Subclassification of the intermediate-risk group in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.
Authors: Maria Zapata-Garcia, Maria Zurera Berjaga, Alba Moratiel Pellitero, Marta Gascon Ruiz, Andrea Sesma Goñi, Mara Cruellas, Maitane Ocáriz, Natalia Alonso Marin, Ines Ruiz Moreno, Ana Goas Gomez, Maria Marti Pi, Elisa Quilez, Rodrigo Lastra, Maria Alvarez, Irene Torres, Jose Manuel Vinuesa Hernando, Carlos Camacho Fuentes, Julio Lambea
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

e16537 Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have low prevalence but it incidence is increasing. For a correct therapeutic approach, it is important to carry out a correct prognostic stratification. Several prognostication systems have been proposed. One of the most commonly used is the one developed by Heng. It is based on IMDC database. This classification includes six prognostic factors (hemoglobin, neutrohils, platelets, serum calcium, Karnosky Performance Status and time from diagnosis to initiaton treatment) to divide patients into three gorups. The relevance of IMDC prognostic criterio, in the era of immunotherapy, remains to be established. In the absence of alternative criteria, these prognostication system continue to be used. A great prognostic disparity has been observed in the intermediate prognosis group. This raises the need to divide this group into two. Thus, patients included in it would be better selected. Methods: Observational, single-center, retrospective study, based on a cohort of 107 patients with advanced RCC, recruited from January 2006 to December 2019. Main objective: Evaluate whether survival of patients with intermediate prognosis (treated with antiangiogenic in first-line) is different depending on the presence of one or two prognostic factors. Descriptive and survival analysis (OS and PFS) were performed. In addition, the influence of prognostic factors on OS and PFS were compared using the log-rank test and Cox regression. Results: In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was 26.86 months (95% CI: 21.09-32.63) and median PFS was 18.41 months (95% CI: 14.02-22.79). Median OS were, in favorable-risk 42.24 months (95% CI: 29.62-54.62), in intermediate-risk 27,24 (95% CI: 19.44-35-03) and in poor-risk 8.00 (95% CI: 4.54-11.45). Median PFS were in favorable-risk 30.53 months (95% CI:20.92-40.13), in intermediate-risk 17,16 (95% CI:11.54-22.78) and poor-risk 6.13 (95% CI:3.02-9.25). Median OS and PFS, in patients with intermediate-risk, with a single risk factor were 33.79 (95% CI 23.17-44.41) and 20.97 months (95% CI 13.35-28.59), compared to 14.88 (95% CI 8.80-20.95) and 10.59 months (95% CI 4.87-16.32) in those with two risk factors. The results were statistically significant in OS (p = 0.01) and PFS (p = 0.037). Conclusions: The differences in median OS and PFS, within the intermediate prognosis group (1 or 2 RF), confirm the existence of two subgroups of patients. Patients with 1 RF are similar to those with favorable-risk. These results are important since, the presence of 1 or 2 RF, would condition the choice of TKIs as part of the first-line treatment combination. More studies are needed to better subclassify the intermediate risk group when optimizing the best treatments for each patient.