Search

Background: Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear., Methods: The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile., Discussion: Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity., Trial Registration: CESC IOV 2023-78., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The RCC treatment landscape has evolved dramatically over the past decade. The purpose of this study is to present a real-world data estimation of RCC's cost-of-illness for this tumour's clinical pathway., Methods: This investigation is a population-based cohort study using real-world data, which considers all RCC incident cases diagnosed in Local Unit 6 of the Province of Padua in 2016 and 2017 as registered by the Veneto Cancer Registry. Data on drug prescriptions, the use of medical devices, hospital admissions, and visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments were collected by means of administrative databases. We evaluated the costs of all healthcare procedures performed in the 2 years of follow-up post-RCC diagnosis. The overall and annual average real-world costs per patient, both as a whole and by single item, were calculated and stratified by stage of disease at diagnosis., Results: The analysis involved a population of 148 patients with a median age of 65.8 years, 66.22% of whom were male. Two years after diagnosis, the average total costs amounted to €21,429 per patient. There is a steady increment in costs with increasing stage at diagnosis, with a total amount of €41,494 spent 2 years after diagnosis for stage IV patients, which is 2.44 times higher than the expenditure for stage I patients (€17,037). In the first year, hospitalization appeared to be the most expensive item for both early and advanced disease. In the second year, however, outpatient procedures were the main cost driver in the earlier stages, whereas anticancer drugs accounted for the highest costs in the advanced stages., Conclusions: This observational study provides real-world and valuable estimates of RCC's cost-of-illness, which could enable policymakers to construct dynamic economic cost-effectiveness evaluation models based on real world costs' evaluation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Severe immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs) develop in 10-27% of patients treated with Immune-Oncology (IO) [Powles (Lancet 391:748-757, 2018); Galsky (Lancet 395:1547-1557, 2020); Haanen (Ann Oncol 28:119-142, 2017)]. The aim of our study was to evaluate efficacy and clinical outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who stopped Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) due to early Grade (G) 3-G4 irAEs., Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 204 mRCC patients treated with ICIs in 6 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, between February 2017 and January 2020. To properly weight the results, patients who did not report early G3-G4 toxicities have been included as control group. Primary endpoint was to evaluate 6 months Progression Free Survival (PFS) after early treatment interruption for Grade (G) 3-4 toxicities compared to the control group. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) in both groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 19.00, SPSS, Chicago)., Results: 18/204 (8.8%) patients had early treatment interruption for serious (G3-G4) irAEs. Early was defined as interruption of IO after only one or two administrations. Immune related nephritis and pancreatitis were the most common irAE that lead to treatment interruption. 6/18 patients received IO-IO combination whereas 12/18 patients antiPD1. In the study group, 12/18 (66.6%) were free from progression at 6 months since IO interruption, TTF was 1.6 months (95% CI 1.6-2.1), mPFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 3.16-11.6) and mOS was 15.5 months (5.1-25.8). In the control group 111/184 (60.3%) patients were free from progression at 6 months, TTF was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.5-5.6), mPFS was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.5-5.6) and mOS was 19.6 months (95% CI 15.1-24.0). In the overall population, mPFS was 5.0 months (95% CI 4.0-5.9) and mOS was 19.6 months (95% CI 15.1-24.0)., Conclusions: ICIs seem to maintain efficacy even after early interruption due to severe irAE., (© 2021. The Author(s).)