What are the safety and efficacy profiles of rechallenge with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma?
In this cohort study of 69 patients treated between 2012 and 2019, the overall response rate of ICI rechallenge was 23%. In addition, ICI rechallenge was reasonably safe, with 11 patients (16%) experiencing a grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse event.
The findings of this cohort study suggest that ICI rechallenge may be safe and reasonably effective for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for use in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge in mRCC is unknown.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI rechallenge in patients with mRCC.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with mRCC from 9 institutions in the US who received at least 2 separate lines of ICI (ICI-1, ICI-2) between January 2012 and December 2019.
Receipt of an ICI (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, anti–programmed cell death protein 1, or anti–programmed cell death ligand 1), alone or in combination with other therapies, in at least 2 separate lines of therapy for mRCC.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Investigator-assessed best overall response and immune-related adverse events.
A total of 69 patients were included. Median (range) age at diagnosis of mRCC was 61 (36-86) years. Of these, 50 were men and 19 were women. The most common therapies received at ICI-1 were single-agent ICI (n = 27 [39%]) or ICI in combination with targeted therapy (n = 29 [42%]), while at ICI-2, the most common therapies were single-agent ICI (n = 26 [38%]) or dual ICI (n = 22 [32%]). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 owing to disease progression (n = 50 [72%]) or toxic effects (n = 16 [23%]). The overall response rates at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 37% and 23%, respectively. The likelihood of a response at ICI-2 was greatest among patients who had previously responded to ICI-1 (7 of 24 [29%]), although responses at ICI-2 were seen in those who had progressive disease as their best response following ICI-1 (3 of 14 [21%]) as well as in those who received single-agent ICI at ICI-2 (7 of 23 [30%]). Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were seen in 18 patients (26%) and 11 patients (16%) at ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths.
Conclusions and Relevance
The findings of this multicenter cohort study suggest that ICI rechallenge in patients with mRCC may be safe and reasonably efficacious, with an overall response rate of 23%. Data from prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and determine the role of sequential ICI regimens in treatment of mRCC.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Ravi P, Mantia C, Su C, et al. Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Immunotherapy Rechallenge in Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(10):1606–1610. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2169
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: