Dataset Information

Safety of pazopanib and sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The international, phase 3 COMPARZ study demonstrated that pazopanib and sunitinib have comparable efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, but that safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. Our report analyzed pazopanib and sunitinib safety in Asian and non-Asian subpopulations. METHODS:Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily (continuous dosing) or sunitinib 50 mg once daily in 6-week cycles (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). RESULTS:Safety population was composed of 363 Asian patients and 703 non-Asian patients. Asian patients had similar duration of exposure to either drug compared with non-Asian patients, although Asian patients had a higher frequency of dose modifications. Overall, hematologic toxicities, cytopenias, increased AST/ALT, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) were more prevalent in Asian patients, whereas gastrointestinal toxicities were more prevalent in non-Asian patients. Among Asian patients, hematologic adverse events and most non-hematologic AEs were more common in sunitinib-treated versus pazopanib-treated patients. Among Asian patients, the most common grade 3/4 AEs with pazopanib were hypertension (grade 3, 22%) and alanine aminotransferase increased (grade 3, 12%; grade 4, 1%); the most common grade 3/4 AEs with sunitinib were thrombocytopenia/platelet count decreased (grade 3, 36%; grade 4, 10%), neutropenia/neutrophil count decreased (grade 3, 24%; grade 4, 3%) hypertension (grade 3, 20%), and PPE (grade 3, 15%). CONCLUSIONS:A distinct pattern and severity of adverse events was observed in Asians when compared with non-Asians with both pazopanib and sunitinib. However, the two drugs were well tolerated in both subpopulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00720941 , Registered July 22, 2008 ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01147822 , Registered June 22, 2010.

SUBMITTER: Guo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5964681 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety of pazopanib and sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ trial.

Guo Jun J Jin Jie J Oya Mototsugu M Uemura Hirotsugu H Takahashi Shunji S Tatsugami Katsunori K Rha Sun Young SY Lee Jae-Lyun JL Chung Jinsoo J Lim Ho Yeong HY Wu Hsi Chin HC Chang Yen Hwa YH Azad Arun A Davis Ian D ID Carrasco-Alfonso Marlene J MJ Nanua Bhupinder B Han Jackie J Ahmad Qasim Q Motzer Robert R

Journal of hematology & oncology 20180522 1

<h4>Background</h4>The international, phase 3 COMPARZ study demonstrated that pazopanib and sunitinib have comparable efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, but that safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. Our report analyzed pazopanib and sunitinib safety in Asian and non-Asian subpopulations.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily (continuous dosing) or sunitinib 50 mg once daily in 6-week cycles ( ...[more]

PMID: 29788981

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Project description:BackgroundIn Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.ResultsBased on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.ConclusionsCompared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving first-line sunitinib typically survive >2 yr, with chronic treatment sometimes extending to ≥6 yr.ObjectiveTo analyze long-term safety with sunitinib in mRCC patients.Design, setting, and participantsData were pooled from 5739 patients in nine trials, comprising seven phase II studies, a phase III study, and an expanded-access trial in various treatment settings (e.g., cytokine refractory or treatment-naïve).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisInterval and cumulative time-period analyses evaluated the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for up to 6 yr, in the overall population and in those with long-term (≥2 yr) sunitinib treatment.Results and limitationsAmong long-term patients (n=807), most TRAEs occurred initially in the first year and then decreased in frequency; TRAEs following this pattern included decreased appetite, diarrhea, dysgeusia, dyspepsia, fatigue, hypertension, mucosal inflammation, nausea, and stomatitis. However, hypothyroidism increased by interval analysis from 6% at 0-<6 mo to 42% at 5-<6 yr and by cumulative analysis from 14% at 0-<1 yr to 36% over 6 yr. Grade 3/4 TRAEs in long-term patients peaked during the first year and then steadily decreased. The overall population displayed only minor differences from long-term patients, with no clinically significant differences between grade ≥3 TRAE profiles (<5% difference in incidence rates at all intervals). Limitations included retrospective design, assessment variability, lack of pharmacokinetic data, and absence of baseline characteristics for long-term patients.ConclusionsProlonged sunitinib was not associated with new types or increased severity of TRAEs. Except hypothyroidism, toxicity was not cumulative.Patient summaryMore than 800 mRCC patients received sunitinib for between 2 and 6 yr without experiencing new or more severe treatment-related toxicity. Clinicians may be able to prescribe chronic sunitinib treatment for as long as patients continue to derive clinical benefit, without untoward additional risk.

Project description:BackgroundCombination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented.MethodsPatients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint.ResultsArm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months.ConclusionsThe addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081 . Registered 16 November 2011.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue.ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined.ConclusionResults of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.

Dataset Information

Safety of pazopanib and sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ trial.

Publications

Safety of pazopanib and sunitinib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets