Real-world short-term outcomes and treatment regimen comparisons in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune combinations.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY BMC Cancer Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1186/s12885-025-13504-6
Masato Kikuta, Sei Naito, Takahiro Osawa, Kazuyuki Numakura, Takafumi Narisawa, Yuki Takai, Mayu Yagi, Yuya Sekine, Ojiro Tokairin, Nobuo Shinohara, Tomonori Habuchi, Norihiko Tsuchiya
{"title":"Real-world short-term outcomes and treatment regimen comparisons in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune combinations.","authors":"Masato Kikuta, Sei Naito, Takahiro Osawa, Kazuyuki Numakura, Takafumi Narisawa, Yuki Takai, Mayu Yagi, Yuya Sekine, Ojiro Tokairin, Nobuo Shinohara, Tomonori Habuchi, Norihiko Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13504-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune-combinations have recently become the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study evaluated the applicability of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model in predicting outcomes for patients treated with either immune-oncologic drug doublet (IO-IO) or immune-oncologic drug tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations (IO-TKI). A secondary objective to compare the effectiveness of IO-IO versus IO-TKI within the IMDC risk groups over a short follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 172 patients with mRCC treated with first-line immunotherapy combinations. Progression free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure 2 (TTF2), and overall survival (OS) were compared between IMDC risk categories. Model fit was assessed using the c-index. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to adjust and compare outcomes between IO-IO and IO-TKI, except for IMDC favorable risk patients due to the small number of IO-IO cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The IMDC risk model demonstrated a c-index of 0.684 (OS) for entire cohort, 0.600 (PFS), 0.596 (TTF2), and 0.624 (OS) for IO-IO, and 0.667 (PFS), 0.702 (TTF2), and 0.751 (OS) for IO-TKI. In the IMDC intermediate and poor risk groups after IPTW adjustment, PFS (HR 0.72), TTF2 (HR 0.67), and OS (HR 0.74) did not significantly differ between IO-IO and IO-TKI. Specifically, in the IMDC intermediate risk group, PFS (HR 0.79), TTF2 (HR 0.69), and OS (HR 0.65) were longer in IO-TKI, though the differences were not statistically significant. In the IMDC poor risk group, PFS (HR 0.76), TTF2 (HR 0.77), and OS (HR 1.03) were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The impact of IMDC risk model on survival was modest in IO-IO, while remained statistically substantial in IO-TKI. Survival outcomes did not significantly differ between IO-IO and IO-TKI during the short follow-up period.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"117"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752628/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13504-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Immune-combinations have recently become the standard first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study evaluated the applicability of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model in predicting outcomes for patients treated with either immune-oncologic drug doublet (IO-IO) or immune-oncologic drug tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations (IO-TKI). A secondary objective to compare the effectiveness of IO-IO versus IO-TKI within the IMDC risk groups over a short follow-up period.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 172 patients with mRCC treated with first-line immunotherapy combinations. Progression free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure 2 (TTF2), and overall survival (OS) were compared between IMDC risk categories. Model fit was assessed using the c-index. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to adjust and compare outcomes between IO-IO and IO-TKI, except for IMDC favorable risk patients due to the small number of IO-IO cases.

Results: The IMDC risk model demonstrated a c-index of 0.684 (OS) for entire cohort, 0.600 (PFS), 0.596 (TTF2), and 0.624 (OS) for IO-IO, and 0.667 (PFS), 0.702 (TTF2), and 0.751 (OS) for IO-TKI. In the IMDC intermediate and poor risk groups after IPTW adjustment, PFS (HR 0.72), TTF2 (HR 0.67), and OS (HR 0.74) did not significantly differ between IO-IO and IO-TKI. Specifically, in the IMDC intermediate risk group, PFS (HR 0.79), TTF2 (HR 0.69), and OS (HR 0.65) were longer in IO-TKI, though the differences were not statistically significant. In the IMDC poor risk group, PFS (HR 0.76), TTF2 (HR 0.77), and OS (HR 1.03) were comparable.

Conclusions: The impact of IMDC risk model on survival was modest in IO-IO, while remained statistically substantial in IO-TKI. Survival outcomes did not significantly differ between IO-IO and IO-TKI during the short follow-up period.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一线免疫联合治疗转移性肾细胞癌患者的实际短期疗效和治疗方案比较
背景:免疫联合治疗最近已成为转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者的标准一线治疗方法。本研究评估了国际转移性肾细胞癌数据库联盟(IMDC)风险模型在预测免疫-肿瘤药物双重组合(IO-IO)或免疫-肿瘤药物酪氨酸激酶抑制剂联合(IO-TKI)治疗患者预后方面的适用性。次要目标是在短期随访期间比较IMDC风险组中IO-IO与IO-TKI的有效性。方法:对172例接受一线免疫联合治疗的mRCC患者进行回顾性分析。比较IMDC风险类别之间的无进展生存期(PFS)、治疗失败时间2 (TTF2)和总生存期(OS)。使用c指数评估模型拟合。采用治疗加权逆概率(inverse probability of treatment weighting, IPTW)方法调整和比较IO-IO和IO-TKI之间的结果,但由于IO-IO病例较少,IMDC有利风险患者除外。结果:IMDC风险模型显示,整个队列的c指数为0.684 (OS), IO-IO为0.600 (PFS), 0.596 (TTF2)和0.624 (OS), IO-TKI为0.667 (PFS), 0.702 (TTF2)和0.751 (OS)。在IPTW调整后的IMDC中低风险组中,IO-IO和IO-TKI之间的PFS (HR 0.72)、TTF2 (HR 0.67)和OS (HR 0.74)无显著差异。具体而言,在IMDC中危组中,IO-TKI中PFS (HR 0.79)、TTF2 (HR 0.69)和OS (HR 0.65)的时间更长,但差异无统计学意义。在IMDC低风险组中,PFS (HR 0.76)、TTF2 (HR 0.77)和OS (HR 1.03)具有可比性。结论:IMDC风险模型对IO-IO患者生存的影响不大,而在IO-TKI患者中仍具有统计学意义。在短期随访期间,IO-IO和IO-TKI的生存结局无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Role of SFTPD/miR-335-5p/lnc-HNRNPUL2 axis in colorectal cancer: in silico characterization and clinical validation. Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma: subgroup analyses by characteristics of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy from a real-world chart review study in Japan (JAVEMACS). Study protocol for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic or robotic Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy: a phase III multicentre prospective randomized controlled clinical trial (HIPEC-09). Trefoil factor family 3 (TFF3) and migration inducting gene 7 (MIG7) as molecular markers for early detection of endometrial carcinoma micro metastases. Interactive symptom monitoring and coaching to optimise toxicity management of chemo(immune)therapy in early stage breast cancer: study protocol of the multicentre randomised controlled eChemoCoach trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1