Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line treatments in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: a network meta-analysis based on phase 3 RCTs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4941278 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThis network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in order to provide support for evidence-based treatment decisions. Previous NMAs of first-line mRCC treatments either predate the approval of all the first-line TKIs currently available or do not include evaluation of safety data for all treatments.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing approved first-line TKI therapies for mRCC. A random effects model with a frequentist approach was computed for progression-free survival (PFS) data and for the proportion of patients experiencing a maximum of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs).ResultsThe network meta-analysis of PFS demonstrated no significant differences between cabozantinib and either sunitinib (50 mg 4/2), pazopanib or tivozanib. The network meta-analysis indicated that in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs, tivozanib had the most favourable safety profile and was associated with significantly less risk of toxicity than the other TKIs.ConclusionThese network meta-analysis data demonstrate that cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib do not significantly differ in their efficacy, but tivozanib is associated with a more favourable safety profile in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Consequently, the relative toxicity of these first-line TKIs may play a more significant role than efficacy comparisons in treatment decisions and in planning future RCTs.
| S-EPMC7004428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since 2005, an abundance of targeted agents has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), without any specification as to what may be the most optimal first-line and second-line sequence. Hence, our objective was to critically examine the evidence supporting the use of first-line and second-line agents in the management of mRCC. Our review suggests that in first line, sunitinib and pazopanib represent treatment options for patients with favorable or intermediate-risk features and clear cell histology. Unfortunately, the Phase III trial cannot conclusively prove the noninferiority of pazopanib relative to sunitinib. Hence, the use of sunitinib as first-line standard of care remains justified. Pazopanib represents an option for specific patients in whom sunitinib might not be tolerated. In patients with poor-risk features, temsirolimus represents the only option supported with level 1 evidence. Less optimal alternatives include sunitinib and bevacizumab combined with interferon, based on the minimal inclusion of poor-risk patients in pivotal Phase III studies of these two molecules. In patients with non-clear cell mRCC, the use of temsirolimus is supported by Phase III data, unlike for any other molecule. In second line, the options consist of everolimus and axitinib. However, the axitinib data are substantially more robust given the inclusion of more patients considered as true second-line, and validly justify the choice of axitinib over everolimus. Nonetheless, the Phase III trial of everolimus may be considered as level 1 evidence for use as third-line or subsequent lines of therapy.
| S-EPMC4219683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib. Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.
| S-EPMC6598399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment paradigm for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has changed dramatically over the recent decades. From cytokines, interleukin-2 and interferon-α to tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, during the last decade, combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors have taken over first-line treatment of mccRCC. These combinations are approved based on results from large phase III clinical trials, all of which used sunitinib as the comparator. These trials include CheckMate214 (ipilimumab plus nivolumab), KEYNOTE 426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), JAVELIN Renal 101 (avelumab plus axitinib), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib), and the CLEAR study (lenvatinib and pembrolizumab). Results from these studies constitute milestones for newer therapeutic approaches in mccRCC. The broadening spectrum of treatment options for patients with mccRCC with multiple first-line options currently available also means that treating physicians will need to consider each option carefully, balance clinical factors, financial considerations, and weigh toxicity profiles of each drug before deciding the optimal treatment regimen for each individual patient. We describe each frontline treatment option in detail through this review to aid the decision-making process.
| S-EPMC8895741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, several drugs have been introduced for the first-line treatment of chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but few studies have compared treatment outcomes directly. This indirect comparison among 10 clinical trials (n = 4870 patients) retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration, and ClinicalTrails.gov was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of docetaxel, cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and sipuleucel-T for the initial treatment of mCRPC. No significant differences in primary outcome (overall survival) were found among initial treatments. However, docetaxel had the highest probability (37.53%) of being the most effective, but at the cost of more adverse events, while enzalutamide was associated with the best secondary outcomes (prostate-specific antigen response, progression-free survival, quality of life, and adverse event profile). Thus, docetaxel is recommended as the first agent used for the chemotherapy of mCRPC, while enzalutamide is recommended as the first nonchemotherapy treatment. Additional clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings and establish the optimal order for multidrug treatment of mCRPC.
| S-EPMC5989298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextConsiderable 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.ObjectiveTo compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations.Evidence acquisitionMEDLINE (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 synthesisA 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.ConclusionsIO-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 summaryCombination 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.
| S-EPMC8792068 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7352474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgroundimmunotherapy became the first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nevertheless, a better understanding of the specificities of targeted therapies (TT) in the elderly population could be helpful in order to improve the management of mRCC in this population. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess efficacy and safety of sunitinib and sorafenib used as first-line TT in 70 years older patients compared to younger patients.MethodsData were retrospectively collected for all consecutive mRCC patients receiving first line TT treatment by sunitinib or sorafenib for mRCC from January 2006 to November 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the age using a cut-off at 70 years old. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test.ResultsIn total, 147 patients were included; 94 (63.9%) were <70 and 53 (36.1%) were 70 years old or more. First line TT used was sunitinib in 123 (83.7%) patients or sorafenib in 24 (16.3%) patients. Median PFS was 8 months for elderly patients vs. 6 in younger group (P=0.68). Median OS were 26 vs. 36 months (P=0.08). Severe induced toxicity was more frequent among elderly patients: 34 (64.2%) vs. 46 patients (48.9%) (P=0.07). Rate of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was 22 patients (23.4%) in younger group vs. 28 patients (52.8%) in the elderly group (P=0.0005). Results were similar in the 2 groups regarding the type of toxicities.ConclusionsOur results suggest similar efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as first-line treatment for mRCC among younger and older patients with an age cut-off of 70 years. Safety results suggest that these drugs can be safely used for older patients with a need of caution regarding toxicity prevention.
| S-EPMC8261413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Hypnotics have a role in the management of acute insomnia; however, the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in the management of chronic insomnia is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for chronic insomnia in adults. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-one electronic databases were searched, up to July 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were eligible. Quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Data were pooled using the random effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred and five studies were included in the review. Sleep onset latency, as measured by polysomnography, was significantly decreased for benzodiazepines (BDZ), (weighted mean difference: -10.0 minutes; 95% CI: -16.6, -3.4), non-benzodiazepines (non-BDZ) (-12.8 minutes; 95% CI: -16.9, -8.8) and antidepressants (ADP) (-7.0 minutes; 95% CI: -10.7, -3.3). Sleep onset latency assessed by sleep diaries was also improved (BDZ: -19.6 minutes; 95% CI: -23.9, -15.3; non-BDZ: -17.0 minutes; 95% CI: -20.0, -14.0; ADP: -12.2 minutes; 95% CI: -22.3, -2.2). Indirect comparisons between drug categories suggest BDZ and non-BDZ have a similar effect. All drug groups had a statistically significant higher risk of harm compared to placebo (BDZ: risk difference [RD]: 0.15; non-BDZ RD: 0.07; and ADP RD: 0.09), although the most commonly reported adverse events were minor. Indirect comparisons suggest that non-BDZ are safer than BDZ. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines are effective treatments in the management of chronic insomnia, although they pose a risk of harm. There is also some evidence that antidepressants are effective and that they pose a risk of harm.
| S-EPMC2219774 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWhereas there are many pharmacological interventions prescribed for patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), comparative data between novel generation ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remain scant. Here, we indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapeutic options used for the treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC.MethodsWe included all phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two or three treatment options. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), or adverse events of grade 3 or higher (Grade ≥ 3 AEs). Subgroup analysis was conducted according to central nervous system (CNS) metastases.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs consisting of 2484 patients with 8 treatment options were included in the systematic review. Our analysis showed that alectinib (300 mg and 600 mg), brigatinib, lorlatinib and ensartinib yielded the most favorable PFS. Whereas there was no significant OS or ORR difference among the ALK-TKIs. According to Bayesian ranking profiles, lorlatinib, alectinib 600 mg and alectinib 300 mg had the best PFS (63.7%), OS (35.9%) and ORR (37%), respectively. On the other hand, ceritinib showed the highest rate of severe adverse events (60%).ConclusionOur analysis indicated that alectinib and lorlatinib might be associated with the best therapeutic efficacy in first-line treatment for major population of advanced NSCLC patients with ALK-rearrangement. However, since there is little comparative evidence on the treatment options, there is need for relative trials to fully determine the best treatment options as well as the rapidly evolving treatment landscape.
| S-EPMC8620528 | biostudies-literature