Abstract
Immunotherapy (IO)-based combinations used to treat metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) include dual immune checkpoint inhibition with ipilimumab and nivolumab (IO/IO) and several combinations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (TKI/IO). IO/IO and TKI/IO approaches have not been compared directly, and it is unknown whether patients who do not respond to first-line IO/IO can salvage long-term survival by receiving a second-line TKI. Progression-free survival after second-line therapy (PFS-2) evaluates the ability to be salvaged by second-line therapy. We retrospectively evaluated 173 patients treated with first-line IO/IO or TKI/IO for metastatic ccRCC at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and report PFS-2, overall survival, and response to second line of therapy (ORR(2nd)) for groups defined by first-line category. Although ORR(2nd) was significantly higher with IO/IO than with TKI/IO (47% vs 13%, p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in median PFS-2 for TKI/IO versus IO/IO (44 vs 23 mo, log-rank p = 0.1) or restricted mean survival time (RMST) for PFS-2 when adjusted for propensity score (33 vs 30 mo; difference 2.6 mo [95% confidence interval {CI}: -2.6, 7.9]; p = 0.3). There was also no significant difference in RMST for overall survival when adjusted for propensity score (38 vs 37 mo; group difference 1.0 mo [95% CI: -3.4, 5.5]; p = 0.7). These findings do not support a change in current utilization practices for IO/IO and TKI/IO treatment strategies for ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In cases of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma, no significant difference was observed in progression-free survival after second line of therapy between patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab and those receiving a combination of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor.