Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tivozanib (TIVO) + nivolumab (NIVO) vs TIVO monotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI): Results of the phase 3 TiNivo-2 study.
Abstract
459 Background: The TiNivo-2 study assessed TIVO 0.89 mg + NIVO vs TIVO 1.34 mg in patients with RCC that progressed after ICI therapy. This study did not meet its primary endpoint of demonstrating a benefit of adding NIVO to TIVO vs TIVO after prior ICI exposure; however, clinically meaningful outcomes were observed with TIVO as a second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment following ICI. In the intent-to-treat population, the median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-7.4) with TIVO + NIVO and 7.4 months (5.6-9.2) with TIVO (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.43; P =.49), with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events in the TIVO + NIVO vs TIVO arm. Quality of life (QOL) data are reported here (NCT04987203). Methods: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index–Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaires were administered at baseline (BL), day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment. The PRO-evaluable set was defined as all randomized patients with a BL and ≥1 post-BL assessment. Descriptive statistics were provided for the FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30 data. The number and percentage of patients categorized as having improved (I), stable (S), or deteriorated (D) QOL were summarized. Results: As of April 1, 2024, median follow-up was 12.0 months. Median duration (range) of treatment was 6·3 months (2.68-10.12) with TIVO + NIVO and 7·4 months (2.83-11.04) with TIVO. Completion rates for FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30 were >90% at BL and >50% at week 24 (≈6 mo.) in each arm. Compliance rates for both instruments at BL and week 24 were >90%. PRO results are presented in the table. Conclusions: There were no differences in the PRO outcomes between the combination therapy and monotherapy arms or between the 2 different TIVO doses. PRO data suggested that TIVO maintained the FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30 mean scores from BL to week 24. In the TIVO arm, the proportion of patients who had improvement in FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30 scores was numerically better in patients receiving 2L vs 3L treatment, while the portion of patients with a deterioration was smaller in the 2L than in the 3L. Clinical trial information: NCT04987203 . PRO variables TIVO + NIVO TIVO ITT 2L 3L ITT 2L 3L FKSI-DRSBL mean (SD) 28.8 (5.6) 29.5 (4.9) 27.6 (6.5) 29.3 (5.3) 29.1(5.5) 29.5 (5.0) Week 24 mean (SD) 29.9 (4.9) 30.1 (4.7) 29.5 (5.4) 29.4 (5.3) 29.3 (4.8) 29.6 (6.3) I/S/D, % 28.2/47.2/24.6 28.0/52.7/19.4 28.6/36.7/34.7 22.9/53.5/23.6 27.5/53.8/18.7 15.1/52.8/32.1 EORTC-QLQ-C30BL mean (SD) 63.4 (23.4) 65.0 (21.8) 60.5 (26.1) 66.2 (21.4) 67.1 (21.9) 64.9 (20.7) Week 24 mean (SD) 68.7 (17.4) 68.7 (16.1) 68.6 (20.6) 64.8 (21.1) 64.6 (20.7) 65.1 (22.4) I/S/D, % 27.7/48.9/23.4 27.8/52.2/20.0 27.7/42.6/29.8 21.3/53.7/25.0 23.0/56.3/20.7 18.4/49.0/32.7
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (18)
Katy Beckermann
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Toni K. Choueiri
Department of Medical Oncology Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute Boston Massachusetts USA
Robert J. Motzer
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Philippe Barthélémy
Roberto Iacovelli
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome
Sheik Emambux
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, Poitiers, France
Javier Molina-Cerrillo
Benjamin Garmezy
Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN
Pedro C. Barata
Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Cleveland Ohio USA
Rana R. McKay
Department of Medicine, Urology, and Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences University of California‐San Diego La Jolla California USA
Alex Chehrazi-Raffle
City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA
Hans J. Hammers
UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Daniel Yick Chin Heng
Department of Medical Oncology, Arthur JE Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Edgar E. Braendle
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston, MA
Claudia Lebedinsky
AVEO Oncology, Boston, MA
Bo Jin
Joint International Center for CO2 Capture and Storage (iCCS), Provincial Hunan Key Laboratory for Cost-Effective Utilization of Fossil Fuel Aimed at Reducing Carbon-Dioxide Emissions, Advanced Catalytic Engineering Research Center of the Ministry of Education, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Hunan University, Lushannan 1, Changsha, Hunan 410082, China
Laurence Albiges
Department of Medical Oncology Gustave Roussy Villejuif France
Bradley Alexander McGregor
Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA