Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Anders Olsen, T
• Martini, Dylan
• Goyal, Subir
• Liu, Yuan
• Evans, Sean
• Magod, Benjamin
• Brown, Jacqueline
• Yantorni, Lauren
• Russler, Greta
• Caulfield, Sarah
• Goldman, Jamie
• Nazha, Bassel
• Harris, Wayne
• Master, Viraj
• Kucuk, Omer
• Carthon, Bradley
• Bilen, Mehmet

Titel

223 Racial differences in outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients managed on immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy

Ist Teil von

• Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2020-11, Vol.8 (Suppl 3), p.A242-A242

Ort / Verlag

London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have increased in prevalence for the treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) in recent years given their efficacy and favorable toxicity profile. However, there has been insufficient investigation in the literature of how clinical outcomes differ on the basis of race. In this paper, we investigated differences in clinical outcomes between African American (AA) and Caucasian mRCC patients treated with ICI therapy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of 198 patients with mRCC who received ICI at the Emory Winship Cancer Institute from 2015–2020. Clinical outcomes were measured by overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit (CB). OS and PFS were calculated from ICI-initiation to date of death and radiographic or clinical progression, respectively. CB was defined as a best radiographic response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease maintained for at least 6 months per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1. The association of self-identified race with OS and PFS was generally modeled by Cox proportional hazards model. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used for binary outcomes of CB. The univariate association of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and non-clear-cell RCC (nccRCC) with race was assessed using Chi-square test.ResultsOur cohort was made up of 38 AA (19%) and 160 Caucasian (81%) patients. Most of the patients were diagnosed with ccRCC (78%) and more than half received PD-1 monotherapy (57%). Most patients were international mRCC database consortium (IMDC) intermediate (57%) or poor-risk (25%) groups. AA patients displayed significantly shorter PFS (HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.01–2.3, p=0.045) and trended towards decreased CB (OR=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22–1.17, p=0.111) in MVA (table 1). There was no difference in OS (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.61–1.95, p=0.778) between the two racial groups in MVA (table 1). On Kaplan-Meier method, AA patients had shorter median OS (17 vs 25 months, p=0.3676) and median PFS (3.1 vs 4.4 months, p=0.0676) relative to Caucasian patients (figure 1). Additionally, AA patients more commonly had nccRCC compared to Caucasian patients (41.7% vs 17.5% nccRCC, p-0.002). AA patients also trended towards a lower incidence of irAEs compared to Caucasian patients in UVA (23.7% vs 35.8%, p=0.153).Abstract 223 Table 1*MVA controlled for age, race, gender, IMDC risk group, number of prior lines of therapy, PD-1 monotherapy, and ccRCC**statistical significance at alpha < 0.05Abstract 223 Figure 1African-American (black) and Caucasian (white) for OS (left panel) and PFS (right panel)ConclusionsIn this group of mRCC patients treated with ICI, African American patients had significantly shorter PFS compared to Caucasian patients. These findings suggest race could play a role in the management of late-stage mRCC. Larger, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.AcknowledgementsResearch reported in this publication was supported in part by the Breen Foundation and the Biostatistics Shared Resource of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and NIH/NCI under award number P30CA138292. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Trial RegistrationNot applicable.Ethics ApprovalThis retrospective study was approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board.ConsentNot applicable.ReferencesNot applicable