https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1225-9100
Figures
Abstract
Background
The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy remains debatable in the present era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with upfront CN and modern systemic therapies.
Methods
Using the TriNetX network database, we identified patients, in the period from 2008 to 2022, who were diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, receiving first-line systemic therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Their overall survivals were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method as well as multivariable regressions.
Results
We identified 11,094 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Of them, 2,914 (43%) patients in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cohort (n = 6,779), and 1,884 (43.7%) in the immune checkpoint inhibitors cohort (n = 4315) underwent upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy. Those receiving upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy showed survival advantages with either tyrosine kinase inhibitor (Hazard ratio 0.722, 95% Confidence interval 0.67–0.73, p<0.001) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (Hazard ratio 65.1, 95% Confidence interval 0.59–0.71, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy was a factor for improved OS in both cohorts: tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Hazard ratio 0.623, 95% Confidence interval 0.56–0.694, p<0.001) and immune checkpoint inhibitors cohort (Hazard ratio 0.688, 95% Confidence interval 0.607–0.779, p<0.001).
Conclusions
Upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy was associated with an improved overall survival for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving either first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our results support a clinical role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy in the modern era.
Citation: Lai G-S, Li J-R, Wang S-S, Chen C-S, Yang C-K, Lin C-Y, et al. (2024) Outcome benefits of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: An analysis of the TriNetX database. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0299102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299102
Editor: Mirosława Püsküllüoğlu, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Krakow, POLAND
Received: September 24, 2023; Accepted: February 5, 2024; Published: March 28, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Lai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has been a standard treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The supporting evidence includes results from several randomized trials showing survival benefits from CN plus interferon treatment compared with interferon therapy alone [1–4]. With the introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO), the treatments for mRCC evolved a lot in the past decade [5–8]. Since the role of CN was established before the era of TKI and IO, it is necessary to reassess its influence on oncological outcomes.
In 2018, the randomized phase III trial CARMENA (Cancer du Rein MétastatiqueNéphrectomie et Antiangiogéniques) showed that treatment outcomes in overall survival (OS) with sunitinib alone is not inferior to CN followed by sunitinib for patients with intermediate- or high-risk mRCC [9]. However, subgroup analyses revealed that patients with one risk factor from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) have survival benefits with CN. Several studies showed CN plus TKI is associated with improved OS compared with TKI alone for patients with mRCC [10–13]. Recent ASCO guidelines on mRCC also recommended CN as a treatment option for selected patients [14].
Despite the results of the CARMENA trial, CN remains debated in the era of TKI and IO, while it has been used in clinical practice for mRCC patients. Herein, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the role of upfront CN on survival for patients with mRCC receiving either TKI or IO.
Materials and methods
Study design, population and outcomes
A retrospective study was performed using TriNetX network, a global database that provides real-world data of ≥250 million people. In this study, we used the US Collaborative Network including 57 healthcare organizations across the US.
We enrolled patients with mRCC and aged ≥18 years old. They received first-line systemic treatment between January 1, 2008 and December 30, 2022. Patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes: ICD-10-CM C64 for malignant neoplasm of kidney, and ICD-10-CM: C78 (lung metastases), C78.7 (liver metastases), C79.3 (brain metastases), or C79.5 (bone metastases) to confirm the diagnosis of distant metastases. The starting date of first-line therapy was set as the index date. Upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy needed to be performed within 3 months before the index date (initiation of first-line therapy). We recognized patients receiving nephrectomy using ICD-10-CM: Z90.5. Comorbidities were identified using ICD-10-CM: I10-I16 for hypertension, ICD-10-CM: I20-I25 for ischemic heart diseases, ICD-10-CM: E08-E13 for diabetes mellitus, and ICD-10-CM: I60-I69 for cerebrovascular disease. The first-line systemic therapies were either TKI (sunitinib, pazopanib, axinitib, or cabozatinib) or IO (nivolumab, ipilumab, atezolizumab, or pembrolizumab). Patients receiving IO-base combination therapy (IO+TKI) were included into the IO cohort.
The primary outcome was OS. OS was defined as the duration from the index date to the date of death from any cause, or censored at the end of study, whichever happened first.
Statistical analyses
Patient baseline characteristics, in case of continuous variables, were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD), and categorical variables, as number and percentage. For evaluating inter-group differences, Student’s t test was used for continuous variables, and chi-square test for categorical variables. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methodology with a median OS and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), as well as a log-rank test to evaluate inter-group differences in OS. Logistic regression was used to assess various risk factors for death. All analyses were performed on the TriNetX platform. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05.
Results
Baseline characteristics
Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. In total, we identified 11,094 patients with mRCC with most of the patients being white. Of them, 6,779 received TKI therapy (the TKI cohort), and 2,914(43%) of them had CN. Also, 4,315 of these patients received IO therapy (the IO cohort), and 1,884 (43.7%) had CN. In the TKI cohort, the majority of patients receive sunitinib (n = 1,984, 29.2%) and pazopanib (n = 1,947, 28.7%). In the IO cohort, the most frequently used treatments were pembrolizumab (n = 1,558, 36.1%) and nivolizumab (n = 1140, 26.4%). Pei chart of races and first-line systemic therapies in the TKI and IO cohorts was illustrated in Fig 1.
Pie charts of (A) races and (B) first-line systemic therapies for patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the TKI and IO cohorts. IO: Immuno-oncology; TKI: Tyrosin kinase inhibitor.
In the TKI cohort, patients receiving CN had significantly more distant metastases and comorbidities when compared with those without CN (all with p<0.001). Similarly, in the IO cohort, patients receiving CN had more instances of hypertension (p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.0012), ischemic heart disease (p<0.001), and lung metastasis (p<0.001), while bone metastasis occurred more frequently for patients not receiving CN (p<0.001) (Fig 2). The Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status was better for patients receiving CN in both TKI and IO cohorts (TKI cohort: p = 0.016, IO cohort: p = 0.044).
Bar graph of (A) sites of distant metastases and (B) comorbidities for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the TKI with/without CN and IO with/without CN cohorts. CN: Cytoreductive nephrectomy; IO: Immune checkpoint inhibitors; TKI: Tyrosin kinase inhibitor.
Outcomes
In the TKI cohort, the median follow-up time was 30.1 months, and in the IO cohort, this was 28.8 months. By the end of this study (December, 2022), 3,540 (52.2%) patients in the TKI cohort reached primary end point (deaths), and 2,086 (48.3%) in the IO cohort.
In the TKI cohort, for patients with CN, their survival probability at the 12th month was 73.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 72.1–75.5] compared with 64.9% (95% CI 63.2–66.5) for those without CN. In the IO cohort, for patients with CN, their survival probability at the 12th month was 71.4% (95% CI 69.1–73.5), compared with 60.3% (95% CI 57.8–62.1) for those without CN. In the TKI cohort, their median OS was 38.3 months for patients with CN, and 23.3 months for those without CN. In the IO cohort, their median OS was 40.5 months for patients with CN, and 19.1 months for those without CN. Patients undergoing CN had survival benefits in OS for both TKI [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.722, 95% CI 0.67–0.73, p<0.001] and IO (HR 65.1, 95% CI 0.59–0.71, p<0.001) cohorts (Fig 3). For patients receiving CN, there was no significant difference in OS between TKI and IO cohorts.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with (A) TKI with/without CN and (B) IO with/without CN. CI: Confidence Interval; CN: Cytoreductive nephrectomy; HR: Hazard ration; IO: Immune checkpoint inhibitor; TKI: Tyrosin kinase inhibitor.
Based on multivariable logistic regression analyses, CN was associated with a reduced risk of death in both TKI (HR 0.623, 95% CI 0.56–0.694, p<0.001) and IO (HR 0.688, 95% CI 0.607–0.779, p<0.001) cohorts (Table 2 and Fig 4).
CI: Confidence interval; HR: Hazard ration; IO: Immune checkpoint inhibitors; OS: Overall survival; TKI: Tyrosin kinase inhibitor.
We performed subgroup analyses and found similar results. Patients with mRCC experienced survival benefits from CN treated with either TKI monotherapy (HR 0.643, 95% CI 0.598–0.692, p<0.001), IO monotherapy (HR 0.675, 95% CI 0.607–0.75, p<0.001), Ipilimumab + Nivolumab (HR 0.491, 95% CI 0.422–0.571, p<0.001), or Axitinib + Pembrolizumab (HR 0.461, 95% CI 0.369–0.575, p<0.001) (Fig 5).
CI: Confidence interval; CN: Cytoreductive nephrectomy; HR: Hazard ratio; IO: Immune checkpoint inhibitors; OS: Overall survival; TKI: Tyrosin kinase inhibitor.
Discussion
In the present study, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on the TriNetX platform to evaluate the benefits of upfront CN for patients with mRCC receiving first-line systemic therapy with either TKI or IO. We found that patients receiving upfront CN, compared with those without CN, were associated with improved OS.
CN was historically the standard care option for patients with mRCC. Its evidence is based on several trials reporting survival benefits of surgical intervention in the era of cytokines [1–4]. With the advent of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, several studies reported survival advantages of these new systemic treatments over traditional cytokines [5–8]. Given the rapid evolution of these novel and more efficient agents, the role of CN has become controversial. CARMENA, a phase 3, randomized trial on patients with mRCC, reported that sunitinib alone is not inferior in OS when compared with CN followed by sunitinib [9]. SURTIME is a randomized trial, which demonstrated a survival advantage of deferred CN compared with immediate CN, indicating that surgical intervention could be an option for patients with objective response to sunitinib [10]. Nevertheless, a subgroup analysis in the CARMENA trial reported that patients with one IMDC risk factor have survival benefit from CN, and multiple studies also supported the role of CN in the modern era [11–17]. In this study, we found that patients undergoing upfront CN were associated with better OS in both TKI and IO cohorts [18,19]. One hypothesis of the underlying mechanisms is that primary RCC releases cytokines to stimulate inflammation, and they also reducing immune responses against the tumor [20,21]. CN reduces cytokines and prevents metastatic tumors from progression. The potential immune modulation effects of surgery may be further aggravated in patients treated with IO therapies.
According to previous studies, patients with fewer sites of metastases and better performance status have survival benefit from surgical intervention [9,13,22,23]. In this study, we found that patients receiving CN have better ECOG performance. Interestingly, they had more incidences of distant metastases and co-morbidities. Multiple variables analyses confirmed that fewer metastases and CN were associated with better OS. Results indicated that patients with more distant metastases and co-morbidities may still get survival benefit from surgery. The discrepancy of these findings highlighted the survival advantages of CN in mRCC, suggesting that multiple factors should be considered for clinicians in evaluating these patients.
There are some limitations of our study. First, its retrospective design and non-randomization are subject to selection bias. Second, some patient information and statistics analyses were not available on the platform, such as IMDC risk stratification and Cox regression analysis. Despite these limitations, our study involved a large population in a real-world setting. Our findings provide clinicians some useful information in the management of these patients while awaiting the results from the ongoing trials that assess the role of CN in the era of TKI and IO.
Conclusion
Results of our study supported the OS benefits of upfront CN for mRCC patients in the modern TKI and IO era. Before reports emerge from prospective and randomized trials, our findings are helpful for clinicians in treating these patients.
Supporting information
S1 File. Values for Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in patients with TKI treatment.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299102.s001
(XLSX)
S2 File. Values for Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in patients with IO treatment.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299102.s002
(XLSX)
References
- 1. Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Michaelson MD, Nandagopal L, Gore JL, George S, et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1278–1285. pmid:31693980.
- 2. Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, Bearman SI, Roy V, McGrath PC, et al. Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared with interferon alfa-2b alone for metastatic renal-cell cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001 Dec 6;345(23):1655–9. pmid:11759643.
- 3. Mickisch GH, Garin A, van Poppel H, de Prijck L, Sylvester R; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Genitourinary Group. Radical nephrectomy plus interferon-alfa-based immunotherapy compared with interferon alfa alone in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001 Sep 22;358(9286):966–70. pmid:11583750.
- 4. Flanigan RC, Mickisch G, Sylvester R, Tangen C, Van Poppel H, Crawford ED. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer: a combined analysis. J Urol. 2004;171(3):1071–1076. pmid:14767273.
- 5. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, Arén Frontera O, Melichar B, Choueiri TK, et al. CheckMate 214 Investigators. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 5;378(14):1277–1290. pmid:29562145.
- 6. Motzer RJ, Penkov K, Haanen J, Rini B, Albiges L, Campbell MT, et al. Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1103–1115. pmid:30779531.
- 7. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, Escudier B, Bourlon MT, Zurawski B, at al; CheckMate 9ER Investigators. Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 4;384(9):829–841. pmid:33657295.
- 8. Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY, Porta C, Eto M, Powles T, et al; CLEAR Trial Investigators. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 8;384(14):1289–1300. pmid:33616314.
- 9. Méjean A, Ravaud A, Thezenas S, Colas S, Beauval JB, Bensalah K, et al. Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 2;379(5):417–427. pmid:29860937.
- 10. Bex A, Mulders P, Jewett M, Wagstaff J, van Thienen JV, Blank CU, et al. Comparison of Immediate vs Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients With Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib: The SURTIME Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;5(2):164–170. pmid:30543350.
- 11. Heng DY, Wells JC, Rini BI, Beuselinck B, Lee JL, Knox JJ, et al. Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with synchronous metastases from renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Eur Urol. 2014 Oct;66(4):704–10. pmid:24931622.
- 12. Xiao WJ, Zhu Y, Dai B, Zhang HL, Ye DW. Assessment of survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma after radical cytoreductive nephrectomy versus no surgery: a SEER analysis. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(2): 288–295. pmid:26005970.
- 13. Hanna N, Sun M, Meyer CP, Nguyen PL, Pal SK, Chang SL, et al. Survival Analyses of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cancer Treated With Targeted Therapy With or Without Cytoreductive Nephrectomy: A National Cancer Data Base Study. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 20;34(27):3267–75. pmid:27325852.
- 14. Rathmell WK, Rumble RB, Van Veldhuizen PJ, Al-Ahmadie H, Emamekhoo H, Hauke RJ, et al. Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2022 Sep 1;40(25):2957–2995. Epub 2022 Jun 21. pmid:35728020.
- 15. Bakouny Z, El Zarif T, Dudani S, Connor Wells J, Gan CL, Donskov F, et al. Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Targeted Therapy: An Observational Study from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Eur Urol. 2023 Feb;83(2):145–151. pmid:36272943.
- 16. McIntosh AG, Umbreit EC, Holland LC, Gu C, Tannir NM, Matin SF, et al. Optimizing patient selection for cytoreductive nephrectomy based on outcomes in the contemporary era of systemic therapy. Cancer. 2020 Sep 1;126(17):3950–3960. pmid:32515845.
- 17. Méjean A, Ravaud A, Thezenas S, Chevreau C, Bensalah K, Geoffrois L, et al. Sunitinib Alone or After Nephrectomy for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Is There Still a Role for Cytoreductive Nephrectomy? Eur Urol. 2021 Oct;80(4):417–424. pmid:34187771.
- 18. Singla N, Hutchinson RC, Ghandour RA, Freifeld Y, Fang D, Sagalowsky AI, et al. Improved survival after cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the contemporary immunotherapy era: An analysis of the National Cancer Database. Urol Oncol. 2020 Jun;38(6):604.e9-604.e17. pmid:32253116; PMCID: PMC7269798.
- 19. Ghatalia P, Handorf EA, Geynisman DM, Deng M, Zibelman MR, Abbosh P, et al. The Role of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Multi-Institutional Analysis. J Urol. 2022 Jul;208(1):71–79. pmid:35212574; PMCID: PMC9187610.
- 20. Flanigan RC. Debulking nephrectomy in metastatic renal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Sep 15;10(18 Pt 2):6335S–41S. pmid:15448027.
- 21. Lahn M, Fisch P, Köhler G, Kunzmann R, Hentrich I, Jesuiter H, et al. Pro-inflammatory and T cell inhibitory cytokines are secreted at high levels in tumor cell cultures of human renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 1999 Jan;35(1):70–80. pmid:9933797.
- 22. Bhindi B, Abel EJ, Albiges L, Bensalah K, Boorjian SA, Daneshmand S, et al. Systematic Review of the Role of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Targeted Therapy Era and Beyond: An Individualized Approach to Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2019 Jan;75(1):111–128. pmid:30467042.
- 23. Massari F, Di Nunno V, Gatto L, Santoni M, Schiavina R, Cosmai L, et al. Should CARMENA Really Change our Attitude Towards Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in the Era of Targeted Therapy. Target Oncol. 2018 Dec;13(6):705–714. pmid:30324488.