Retrospective cohort study reveals shifting therapy regimens and substantial economic burden in advanced renal cell carcinoma, indicating high healthcare demands despite survival gains.
Background Advances in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and immuno-oncology (IO) therapies have reshaped the aRCC treatment landscape, necessitating an updated understanding of real-world treatment patterns, HCRU, and costs. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (2019-2024). Adults with ≥2 claims with an RCC diagnosis, evidence of secondary metastasis, and who initiated first line (1L) systemic therapy (IO + IO, IO + TKI or TKI monotherapy) on or after April 19, 2019, were included. Treatment patterns, HCRU, and costs were examined. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 2,123 patients (mean age 68; 71% male), 82% received 1L IO-based therapy (IO + IO or IO + TKI), and 18% received 1L TKI monotherapy. Over 5 years, use of 1L IO+TKI therapies increased from 34% (2019) to 49% (2024), while TKI monotherapy use declined from 26% to 17%. During a median follow-up of 14 months, 686 (32%) patients remained on 1L therapy, 821 (39%) discontinued 1L (including 397 [19%] deaths) and 616 (29%) initiated second-line (2L), and 197 (9%) initiated third-line therapy. The median OS for the entire cohort was 35 months. Overall, 61% of patients had inpatient (IP) admissions (mean [median] length of stay: 2.7 [1.1] days), and 64% had emergency department (ED) visits (mean [median]: 0.4 [0.2] visits). Median total healthcare costs were $32,829 per-patient-per-month, including $21,630 medical costs and $10,770 pharmacy costs. Conclusions In this US claims population, we observed an increased adoption of 1L IO+TKI regimens with a decreasing trend of TKI monotherapy over time. While median OS has improved, reflecting improvements in the treatment and management of aRCC since 2019, there remain substantial HCRU and costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: