-
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... May 2024There is no systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
IMPORTANCE
There is no systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors in recurrent or metastatic ACC.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies of VEGFR inhibitors in recurrent or metastatic ACC from database inception to August 31, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were prospective clinical trials of recurrent or metastatic ACC treated with VEGFR inhibitors, reporting at least 1 outcome of interest specifically for ACC. Of 1963 identified studies, 17 (0.9%) met inclusion criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed to extract data. Data were pooled using a random-effects generalized linear mixed model with 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary efficacy outcome was best overall response to VEGFR inhibitors, including objective response, stable disease, or progressive disease (PD). Safety and tolerability outcomes included incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events, rates of exit from trial due to PD or drug-related toxic effects, and dose reduction rate (DRR).
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies comprising 560 patients with recurrent or metastatic ACC treated with 10 VEGFR inhibitors were included. The objective response rate was 6% (95% CI, 3%-12%; I2 = 71%) and stable disease was the most frequent best overall response (82%; 95% CI, 74%-87%; I2 = 67%). The 6-month disease control (defined as objective response and stable disease) rate was 54% (95% CI, 45%-62%; I2 = 52%). The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 53% (95% CI, 42%-64%; I2 = 81%) and of DRR was 59% (95% CI, 40%-76%). Most patients (57%; 95% CI, 44%-70%; I2 = 83%) continued therapy until PD; 21% (95% CI, 15%-28%; I2 = 62%) of patients suspended therapy for toxic effects. In subgroup analysis by specific VEGFR inhibitor, the objective response rate was 14% (95% CI, 7%-25%; I2 = 0%), stable disease rate was 76% (95% CI, 63%-85%; I2 = 0%), proportion treated until PD was 61% (95% CI, 14%-94%; I2 = 94%), and DRR was 78% (95% CI, 66%-87%; I2 = 39%) with lenvatinib. Corresponding axitinib results were objective response rate of 8% (95% CI, 4%-15%; I2 = 0%) and stable disease rate of 85% (95% CI, 72%-92%; I2 = 69%), with 73% (95% CI, 63%-82%; I2 = 0%) of patients treated until PD, and the DRR was 22% (95% CI, 12%-38%; I2 = 77%). Rivoceranib had the highest objective response rate (24%; 95% CI, 7%-57%) but high heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 95%) and the lowest rate of patients who continued therapy until PD (35%; 95% CI, 20%-55%; I2 = 90%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that VEGFR inhibitors were associated with high rates of disease stabilization in recurrent or metastatic ACC. Of 10 included VEGFR inhibitors, lenvatinib and axitinib were associated with the best combined and consistent efficacy, safety, and tolerability profiles, substantiating their inclusion in treatment guidelines.
PubMed: 38814585
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1177 -
Targeted Oncology May 2024Targeting of angiogenesis has become a major therapeutic approach for the treatment of various advanced cancers. There are many unresolved questions on the toxicity of...
BACKGROUND
Targeting of angiogenesis has become a major therapeutic approach for the treatment of various advanced cancers. There are many unresolved questions on the toxicity of anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
OBJECTIVE
We performed a meta-analysis to assess the toxicity prevalence of the different anti-angiogenic TKIs among cancer patients and in subpopulations of interest including patients with renal cell carcinoma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases to November 2023. Clinical trials were eligible if they set out to report the grade ≥3 toxicities related to one of the seven currently approved anti-angiogenic TKIs as monotherapies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was applied with PROSPERO (CRD42023411946).
RESULTS
The 421 eligible studies included a total of 56,895 cancer patients treated with anti-angiogenic TKI monotherapy. Twenty-four different cancer types were identified, mainly renal cell carcinoma (41.9% of the patients). The anti-angiogenic TKI was sorafenib (34.5% of the patients), sunitinib (30.5%), regorafenib (10.7%), pazopanib (9.4%), cabozantinib (7.7%), axitinib (4.3%), and lenvatinib (2.9%). The pooled prevalence of grade 3 and 4 toxicities was 56.1% (95% confidence interval 53.5-58.6), with marked between-study heterogeneity (I = 96.8%). Toxicity profiles varied considerably depending on the type of TKI, the cancer type, and the specific patient characteristics. In particular, Asian patients and elderly people had higher prevalences of severe toxicities, with pazopanib being the best-tolerated drug. For patients treated with sunitinib, particularly those with metastatic RCC, there was no significant difference in terms of toxicity according to the regimen schedule.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis highlights the toxicity profiles of anti-angiogenic TKI monotherapies, and thus enables high-level recommendations for the choice of anti-angiogenic TKIs on the basis of the patient's age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and comedications, for personalized treatment.
PubMed: 38761350
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-024-01067-8 -
International Journal of Cardiology.... Jun 2024Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi), namely axitinib, are commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in patients with cancer; however, this...
Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (VEGFRi), namely axitinib, are commonly used chemotherapeutic agents in patients with cancer; however, this medication has a significant cardiovascular side effect profile, such as high-grade hypertension. We performed this updated meta-analysis of RCTs to compile cardiovascular adverse events, such as all-grade and high-grade (>3) hypertension, the risk for thrombosis (DVT and PE), and peripheral edema. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception until October 2023 for studies using axitinib to treat various cancers. Trials with patients randomly allocated for VEGFRi drug therapy with axitinib and reported all-grade hypertension as an outcome were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Cochrane Review Manager to calculate pooled proportions of odds ratios (OR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, Mantel-Haenszel method. A total of 8 RCTs and 2502 patients were included in the review. Compared with the placebo group, the VEGFRi (Axitinib) therapy group was associated with a higher risk of all-grade and high-grade hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue. Furthermore, there was no increased risk of thromboembolism (DVT/PE) or hypothyroidism. However, a lower risk of peripheral edema was noted between the two groups. Screening for patients with preexisting hypertension, identifying risk factors for cardiovascular diseases before the initiation of VEGFRi therapy, and careful monitoring of high-risk patients during VEGFRi therapy, as well as prompt treatment with antihypertensive drugs, will help mitigate the adverse effects. Further evaluation using prospective designs is required to study the clinical significance and develop mitigation strategies.
PubMed: 38715853
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101415 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jun 2024This systematic review summarizes evidence of VEGFR gene mutations and VEGF/VEGFR protein expression in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients, alongside the efficacy... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review summarizes evidence of VEGFR gene mutations and VEGF/VEGFR protein expression in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients, alongside the efficacy and safety of anti-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for GBM treatment.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed up to August 2023. Boolean operators and MeSH term "glioma," along with specific VEGFR-related keywords, were utilized following thorough examination of existing literature.
RESULTS
VEGFR correlates with glioma grade and GBM progression, presenting a viable therapeutic target. Regorafenib and axitinib show promise among studied TKIs. Other multi-targeted TKIs (MTKI) and combination therapies exhibit potential, albeit limited by blood-brain barrier penetration and toxicity. Combining treatments like radiotherapy and enhancing BBB penetration may benefit patients. Further research is warranted in patient quality of life and biomarker-guided selection.
CONCLUSION
While certain therapies hold promise for GBM, future research should prioritize personalized medicine and innovative strategies for improved treatment outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Brain Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 38677355
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104365 -
International Immunopharmacology Apr 2024In the realm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized treatment paradigms. Despite their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In the realm of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized treatment paradigms. Despite their effectiveness, the comprehensive safety profile of these therapies remains inadequately explored. This network meta-analysis aims to comparing the safety profiles of ICI-based treatments in mRCC, offering vital insights that could lead to the optimization of treatment strategies and improvement of patient care.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Schola, OpenGrey and Scopus through November 1, 2023. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 5976 patients were included for data analysis. The risk of bias results showed that all RCTs were considered "some concerns". The probability of hypothyroidism (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 0.981), hyperthyroidism (SUCRA = 0.983) and dermatologic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (SUCRA = 0.955) in the Nivolumab + Cabozantinib ranked the first. The Avelumab + Axitinib had the highest incidence of adrenal insufficiency (AI) (SUCRA = 0.976), hepatitis (SUCRA = 0.937) and colitis (SUCRA = 0.864). The Nivolumab + Ipilimumab exhibited the highest incidence of pneumonitis (SUCRA = 0.755). Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib had the highest incidence of nephritic irAEs (SUCRA = 0.788). The ICI-based group showed a higher incidence of hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, dermatologic irAEs, hepatitis and nephritic irAEs than sunitinib. However, the confidence in the evidence regarding the impact of ICI-based treatments on AI, pneumonia, and colitis remains limited.
CONCLUSION
The analysis focused on the probability of irAEs occurrence in each system when mRCC patients were treated with different ICI-based therapies, potentially offering significant value for guiding clinical prevention, early diagnosis, and management of irAEs. The limitations of the study included the potential heterogeneity and low certainty of part of the evidence.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Kidney Neoplasms; Hepatitis; Colitis; Hyperthyroidism; Hypothyroidism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38518592
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2024.111884 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection.
METHODS
We conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.
RESULTS
An indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs).
CONCLUSION
Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Ipilimumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Kidney Neoplasms; Anilides; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Quinolines
PubMed: 38390328
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1255577 -
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 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.
PubMed: 37745049
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1223929 -
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2023This systematic review evaluated treatment patterns and guidelines in advanced/metastatic and adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Asia-Pacific region. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review evaluated treatment patterns and guidelines in advanced/metastatic and adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Asia-Pacific region.
AREAS COVERED
Embase, PubMed, and congresses were searched for observational studies and guidelines in accordance with PRISMA. Records published during 2016-2021 (2019-2021 for congresses) were included.
EXPERT OPINION
Nine studies and three guidelines were identified overall. In advanced/metastatic RCC, the most common treatments were tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (notably sunitinib: 33-100%) for first-line, and everolimus (13-85%) or axitinib (2-89%) for second-line therapy. In adjuvant RCC, sunitinib was most used (54%), followed by mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORis, 27%) with immunotherapy being less common (16%). The guidelines provided varying recommendations for advanced/metastatic RCC. For first-line in advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC (the most common subtype), guidelines recommended mTORis (everolimus for poor-risk patients) (India, 2016); clinical study enrollment for high-risk patients or TKIs for low- to medium-risk patients (China, 2019); or immunotherapy based on survival benefits over sunitinib; dose adjustment was also recommended to manage TKI toxicities (Hong Kong, 2019). The landscape remained more static in the adjuvant setting, but best practice was uncertain. No clear trends were identified in patient characteristics.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Sunitinib; Antineoplastic Agents; Everolimus; Kidney Neoplasms; Asia
PubMed: 37458169
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2236300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2