-
BMJ Open Mar 2019To compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor...
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2018.
PARTICIPANTS
People with amRCC requiring treatment after VEGF-targeted treatment.
INTERVENTIONS
Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib with everolimus, nivolumab, sorafenib and best supportive care (BSC).
OUTCOMES
Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included (n=5144): five RCTs and seven observational studies. Lenvatinib with everolimus significantly increased OS and PFS over everolimus (HR 0.61, 95% Credible Interval [95%CrI]: 0.36 to 0.96 and 0.47, 95%CrI: 0.26 to 0.77, respectively) as did cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95%CrI: 0.53 to 0.82 and 0.51, 95%CrI: 0.41 to 0.63, respectively). This remained the case when observational evidence was included. Nivolumab also significantly improved OS versus everolimus (HR 0.74, 95%CrI: 0.57 to 0.93). OS sensitivity analysis, including observational studies, indicates everolimus being more effective than axitinib and sorafenib. However, inconsistency was identified in the OS sensitivity analysis. PFS sensitivity analysis suggests axitinib is more effective than everolimus, which may be more effective than sorafenib. The results for ORR supported the OS and PFS analyses. Nivolumab is associated with fewer grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events than lenvatinib with everolimus or cabozantinib. HRQoL could not be analysed due to differences in tools used.
CONCLUSIONS
Lenvatinib with everolimus, cabozantinib and nivolumab are effective in prolonging the survival for people with amRCC subsequent to VEGF-targeted treatment, but there is considerable uncertainty about how they compare to each other and how much better they are than axitinib and sorafenib.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017071540.
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Observational Studies as Topic; Progression-Free Survival; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30826762
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024691 -
Cancers Jun 2020Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the...
Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.
PubMed: 32599839
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12061673 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Aug 2021The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular risks among nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs in patients with solid tumors: a Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) as anticancer drugs in patients with solid tumors.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials. We have included 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with nine VEGFR-TKIs Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs used to treat patients with solid tumors. To evaluate the trials' risk of bias, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was assessed. A direct comparison was assessed by RevMan5.3 software, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested by the I statistic and Chi-square test for P value. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software, calculated OR along with corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). The model's convergence was evaluated by the potential scale reduced factor (PSRF). Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed by the "node-splitting" method.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 20,027 patients from 45 randomized controlled trials and associated with nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib), were enrolled. Findings indicated that lenvatinib had the most significant probability of provoking all grades cardiovascular incident and hypertension, followed by vandetanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and nintedanib. The nine agent's severe cardiovascular and severe hypertension risk was probably similar. The ranking probability of cardiac toxicity shows that vandetanib ranked most likely to have the highest risk for cardiotoxicity among all the VEGFR-TKIs reviewed, followed by pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, sunitinib. In contrast, regorafenib and nintedanib did not exhibit an increased risk of cardiac damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The association between the nine VEGFR-TKIs with potential cardiotoxicity occurrence was reviewed. Both the regorafenib and nintedanib did not display detectable signs of cardiotoxic damage. In contrast, lenvatinib and vandetanib are ranked to have the most severe cardiotoxicity side impacts. These results may provide information for clinical practice guidelines, implementing strategies in selecting the adequate VEGFR-TKIs, and understanding the cardiovascular toxicity inflicted by the VEGFR-TKIs.
PROSPERO IDENTIFIER
CRD 42,020,167,307.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Cardiotoxicity; Cardiovascular Diseases; Drug Approval; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 33725154
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03521-w -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and...
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting.
METHODS
Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer's perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations.
CONCLUSIONS
The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.
PubMed: 32874210
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920950199 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023This Bayesian network meta-regression analysis provides a head-to-head comparison of first-line therapeutic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase...
BACKGROUND
This Bayesian network meta-regression analysis provides a head-to-head comparison of first-line therapeutic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combinations for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using median follow-up time as covariate.
METHODS
We searched Six databases for a comprehensive analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of different interventions at the same time node by Bayesian network meta-analysis. Bayesian network meta-regression analysis was performed on objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥ 3) and the hazard ratios (HR) associated with PFS and OS, with the median follow-up time as the covariate.
RESULTS
Eventually a total of 22 RCTs reporting 11,090 patients with 19 interventions. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab (LenPem) shows dominance of PFS, and Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib (PemAxi) shows superiority in OS at each time point. After meta-regression analysis, for HRs of PFS, LenPem shows advantages; for HRs of OS, PemAxi shows superiority; For ORR, LenPem provides better results. For AEs (grade ≥ 3), Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is better.
CONCLUSION
Considering the lower toxicity and the higher quality of life, PemAxi should be recommended as the optimal therapy in treating mRCC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD4202236775.
PubMed: 36910649
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1072634 -
PloS One 2019In the absence of clinical trials providing direct efficacy results, this study compares different methods of indirect treatment comparison (ITC), and their respective... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In the absence of clinical trials providing direct efficacy results, this study compares different methods of indirect treatment comparison (ITC), and their respective impacts on efficacy estimates for lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) combination therapy compared to other second-line treatments for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC).
METHODS
Using EVE alone as the common comparator, the Bucher method for ITC compared LEN + EVE with cabozantinib (CAB), nivolumab (NIV), placebo (PBO) and axitinib (AXI). Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) estimated the impact of applying three versions of the LEN+EVE trial data in separate ITCs. Last, to overcome exchangeability bias and potential violations to the proportional hazards assumption, a network meta-analysis using fractional polynomials was performed.
RESULTS
Bucher ITCs demonstrated LEN + EVE superiority over EVE for PFS, indirect superiority to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and no difference to CAB. For OS, LEN + EVE was superior to EVE and indirectly superior to PBO, applying original HOPE 205 data. Using European Medicines Agency data, LEN + EVE was directly superior to EVE for OS. Fractional polynomial HRs for PFS and OS substantially overlapped with Bucher estimates, demonstrating LEN+EVE superiority over EVE, alone, NIV, and CAB. However, there were no statistically significant results as the credible intervals for HR crossed 1.0.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparing three Bucher ITCs, LEN + EVE demonstrated superior PFS when indirectly compared to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and mixed results for OS. While fractional polynomial modelling for PFS and OS failed to find statistically significant differences in LEN + EVE efficacy, the overall HR trends were comparable.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Phenylurea Compounds; Quinolines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30835737
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212899 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Jun 2021Innovative strategies to fully exploit the antitumor activity of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are urgently needed. Higher concentrations of TKIs at...
BACKGROUND
Innovative strategies to fully exploit the antitumor activity of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are urgently needed. Higher concentrations of TKIs at their target site, i.e. intratumorally, may lead to broader kinase inhibition, which might be essential for the optimal suppression of tumor growth and induction of apoptosis. To reach these higher intratumoral concentrations, without encountering dose limiting toxicity, alternative TKI dosing strategies employing higher daily and high intermittent doses have been studied. In this systematic review, we evaluated the current clinical evidence to support (intermittent) high TKI dosing regimens.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in the following databases: PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane Library©, to evaluate efficacy of alternatively scheduled high-dosed regimen (a higher dose in a regular daily schedule than registered or a higher dose in an alternative intermittent schedule) of TKIs in (haemato-)oncology. Data were extracted independently by two authors according to predefined criteria. Extracted data were tabulated to summarize key findings.
RESULTS
Out of twenty studies that met the inclusion criteria, thirteen investigated higher daily dose schedules of either afatinib, axitinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, imatinib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Five of these studies included pharmacokinetic analyses, reporting marginal higher maximum drug concentrations (C) in plasma (1.3-4-fold higher) compared to the standard dose schedules. Seven clinical trials investigated intermittent high-dose schedules requiring treatment breaks, with the following TKIs: afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, lapatinib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Six of these included pharmacokinetic results, all reporting higher (2-21-fold) C in plasma compared to the standard daily dose schedule, with manageable toxicity. No data on tumor concentrations were presented. Data on the efficacy outcomes were limited due to small sample size, study designs, phase 1 population and heterogeneous tumor types.
CONCLUSIONS
Early phase clinical studies show that high-dose intermittent TKI-treatment schedules can lead to an increased C compared to standard (low-dose) daily administration with manageable toxicity. These higher concentrations are assumed to reflect higher intratumoral concentrations. Further investigation of the potential improvement in clinical benefit of a high-dose intermittent strategy with multitargeting TKIs is warranted.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Neoplasms; Prognosis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33823432
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102171 -
World Journal of Urology Oct 2022The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved dramatically in recent years. Within the German guideline committee for RCC we evaluated...
PURPOSE
The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved dramatically in recent years. Within the German guideline committee for RCC we evaluated current medical treatments and gave recommendations.
METHODS
A systematic review of published evidence for medical treatment of mRCC was performed (July 2016-August 2019) to cover the duration from last guideline update in 2016. Evidence was graded according to SIGN ( http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf ). Recommendations were made on the basis of a nominal group work with consensus approach and included patient advocates and shareholder of the German RCC treatment landscape. Each recommendation was graded according to its strength as strong recommendation (A) or recommendation (B). Expert statements were given, where appropriate.
RESULTS
Strong first-line recommendations (IA) exist for axitinib + pembrolizumab (all risk categories) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (intermediate or poor risk only). Axitinib + avelumab is a recommended first-line treatment across patients with any risk category (IB). In patients who are not candidates for immune check point inhibitor (ICI) combinations, targeted agents should be offered as an alternative treatment. Subsequent treatment after ICI-based combinations remain ill-defined and no standard of care can be formulated.
CONCLUSION
ICI-based combinations are the first-line standard of care and should be considered accordingly. There is an unmet medical need for pivotal studies that define novel standards in patients with failure of ICI-based combinations.
Topics: Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Nivolumab
PubMed: 35562599
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04015-1 -
BMC Urology Jun 2019Conflicting evidence exists regarding the effect of hypertension on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the effect of hypertension on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This study aimed to assess the predictive value of TKIs-induced hypertension in patients with mRCC.
METHODS
This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019129593). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database were searched with terms: "renal cell carcinoma", "hypertension", "blood pressure", "tyrosine kinase inhibitor", "sunitinib", "axitinib", "sorafenib" and "pazopanib" until March 21, 2019. Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) were extracted and analyzed with Stata 15.0 software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I value. Meta-regression, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also performed to explore heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and precisely assessed by Egger's and Begg's tests. The quality of evidence of outcomes was generated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
A total of 4661 patients from 22 studies were included in the study. The results showed that the increase of blood pressure was an effective predictor for longer PFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48-0.71, p < 0.001; I = 77.3%) and OS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.45-0.70, p < 0.001; I = 77.4%) of patients with mRCC. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients receiving sunitinib and pazopanib could have longer PFS and OS.
CONCLUSIONS
This study indicated that TKIs-induced hypertension may be a good predictor for better prognosis of patients with mRCC receiving TKIs treatment, especially using sunitinib or pazopanib.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Hypertension; Kidney Neoplasms; Prognosis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Survival Rate
PubMed: 31174518
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-019-0481-5 -
Molecular and Clinical Oncology Jul 2015Bevacizumab has demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) when combined with chemotherapy. Several randomized clinical trials...
Bevacizumab has demonstrated a survival benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) when combined with chemotherapy. Several randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy and toxicity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against bevacizumab have been reported. The present meta-analysis was conducted to identify the potentially significant benefit of the combined treatment regimens in patients with mCRC. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials published on or before September 2014, which compared the efficacy and toxicity of VEGFR TKIs with bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy in patients with mCRC. The primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints were the toxicity profiles. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for response rate and adverse events (AEs) were calculated, as well as hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS. The final analysis included 4 studies comprising a total of 1,929 intent-to-treat patients with mCRC, which compared VEGFR TKIs (cediranib and axitinib) plus chemotherapy with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Results demonstrated that VEGFR TKIs plus chemotherapy significantly resulted in a modest but significantly shorter PFS [hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.25; P=0.05] compared with that of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy but not in OS (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88-1.17; P=0.87) and ORR (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.05; P=0.30). VEGFR TKIs treatment showed a less favorable AE profile compared with bevacizumab, with higher rates of grade-III/IV diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, whereas a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy associated with the bevacizumab group was observed. In conclusion, the addition of VEGFR TKIs to chemotherapy resulted in a modest but significantly shorter PFS but not in OS and ORR compared with bevacizumab. The VEGFR TKIs group showed a less favorable AE profile with higher rates of diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, whereas a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy associated with the bevacizumab was observed.
PubMed: 26171215
DOI: 10.3892/mco.2015.572