非洲裔美国人和欧洲裔美国人接受免疫检查点抑制剂的转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌患者的结果比较

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Clinical genitourinary cancer Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102304
Jasmeet Kaur , Jill S. Hasler , Elizabeth A. Handorf , Matthew R. Zibelman , Fern Anari , Daniel M. Geynisman , Pooja Ghatalia
{"title":"非洲裔美国人和欧洲裔美国人接受免疫检查点抑制剂的转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌患者的结果比较","authors":"Jasmeet Kaur ,&nbsp;Jill S. Hasler ,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Handorf ,&nbsp;Matthew R. Zibelman ,&nbsp;Fern Anari ,&nbsp;Daniel M. Geynisman ,&nbsp;Pooja Ghatalia","doi":"10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objective</h3><div>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICI/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (ICI-based) combinations are standard first-line treatment (tx) options for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, only 1% of patients enrolled in trials studying these agents were Blacks.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with mRCC who received front-line ICI-based tx or sunitinib after 2011 were included from the Flatiron Health electronic record-derived database. We analyzed progression-free survival in African American (Black) and European American (White) patients and tested the interaction between treatment type and race. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Key Findings and Limitations</h3><div>Of 2,592 eligible pts, 2,379 (91.8%) were White, and 213 (8.2%) were Black. Of these, 1453 (56%) received ICI-based tx and 1139 (44%) received sunitinib. IMDC favorable, intermediate/poor and unknown risk was noted among 6%, 77.5% and 16.4% of White patients and 3.3%, 86.8% and 9.9% of Black patients. Median age was 64 years. There was no significant difference in PFS between Black and White patients receiving ICI-based treatment compared to sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) for interaction between treatment type and race was 1.063 (0.78-1.45, <em>P</em> = .7)]. The interaction term between race and treatment type showed that there was no evidence of a differential treatment effect by race in the first 10 months (HR = 0.931 (0.79-1.10); <em>P</em> = .40), however significantly improved after 10 months (HR = 0.697 (0.56-0.87); <em>P</em> = .001). The retrospective nature of the study is a limitation</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Clinical Implications</h3><div>The study found no significant difference in treatment effects between White and Black patients receiving ICI-based first-line treatment and should be the standard of care for both Black and White patients.</div></div><div><h3>Patient Summary</h3><div>We reviewed Flatiron databases of patients with mRCC from both Black and White populations, finding that ICI-based therapy should be considered the standard of care for patients from both racial backgrounds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10380,"journal":{"name":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","volume":"23 2","pages":"Article 102304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Outcomes Between African American and European American Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors\",\"authors\":\"Jasmeet Kaur ,&nbsp;Jill S. Hasler ,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Handorf ,&nbsp;Matthew R. Zibelman ,&nbsp;Fern Anari ,&nbsp;Daniel M. Geynisman ,&nbsp;Pooja Ghatalia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Objective</h3><div>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICI/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (ICI-based) combinations are standard first-line treatment (tx) options for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, only 1% of patients enrolled in trials studying these agents were Blacks.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients with mRCC who received front-line ICI-based tx or sunitinib after 2011 were included from the Flatiron Health electronic record-derived database. We analyzed progression-free survival in African American (Black) and European American (White) patients and tested the interaction between treatment type and race. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Key Findings and Limitations</h3><div>Of 2,592 eligible pts, 2,379 (91.8%) were White, and 213 (8.2%) were Black. Of these, 1453 (56%) received ICI-based tx and 1139 (44%) received sunitinib. IMDC favorable, intermediate/poor and unknown risk was noted among 6%, 77.5% and 16.4% of White patients and 3.3%, 86.8% and 9.9% of Black patients. Median age was 64 years. There was no significant difference in PFS between Black and White patients receiving ICI-based treatment compared to sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) for interaction between treatment type and race was 1.063 (0.78-1.45, <em>P</em> = .7)]. The interaction term between race and treatment type showed that there was no evidence of a differential treatment effect by race in the first 10 months (HR = 0.931 (0.79-1.10); <em>P</em> = .40), however significantly improved after 10 months (HR = 0.697 (0.56-0.87); <em>P</em> = .001). The retrospective nature of the study is a limitation</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Clinical Implications</h3><div>The study found no significant difference in treatment effects between White and Black patients receiving ICI-based first-line treatment and should be the standard of care for both Black and White patients.</div></div><div><h3>Patient Summary</h3><div>We reviewed Flatiron databases of patients with mRCC from both Black and White populations, finding that ICI-based therapy should be considered the standard of care for patients from both racial backgrounds.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical genitourinary cancer\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 102304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical genitourinary cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767325000060\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767325000060","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)和ICI/酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)(基于ICI的)联合治疗是转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者的标准一线治疗(tx)选择。然而,在研究这些药物的试验中,只有1%的患者是黑人。方法从Flatiron Health电子记录衍生数据库中纳入2011年以后接受一线基于ci的tx或舒尼替尼治疗的mRCC患者。我们分析了非裔美国人(黑人)和欧裔美国人(白人)患者的无进展生存期,并测试了治疗类型和种族之间的相互作用。多变量Cox比例风险模型用于评估与结果的关联。在2592例符合条件的患者中,2379例(91.8%)为白人,213例(8.2%)为黑人。其中,1453例(56%)接受了基于ci的tx治疗,1139例(44%)接受了舒尼替尼治疗。白人患者中有6%、77.5%和16.4%为IMDC良好、中/差和未知风险,黑人患者中有3.3%、86.8%和9.9%为IMDC良好、中/差和未知风险。中位年龄为64岁。与舒尼替尼相比,接受ci治疗的黑人和白人患者的PFS无显著差异[治疗类型与种族相互作用的风险比(HR)为1.063 (0.78-1.45,P = 0.7)]。种族与治疗方式的交互作用项显示,前10个月未见种族间治疗效果差异(HR = 0.931 (0.79-1.10);P = 0.40), 10个月后明显改善(HR = 0.697 (0.56 ~ 0.87);P = .001)。结论和临床意义该研究发现白人和黑人患者接受基于ci的一线治疗的治疗效果无显著差异,应成为黑人和白人患者的标准治疗。我们回顾了Flatiron数据库中来自黑人和白人人群的mRCC患者,发现基于ci的治疗应该被认为是来自两种种族背景的患者的标准治疗。
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
Comparison of Outcomes Between African American and European American Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Background and Objective

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and ICI/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (ICI-based) combinations are standard first-line treatment (tx) options for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, only 1% of patients enrolled in trials studying these agents were Blacks.

Methods

Patients with mRCC who received front-line ICI-based tx or sunitinib after 2011 were included from the Flatiron Health electronic record-derived database. We analyzed progression-free survival in African American (Black) and European American (White) patients and tested the interaction between treatment type and race. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess associations with outcomes.

Key Findings and Limitations

Of 2,592 eligible pts, 2,379 (91.8%) were White, and 213 (8.2%) were Black. Of these, 1453 (56%) received ICI-based tx and 1139 (44%) received sunitinib. IMDC favorable, intermediate/poor and unknown risk was noted among 6%, 77.5% and 16.4% of White patients and 3.3%, 86.8% and 9.9% of Black patients. Median age was 64 years. There was no significant difference in PFS between Black and White patients receiving ICI-based treatment compared to sunitinib [hazard ratio (HR) for interaction between treatment type and race was 1.063 (0.78-1.45, P = .7)]. The interaction term between race and treatment type showed that there was no evidence of a differential treatment effect by race in the first 10 months (HR = 0.931 (0.79-1.10); P = .40), however significantly improved after 10 months (HR = 0.697 (0.56-0.87); P = .001). The retrospective nature of the study is a limitation

Conclusions and Clinical Implications

The study found no significant difference in treatment effects between White and Black patients receiving ICI-based first-line treatment and should be the standard of care for both Black and White patients.

Patient Summary

We reviewed Flatiron databases of patients with mRCC from both Black and White populations, finding that ICI-based therapy should be considered the standard of care for patients from both racial backgrounds.
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
Clinical genitourinary cancer
Clinical genitourinary cancer 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
201
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research in genitourinary cancers. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of genitourinary cancers. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to genitourinary malignancies. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
期刊最新文献
Prognostic Utility of ctDNA for Trimodality Therapy Outcomes in Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Retraction notice to "Roles of long non-coding RNA in prostate cancer pathogenesis" [Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 22 (2024) 102213] Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A UK Multi-Centre Retrospective Study Interpretation of Comparative Outcomes in Bone-Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma The Effect of Allogenic Blood Transfusion on Oncologic Outcomes in Locally Advanced Kidney Cancer
×
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