Abstract:Abstract Background: Recent advances in immunotherapy have introduced new treatment modalities for aRCC. In absence of guideline recommendations, it is unclear what factors drive providers in selecting 1L treatments for aRCC. To address this gap, we described the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with aRCC who received 1L NIVO+CABO, PEM+LEN, or NIVO monotherapy in the RW setting. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, treating oncologists from a US nationally representative network abstracted electronic health record data from patients with aRCC who initiated 1L NIVO+CABO or NIVO monotherapy (off-label in the US) between 2/1/2021 and 6/12/2023, or PEM+LEN between 9/1/2021 and 6/12/2023. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized descriptively. Results: Compared with patients who received NIVO+CABO (n = 200) or PEM+LEN (n = 100), patients who received NIVO (n = 147) were relatively older at 1L initiation (Table). Sex, race, and region of residence were comparable across cohorts. Patients who received NIVO were more likely to have an ECOG PS score of ≥ 2 (59.2%) compared with NIVO+CABO (14.5%) or PEM+LEN (20%) cohorts. The distribution of MSKCC or IMDC risk scores at 1L initiation was comparable across cohorts . Grade 3 or 4 tumors were reported among 56.5%, 41.0%, and 43.5% of those who received NIVO+CABO, PEM+LEN, and NIVO, respectively. Conclusions: This study suggests that 1L treatment for aRCC using IO monotherapy may be more likely to be considered than IO-TKI therapy for older patients and those with poorer ECOG PS, possibly reflecting perceived tolerability of TKI combinations in these patient populations. Further research is needed to understand the impact of these 1L treatment selection patterns on outcomes. Table: Key patient characteristics at 1L initiation. PEM+LEN NIVO+CABO NIVO n = 100 n = 200 n = 147 Mean age, year (standard deviation) 64.4 (7.9) 66.3 (7.4) 74.1 (9.6) Male, n (%) 93 (63.3) 122 (61.0) 93 (63.3) Race, n (%) White 61 (61.0) 127 (63.5) 91 (61.9) Non-white/unknown 39 (39.0) 73 (36.5) 56 (38.1) Region of residence, n (%) Northeast 23 (23.0) 44 (22.0) 37 (25.2) Midwest 22 (22.0) 53 (26.5) 27 (18.4) South 20 (20.0) 34 (17.0) 33 (22.4) West 35 (35.0) 69 (34.5) 50 (34.0) MSKCC or IMDC risk score, n (%) Favorable 13 (13.0) 28 (14.0) 22 (15.0) Intermediate 57 (57.0) 100 (50.0) 74 (50.3) Poor 28 (28.0) 68 (34.0) 41 (27.9) ECOG-PS, n (%) 0 or 1 80 (80.0) 171 (85.5) 60 (40.8) ≥2 20 (20.0) 29 (14.5) 87 (59.2) Grade of tumor differentiation, n (%) Grade 1 3 (3.0) 10 (5.0) 16 (10.9) Grade 2 56 (56.0) 77 (38.5) 67 (45.6) Grade 3 36 (36.0) 98 (49.0) 55 (37.4) Grade 4 5 (5.0) 15 (7.5) 9 (6.1) Citation Format: Kevin K. Zarrabi, Benjamin Miron, Xin Yin, Lisa Rosenblatt, Sarah B. Guttenplan, William John, Taavy A. Miller, Parisa Asgarisabet, Prathamesh Pathak, Monica Ahlquist, Yul Brian Gash, Daniel M. Geynisman. Characteristics of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who received first-line (1L) nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO+CABO), pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PEM+LEN), or nivolumab (NIVO) monotherapy in the real-world (RW) setting [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 5095.

Real world outcomes of first line (1L) nivolumab and ipilimumab (NIVO IPI) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): An update from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).

Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma

First-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) in patients (pts) with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): 64-month (mo) follow-up from CheckMate 142.

Comparative effectiveness of first-line (1L) ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Ipi + Nivo) versus immune checkpoint inhibitors + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ICI + TKI) in patients (pts) with intermediate or poor (I/P) risk metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) vs sunitinib (SUN) for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Long-term follow-up data from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial.

Nivolumab (NIVO) Plus Chemotherapy (chemo) or Ipilimumab (IPI) Versus Chemo As First-Line (1L) Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): Expanded Efficacy and Safety Analyses from CheckMate 648.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma

Conditional survival and long‐term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Nivolumab (NIVO) Plus Chemotherapy (chemo) or Ipilimumab (IPI) Vs Chemo As First-Line (1L) Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): 29-Month (mo) Follow-Up from CheckMate 648.

Real-world efficacy and toxicity of ipilimumab and nivolumab as first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a subpopulation of elderly and poor performance status patients.

Abstract 5095: Characteristics of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who received first-line (1L) nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO+CABO), pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PEM+LEN), or nivolumab (NIVO) monotherapy in the real-world (RW) setting

Nivolumab (NIVO) + low-dose ipilimumab (IPI) in previously treated patients (pts) with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Long-term follow-up.

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line (1L) treatment for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): First results of the CheckMate 8HW study.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving dual immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI-ICI) regimens or immune checkpoint inhibitor and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ICI-TKI) combinations as first-line therapy: A British Columbia (BC) population-based analysis.

Real-world (RW) effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy (NIVO+chemo) in patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic gastric carcinoma, gastroesophageal junction carcinoma, or esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC).

Nivolumab + ipilimumab combination in patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): First report of the full cohort from CheckMate-142.

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs lenvatinib (LEN) or sorafenib (SOR) as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): First results from CheckMate 9DW.

Primary resistance to nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy affects second‐line treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up from the phase III randomised CheckMate 9ER trial

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients: data with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up

Adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy vs placebo for localized renal cell carcinoma at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy: Results from Part B of the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 914 trial.