-
European Urology Open Science Mar 2022Considerable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Considerable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
IO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Combination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting.
PubMed: 35128482
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.12.007 -
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 -
OncoTargets and Therapy 2016This study was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of axitinib and sorafenib in the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of axitinib and sorafenib in the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eligible studies were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Future Medicine databases. The pooled hazard ratios and relative risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by using Stata 12.0 software.
RESULTS
A total of 1,011 patients qualified to participate in this Phase III study that included randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis results showed that axitinib was more highly and significantly associated with a survival benefit in the independently assessed progression-free survival in comparison to sorafenib. The values of RR of the objective response rate and disease control rate were also significantly different. Results of the analysis of adverse events concerning hypertension and hypothyroidism demonstrated that the values of RR were significantly higher in the axitinib group and lower risks were established in the patients treated with axitinib.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, axitinib was a better treatment option for metastatic renal cell carcinoma treatment than sorafenib, especially after failure of prior systemic therapies. This analysis revealed that axitinib had higher risks of hypertension and hypothyroidism and lower risks of rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia.
PubMed: 27354814
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S100706 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2018Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.
REVIEW METHODS
A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.
RESULTS
Four RCTs ( = 2618) and eight non-RCTs ( = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.
LIMITATIONS
Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.
CONCLUSIONS
The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Everolimus; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Models, Econometric; Nivolumab; Pyridines; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sunitinib; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 29393024
DOI: 10.3310/hta22060 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2013To investigate the overall incidence and risk of hypertension in cancer patients who receive axitinib and compare the differences in incidences between axitinib and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To investigate the overall incidence and risk of hypertension in cancer patients who receive axitinib and compare the differences in incidences between axitinib and the other four approved vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
METHODS
Several databases were searched, including Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Eligible studies were phase II and III prospective clinical trials of patients with cancer assigned axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg orally twice daily with data on hypertension available. Overall incidence rates, relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed or random effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials.
RESULTS
A total of 1908 patients from 10 clinical trials were included. The overall incidences of all grade and high grade hypertension in cancer patients were 40.1% (95% CI 30.9, 50.2%) and 13.1% (95% CI 6.7, 24%). The use of axitinib was associated with significantly increased risk of all grade (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.29, 6.97, P = 0.011) and high grade hypertension (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.21, 2.43, P = 0.003). The risk of axitinib associated all grade and high grade hypertension in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was significantly higher than that in non-RCC. Additionally, the risk of hypertension with axitinib was substantially higher than other approved VEGFR-TKIs, while the risk of all grade hypertension with axitinib was similar to pazopanib (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95-, 1.17, P = 0.34).
CONCLUSIONS
While sharing a similar spectrum of target receptors with other VEGFR-TKIs, axitinib is associated with an unexpectedly high risk of developing hypertension. Close monitoring and appropriate management for hypertension are recommended during the treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Hypertension; Imidazoles; Incidence; Indazoles; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Risk
PubMed: 23617405
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12149 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy are the relevant surgical therapy options for localised renal cell carcinoma. However, debate regarding the effects of these surgical approaches continues and it is important to identify and summarise high-quality studies to make surgical treatment recommendations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of partial nephrectomy compared with radical nephrectomy for clinically localised renal cell carcinoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, BIOSIS, LILACS, Scopus, two trial registries and abstracts from three major conferences to 24 February 2017, together with reference lists; and contacted selected experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included a randomised controlled trial comparing partial and radical nephrectomy for participants with small renal masses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author screened all of the titles and abstracts; only citations that were clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. Next, two review authors independently assessed full-text reports, identified relevant studies, evaluated the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The update of the literature search was performed by two independent review authors. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and data analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one randomised controlled trial including 541 participants that compared partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.Based on low quality evidence, we found that time-to-death of any cause was decreased using partial nephrectomy (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.18). This corresponds to 79 more deaths (5 more to 173 more) per 1000. Also based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in serious adverse events (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 22.34). Findings are consistent with 4 more surgery-related deaths (3 fewer to 78 more) per 1000.Based on low quality evidence, we found no difference in time-to-recurrence (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.24). This corresponds to 12 more recurrences (14 fewer to 70 more) per 1000. Due to the nature of reporting, we were unable to analyse overall rates for immediate and long-term adverse events. We found no evidence on haemodialysis or quality of life.Reasons for downgrading related to study limitations (lack of blinding, cross-over), imprecision and indirectness (a substantial proportion of patients were ultimately found not to have a malignant tumour). Based on the finding of a single trial, we were unable to conduct any subgroup or sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Partial nephrectomy may be associated with a decreased time-to-death of any cause. With regards to surgery-related mortality, cancer-specific survival and time-to-recurrence, partial nephrectomy appears to result in little to no difference.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Cause of Death; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nephrectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 28485814
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012045.pub2 -
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 -
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 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2018We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the efficacy of the targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced RCC and, via an indirect... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the efficacy of the targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced RCC and, via an indirect comparison, to provide an optimal treatment among these agents. A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials unpublished was performed up to Jan 1, 2015 to identify eligible randomized trials. Outcomes of interest assessing a targeted agent included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Thirty eligible randomized controlled studies, total twentyfourth trails (5110 cases and 4626 controls) were identified. Compared with placebo and IFN-α, single vascular epithelial growth factor (receptor) tyrosine kinase inhibitor and mammalian target of rapamycin agent (VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor) were associated with improved PFS, improved OS and higher ORR, respectively. Comparing sorafenib combination vs sorafenib, there was no significant difference with regard to PFS and OS, but with a higher ORR. Comparing single or combination VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor vs BEV + IFN-α, there was no significant difference with regard to PFS, OS, or ORR. Our network ITC meta-analysis also indicated a superior PFS of axitinib and everolimus compared to sorafenib. Our data suggest that targeted therapy with VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor is associated with superior efficacy for treating advanced RCC with improved PFS, OS and higher ORR compared to placebo and IFN-α. In summary, here we give a comprehensive overview of current targeted therapies of advanced RCC that may provide evidence for the adequate targeted therapy selecting.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease-Free Survival; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 29211397
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0315