-
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 -
EBioMedicine Apr 2023The cytokine interleukin-2 (IL-2) can stimulate both effector immune cells and regulatory T (Treg) cells. The ability of selectively engaging either of these effects has...
BACKGROUND
The cytokine interleukin-2 (IL-2) can stimulate both effector immune cells and regulatory T (Treg) cells. The ability of selectively engaging either of these effects has spurred interest in using IL-2 for immunotherapy of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Thus, numerous IL-2-based biologic agents with improved bias or delivery towards effector immune cells or Treg cells have been developed. This study systematically reviews clinical results of improved IL-2-based compounds.
METHODS
We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov database for registered trials using improved IL-2-based agents and different databases for available results of these studies.
FINDINGS
From 576 registered clinical trials we extracted 36 studies on different improved IL-2-based compounds. Adding another nine agents reported in recent literature reviews and based on our knowledge totalled in 45 compounds. A secondary search for registered clinical trials of each of these 45 compounds resulted in 141 clinical trials included in this review, with 41 trials reporting results.
INTERPRETATION
So far, none of the improved IL-2-based compounds has gained regulatory approval for the treatment of cancer or autoimmune diseases. NKTR-214 is the only compound completing phase 3 studies. The PIVOT IO-001 trial testing the combination of NKTR-214 plus Pembrolizumab compared to Pembrolizumab monotherapy in metastatic melanoma missed its primary endpoints. Also the PIVOT-09 study, combining NKTR-214 with Nivolumab compared to Sunitinib or Cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma, missed its primary endpoint. Trials in autoimmune diseases are currently in early stages, thus not allowing definite conclusions on efficacy.
FUNDING
This work was supported by public funding agencies.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Interleukin-2; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Autoimmune Diseases
PubMed: 37004361
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104539 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Jan 2016Little is known about the total patient burden associated with clinical development and where burdens fall most heavily during a drug development program. Our goal was... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Little is known about the total patient burden associated with clinical development and where burdens fall most heavily during a drug development program. Our goal was to quantify the total patient burden/benefit in developing a new drug.
METHODS
We measured risk using drug-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, benefit by objective response rate, and trial outcomes by whether studies met their primary endpoint with acceptable safety. The differences in risk (death rate) and benefit (overall response rate) between industry and nonindustry trials were analyzed with an inverse-variance weighted fixed effects meta-analysis implemented as a weighted regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
We identified 103 primary publications of sunitinib monotherapy, representing 9092 patients and 3991 patient-years of involvement over 10 years and 32 different malignancies. In total, 1052 patients receiving sunitinib monotherapy experienced objective tumor response (15.7% of intent-to-treat population, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.3% to 16.0%), 98 died from drug-related toxicities (1.08%, 95% CI = 1.02% to 1.14%), and at least 1245 experienced grade 3-4 drug-related toxicities (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.3% to 14.1%). Risk/benefit worsened as the development program matured, with several instances of replicated negative studies and almost no positive trials after the first responding malignancies were discovered.
CONCLUSIONS
Even for a successful drug, the risk/benefit balance of trials was similar to phase I cancer trials in general. Sunitinib monotherapy development showed worsening risk/benefit, and the testing of new indications responded slowly to evidence that sunitinib monotherapy would not extend to new malignancies. Research decision-making should draw on evidence from whole research programs rather than a narrow band of studies in the same indication.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Approval; Humans; Indoles; Neoplasms; Pyrroles; Risk Assessment; Sunitinib; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 26547927
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv292 -
Oncotarget Mar 2017The most efficient sequence of targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients has yet to be identified. Whether the sequence of sorafenib and sunitinib... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The most efficient sequence of targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients has yet to be identified. Whether the sequence of sorafenib and sunitinib really matters is controversial and not answered clearly until now. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the efficacy of receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib-sunitinib and sunitinib-sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, on the outcome of first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival, total progression-free survival and overall survival.We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrails.gov for eligible studies. Data were analyzed using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the eligible studies. Heterogeneity across studies were analyzed using Q and I2 statistics.Of 902 identified studies, ten were qualified in our analysis (N = 1732 patients). Sorafenib-sunitinib yielded no statistically significant benefit in first-line progression-free survival (fixed effects; HR = 0.95; 95%CI 0.75-1.21; p = 0.702), total progression-free survival (random effects; HR = 0.92; 95%CI 0.71-1.19; p = 0.531) and overall survival (fixed effects; HR = 0.89; 95%CI 0.72-1.09; p = 0.257), compared with sunitinib-sorafenib. Second-line progression-free survival was longer for sorafenib-sunitinib than sunitinib-sorafenib (fixed effects; HR = 0.55; 95%CI 0.44-0.68; p = 0.000).Sequential therapies with sorafenib and sunitinib is well tolerated and efficient in mRCC. However, there are no evidence supported that sorafenib-sunitinib has the superiority to sunitinib-sorafenib in sequence. The ideal sequence of targeted agents requires further elucidation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Indoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyrroles; Sorafenib; Sunitinib; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28099901
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14671 -
Cureus Sep 2022Regorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, has been widely used to treat patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who failed the initial treatment with imatinib... (Review)
Review
Regorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, has been widely used to treat patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who failed the initial treatment with imatinib and sunitinib. This systematic review aims to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GIST. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to perform this systematic review. We searched PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant articles based on predefined selection criteria. The implication of the search strategy results in 776 records from all databases. We excluded conference abstracts, discussion articles, case reports, case series, systematic reviews, and other observational non-intervention studies from the study, along with the articles published in languages other than English. After the screening and quality assessment, 10 studies were selected for final review - two randomized controlled trials and eight non-randomized prospective and retrospective review articles of intervention. Regorafenib improved the survival rates of patients after the failure of imatinib and sunitinib treatment, with an acceptable safety profile. Close monitoring of the patients may be needed to detect and manage the grade 4 or higher adverse events.
PubMed: 36199644
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28665 -
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 -
Cancers Mar 2022Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is a rare condition due to the presence of gas within the bowel wall; it is mainly caused by endoscopic procedures, infections and other... (Review)
Review
Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is a rare condition due to the presence of gas within the bowel wall; it is mainly caused by endoscopic procedures, infections and other gastrointestinal diseases. Oncological therapies have been reported to be a cause of PI as well, but their role is not clearly defined. This systematic review investigates the concurrency of PI and antitumor therapy in cancer patients, considering both solid tumors and onco-hematological ones. We performed a literature review of PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science up to September 2021 according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 62 papers reporting 88 different episodes were included. PI was mainly reported with targeted therapies (sunitinib and bevacizumab above all) within the first 12 weeks of treatment. This adverse event mostly occurred in the metastatic setting, but in 10 cases, it also occurred also in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. PI was mostly localized in the large intestine, being fatal in 11 cases, while in the remaining cases, symptoms were usually mild, or even absent. A significant risk of PI reoccurrence after drug reintroduction was also reported (6/18 patients), with no fatal outcomes. Potential pharmacological mechanisms underlying PI pathogenesis are also discussed. In conclusion, although uncommonly, PI can occur during oncological therapies and may lead to life-threatening complications; therefore, consideration of its occurrence among other adverse events is warranted in the presence of clinical suspicion.
PubMed: 35406436
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071666 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2010To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the treatment of people with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched up to September/October 2007 (and again in February 2008).
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials comparing any of the interventions with any of the comparators in participants with advanced and/or metastatic RCC were included, also phase II studies and conference abstracts if there was sufficient detail to adequately assess quality. Results were synthesised narratively and a decision-analytic Markov-type model was developed to simulate disease progression and estimate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions under consideration.
RESULTS
A total of 888 titles and abstracts were retrieved in the clinical effectiveness review, including reports of eight clinical trials. Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib had clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone, in terms of progression-free survival and tumour response, doubling median progression-free survival from approximately 5 months to 10 months. Temsirolimus had similar advantages over treatment with IFN in terms of progression-free and overall survival, increasing median overall survival from 7.3 to 10.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.92)], as did sorafenib in comparison with best supportive care in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and tumour response, with a doubling of progression-free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60). However, the last was associated with an increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction compared with placebo. No fully published economic evaluations of any of the interventions could be located. However, estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Estimates of cost per QALY ranged from 71,462 pounds for sunitinib to 171,301 pounds for bevacizumab plus IFN. Although there are many similarities in the methodology and structural assumptions employed by PenTAG and the manufacturers of the interventions, in all cases the cost-effectiveness estimates from the PenTAG model were higher than those presented in the manufacturers' submissions. Cost-effectiveness estimates were particularly sensitive to variations in the estimates of treatment effectiveness, drug pricing (including dose intensity data), and health-state utility input parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN and sunitinib has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC. In people with three of six risk factors for poor prognosis, temsirolimus had clinically relevant advantages over treatment with IFN, and sorafenib tosylate was superior to best supportive care as second-line therapy. The frequency of adverse events associated with bevacizumab plus IFN, sunitinib and temsirolimus was comparable with that seen with IFN, although the adverse event profile is different. Treatment with sorafenib was associated with a significantly increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot syndrome. Estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzenesulfonates; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Indoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sunitinib
PubMed: 20028613
DOI: 10.3310/hta14020 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Dec 2017The standard first-line systemic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (gist) is imatinib. However, most gists develop imatinib resistance, highlighting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The standard first-line systemic therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (gist) is imatinib. However, most gists develop imatinib resistance, highlighting the need for new agents in the imatinib-refractory setting. Currently, no randomized studies have directly compared the available post-first-line treatments.
METHODS
In a systematic review, the medline, embase, and central databases, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts to July 2014 were searched to identify randomized controlled trials that included gist patients treated with post-first-line therapies. Hazard ratios (hrs) for progression-free (pfs) and overall survival (os) were extracted. Direct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons using the Butcher method were performed.
RESULTS
Four studies were identified for the systematic review. One study showed that sunitinib in the second-line setting (vs. placebo) was associated with improved pfs, but not improved os. Three studies examined the third-line setting (imatinib resumption vs. placebo, regorafenib vs. placebo, nilotinib vs. best supportive care). In the third-line settings, the two placebo-controlled and the non-placebo-controlled trials showed significant heterogeneity ( = 98%). Indirect comparisons of imatinib resumption and regorafenib suggested that the hr for pfs was 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 1.12; = 0.10), trending in favour of regorafenib. Indirect comparisons found that toxicities were higher in the regorafenib group, with a risk difference of 27.8% for any-grade toxicities and 19.5% for grades 3 and 4 toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
Because a head-to-head study of imatinib resumption compared with regorafenib is unlikely ever to be conducted, our study suggests that, in terms of pfs, regorafenib might be the preferred treatment. However, given the increased toxicity observed with regorafenib, clinicians should interpret that evidence with caution at an individual patient level.
PubMed: 29270063
DOI: 10.3747/co.24.3463 -
Systematic review and meta-analysis of target terapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cancer.International Braz J Urol : Official... 2013At present there are several drugs for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (ARCC). The main objective of this work was to perform a systematic review (SR) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
At present there are several drugs for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (ARCC). The main objective of this work was to perform a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of clinical randomized studies that compared target cell therapies (TCT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SR identified clinical randomized trials that compared TCT versus interferon-alpha in the treatment of patients with ARCC. In order to analyze efficiency, it was evaluated free-survival progression (FSP), total survival (TS) and response rate (RR).
RESULTS
In relation to first line treatment, seven studies of TCT were identified using sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab and temsirolimus; and two studies with sorafenib and everolimus for second line treatment. Relative risk (RRi) of MA for FSP of first line therapies was: 0.83, CI = 0.78-0.87, I2 = 94% and p < 0.00001. Best results of RR of specific FSP among studies were: 0.38, sunitinib, CI = 0.25-0.58, bevacizumab, 0.62, CI = 0.47-0.83; and temsirolimus, 0.78, CI = 0.70-0.87. MA didn't show any benefit regarding TS of first line treatment of all analyzed drugs. As for RR significant results were: sunitinib, 3.83 CI = 2.86-5.12; bevacizumab, 2.52 CI = 1.78-3.57 and bevacizumab, 1.97 CI = 1.43-2.71.
CONCLUSIONS
For first line treatment, sunitinib was the most effective TCT in relation to FPS; there was no alteration of TS and RR was small but significant for sunitinib and bevacizumab. Available studies could not conclude any results for second line treatments.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasm Metastasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24456785
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.06.02