-
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2017A systematic review was conducted to illustrate the bleeding risks associated with targeted therapies used in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).... (Review)
Review
A systematic review was conducted to illustrate the bleeding risks associated with targeted therapies used in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Eligible studies included phase II, III, or IV clinical trials using pazopanib, sunitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, everolimus, temsirolimus, bevacizumab, axitinib, and/or sorafenib in the setting of mRCC. Types of bleeding event(s), bleeding event frequency, and incidence of thrombocytopenia were collected from the relevant articles. ClinicalTrials.gov was also searched for incidence of "Serious bleeding adverse effects" reported in these trials. The incidences of bleeding events ranged from 1 to 36%, and incidences of thrombocytopenia ranged from 2 to 78%. Available serious bleeding adverse events ranged from 1 to 7%. The highest percentage of bleeding incidences were seen with bevacizumab, while the lowest percentage of bleeding incidences were seen with axitinib. All of the included trials were of high quality per Jadad scoring.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase IV as Topic; Hemorrhage; Humans; Incidence; Kidney Neoplasms; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasm Metastasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 29198329
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.10.014 -
BJU International Nov 2011To estimate the effects of drugs with molecular targets on patients with advanced renal cell cancer (RCC). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the effects of drugs with molecular targets on patients with advanced renal cell cancer (RCC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were systematically searched on-line through to June 2011 to identify eligible randomised trials. We also searched abstract reports from major oncology and urology meetings. We included randomised trials that tested a targeted agent and reported at least one outcome by allocation on an intent-to-treat basis. Completeness of ascertainment and risk of bias were assessed. Our primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS
In all, 28 studies met our inclusion criteria and 10 were placebo-controlled. Two studies were too small to assess, and five early studies used nonspecific anti-angiogenic agents with poor activity. In all, 15 studies, in 5587 patients, tested anti-vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF) agents: bevacizumab (BEV), sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, or axitinib. Three studies, in 1147 patients, tested the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, temsirolimus or everolimus. Two studies included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, and one tested the combination of temsirolimus plus BEV. In treatment-naive patients with mostly good-moderate prognostic risk, in separate trials oral sunitinib (one trial) and intravenous BEV plus subcutaneousinterferon-α (two trials) improved PFS compared with the previous standard of care interferon-α within randomised phase III trials. Sorafenib did not improve PFS over interferon-α in the first-line setting and the addition of cytokines did not improve sorafenib efficacy. In poor-risk patients, the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus improved PFS and overall survival (OS). The studies of other VEGF inhibitors have used placebo controls no longer appropriate in this setting, although pazopanib is an approved option. Several trials examined agents in the second-line setting. After cytokine therapy, sorafenib (one study) and pazopanib (one study) prolonged PFS over placebo. A preliminary report of the investigational VEGF receptorinhibitor axitinib gave superior PFS to sorafenib after either prior cytokine or prior sunitinib treatment. After cancer progression ≤6 months of sunitinib and/or sorafenib therapy, everolimusprolonged PFS. OS was marginally improved in several studies. A more substantial effect on OS may have been diluted by crossover from control therapy to the investigational arm and/or by other anti-angiogenic agents after trial closure. Patient-reported outcomes were considered unreliable in trials without 'blinding'. A clear cell RCC (ccRCC) component was required for most trials, and information for non-ccRCCs is consequently limited
CONCLUSIONS
Agents targeting VEGF and mTOR pathways improve PFS in both first-line and second-line settings. These treatments rarely yield complete responses and thus are not curative. No placebo-controlled trial has reported a health-related quality of life benefit.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 21952069
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10629.x -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy Sep 2014We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of thyroid function abnormalities associated with seven vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of thyroid function abnormalities associated with seven vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sorafenib, sunitinib, axitinib, cediranib, pazopanib, regorafenib and vandetanib). Eligible studies included randomized Phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on sorafenib OR sunitinib OR axitinib OR cediranib OR pazopanib OR regorafenib OR vandetanib; describing events of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism. Our search strategy yielded 195 potentially relevant citations on the seven agents from Pubmed/Medline, CENTRAL Cochrane registry and ASCO meeting library. After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 12 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis, including six sunitinib studies, four cediranib studies and two axitinib studies. Patients treated with these agents had a significantly increased risk of all-grade hypothyroidism and the relative risk (RR) of all-grade hypothyroidism was 3.59 (95% CI = 2.40-5.38, p ≤ 0.0001). Exploratory subgroup analysis showed no effect of tumor types or agent used on the RR of hypothyroidism. Our meta-analysis has demonstrated that these three agents are associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade hypothyroidism; with no difference - on subgroup analysis - between sunitinib and cediranib. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular thyroid function monitoring.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Hyperthyroidism; Hypothyroidism; Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor
PubMed: 24927771
DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2014.929501 -
Kidney Cancer (Clifton, Va.) 2020There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded...
INTRODUCTION
There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded patients with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), and optimal management of nccRCC remains unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate systemic treatment options in locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC between 2000-2019. Randomized controlled trials, single-arm phase II-IV trials, and prospective analyses of medication access programs were included. The primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. There was the highest level of evidence to support first-line treatment of nccRCC with sunitinib. Additional single-arm trials support the use of other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors with axitinib and pazopanib, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition with temsirolimus or everolimus +/- bevacizumab. Immune checkpoint inhibition has an emerging role in nccRCC, but optimal sequencing of available options is not clear. Prospective data to support the use of newer immunotherapy combinations are lacking. Treatment for collecting duct carcinoma remains platinum-based chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The availability of randomized trials in nccRCC is limited, and most studies include outcomes for nccRCC as a group, making conclusions about efficacy by subtype difficult. This systematic review supports consensus guidelines recommending sunitinib or clinical trial enrollment as preferred first-line treatment options for nccRCC, but also suggests a more nuanced approach to management and new options for therapy such as immune checkpoint inhibition.
PubMed: 34435168
DOI: 10.3233/kca-190078 -
Journal of the Chinese Medical... Jan 2024Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Major adverse cardiovascular events of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors among patients with different malignancy: A systemic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may influence cardiovascular risks. The relative risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) associated with VEGF-TKIs are poorly understood.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until August 31, 2021, for phase II/III randomized controlled trials of 11 VEGF-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, ponatinib, ripretinib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, and vandetanib). The endpoints were heart failure, thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the risk of VEGF-TKI among users by comparing it to nonusers. Pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model were used to estimate the risks of the various VEGF-TKIs. We estimated ranked probability with a P-score and assessed credibility using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.
RESULTS
We identified 69 trials involving 30 180 patients with cancer. The highest risk of MACEs was associated with high-potency tivazonib (odds ratio [OR]: 3.34), lenvatinib (OR: 3.26), and axitinib (OR: 2.04), followed by low-potency pazopanib (OR: 1.79), sorafenib (OR: 1.77), and sunitinib (OR: 1.66). The risk of heart failure significantly increased in association with less-selective sorafenib (OR: 3.53), pazopanib (OR: 3.10), and sunitinib (OR: 2.65). The risk of thromboembolism significantly increased in association with nonselective lenvatinib (OR: 3.12), sorafenib (OR: 1.54), and sunitinib (OR: 1.53). Higher potency (tivozanib, axitinib) and lower selectivity (sorafenib, vandetanib, pazopanib, sunitinib) were associated with a higher probability of heart failure. Low selectivity (lenvatinib, cabozantinib, sorafenib, sunitinib) was associated with a higher probability of thromboembolism.
CONCLUSION
Higher-potency and lower-selectivity VEGF-TKIs may influence the risks of MACEs, heart failure, and thromboembolism. These findings may facilitate evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Antineoplastic Agents; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Sorafenib; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Axitinib; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Neoplasms; Heart Failure; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37991373
DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001026 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2 -
Endocrine-related Cancer Sep 2018In the last few years, the therapeutic approach for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has changed dramatically following the approval of several novel targeted treatments....
In the last few years, the therapeutic approach for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has changed dramatically following the approval of several novel targeted treatments. The multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor (MTKI), sunitinib malate, has been approved by Regulatory Agencies in pancreatic NENs. The MTKI class, however, includes several other molecules (approved for other conditions), which are currently being studied in NENs. An in-depth review on the studies published on the MTKIs in neuroendocrine tumors such as axitinib, cabozantinib, famitinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, sorafenib and sulfatinib was performed. Furthermore, we extensively searched on the Clinical Trial Registries databases worldwide, in order to collect information on the ongoing clinical trials related to this topic. Our systematic analysis on emerging MTKIs in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic and lung NENs identifies and studies, which demonstrate anti-tumor activity of diverse MTKIs on neuroendocrine cells and tumors. Moreover, for the first time in the literature, we report an updated view concerning the upcoming clinical trials in this field: presently, phase I, II and III clinical trials are ongoing and will include, overall, a staggering 1667 patients. This fervid activity underlines the increasing interest of the scientific community in the use of emerging MTKIs in NEN treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases
PubMed: 29769293
DOI: 10.1530/ERC-17-0531 -
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 -
Advances in Therapy Feb 2020This network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in order to provide support for evidence-based treatment decisions. Previous NMAs of first-line mRCC treatments either predate the approval of all the first-line TKIs currently available or do not include evaluation of safety data for all treatments.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing approved first-line TKI therapies for mRCC. A random effects model with a frequentist approach was computed for progression-free survival (PFS) data and for the proportion of patients experiencing a maximum of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
The network meta-analysis of PFS demonstrated no significant differences between cabozantinib and either sunitinib (50 mg 4/2), pazopanib or tivozanib. The network meta-analysis indicated that in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs, tivozanib had the most favourable safety profile and was associated with significantly less risk of toxicity than the other TKIs.
CONCLUSION
These network meta-analysis data demonstrate that cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib do not significantly differ in their efficacy, but tivozanib is associated with a more favourable safety profile in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Consequently, the relative toxicity of these first-line TKIs may play a more significant role than efficacy comparisons in treatment decisions and in planning future RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 31838709
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01167-2 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Feb 2021Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most common type of kidney cancers. Disease-specific survival for mRCC has been significantly improved with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most common type of kidney cancers. Disease-specific survival for mRCC has been significantly improved with the introduction of new targeted agents since 2005. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy between therapies. This study compared indirectly progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among first-line and second-line therapies in patients with mRCC using network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of targeted and biological therapies in patients with mRCC published between January 2000 and June 2020. The Bayesian fixed-effect NMA was performed to evaluate relative PFS and OS of first-line and second-line therapies of axitinib, bevacizumab, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib, nivolumab, ipilimumab, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, tivozanib, avelumab and pembrolizumab, which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. End points were compared using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible interval (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated to assess the probability of being the best treatment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 26 RCTs (first line: 19, second line: 9) with 13 893 patients were included in the NMA. For the first-line therapy, cabozantinib was associated with the highest improved PFS (HR = 0.26, 95% CrI = 0.14-0.44) followed by avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib (HR = 0.27, SUCRA = 90%). Pembrolizumab + axitinib had a high likelihood of being the preferred treatment when using OS as the outcome measure (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.16-0.85). Avelumab + axitinib had the lowest HR compared with placebo + interferon on discontinuations due to AE (HR = 1.04, 95% CrI = 0.54-1.86). For second-line therapy, cabozantinib was identified as the most effective treatment option when assessing PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12-0.24). Axitinib had the lowest HR of OS and discontinuation due to AE (HR = 0.54, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.71; HR = 0.98, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.97, respectively). Pazopanib was the second choice in terms of OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.28-1.00; SUCRA = 76%) compared with placebo.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
With respect to PFS and OS improvement, cabozantinib, avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib are likely to be the preferred options for the first-line therapy and cabozantinib and axitinib for the second-line therapy in the management of mRCC. Regarding safety, avelumab + axitinib and temsirolimus were considered preferred treatment options in first-line and second-line therapies. More future research is needed to establish subgroup analyses, allowing evaluation of the impact of some of the differences in patient characteristics, including treatment effect modifiers.
Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyridines
PubMed: 33112003
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13282