Correlation between the magnitude of best tumor response and patient survival in nivolumab therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma
The correlation between the magnitudes of best tumor response (bTR) and patient survival in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear. In this article, we retrospectively investigated the prognostic association of the magnitude of bTR in nivolumab therapy for mRCC. Fifty-five patients treated with nivolumab after failure of at least one molecular-targeted therapy were evaluated. Assessment of the magnitude of bTR was based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v.1.1. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after the initiation of nivolumab therapy. In regard to the magnitude of bTR, complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease were observed in three (5.46%), 15 (27.3%), 19 (34.5%), and 18 (32.7%) patients, respectively. PFS and OS were significantly correlated with the magnitude of bTR (median PFS: not reached (N.R.) [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.8–N.R.] vs. 13.0 [8.38–56.0] vs. 5.95 [4.27–7.30] vs. 1.92 [0.53–3.91] months, p < 0.0001; OS: N.R. [N.R.–N.R.] vs. N.R. [21.4–N.R.] vs. 23.3 [23.3–N.R.] vs. 7.36 [1.41–N.R.] months, p < 0.0001). In addition, multivariate analyses show that the magnitude of bTR was an independent factor for PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0010). In conclusion, this retrospective study shows the significant correlation between the magnitude of bTR and patient survival in nivolumab therapy for mRCC. The magnitude of bTR can be an effective surrogate marker for survival.
KeywordsRCC Tumor shrinkage PD-1 RECIST Objective response rate Best overall response
The authors thank Ms. Nobuko Hata (Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University) for the secretarial work.
This study did not receive any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Tsunenori Kondo received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical but did not have any nonfinancial conflict of interest to declare. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.
The Internal Ethics Review Board of the Tokyo Women’s Medical University approved this retrospective study (ID: 4998), which was performed in accordance with the principals outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Because this was a retrospective study, no formal consent was required.
- 5.Zahoor H, Barata PC, Jia X, Martin A, Allman KD, Wood LS, et al. Patterns, predictors and subsequent outcomes of disease progression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with nivolumab. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0425-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Busch J, Seidel C, Goranova I, Erber B, Peters R, Friedersdorff F, et al. Categories of response to first line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeted therapy and overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2014;50(3):563–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Ishihara H, Kondo T, Omae K, Takagi T, Izuka J, Kobayashi H, et al. The magnitude of best tumor shrinkage during second-line targeted therapy affects progression-free survival but not overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(6):568–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyw024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Ishihara H, Kondo T, Yoshida K, Omae K, Takagi T, Iizuka J, et al. Time to progression after first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor predicts survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving second-line molecular-targeted therapy. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(9):542.e1-.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ishihara H, Takagi T, Kondo T, Tachibana H, Yoshida K, Omae K, et al. Efficacy and safety of third-line molecular-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma resistant to first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor and second-line therapy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2018;23(3):559–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1241-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Seidel C, Busch J, Weikert S, Steffens S, Bokemeyer C, Grunwald V. Tumour shrinkage measured with first treatment evaluation under VEGF-targeted therapy as prognostic marker in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Br J Cancer. 2013;109(12):2998–3004. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.662.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Tomita Y, Fukasawa S, Shinohara N, Kitamura H, Oya M, Eto M, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from the CheckMate 025 study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyx049.
- 17.Nishino M, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gargano M, Suda M, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Developing a common language for tumor response to immunotherapy: immune-related response criteria using unidimensional measurements. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(14):3936–43. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Nishino M, Gargano M, Suda M, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Optimizing immune-related tumor response assessment: does reducing the number of lesions impact response assessment in melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab? J Immunother Cancer. 2014;2:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2051-1426-2-17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Tazdait M, Mezquita L, Lahmar J, Ferrara R, Bidault F, Ammari S, et al. Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2018;88:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar