa Hasegawa, Masao Kato, Mitsuru Kajiwara, Masanobu Shigeta, Satoshi Maruyama, Hiroyuki Moriyama, Seiji Fujiwara, Akio Matsubara","doi":"10.1097/CU9.0000000000000105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to clarify the significance of therapeutic timing on the effectiveness of nivolumab for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Marterials and methods: </strong>Fifty-eight patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab monotherapy were retrospectively studied. Patients who were treated with nivolumab as second-line therapy were included in the second-line group, while the others were included in the later-line group. The clinicopathological characteristics, effects of nivolumab, and prognoses of these groups were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty and thirty-eight patients were included in the second-line and later-line groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the distribution of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consotium risk and other clinicopathological characteristics between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients whose objective best response was progressive disease in the second-line group was significantly lower than that in the later-line group (15% vs. 50%, <i>p</i> = 0.0090). The 50% progression-free survival with nivolumab in the second-line group was significantly better than that in the later-line group (not reached and 5 months, <i>p</i> = 0.0018). Multivariate analysis showed that the second-line setting was an independent predictive factor for better progression-free survival (<i>p</i> = 0.0028, hazard ratio = 0.108). The 50% overall survival after starting nivolumab in the second-line and later-line groups was not reached and 27.8 months, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.2652).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab as second-line therapy is expected to be better than that of later therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":39147,"journal":{"name":"Current Urology","volume":"17 1","pages":"52-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/32/95/curr-urol-17-52.PMC10487289.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CU9.0000000000000105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to clarify the significance of therapeutic timing on the effectiveness of nivolumab for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Marterials and methods: Fifty-eight patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab monotherapy were retrospectively studied. Patients who were treated with nivolumab as second-line therapy were included in the second-line group, while the others were included in the later-line group. The clinicopathological characteristics, effects of nivolumab, and prognoses of these groups were compared.
Results: Twenty and thirty-eight patients were included in the second-line and later-line groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the distribution of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consotium risk and other clinicopathological characteristics between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients whose objective best response was progressive disease in the second-line group was significantly lower than that in the later-line group (15% vs. 50%, p = 0.0090). The 50% progression-free survival with nivolumab in the second-line group was significantly better than that in the later-line group (not reached and 5 months, p = 0.0018). Multivariate analysis showed that the second-line setting was an independent predictive factor for better progression-free survival (p = 0.0028, hazard ratio = 0.108). The 50% overall survival after starting nivolumab in the second-line and later-line groups was not reached and 27.8 months, respectively (p = 0.2652).
Conclusions: The therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab as second-line therapy is expected to be better than that of later therapy.