2
|
Stukalin I, Wells JC, Graham J, Yuasa T, Beuselinck B, Kollmansberger C, Ernst DS, Agarwal N, Le T, Donskov F, Hansen AR, Bjarnason GA, Srinivas S, Wood LA, Alva AS, Kanesvaran R, Fu SYF, Davis ID, Choueiri TK, Heng DYC. Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 26:e175-e179. [PMID: 31043824 DOI: 10.3747/co.26.4595] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Objectives In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting. Methods Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment. Results The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35. Conclusions Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Stukalin
- Alberta: Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary (Stukalin, Wells, Heng)
| | - J C Wells
- Alberta: Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary (Stukalin, Wells, Heng).,Ontario: Queen's University, Kingston (Wells); London Health Sciences Centre, London (Ernst); Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto (Hansen); Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto (Bjarnason)
| | - J Graham
- Alberta: Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary (Stukalin, Wells, Heng)
| | - T Yuasa
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | - B Beuselinck
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | | | - D S Ernst
- Ontario: Queen's University, Kingston (Wells); London Health Sciences Centre, London (Ernst); Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto (Hansen); Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto (Bjarnason)
| | - N Agarwal
- United States: University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (Agarwal); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (Le); Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA (Srinivas); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Alva); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Choueiri)
| | - T Le
- United States: University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (Agarwal); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (Le); Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA (Srinivas); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Alva); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Choueiri)
| | - F Donskov
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | - A R Hansen
- Ontario: Queen's University, Kingston (Wells); London Health Sciences Centre, London (Ernst); Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto (Hansen); Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto (Bjarnason)
| | - G A Bjarnason
- Ontario: Queen's University, Kingston (Wells); London Health Sciences Centre, London (Ernst); Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto (Hansen); Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto (Bjarnason)
| | - S Srinivas
- United States: University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (Agarwal); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (Le); Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA (Srinivas); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Alva); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Choueiri)
| | - L A Wood
- Nova Scotia: Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax (Wood)
| | - A S Alva
- United States: University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (Agarwal); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (Le); Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA (Srinivas); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Alva); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Choueiri)
| | - R Kanesvaran
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | - S Y F Fu
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | - I D Davis
- non-United States international: Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan (Yuasa); University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Beuselinck); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (Donskov); National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore (Kanesvaran); Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (Fu); Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Melbourne, Australia (Davis)
| | - T K Choueiri
- United States: University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT (Agarwal); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (Le); Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA (Srinivas); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Alva); Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (Choueiri)
| | - D Y C Heng
- Alberta: Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary (Stukalin, Wells, Heng)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Seftel MD, Paulson K, Doocey R, Song K, Czaykowski P, Coppin C, Forrest D, Hogge D, Kollmansberger C, Smith CA, Shepherd JD, Toze CL, Murray N, Sutherland H, Nantel S, Nevill TJ, Barnett MJ. Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing auto-SCT for advanced germ cell tumour: a multicentre cohort study. Bone Marrow Transplant 2010; 46:852-7. [PMID: 21042312 DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2010.250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Failure of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in advanced germ cell tumour (GCT) is associated with a poor outcome. High-dose chemotherapy and auto-SCT is one therapeutic option, although the long-term outcome after this procedure is unclear. We conducted a multicentre cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing a single auto-SCT for GCT between January 1986 and December 2004. Of 71 subjects, median follow-up is 10.1 years. OS at 5 years is 44.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.9-56.5%) and EFS is 43.5% (95% CI 31.4-55.1%). There were seven (10%) treatment-related deaths within 100 days of auto-SCT. Three (4.2%) patients developed secondary malignancies. Of 33 relapses, 31 occurred within 2 years of auto-SCT. Two very late relapses were noted 13 and 11 years after auto-SCT. In multivariate analysis, favourable outcome was associated with IGCCC (International Germ Cell Consensus Classification) good prognosis disease at diagnosis, primary gonadal disease and response to salvage chemotherapy. We conclude that auto-SCT results in successful outcome for a relatively large subgroup of patients with high-risk GCT. Late relapses may occur, a finding not previously reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Seftel
- Section of Medical Oncology/Hematology, University of Manitoba, Canada.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Melosky B, Lohrisch C, Kollmansberger C, Gill S, Kennecke H, Shah A, Coldman A, Phillips N, Lim H. Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment to progression or Not? J Clin Oncol 2006. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.13511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
13511 Background: Treatment until progression or planned interruption of first line chemotherapy is common in the therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer and are upon the discretion of the oncologist. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the impact of these differing therapeutic strategies on overall survival. Methods: Eligible patients were treated between 2002 to 2004 in British Columbia. All patients received chemotherapy with both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, either first or second line. Records were retrospectively reviewed for treatment interruption, efficacy and toxicity. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: 101 patients were identified. Twenty-three patients who progressed before receiving 8 cycles of chemotherapy and 9 patients who stopped their chemotherapy due to toxicity were excluded. The remaining patients were analyzed for survival. Twenty-three patients were treated to progression of whom 6 received first line FOLFIRI and 17 received first line FOLFOX. The mean number of cycles of first line therapy was was 11.5. Forty six patients received a planned break. Of these, 21pateints received first line FOLFIRI and 25 patients received first line FOLFOX. Mean number of cycles of first line therapy was 9.7. Median survival of patients treated to progression was 16 months compared to 22 months for patients with planned break of therapy (p=0.003). The Hazard ratio was 2.3 (p=0.01) in favor of patients who had a planned break. Uni-variate and multivariate analysis showed no significance of sex, age, site (colon versus rectal), sequence and ECOG status as predictive factors. Conclusion: In this study, patients who were treated until progression with first line chemotherapy with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI had an inferior survival. Possible explanations for the detrimental hazard ratio for patients treated to progression are decreasing reserve for second line therapy when first line therapy is prolonged and increasing resistance to 5-FU based therapy with prolonged exposure. As this is a retrospective, observational study, other variables not captured by the modeled covariates that may have influenced results. This data suggests that treating to best response and then allowing a break does not detrimentally affect survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B. Melosky
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - C. Lohrisch
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - S. Gill
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - H. Kennecke
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - A. Shah
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - A. Coldman
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - N. Phillips
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - H. Lim
- British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|