Novel risk scoring system for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with cabozantinib.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an effective treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The international mRCC database consortium (IMDC) criteria is the gold standard for risk stratification in mRCC. We created a risk scoring system specific for mRCC patients treated with cabozantinib. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 87 patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2019. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were used to measure clinical outcomes. Upon variable selection in multivariable analysis (MVA), elevated baseline monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), sarcomatoid histologic component, ECOG PS > 1, and absence of bone metastases were each assigned 1 point. A three-group risk scoring system was then created: low (score=0-1), intermediate (score=2), and high risk (score=3-4). The Cox proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival analyses. RESULTS: The median age was 62 years-old and the majority were males (71%) with clear-cell RCC (75%). Most (67%) received at least 1 prior line of systemic therapy. High risk and intermediate risk pts had significantly shorter OS (high risk HR: 13.84, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 3.50, p = 0.004) and PFS (high risk HR: 7.31, p<0.001; intermediate risk HR: 1.87, p = 0.053) compared to low risk patients in MVA. CONCLUSIONS: RCC patients treated with cabozantinib may benefit from specific risk stratification criteria using RCC histology, ECOG PS, sites of metastatic disease, and MLR. These variables are easily accessible in the clinical setting and may be helpful to determine which mRCC patients may benefit from treatment with cabozantinib.

Adiposity may predict survival in patients with advanced stage cancer treated with immunotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) is used to define obesity, but it is an imperfect measure of body composition. In the current study, the authors explored the association between types of fat and survival in patients treated with immunotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 90 patients who were treated with immunotherapy on phase 1 clinical trials at the Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, from 2009 through 2017 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to measure clinical outcomes. Baseline BMI and radiographic images at the middle of the third lumbar vertebrae were obtained. Fat densities were calculated and converted to indices (subcutaneous fat index [SFI], intermuscular fat index [IFI], and visceral fat index [VFI]) after dividing by height in meters squared. Risk groups were created using recursive partitioning and the regression trees method for SFI and IFI, which were selected by stepwise variable selection among all fat-related variables. The Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier method were used for the association with OS and PFS. RESULTS: The majority of patients (59%) were male and diagnosed with melanoma (33%) or gastrointestinal cancers (22%). The median BMI was 27.4 kg/m2 , the median SFI was 62.78, the median IFI was 4.06, and the median VFI was 40.53. Low-risk patients (those with an SFI ≥73) had a significantly longer OS (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.46 [P < .001]) and PFS (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.72 [P = .003]) compared with patients at intermediate risk (those with an SFI <73 and IFI <3.4) and poor risk (those with an SFI <73 and IFI ≥3.4). The Uno concordance statistics were found to be higher for fat risk groups than BMI in predicting OS (0.603 vs 0.574; P = .581) and PFS (0.602 vs 0.586; P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: Increased BMI, increased SFI, and decreased IFI may be associated with prolonged survival in patients with cancer who are treated with immunotherapy. Further studies are needed to elucidate the effect of adiposity on the host immune response to immunotherapy.

Clinical outcomes of advanced stage cancer patients treated with sequential immunotherapy in phase 1 clinical trials.

Background Given the increasing number of available immunotherapeutic agents, more patients are presenting after failing immunotherapy in need of new treatment options. In this study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of patients treated with sequential immunotherapy. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 90 advanced stage cancer patients treated on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute from 2009 to 2017. We included 49 patients with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-indicated histology. Patients were analyzed based on whether they had received prior ICI. Clinical outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit (best response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease). Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed using Cox proportional hazard or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, liver metastases, number of prior lines of therapy, histology, and Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group. Results The most common histologies were melanoma (61%) and lung/head and neck cancers (37%). More than half of patients (n = 27, 55%) received at least one ICI prior to trial enrollment: ten received anti-PD-1, two received anti-CTLA-4, five received anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination, and ten received multiple ICI. In MVA, ICI-naïve patients had significantly longer OS (HR: 0.22, CI: 0.07-0.70, p = 0.010) and trended towards higher chance of CB (HR: 2.52, CI: 0.49-12.97, p = 0.268). Patients who received prior ICI had substantially shorter median OS (10.9 vs 24.3 months, p = 0.046) and PFS (2.8 vs. 5.1 months, p = 0.380) than ICI-naïve patients per Kaplan-Meier estimation. Within the ICI-naïve group, 78% (7 of 9) of patients who received prior interleukin (IL-2) or interferon gamma (IFNγ) experienced disease control for at least 6 months, compared to a disease control rate of 15% (2 of 13) in patients who had received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or no prior treatment. Conclusions ICI-naïve patients may experience improved clinical outcomes on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials than patients who have received prior ICI. This may be particularly true for patients who received prior IL-2 or IFNγ. Further development of immunotherapy combination therapies is needed to improve clinical outcomes of these patients. These results should be validated in a larger study.