Administration of Opdivo by injection for kidney cancer has been shown to be at least as effective as the standard intravenous route. New findings unveiled at a major genitourinary cancer symposium highlighted a potential shift in how cancer treatment could be delivered in a fraction of the time, even outside large hospital settings, according to presentations supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ACS).
Opdivo, known generically as nivolumab, represents a newer class of immunotherapy drugs used in kidney cancer care. In the recent study, researchers directly compared intravenous infusion with a subcutaneous injection. The drip method typically requires a hospital stay of one hour or longer, while the injection can be completed in five minutes or less.
The trial enrolled 495 patients with metastatic kidney cancer across 73 cancer centers. All participants were receiving Opdivo for the first time as part of the study, allowing researchers to observe initial responses and durability of effect across real-world treatment environments.
Patients underwent daily monitoring of blood levels and certain safety markers for 28 days after dosing. Findings indicated no meaningful difference in safety between the two administration routes. In terms of efficacy, about 24% of patients receiving injections achieved at least a partial tumor response, compared with roughly 18% among those given intravenous therapy. Progression-free survival stood around 7.2 months for the subcutaneous group versus 5.6 months for the IV group, suggesting comparable, or potentially favorable, outcomes for the injection approach in this context.
Experts note that faster administration could enable more patients to start treatment promptly. The time savings may be particularly valuable for individuals living far from treatment centers and could help reduce disparities between urban and rural communities in access to care.
However, the authors caution that these results are preliminary and have not yet undergone peer review. Further confirmation in larger, controlled trials and subsequent publication in a respected medical journal will be needed before any definitive practice changes are recommended.
Ongoing investigations continue to explore how different administration strategies might optimize patient convenience, adherence, and overall outcomes in kidney cancer care. The ultimate goal remains clear: delivering effective therapies with minimal disruption to patients’ lives while maintaining rigorous safety and efficacy standards, as reflected in ongoing clinical research and real-world experience.