Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
J Geriatr Oncol. 2021 Jun;12(5):820-826. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.02.022. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
Older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC) are underrepresented in immune-checkpoint inhibitor(ICI) registration trials. Here we compare the efficacy of ICI treatments in older vs. younger adults with mRCC.
Using the International mRCC Database Consortium(IMDC), patients treated with a PD(L)-1 based ICI were identified. Older adult was defined as ≥70-years at the time of treatment. Descriptive statistics were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), time-to-next treatment(TNT), and overall response rate(ORR). Hazards ratios were adjusted(aHR) for IMDC risk factors, histology, line of treatment and older age.
Of 1427 included patients, 397(28%) were older adults. ICI was used as 1st line(1 L) in 40%, 2nd line(2 L) in 49% and 3rd line(3 L) in 11% of patients. In univariable analysis, older adults had inferior OS compared to younger adults(25.1 m vs. 30.8 m, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TTF (6.9 m vs. 6.9 m, p = 0.4) or TNT(9.1 m vs 10 m, p = 0.3) between groups. In multivariable analyses, older age was not independently associated with worse OS(aHR = 1.02, p = 0.8), TTF(aHR = 0.95, p = 0.6) or TNT(aHR = 0.93, p = 0.5). Older adults had a lower ORR compared to younger adults(24% vs. 31%, p = 0.01), which was mainly driven by responses in 1 L(31% vs. 44%, p = 0.02) and not observed in 2 L/3 L.
After multivariable analyses, older adults with mRCC treated with ICI had no difference in OS, TTF or TNT when compared to younger adults. Our data support that chronological older age should not preclude patients from receiving ICI based therapies.
转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)老年患者在免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)注册试验中的代表性不足。在这里,我们比较了老年和年轻 mRCC 患者接受 ICI 治疗的效果。
使用国际 mRCC 数据库联盟(IMDC),确定接受 PD(L)-1 为基础的 ICI 治疗的患者。年龄≥70 岁的患者被定义为老年患者。描述性统计数据以平均值、中位数和比例总结。有效性终点包括总生存期(OS)、治疗失败时间(TTF)、下一次治疗时间(TNT)和总体反应率(ORR)。调整 IMDC 危险因素、组织学、治疗线数和年龄较大后,计算风险比(HR)。
在纳入的 1427 名患者中,397 名(28%)为老年患者。ICI 作为一线(1L)治疗的占 40%,二线(2L)治疗的占 49%,三线(3L)治疗的占 11%。在单变量分析中,与年轻患者相比,老年患者的 OS 较差(25.1 个月 vs. 30.8 个月,p<0.01)。两组间 TTF(6.9 个月 vs. 6.9 个月,p=0.4)或 TNT(9.1 个月 vs 10 个月,p=0.3)无显著差异。多变量分析中,年龄较大与 OS 较差无关(HR=1.02,p=0.8)、TTF(HR=0.95,p=0.6)或 TNT(HR=0.93,p=0.5)。与年轻患者相比,老年患者的 ORR 较低(24% vs. 31%,p=0.01),主要是由于 1L 的反应(31% vs. 44%,p=0.02),而 2L/3L 无差异。
多变量分析后,与年轻患者相比,接受 ICI 治疗的 mRCC 老年患者的 OS、TTF 或 TNT 无差异。我们的数据支持,按照时间顺序计算的年龄增长不应排除患者接受基于 ICI 的治疗。