Objectives: This study aimed to clarify the significance of therapeutic timing on the effectiveness of nivolumab for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Marterials and methods: Fifty-eight patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab monotherapy were retrospectively studied. Patients who were treated with nivolumab as second-line therapy were included in the second-line group, while the others were included in the later-line group. The clinicopathological characteristics, effects of nivolumab, and prognoses of these groups were compared.
Results: Twenty and thirty-eight patients were included in the second-line and later-line groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the distribution of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consotium risk and other clinicopathological characteristics between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients whose objective best response was progressive disease in the second-line group was significantly lower than that in the later-line group (15% vs. 50%, p = 0.0090). The 50% progression-free survival with nivolumab in the second-line group was significantly better than that in the later-line group (not reached and 5 months, p = 0.0018). Multivariate analysis showed that the second-line setting was an independent predictive factor for better progression-free survival (p = 0.0028, hazard ratio = 0.108). The 50% overall survival after starting nivolumab in the second-line and later-line groups was not reached and 27.8 months, respectively (p = 0.2652).
Conclusions: The therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab as second-line therapy is expected to be better than that of later therapy.
Keywords: Immune checkpoint inhibitor; Metastatic renal cell carcinoma; Nivolumab; Prognostic factor; Second-line treatment.
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.