TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Cabozantinib and Axitinib as Second-line Therapy After Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma
T2 - A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Real-world Data
AU - Japanese Urological Oncology Group
AU - Tomida, Ryotaro
AU - Takahashi, Masayuki
AU - Matsushita, Yuto
AU - Kojima, Takahiro
AU - Yamana, Kazutoshi
AU - Kandori, Shuya
AU - Bando, Yukari
AU - Nishiyama, Naotaka
AU - Yamashita, Shimpei
AU - Taniguchi, Hisanori
AU - Monji, Keisuke
AU - Ishiyama, Ryo
AU - Tatarano, Shuichi
AU - Masui, Kimihiko
AU - Matsuda, Ayumu
AU - Kaneko, Tomoyuki
AU - Motoshima, Takanobu
AU - Shiraishi, Yusuke
AU - Kira, Satoru
AU - Murashima, Takaya
AU - Hara, Hiroaki
AU - Matsumura, Masafumi
AU - Kitamura, Hiroshi
AU - Miyake, Hideaki
AU - Furukawa, Junya
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024/6
Y1 - 2024/6
N2 - Background: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Results: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0–16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0–13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.
AB - Background: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy. Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Results: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0–16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0–13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033). Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC.
KW - Immune-oncology combination therapy
KW - Kidney cancer
KW - Sequential therapy
KW - Treatment outcomes
KW - Tyrosine kinase inhibitor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192275386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102094
DO - 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102094
M3 - 学術論文
C2 - 38714434
AN - SCOPUS:85192275386
SN - 1558-7673
VL - 22
JO - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
JF - Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
IS - 3
M1 - 102094
ER -