-
Current Opinion in Urology Jan 2022To perform indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies for renal cell carcinoma with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To perform indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies for renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC).
RECENT FINDINGS
Five trials were included in our network meta-analyses comprising 568 patients. The combinations nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus cabozantinib achieved significant improvement of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORR). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the highest likelihood of achieving a complete response. All the included combinations significantly improved PFS and ORR. The combinations of pembrolizumab plus axitinib did not show a statistically significant association with OS. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS and OS.
SUMMARY
Our network meta-analysis demonstrates that sRCC are responsive to immune-based combinations. The dual ICI with nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved all efficacy outcomes and achieved the highest complete response rates (CRR). Although the association of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with CRR was not statistically significant, this combination demonstrated the highest likelihood of PFS and OS improvements.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab; Sarcoma; Soft Tissue Neoplasms
PubMed: 34720102
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000940 -
The Journal of Urology Jan 2022Four recent first-line clinical trials leveraging immune-oncology agents demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to sunitinib. We aimed to provide formal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Four recent first-line clinical trials leveraging immune-oncology agents demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to sunitinib. We aimed to provide formal comparisons among immune-oncology combinations in terms of OS, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates and treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed® database was searched for studies indexed from January 1, 2016 through March 6, 2021. Only phase III randomized clinical trials with proven OS benefit relative to sunitinib were included: CheckMate 214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab [N+I]), KEYNOTE-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib [P+A]), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib [N+C]) and KEYNOTE-581 (lenvatinib plus permbrolizumab [L+P]). OS represented the primary outcome. PFS, objective response rate and AEs represented secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Overall, 3,320 patients were included. Regarding OS, N+C ranked first, followed by L+P, P+A and N+I. Regarding PFS and objective response rate, L+P ranked first, followed by N+C, P+A and N+I. Finally, N+I ranked first with respect to lowest grade 3+ AEs, followed by P+A, N+C and L+P. Differences in followup duration, risk grouping and nephrectomy rates distinguish the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
N+C may provide the most favorable OS, L+P the most favorable PFS and ORRs, and N+I the lowest toxicity. Population differences may potentially undermine the generalizability and the robustness of findings of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Progression-Free Survival; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34546767
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002252 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Sep 2021The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based therapy after previous immuno-oncology therapy (IO) failure has been addressed before. However, summary efficacy estimates have never been generated in these reports. We addressed this void.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We systematically examined TKI efficacy after IO-failure and generated weighted median progression-free survival (PFS) estimates for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. A systematic review according to PRISMA was conducted. PubMed and abstracts were queried. Only studies proving median PFS were included. Weighted medians were computed for each TKI alternative.
RESULTS
Of 245 articles, nine eligible studies were included in the current study with 952 analysed patients. Weighted PFS medians after any previous IO-based therapy were respectively 13.7 (range from 4.6 to 24.4), 8.1 (range from 4.7 to 13.2), 8.5 (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.9 months (range from 2.9 to 11.6) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib. Specific second-line weighted PFS median was 14.8 months (range from 5.6 to 24.4), 10.1 months (range from 6.4 to 13.2), 8.7 months (range from 4.7 to 15.2) and 6.0 months (range from 2.9 to 8.0) for Pazopanib, Axitinib, Cabozantinib, Sunitinib, respectively, after first-line IO.
CONCLUSION
Pazopanib results in the longest weighted median PFS, after previous IO-failure, regardless of treatment line, as well as in specific second-line, post-first-line IO failure settings. Pending novel studies, Pazopanib appears to represent the most promising treatment option after prior IO.
Topics: Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Neoplasm Metastasis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Time Factors
PubMed: 34392067
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.07.014 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Feb 2022A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option.
METHODS
Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels.
RESULTS
Fourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63-0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36-0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37-0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43-0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46-0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44-0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients' stratification.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Sorafenib
PubMed: 34146196
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-021-00727-7 -
Current Opinion in Urology Jul 2021To compare the safety profiles of systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapies that were evaluated in the first-line setting of the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse events of systemic immune-based combination therapies in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To compare the safety profiles of systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combination therapies that were evaluated in the first-line setting of the management of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
RECENT FINDINGS
Six phase III randomized control trials comparing first-line immune-based combination therapies to sunitinib in previously untreated patients with mRCC. Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment discontinuation, and treatment-related mortality.
SUMMARY
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with the highest likelihood of grade ≥3 TRAEs, and treatment discontinuation rates. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the lowest rates of grade ≥3 TRAEs. However, it was associated with a higher likelihood of endocrine-related adverse events (AEs). A higher likelihood of high-grade diarrhea was associated with pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib. All combinations showed low rates of hematological AEs.
Topics: Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33965978
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000889 -
Immunotherapy Jun 2021Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations have become the new standard of primary systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. We... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors according to IMDC risk groups in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations have become the new standard of primary systemic treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. We performed a meta-analysis aimed at evaluating ICIs plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) combinations across International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. All the relevant randomized clinical trials were retrieved through Cochrane library, PubMed/Med and EMBASE; three Phase III randomized clinical trials were included. ICI-TKI combinations significantly decreased the risk of death in IMDC poor- and intermediate-risk patients. Conversely, a nonstatistically significant benefit was observed in favorable-risk patients. Our results suggest that IMDC poor-risk patients benefit most from ICI-TKI combinations, while a proportion of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients could respond to targeted agent monotherapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Kidney Neoplasms; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33906376
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2021-0005 -
European Urology Dec 2021Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations.
OBJECTIVE
To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps.
CONCLUSIONS
This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons.
PATIENT SUMMARY
It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab
PubMed: 33824031
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.03.016 -
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 -
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 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Mar 2021With the advances in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, several novel treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have recently emerged. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
With the advances in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, several novel treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have recently emerged. The present study explored the optimal first-line immunotherapy for mRCC through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of the latest research data.
METHODS
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting abstracts, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to July 2020 to identify any randomized controlled trials related to immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of mRCC. The primary outcome was progressionfree survival, and the secondary outcomes were overall survival and grade 3-4 adverse events.
RESULTS
The network meta-analysis included 4,049 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials. Avelumab plus axitinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were the best treatment options in terms of progression-free survival. For overall survival, pembrolizumab plus axitinib had a 77.89% probability of being the preferred treatment. For adverse events, there was an 89.21% probability that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was the regimen with the worst side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Through a meta-analysis of the latest available first-line immunotherapy progression-free survival and overall survival data for mRCC, this study found that pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the best immunotherapy option for first-line treatment. However, attention should be paid to the potential adverse events of this regimen.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Immunotherapy; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33615806
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1884