Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals). OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status 3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p < 0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p < 0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p < 0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p < 0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome.

Immuno-oncology (IO)-based therapies have been approved based on randomised clinical trials, yet a significant proportion of real-world patients are not represented in these trials. We sought to compare the outcomes of trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients with advanced solid tumours treated with first-line (1L) IO therapy. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Database Consortium and the Alberta Immunotherapy Database, patients with advanced RCC, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma treated with 1L PD-(L)1 inhibition-based therapy were included. Trial eligibility was retrospectively determined as per commonly used exclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). A total of 395 of 1241 (32%) patients were deemed trial-ineligible. The main reasons for ineligibility based on preselected exclusion criteria were Karnofsky performance status 1 (40%, 158 of 395), brain metastases (32%, 126 of 395), haemoglobin < 9 g/dL (16%, 63 of 395) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min (15%, 61 of 395). Between the ineligible vs. eligible groups, the median OS, ORR, median TD and median TTNT were 10.2 vs. 39.7 months (p < 0.01), 36% vs. 47% (p < 0.01), 2.7 vs. 6.9 months (p < 0.01) and 6.0 vs. 16.8 months (p < 0.01), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant inferior OS, TD and TTNT for trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients across all tumour types. Adjusted hazard ratios for death in RCC, NSCLC and melanoma were 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.77), 2.21 (95% CI 1.58-3.11) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.21-2.74), respectively.. Thirty-two percent of real-world patients treated with contemporary 1L IO-based therapies were ineligible for clinical trials. Although one-third of the trial-ineligible patients responded to treatment, the overall trial-ineligible population had inferior outcomes than trial-eligible patients. These data may guide patient counselling and temper expectations of benefit.

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on the METEOR and CABOSUN trials. However, real‐world effectiveness and dosing patterns of cabozantinib are not well characterized.Methods: Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib between 2011 and 2019 were identified and stratified using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. First‐ (1L), second‐ (2L), third‐ (3L), and fourth‐line (4L) overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Dose reduction rates and their association with TTF and OS were determined.Results: A total of 413 patients were identified. The ORRs across 1L to 4L were 32%, 26%, 25%, and 29%, respectively, and the median TTF rates were 8.3, 7.3, 7.0, and 8.0 months, respectively. The median OS (mOS) rates in 1L to 4L were 30.7, 17.8, 12.6, and 14.9 months, respectively. For patients treated with 1L PD(L)1 combination agent (n = 31), 2L cabozantinib had ORR of 22%, median TTF of 5.4 months, and mOS of 17.4 months. About 50% (129/258) of patients required dose reductions. The TTF and mOS were significantly longer for patients who required dose reduction vs. patients who did not, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.202–0.672, p < 0.01) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.215–0.980, p = 0.04), respectively. Limitations include the retrospective study design and the lack of central radiology review.Conclusion: The ORR and TTF of cabozantinib were maintained from the 1L to 4L settings. Dose reductions due to toxicity were associated with improved TTF and OS. Cabozantinib has clinical activity after 1L Immuno‐oncology combination agents.

Outcomes of metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) patients are poorly characterized in the era of targeted therapy. A total of 5474 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes were compared between clear cell (ccRCC; n = 5008) and papillary patients (n = 466), and recorded type I and type II papillary patients (n = 30 and n = 165, respectively). Overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) favored ccRCC over pRCC. OS was 8 months longer in ccRCC patients and the hazard ratio of death was 0.71 for ccRCC patients. No differences in PFS or ORR were detected between type I and II PRCC in this limited dataset. The median OS for type I pRCC was 20.0 months while the median OS for type II was 12.6 months (P = 0.096). The IMDC prognostic model was able to stratify pRCC patients into favorable risk (OS = 34.1 months), intermediate risk (OS = 17.0 months), and poor‐risk groups (OS = 6.0 months). pRCC patient outcomes were inferior to ccRCC, even after controlling for IMDC prognostic factors. The IMDC prognostic model was able to effectively stratify pRCC patients.

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.