Article Text

Download PDFPDF

629 Evaluation of provider preferences in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: comparison between dual immunotherapy vs. immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitors
  1. Priyanka Chablani,
  2. Theodore Karrison and
  3. Walter Stadler
  1. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States


Background Dual immunotherapy (ipilimumab/nivolumab, IO/IO) and immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) combinations (e.g. pembrolizumab/axitinib) are approved for first-line therapy of intermediate/poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC),1–4 but there is limited comparative data between these two options. We sought to understand how physicians decide between IO/IO vs. IO/TKI for this indication.

Methods We sent a 10-question survey focused on a patient scenario of intermediate/poor risk metastatic RCC to 294 general and academic/disease-focused oncologists throughout the country using RedCAP software to solicit treatment preferences and rationale.

Results We received 105 responses (36% response rate): 61% (64) of providers chose IO/IO, 39% (41) chose IO/TKI (figure 1). 78% (82) of oncologists were academic or disease-focused, 22% (23) were general. Academic/disease-focused oncologists were significantly more likely to choose IO/IO (56/82, 68%) than general oncologists (8/23, 35%), p = 0.004 (figure 2). Among those who chose IO/IO, the perceived main issue with IO/TKI was: long-term toxicities - 31% (20), short-term toxicities - 28% (18), less effective - 28% (18), less convenient - 8% (5). Among those who chose IO/TKI, the perceived main issue with IO/IO was: short-term toxicities - 43% (17), less effective - 28% (11), long-term toxicities - 15% (6), and risk of death - 10% (4) (figure 3). 88% (92) of all providers would be comfortable enrolling patients into a phase III trial comparing IO/IO vs. IO/TKI. We found no associations between therapy chosen by a provider and participation as PI in a trial of IO/IO or IO/TKI, or receipt of outside funding from an IO/IO or IO/TKI company.

Conclusions In response to a representative patient scenario of intermediate-risk RCC, 61% of providers chose IO/IO, 39% chose IO/TKI. There was a significant association between type of practice and choice of therapy, with academic/disease-focused oncologists being more likely to choose IO/IO. The vast majority of oncologists would be comfortable enrolling patients into a phase III trial comparing IO/IO vs. IO/TKI, demonstrating equipoise in the community regarding this question and providing support for such a trial.


  1. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378(14):1277–1290.

  2. Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V. Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2019;380(12):1116–1127.

  3. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M. Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2021;384(9):829–841.

  4. Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for advanced renal cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2021;384(14):1289–1300.

Ethics Approval This study was approved by the IRB at The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division/University of Chicago Medical Center. The study ID is: IRB20-1570.

Abstract 629 Figure 1

Choice of therapy for patient scenario: IO/IO vs. IO/TKI

Abstract 629 Figure 2

Association between type of practice and choice of therapy

Abstract 629 Figure 3

Perceived main issue with IO/TKI or IO/IO as per oncologists who chose the alternate treatment

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.