Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Aug 19:15:1617743.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1617743. eCollection 2025.

Effectiveness and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab in older adults with renal cell carcinoma: findings from a multicenter observational study in Poland

Artur Drobniak  1 , Łukasz Stokłosa  1   2 , Aleksandra Grela-Wojewoda  3 , Jacek Calik  4 , Natalia Versuti Viegas  4 , Jolanta Dobrzańska  5   6 , Agnieszka Roman  7 , Marek Szwiec  8 , Anna Bidas  9 , Daria Tusień-Małecka  10 , Angelika Gawlik-Urban  11   12   13 , Mirosława Puskulluoglu #  3 , Renata Pacholczak-Madej #  1   13   14
Affiliations

Effectiveness and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab in older adults with renal cell carcinoma: findings from a multicenter observational study in Poland

Artur Drobniak et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo+ipi) are recommended for treating metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), though their safety and efficacy in older adults remain uncertain. This study examines the outcomes of this regimen in Polish patients aged ≥65 years.

Methods: In this multicenter observational study, 138 patients with mRCC who received nivo+ipi between May 2022 and October 2024 were analyzed. Key outcomes included objective response rates (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS) with comparisons between patients aged <65 and ≥65 years. Safety was assessed based on the incidence and severity of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for potential confounders. A significance level of p < 0.05 was applied.

Results: After a median follow-up of 13 months, the median PFS for the entire cohort was 15.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2-20.8); in patients <65 years, it was 11.3 months, while in those ≥65 years, it was 23 months. Patients ≥65 years had a 40% lower risk of progression than younger patients (hazard ratio 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, p=0.03). Patients aged ≥65 years exhibited a higher ORR (46.2% vs. 26%) and DCR (73.8% vs. 63%, p=0.02 for both). The overall incidence of irAEs was comparable between age groups; however, older patients experienced a higher frequency of very severe irAEs (1 vs. 6, p=0.06).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that nivo+ipi are effective across age groups, with older patients achieving comparable or even superior outcomes with acceptable irAEs rates.

Keywords: elderly; immune checkpoint inhibitors; nivolumab and ipilimumab; renal cell carcinoma; treatment outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) by age group. Figure created using PS Imago Pro 9 (SPSS).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of immune-related adverse events by severity and age group graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0. Figure created using Microsoft Excel, version 16.99 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). Abbreviations: G- grade.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Powles T, Albiges L, Bex A, Comperat E, Grünwald V, Kanesvaran R, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up 5 behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Committee. Ann Oncol. (2024) 35:692–706. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.05.537, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singer EA, Rumble RB, Van Veldhuizen PJ. Management of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: ASCO guideline Q&A. JCO Oncol Pract. (2023) 19:127–31. doi: 10.1200/OP.22.00660/ASSET/D113D15D-DB85-4D67-B46A-3DBD08196D7E/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/OP.22.00660F3.JPG, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wysocki PJ, Chłosta P, Chrzan R, Czech AK, Gronostaj K, Konopka K, et al. Zalecenia postępowania diagnostyczno-terapeutycznego w raku nerkowokomórkowym-aktualizacja Polish Society of Clinical Oncology and Polish Urological Association guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell cancer-update, Vol. 6. (2022). WYTYCZNE POSTĘPOWANIA DIAGNOSTYCZNO-TERAPEUTYCZNEGO. 424–57.
    1. Heng DYC, Xie W, Regan MM, Harshman LC, Bjarnason GA, Vaishampayan UN, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: A population-based study. Lancet Oncol. (2013) 14:141–8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70559-4, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. SEER*Explorer Application . Available online at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/application.html?sit... (Accessed January 12, 2025).

LinkOut - more resources