不符合一线临床试验条件的转移性肾细胞癌 (mRCC) 患者的临床结果。

IF 1.9 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL Pub Date : 2024-08-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.352
Nathan Reynolds, Wei Wei, Kimberly Maroli, Amanda Bonham, Amanda Nizam, Timothy D Gilligan, Christopher Wee, Shilpa Gupta, Moshe C Ornstein
{"title":"不符合一线临床试验条件的转移性肾细胞癌 (mRCC) 患者的临床结果。","authors":"Nathan Reynolds, Wei Wei, Kimberly Maroli, Amanda Bonham, Amanda Nizam, Timothy D Gilligan, Christopher Wee, Shilpa Gupta, Moshe C Ornstein","doi":"10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical trials for immunotherapy-based regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria. We investigated the clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients who would not have met the criteria for inclusion in front-line mRCC trials. Patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab for front-line mRCC were identified and divided into clinical trial eligible (CTE) and clinical trial ineligible (CTI) cohorts based on key inclusion or exclusion criteria from their respective Phase-3 registration trials. Clinical outcomes were compared in CTE and CTI cohorts. A total of 62 patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab and 103 treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab were identified. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria were similar across CTE and CTI patients in axitinib/pembrolizumab and ipilimumab/nivolumab cohorts. In the axitinib/pembrolizumab cohort (n = 62), 24 (39%) patients were CTI. The major reasons for the ineligibility were lab abnormalities (n = 11), histology (n = 9), and brain metastases (n = 3). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.08). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was numerically longer in CTE patients (28 vs 12 months; P = 0.09). The overall survival (OS) was higher in the CTE patients (P = 0.02). In the ipilimumab/nivolumab cohort (n = 103), 59 (57%) were CTI. The most common reasons for ineligibility were brain metastases (n = 18), lab abnormalities (n = 16), and histology (n = 16). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.22). However, PFS (P = 0.003) and OS (P < 0.0001) were higher in the CTE patients. In conclusion, many real-world patients are ineligible for RCC clinical trials and had worse outcomes when compared to trial-eligible patients. Additional treatment options are needed for these patients, as well as strategies to include them in prospective trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":44291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","volume":"11 3","pages":"51-58"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370811/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Patients Ineligible for Front-line Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Reynolds, Wei Wei, Kimberly Maroli, Amanda Bonham, Amanda Nizam, Timothy D Gilligan, Christopher Wee, Shilpa Gupta, Moshe C Ornstein\",\"doi\":\"10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinical trials for immunotherapy-based regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria. We investigated the clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients who would not have met the criteria for inclusion in front-line mRCC trials. Patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab for front-line mRCC were identified and divided into clinical trial eligible (CTE) and clinical trial ineligible (CTI) cohorts based on key inclusion or exclusion criteria from their respective Phase-3 registration trials. Clinical outcomes were compared in CTE and CTI cohorts. A total of 62 patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab and 103 treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab were identified. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria were similar across CTE and CTI patients in axitinib/pembrolizumab and ipilimumab/nivolumab cohorts. In the axitinib/pembrolizumab cohort (n = 62), 24 (39%) patients were CTI. The major reasons for the ineligibility were lab abnormalities (n = 11), histology (n = 9), and brain metastases (n = 3). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.08). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was numerically longer in CTE patients (28 vs 12 months; P = 0.09). The overall survival (OS) was higher in the CTE patients (P = 0.02). In the ipilimumab/nivolumab cohort (n = 103), 59 (57%) were CTI. The most common reasons for ineligibility were brain metastases (n = 18), lab abnormalities (n = 16), and histology (n = 16). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.22). However, PFS (P = 0.003) and OS (P < 0.0001) were higher in the CTE patients. In conclusion, many real-world patients are ineligible for RCC clinical trials and had worse outcomes when compared to trial-eligible patients. Additional treatment options are needed for these patients, as well as strategies to include them in prospective trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"51-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370811/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.352\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.v11i3.352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以免疫疗法为基础的转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)临床试验有广泛的纳入和排除标准。我们调查了一组现实世界中不符合mRCC一线试验纳入标准的患者的临床疗效。我们确定了接受ipilimumab/nivolumab和axitinib/pembrolizumab治疗的一线mRCC患者,并根据其各自的3期注册试验的主要纳入或排除标准将其分为符合临床试验条件(CTE)和不符合临床试验条件(CTI)队列。比较了 CTE 和 CTI 组群的临床结果。共确定了62名接受阿西替尼/pembrolizumab治疗的患者和103名接受伊匹单抗/nivolumab治疗的患者。阿西替尼/pembrolizumab和伊匹单抗/nivolumab队列中的CTE和CTI患者采用的国际转移性RCC数据库联盟(IMDC)标准相似。在阿西替尼/pembrolizumab队列(n = 62)中,有24名(39%)患者为CTI。不符合条件的主要原因是实验室异常(11 例)、组织学异常(9 例)和脑转移(3 例)。反应率无明显差异(P = 0.08)。从数字上看,CTE 患者的中位无进展生存期(PFS)更长(28 个月对 12 个月;P = 0.09)。CTE患者的总生存期(OS)更长(P = 0.02)。在ipilimumab/nivolumab队列(n = 103)中,59人(57%)为CTI。不符合条件的最常见原因是脑转移(n = 18)、实验室异常(n = 16)和组织学(n = 16)。反应率无明显差异(P = 0.22)。然而,CTE 患者的 PFS(P = 0.003)和 OS(P < 0.0001)更高。总之,现实世界中有许多患者不符合 RCC 临床试验的条件,与符合试验条件的患者相比,他们的预后更差。需要为这些患者提供更多的治疗方案,并制定策略将他们纳入前瞻性试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Patients Ineligible for Front-line Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials for immunotherapy-based regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria. We investigated the clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients who would not have met the criteria for inclusion in front-line mRCC trials. Patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and axitinib/pembrolizumab for front-line mRCC were identified and divided into clinical trial eligible (CTE) and clinical trial ineligible (CTI) cohorts based on key inclusion or exclusion criteria from their respective Phase-3 registration trials. Clinical outcomes were compared in CTE and CTI cohorts. A total of 62 patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab and 103 treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab were identified. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria were similar across CTE and CTI patients in axitinib/pembrolizumab and ipilimumab/nivolumab cohorts. In the axitinib/pembrolizumab cohort (n = 62), 24 (39%) patients were CTI. The major reasons for the ineligibility were lab abnormalities (n = 11), histology (n = 9), and brain metastases (n = 3). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.08). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was numerically longer in CTE patients (28 vs 12 months; P = 0.09). The overall survival (OS) was higher in the CTE patients (P = 0.02). In the ipilimumab/nivolumab cohort (n = 103), 59 (57%) were CTI. The most common reasons for ineligibility were brain metastases (n = 18), lab abnormalities (n = 16), and histology (n = 16). There was no significant difference in response rates (P = 0.22). However, PFS (P = 0.003) and OS (P < 0.0001) were higher in the CTE patients. In conclusion, many real-world patients are ineligible for RCC clinical trials and had worse outcomes when compared to trial-eligible patients. Additional treatment options are needed for these patients, as well as strategies to include them in prospective trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Avoidable Benign Kidney Tumor Resections-Data from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute. Primary Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumor of Kidney: An Uncommon Renal Neoplasm. Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Differentiation (osteosarcomatous and chondrosarcomatous differentiation)-A Case Report and Comprehensive Review. An Uncommon Case of Sinonasal Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Metastatic to the Kidney Treated with Metastasectomy. Clinical Outcomes for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Patients Ineligible for Front-line Clinical Trials.
×
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:481959085
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