Dataset Information

Efficacy of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Real-World Korean Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate survival outcomes and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) as first-line therapy in real-world Korean clinical practice.

Methods

Data of 554 patients with mRCC who received SU or PZ at eight institutions between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the targeted therapy, the patients were divided into SU (n = 293) or PZ (n = 261) groups, and the clinicopathological variables and survival rates of the two groups were compared. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the prognostic factors for OS.

Results

The median follow-up was 16.4 months (interquartile range, 8.3-31.3). Patients in the PZ group were older, and no significant difference was observed in the performance status (PS) between the two groups. In the SU group, the dose reduction rate was higher and the incidence of grade 3 toxicity was more frequent. The objective response rates were comparable between the two groups (SU, 32.1% vs. PZ, 36.4%). OS did not differ significantly between the two groups (SU, 36.5 months vs. PZ, 40.2 months; log-rank, P = 0.955). Body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS > 2, synchronous metastasis, poor Heng risk criteria, and liver and bone metastases were associated with a shorter OS.

Conclusion

Our real-world data of Korean patients with mRCC suggested that SU and PZ had similar efficacies as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, PZ was better tolerated than SU in Korean patients.

SUBMITTER: Kim MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6291404 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Real-World Korean Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib.

Kim Myung Soo MS Chung Ho Seok HS Hwang Eu Chang EC Jung Seung Il SI Kwon Dong Deuk DD Hwang Jun Eul JE Bae Woo Kyun WK Park Jae Young JY Jeong Chang Wook CW Kwak Cheol C Song Cheryn C Seo Seong Il SI Byun Seok-Soo SS Hong Sung-Hoo SH Chung Jinsoo J

Journal of Korean medical science 20181122 51

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate survival outcomes and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) as first-line therapy in real-world Korean clinical practice.<h4>Methods</h4>Data of 554 patients with mRCC who received SU or PZ at eight institutions between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the targeted therapy, the patients were divided into SU (n = 293) or PZ (n = 261) gro ...[more]

PMID: 30546281

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC.MethodsPatients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed.ResultsA total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%).ConclusionsPazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.ResultsBased on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.ConclusionsCompared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Project description:IntroductionRenal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common types of urogenital cancer. The introduction of immune-based combinations, including dual immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or ICI plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has radically changed the treatment landscape for metastatic RCC, showing varying efficacy across different prognostic groups based on the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria.Materials and methodsThis retrospective multicenter study, part of the ARON-1 project, aimed to evaluate the outcomes of favorable-risk metastatic RCC patients treated with immune-based combinations or sunitinib. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model.ResultsA total of 524 favorable-risk patients were included in the analysis. After a median follow-up of 37.2 months, the median OS in the overall population was 56.1 months. There was no significant difference in OS between patients receiving sunitinib and those receiving TKI + ICI combinations (p = 0.761). Patients on TKI + ICI had significantly longer PFS compared to patient treated with sunitinib (30.7 vs 22.9 months, p = 0.007). Analysis of OS and PFS based on metastatic site revealed that patients with bone metastases benefited more from ICI plus TKI (56 patients with bone metastases receiving IO + TKI, 38 received pembrolizumab plus axitinib, 15 cabozantinib plus nivolumab and 3 pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib), while sunitinib was more effective for pancreatic and glandular metastases. Additionally, the number of metastatic sites played a role, with TKI plus ICI showing superiority in patients with a single metastatic site. The time from RCC diagnosis to metastatic disease also impacted outcomes, with TKI plus ICI being more effective in patients with a shorter interval (i.e., < 36 months).ConclusionsThe choice between upfront combination or monotherapy for metastatic favorable prognosis RCC remains a current issue. While combination therapy offers prolonged PFS, it does not necessarily translate to improve OS compared to sunitinib. This real-world study supports the superiority in terms of PFS of TKI plus ICI vs TKI monotherapy but not in OS. Probable, other clinical factors should be taking into account to make clinical treatment decisions in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trials have shown an overall survival (OS) benefit associated with first-line immunotherapy (IT) and combination targeted therapy (TT) and IT regimens compared with TT among patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Generalizability of these findings in a real-world cohort outside of a clinical trial setting is unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the association of first-line TT, IT, and combination TT and IT regimens with OS in a real-world cohort of patients with metastatic clear cell RCC.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective propensity-matched cohort study identified 5872 patients with metastatic clear cell RCC in the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, who received first-line TT, IT, or combination TT and IT and were not treated on a clinical trial protocol. Patients were stratified by first-line systemic treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 1 to December 1, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was OS from the date of diagnosis to death or censoring at last follow-up. After 1:1:1 nearest-neighbor caliper matching of propensity scores, survival analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier estimates.ResultsThe final study population included 5872 patients (TT group: n = 4755 [81%]; 3332 men [70%]; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 57-71 years]; IT group: n = 638 [11%]; 475 men [74%]; median age, 61 years [interquartile range, 54-69 years]; and combination TT and IT group: n = 479 [8%]; 321 men [67%]; median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 55-69 years]), and the matched cohort included 1437 patients (479 per treatment group). Patients in the IT and combination TT and IT groups were younger than those in the TT group, had fewer comorbid conditions (Charlson-Deyo score of 0, 480 of 638 [75%] in the TT group, 356 of 479 [74%] in the IT group, and 3273 of 4755 [69%] in the combination TT and IT group), and were more often treated at academic centers (315 of 638 [49%], 216 of 479 [45%], and 1935 of 4755 [41%], respectively). Both first-line IT and combination TT and IT were associated with improved OS compared with first-line TT for patients with metastatic clear cell RCC (IT group: hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75]; P < .001; combination TT and IT group: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.91]; P = .005). No survival difference was seen between the IT and combination TT and IT groups (combination TT and IT: HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.98-1.56]; P = .08).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that both first-line IT and combination TT and IT were associated with improved OS compared with first-line TT for patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. These findings are similar to those identified in recently reported clinical trials, lending confidence to the broader applicability of these findings outside of a clinical trial setting.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have stringent inclusion criteria and may not fully represent patients seen in everyday clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) can provide supportive evidence for the effectiveness of medical interventions in more heterogeneous populations than RCTs. Sunitinib is a widely used first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).ObjectiveThis is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib using the novel approach of combining RCTs and RWD.MethodsRCTs and RWD studies published between 2000 and 2017 were identified from PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Eligible studies contained a cohort of ≥ 50 adult patients with mRCC receiving first-line sunitinib treatment. The meta-analysis combined RWD and RCT treatment groups, adjusting for data type (RCT or RWD). Recorded outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and objective response rate (ORR). Publication bias was assessed via review of funnel plots for each outcome measure. A random effects model to account for study heterogeneity was applied to each endpoint. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the overall estimates.ResultsOf the 3611 studies identified through medical database searches, 22 (15 RWD studies, 7 RCTs) met eligibility criteria and were analyzed. mPFS (18 studies), mOS (19 studies), and ORR (15 studies) were reported for aggregate measures based on 4815, 5321, and 4183 patients, respectively. Reported mPFS (RWD, 7.5-11.0 months; RCTs, 5.6-15.1 months) and ORR data (RWD, 14.0-34.6%; RCTs, 18.8-46.9%) were consistent with the overall confidence estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 9.3 (8.6-10.2) months and 27.9% (24.2-32.0), respectively. Reported mOS showed greater variation in RWD (6.8-33.2 months) compared with RCTs (21.8-31.5 months), with an overall confidence estimate (95% CI) of 23.0 (19.2-27.6) months. Inspection of funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated that there was no publication bias for any efficacy endpoint. Sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of lack of robustness for mPFS, mOS, or ORR. Interpretation of these results is limited by differences in trial design, cohort characteristics, and missing data.ConclusionsThis novel, comprehensive meta-analysis validates sunitinib as an effective first-line treatment for patients with mRCC in both RCTs and everyday clinical practice. The methodology provides a framework for future analyses combining data from RCTs and RWD.

Project description:BackgroundInternational Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment.Materials and methodsAdult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors.ResultsAmong 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors.ConclusionThis real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes.Implications for practiceThis analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectiveThe optimal sequencing of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is unknown. Observational studies with a variety of designs have reported differing results. The objective of this study is to systematically summarize and interpret the published real-world evidence comparing sequential treatment for mRCC.MethodsA search was conducted in Medline and Embase (2009-2013), and conference proceedings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO-GU), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2011-2013). We systematically reviewed observational studies comparing second-line mRCC treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) versus vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Studies were evaluated for 1) use of a retrospective cohort design after initiation of second-line therapy, 2) adjustment for patient characteristics, and 3) use of data from multiple centers. Meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsTen studies reported OS and exhibited significant heterogeneity in estimated second-line treatment effects (I2 = 68%; P = 0.001). Four of these were adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies, and these showed no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.61) and a significant association between second-line mTORi (>75% everolimus) and longer OS compared to VEGF TKI (>60% sorafenib) (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98) in a meta-analysis. Seven studies comparing PFS showed significant heterogeneity overall and among the adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies. Real-world observational data for axitinib outcomes was limited at the time of this study.ConclusionsReal-world studies employed different designs and reported heterogeneous results comparing the effectiveness of second-line mTORi and VEGF TKI in the treatment of mRCC. Within the subset of adjusted, multicenter observational studies, second-line use of mTORi was associated with significantly prolonged survival compared with second-line use of VEGF TKI.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Real-World Korean Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Efficacy of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Real-World Korean Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets