Treatment sequence after first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using real-world data.

• DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.6_suppl.288
• Publication Date: 2021-03-02T17:06:00Z
• Authors: Daniel M. Geynisman; Jillian Faccone; Ying Zhang; Flavia Ejzykowicz; Brian Stwalley; Melissa Hamilton; Trong Kim Le; Stephen Huo
• Keywords: Axitinib; Pazopanib; Everolimus; Cabozantinib

288 Background: The introduction of second-line (2L) nivolumab (NIVO) in 2015 (CheckMate 025) and first-line (1L) NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) 2018 214) revolutionized the management mRCC US. This study sought to leverage real-world (RW) data by applying CheckMate 214 inclusion criteria develop a RW comparator for trial assess treatment patterns sequences patients (pts) with after receiving 1L NIVO+IPI or sunitinib (SUN). Methods: retrospective identified pts clear cell from Flatiron Health EHR-derived de-identified database who received SUN monotherapy on December 2015. Pts must have met strict selection this analysis. Evaluation 1L, 2L, third-line (3L) therapies was stratified International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk (favorable [FAV] intermediate/poor [I/P]). Results: Of 401 included study, 197 (49.1%) 204 (50.9%) as therapy (Table). median follow-up time 10.1 months 20.2 ( P < 0.0001). Among 66 (33.5%) 2L line therapy, 2 most common were cabozantinib (CABO; 50.0%), pazopanib (PAZO; 12.1%). 119 (58.3%) (48.7%), PAZO (8.4%). 3L axitinib (AXI; 18.2%) everolimus lenvatinib (EVE+LEN; pts, CABO (26.7%) (15.0%) pts. sequence is similar between FAV I/P risk. Conclusions: In setting, largely across IMDC groups. monotherapy, which consistent trial. [Table: see text]