PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026International Urology and Nephrology0 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of clinical outcomes of cabozantinib plus nivolumab and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

KNKazutaka NakamuraKYKazuhiko YoshidaYKYuki Kobari

Key Points

  • This research evaluates the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib plus nivolumab versus lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
  • Multicenter retrospective analysis of 92 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with C + N or L + P first-line therapy between April 2018 and August 2024.
  • Progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and treatment-related adverse events were compared between the two groups.
  • Multivariable analysis was conducted to identify independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival.
  • Progression-free survival for C + N was 24.1 months and not reached for L + P (P = 0.725).
  • Overall survival for C + N was 46.7 months and not reached for L + P (P = 0.912).
  • C + N exhibited a higher objective response rate of 79% compared to L + P at 49% (P = 0.002), with comparable disease control rates and grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the treatment outcomes and safety of cabozantinib plus nivolumab (C + N) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This multicenter retrospective analysis included 92 patients with mRCC treated with either C + N or L + P as first-line therapy between April 2018 and August 2024. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were compared. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent prognostic factors for PFS. Fifty-three patients received C + N and 39 received L + P. PFS (24.1 months vs. not reached, P = 0.725) and OS (46.7 months vs. not reached, P = 0.912) were not significantly different between the C + N and L + P groups. Over a median follow-up duration of 13.9 months, 31 patients experienced disease progression and 12 died. ORR was higher in the C + N group than in the L + P group (79% vs. 49%, P = 0.002), whereas DCR (100% vs. 95%, P = 0.096) and grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (47% vs. 36%, P = 0.280) were comparable. In the multivariable analysis, the treatment regimen (C + N as a reference) was not significantly associated with PFS (hazard ratio: 0.76, P = 0.476). Favorable/intermediate International mRCC Database Consortium risk was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PFS. Treatment with C + N and L + P resulted in comparable PFS, OS, and safety profiles in patients with mRCC. Both regimens can be used to treat mRCC based on individual characteristics.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nakamura et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed140b9154b0b828787aehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-026-05174-5
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper