Systemic treatments in favorable and very favorable risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Real world evidence from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4514 Background: The role of immunotherapy combinations in mRCC with IMDC favorable risk is controversial. A very favorable subgroup of favorable risk patients (primary diagnosis to systemic therapy ≥3yr, Karnofsky Performance Status 90 or 100% and absence of brain, liver, or bone metastasis) has been described by Schmidt A. et al., which require characterization in the immuno-oncology combination era. Methods: Using the IMDC, we selected mRCC patients with IMDC favorable risk who started systemic therapy during 2016-2023 and examined the favorable risk group and the subset of very favorable risk patients. First line systemic therapy was divided into 3 groups: Ipilimumab + Nivolumab (IPI/NIVO), combination of anti PD1/PDL1 and VEGF (IO-VEGF) (Pembrolizumab and Axitinib or Lenvatinib, Avelumab and Axitinib, or Nivolumab and Cabozantinib), and Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (Pazopanib or Sunitinib). The primary outcomes were 2-year overall survival (2y OS) in the favorable and very favorable risk population. Secondary outcomes included Response Rate (RR), treatment duration (TD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). We used unadjusted survival rates at 2 years, with Cox regression model with TKI mono as reference. Results: 611 favorable risk patients were eligible for analysis, of which 165 (26.9%) had very favorable risk disease. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years, 73.8% were male, 87.1% had clear cell histology, 5% had sarcomatoid features, and 97,2% had a prior nephrectomy. With a median follow up of 33 months, outcomes are summarized in the table. Conclusions: No significant difference in survival between different treatment regimens in the favorable risk population was detected yet. In the very favorable risk population, there was a statistically significant decrease in 2 year overall survival with IPI-NIVO (HR 3.19) which, if validated, could underline the necessity of targeting the VEGF pathway in this population. Further prospective trials and longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".