Preliminary analysis of baseline characteristics, patient reported outcomes (PROs), and treatment selection in ODYSSEY.
Authors: Michael Roger Harrison, Nrupen Anjan Bhavsar, Yasser Ged, Ajjai Shivaram Alva, Yousef Zakharia, Risa Liang Wong, Brian Addis Costello, Benjamin L. Maughan, Deepak Kilari, Sarah Jabusch, Kimberly T. Ward, Elizabeth Marie Wulff-Burchfield, Tian Zhang, Courtney Page, Jesse D. Troy, Charles D. Scales, Daniel J. George
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2024)

385 Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immuno-oncology (IO) agents alone or in combination have revolutionized the landscape of management for untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Baseline quality of life (QOL) outside of interventional clinical trials and rationale for management decisions in mRCC are poorly understood. Methods: In this prospective observational study of 800 mRCC pts in the US, pts must: have a diagnosis of mRCC (any histology) with no prior systemic therapy (ST) for mRCC; be age ≥19 at informed consent; be able to comply with completion of PROs. Exclusion criteria include being treated for active malignancy other than mRCC or not intending to follow up at a study site within PCORnet. Pts undergo consent and baseline assessments by the study site team, with subsequent follow up by the central coordinating center. The primary objective is to determine distinct patterns of change in QOL and symptom burden of mRCC pts. A key secondary objective is to identify patterns of clinical management in the real world setting of mRCC across treatment regimens. Minimally important differences are defined as 3- and 7-points for FKSI-19 and FACT-G respectively. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04919122. Results: As of 9/1/2023, 173 pts have been enrolled (126 ST, 47 no ST [NST]): 75% male, 87% white, 73% clear cell, 52% intermediate risk and 47% poor risk. 47% had radical nephrectomy and 22% another solid tumor. ST pts as compared to NST pts were more likely to be poor risk (52% vs 16%); but differences in baseline pain were not significant. Of ST pts, 44 were treated with IO-IO (ipilimumab + nivolumab), 50 with IO-TKI (cabozantinib + nivolumab 38%, axitinib + pembrolizumab 38%, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab 24%) and 32 other (IO alone 34%, TKI alone 31%, investigational drug 25%). Reasons for NST included active surveillance (AS, 50%), other (21%), local therapy (13%). Mean differences between ST and NST for baseline FKSI-19 and FACT-G were 5.7 (95% CI: 1.2 – 10.2) and 3.3 (-2.6 – 9.3). There were no differences in pain or PROs between IO-IO and IO-TKI pts. Mean differences in FKSI-19 and FACT-G between AS vs IO-IO were 10.6 (4.8 – 16.4) and 8.6 (1.1 – 16.0); and vs IO-TKI were 11.0 (4.9 – 17.0) and 10.3 (3.5 – 17.1). On physician surveys, primary reasons for treatment selection were (in order of % selected): complete response (CR), prolonged survival (OS), prognostic factors (Px), treatment-free interval for IO-IO; versus delaying progression (PFS), OS, CR, Px for IO-TKI. Conclusions: Our data suggest differences in baseline QoL in pts treated with ST vs NST, as well as AS vs IO-IO or IO-TKI, in the real world. Reasons for selection of ST regimen differed among combination regimen classes. Completion of ODYSSEY will clarify baseline and longitudinal differences in pain and PROs among management strategies and give novel insights into the rationale for real world management of untreated pts with mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT04919122 .