-
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 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ Open Aug 2020The optimum systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of favourable, intermediate and poor risk have not been established. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
What is the optimum systemic treatment for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma of favourable, intermediate and poor risk, respectively? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
The optimum systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of favourable, intermediate and poor risk have not been established. We aimed to compare and rank the effects associated with systemic therapies in the first-line setting.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane databases, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCT) published up to February 2020 of all available treatments for advanced/metastatic RCC. Analysis was done on a Bayesian framework.
RESULTS
15 unique RCTs including 8995 patients were identified. For advanced/metastatic RCC of favourable risk, avelumab plus axitinib was associated with a significantly higher improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96). For intermediate-risk patients, cabozantinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib and avelumab plus axitinib were associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS than sunitinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.80; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.83, respectively); pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab were associated with significantly higher improvement in overall survival (OS) than sunitinib (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.81; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87, respectively). For poor-risk patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82, respectively); nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib were significantly more efficacious for OS than sunitinib (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.883; HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, respectively). For OS, there were 81% and 78% probabilities that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was the best option for intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Avelumab plus axitinib might be the optimum treatment for advanced/metastatic RCC of favourable risk. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the optimum treatment for intermediate-risk and poor-risk patients.
Topics: Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 32859659
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034626 -
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII Feb 2021Management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible.
RESULTS
Six studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73-0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75-0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74-0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib.
CONCLUSION
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy-tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis
PubMed: 32757054
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-020-02684-8 -
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 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy offers minor benefit to patients with mucosal melanoma (MM). Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the preferred... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy offers minor benefit to patients with mucosal melanoma (MM). Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the preferred approach in patients with advanced or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of their clinical use for MM is still limited. This systematic review aims to summarize the efficacy and safety of ICIs in advanced or metastatic MM.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers and reference lists for relevant studies. The primary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), one-year PFS rate, and one-year OS rate.
RESULTS
This review identified 13 studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy, 22 studies assessing anti-PD-1 monotherapy, two studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 combination therapy, one study assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with axitinib, and three studies assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy. For most patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy, the ORR ranged from 0% to 17%, the median PFS was less than 5 months, and the median OS was less than 10 months. For patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy, most studies showed an ORR of more than 15% and a median OS of more than 11 months. The combined administration of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 agents showed benefits over single-agent therapy with an ORR of more than 33.3%. In a phase Ib trial of toripalimab in combination with axitinib, approximately half of patients had complete or partial responses. Three retrospective studies that investigated anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy showed an ORR of more than 50%, which was higher than each single modality treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone and in combination with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies or other modalities, are promising treatment options for advanced or metastatic MM. However, high-level evidence is still needed to support the clinical application.
PubMed: 32489431
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920922028 -
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