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
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信