ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint-inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy is the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It is unclear whether prior removal of the primary tumor influences the efficacy of these treatments. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of first-line ICI in mRCC to determine whether the efficacy of ICI-therapy, compared to sunitinib, is altered based on receipt of prior nephrectomy. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies indexed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus and conference abstracts from relevant medical societies as of August 2020 to identify randomized clinical trials assessing first-line immunotherapy-based regimes in mRCC. Studies were included if overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were reported with data stratified by nephrectomy status. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by nephrectomy status and performed random effects meta-analysis to assess the null hypothesis of no difference in the survival advantage of immunotherapy-based regimes based on nephrectomy status, while accounting for study level correlations. RESULTS: Among 6 randomized clinical trials involving 5,121 patients, 3,968 (77%) had undergone prior nephrectomy. We found an overall survival benefit for immunotherapy-based regimes, compared to sunitinib, among both patients who had undergone nephrectomy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 -0.88) and those who had not (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 -0.92), without evidence of difference based on nephrectomy history (Pâ¯=â¯0.70; I2â¯=â¯36%). Results assessing PFS were similar (Pâ¯=â¯0.45, I2â¯=â¯0%). CONCLUSIONS: These clinical data suggest that prior nephrectomy does not affect the efficacy of ICI-based regimens in mRCC relative to sunitinib.
