Dataset Information

Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of baseline tumor burden and loci on the efficacy of first line renal cancer treatment with sunitinib. Baseline and on-treatment CT scans were evaluated. Both the Kaplan-Meier and Weibull modelling survival estimators have been used to describe sunitinib treatment response. Logistic regression was used to confirm associations between tumor site, burden and survival. Additionally, analysis of the metastases co-occurrence was conducted using the Bayesian inference on treated and external validation cohorts. 100 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were treated with sunitinib in this study. Presence of metastases in the abdominal region (HR?=?3.93), and the number of brain metastases correlate with shorter PFS, while the presence of thoracic metastases (HR?=?0.47) with longer PFS. Localization of metastases in the abdominal region significantly impacts risk of metastases development in other locations including bone and brain metastases. Biology of metastases, in particular their localization, requires further molecular and clinical investigation.

SUBMITTER: Czarnecka AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6533291 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Czarnecka Anna M AM Brodziak Anna A Sobczuk Pawel P Dendek Cezary C Labochka Dominika D Korniluk Jan J Bartnik Ewa E Szczylik Cezary C

Scientific reports 20190523 1

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of baseline tumor burden and loci on the efficacy of first line renal cancer treatment with sunitinib. Baseline and on-treatment CT scans were evaluated. Both the Kaplan-Meier and Weibull modelling survival estimators have been used to describe sunitinib treatment response. Logistic regression was used to confirm associations between tumor site, burden and survival. Additionally, analysis of the metastases co-occurrence was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 31123336

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsNivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib (n = 90) or sunitinib (n = 43). Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12 mg once daily (2 weeks on/1 week off), and sunitinib was given orally at 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS:The median PFS was similar with anlotinib and sunitinib (17.5 vs. 16.6 months, p > .05). The median OS (30.9 vs. 30.5 months, p > .05), ORR (30.3% vs. 27.9%), and 6-week DCR (97.8% vs. 93.0%) were similar in the two groups. Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or 4 were significantly less frequent with anlotinib than with sunitinib (28.9% vs. 55.8%, p < .01), especially in terms of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. AEs occurring at a lower frequency with anlotinib were hand-foot syndrome, eyelid edema, hair depigmentation, skin yellowing, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The incidence of serious AEs was lower with anlotinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSION:The clinical efficacy of anlotinib was similar to that of sunitinib as the first-line treatment for mRCC, but with a more favorable safety profile. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anlotinib for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Anlotinib, which was developed independently in China, is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting multiple kinases involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. Results indicated that the efficacy of anlotinib is comparable to and the safety is better than that of sunitinib.

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.

Project description:BackgroundMetastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients are commonly treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. Correlations between somatic mutations and first-line targeted therapy outcomes have not been reported on a randomized trial.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between tumor mutations and treatment outcomes in RECORD-3, a randomized trial comparing first-line everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) followed by sunitinib (VEGF inhibitor) at progression with the opposite sequence in 471 metastatic RCC patients.Design, setting, and participantsTargeted sequencing of 341 cancer genes at ∼540× coverage was performed on available tumor samples from 258 patients; 220 with clear cell histology (ccRCC).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisAssociations between somatic mutations and median first-line progression free survival (PFS1L) and overall survival were determined in metastatic ccRCC using Cox proportional hazards models and log-rank tests.Results and limitationsPrevalent mutations (≥ 10%) were VHL (75%), PBRM1 (46%), SETD2 (30%), BAP1 (19%), KDM5C (15%), and PTEN (12%). With first-line everolimus, PBRM1 and BAP1 mutations were associated with longer (median [95% confidence interval {CI}] 12.8 [8.1, 18.4] vs 5.5 [3.1, 8.4] mo) and shorter (median [95% CI] 4.9 [2.9, 8.1] vs 10.5 [7.3, 12.9] mo) PFS1L, respectively. With first-line sunitinib, KDM5C mutations were associated with longer PFS1L (median [95% CI] of 20.6 [12.4, 27.3] vs 8.3 [7.8, 11.0] mo). Molecular subgroups of metastatic ccRCC based on PBRM1, BAP1, and KDM5C mutations could have predictive values for patients treated with VEGF or mTOR inhibitors. Most tumor DNA was obtained from primary nephrectomy samples (94%), which could impact correlation statistics.ConclusionsPBRM1, BAP1, and KDM5C mutations impact outcomes of targeted therapies in metastatic ccRCC patients.Patient summaryLarge-scale genomic kidney cancer studies reported novel mutations and heterogeneous features among individual tumors, which could contribute to varied clinical outcomes. We demonstrated correlations between somatic mutations and treatment outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, supporting the value of genomic classification in prospective studies.

Dataset Information

Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Publications

Metastatic Tumor Burden and Loci as Predictors of First Line Sunitinib Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets