Dataset Information

Angiogenesis genotyping in the selection of first-line treatment with either sunitinib or pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: Recent data from the COMPARZ study seem to suggest a non-inferiority of pazopanib confronted with sunitinib in PFS and OS. We previously reported how VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms might have a predictive role in patients treated with first-line sunitinib. Aim of our study was to investigate whether tumour angiogenesis genotyping could influence clinical outcome in RCC patients treated with either sunitinib or pazopanib, in order to help clinicians select the appropriate treatment for each patient.19 patients were treated with pazopanib while 78 received sunitinib. VEGF A rs833061 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (CC+CT>TT in sunitinib, TT>CC+CT in pazopanib; p<0,0001); VEGF A rs2010963 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (GG+CG>CC in sunitinib, CC>GG+CG in pazopanib; p<0,0001); VEGF A rs699947 resulted significant in PFS in sunitinib vs pazopanib patients (AA+AC>CC in sunitinib, CC>AA+AC in pazopanib; p<0,0001). OS showed no statistically significant difference.in our analysis patients with opposite polymorphisms of rs833061, rs2010963, rs699947 of VEGF A seems to have a better PFS if treated with either sunitinib or pazopanib. Our data seem to suggest that biology could have a role choosing first line treatment for mRCC patients.a retrospective analysis on 97 histologic samples of mRCC patients was conducted for VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGFR-1,2,3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

SUBMITTER: Bianconi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5122335 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Angiogenesis genotyping in the selection of first-line treatment with either sunitinib or pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Bianconi Maristella M Faloppi Luca L Loretelli Cristian C Zizzi Antonio A Giampieri Riccardo R Bittoni Alessandro A Andrikou Kalliopi K Del Prete Michela M Burattini Luciano L Montironi Rodolfo R Scartozzi Mario M Cascinu Stefano S

Oncotarget 20160601 25

<h4>Introduction</h4>Recent data from the COMPARZ study seem to suggest a non-inferiority of pazopanib confronted with sunitinib in PFS and OS. We previously reported how VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms might have a predictive role in patients treated with first-line sunitinib. Aim of our study was to investigate whether tumour angiogenesis genotyping could influence clinical outcome in RCC patients treated with either sunitinib or pazopanib, in order to help clinicians select the appropriate treat ...[more]

PMID: 27175586

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.Materials and methodsCost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.ResultsUpon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis.ConclusionFirst-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others.Implications for practiceThis was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

Project description:PurposePatients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC.Patients and methodsPatients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Dataset Information

Angiogenesis genotyping in the selection of first-line treatment with either sunitinib or pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Publications

Angiogenesis genotyping in the selection of first-line treatment with either sunitinib or pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets