What a fantastic way to end #GU21! A year ago, I attended my 1st #ASCOGU. A year on, I am so grateful to all pts, #IMDConline collaborators, @ASCO, & @DrDanielHeng for the opportunity to present the outcomes of 1L IO Combos in mRCC.
@OncoAlert @DrChoueiri @ShaanDudani @montypal
@OncoAlert @DrChoueiri @ShaanDudani @montypal
1/723 pts were included. IPI-NIVO group had a higher proportion of pts with worse IMDC risk profile, compared to IOVEGF group. We have to interpret the data in this context.
2/In the IMDC intermediate/poor risk cohort, we found no difference in time to next treatment or overall survival between IPI-NIVO vs. IO-VEGF.
3/IO-VEGF was associated with higher ORR (59%) vs. IPI- NIVO (37%). IPI-NIVO has greater percentage of PD as best response (31%) vs. IO-VEGF (15%). IOVEGF had longer treatment duration (15 mons) vs. IPI-NIVO (4.6 mons).
4/We were unable to detect a particular subgroup that is associated with improved survival to either strategy.
5/IPI-NIVO had higher rate of serious irAE, 37% vs. IOVEGF, 13% (analysis was unadjusted for IMDC risk factors).
6/Pts with serious irAE had longer OS and TTNT.
The result could be influenced by immortal time bias, this is minimized by:
-similar treatment duration between those with irAE vs. those without
-Most serious irAEs occurred early (median time to onset 2.7 mons)
The result could be influenced by immortal time bias, this is minimized by:
-similar treatment duration between those with irAE vs. those without
-Most serious irAEs occurred early (median time to onset 2.7 mons)
7/ Within the limitations of our study, we conclude that both IPI-NIVO and IOVEGF are reasonable 1st line options for IMDC intermediate/poor risk pts. With longer follow up, we will be updating the analysis in the future.
8/See you in #GU22. Have a peaceful year and stay well!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
