Dataset Information

Comparative Survival Associated With Use of Targeted vs Nontargeted Therapy in Medicare Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have shown increased tolerability and survival advantages over older treatments in clinical trials, but understanding of real-world survival improvements is still emerging.

Objective

To compare overall and RCC-specific survival associated with use of targeted vs nontargeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 2000 to 2013 to examine patients with stage IV (distant) clear cell RCC at the time of diagnosis who received any targeted or nontargeted therapy. A 2-stage residual inclusion model was fitted to estimate the survival advantages of targeted treatments using an instrumental variable approach to account for both measured and unmeasured group differences. Data analyses were conducted from July 24, 2017, to April 4, 2019.

Exposures

Targeted therapy (study group) or nontargeted therapy (control group).

Main outcomes and measures

Overall survival and RCC-specific survival, defined as the interval between the date of first drug treatment and date of death or end of the observation period.

Results

The final sample included 1015 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.1] years; 392 [39%] women); 374 (37%) received nontargeted therapy and 641 (63%) received targeted therapy. The targeted therapy group had a greater percentage of disabled patients (ie, those <65 years old who were eligible for Medicare because of disability) and older patients (ie, those ≥75 years old) and higher comorbidity index and disability scores compared with the nontargeted therapy group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed higher overall survival for targeted vs nontargeted therapy (log-rank test, χ21 = 5.79; P = .02); median survival was not statistically significantly different (8.7 months [95% CI, 7.3-10.2 months] vs 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.8-8.8 months]; P = .14). According to the instrumental variable analysis, the median overall survival advantage was 3.0 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.3 months), and overall survival improvements associated with targeted therapy vs nontargeted therapy were statistically significant: 8% at 1 year (44% [95% CI, 39%-50%] vs 36% [95% CI, 30%-42%]; P = .01), 7% at 2 years (25% [95% CI, 20%-30%] vs 18% [95% CI, 13%-23%]; P = .009), and 5% at 3 years (15% [95% CI, 11%-19%] vs 10% [95% CI, 6%-13%]; P = .01). Receipt of targeted therapy was associated with a lower hazard of death compared with nontargeted therapy (overall survival hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; RCC-specific survival hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]).

Conclusions and relevance

Targeted therapies were associated with modest survival advantages despite a treatment group with more medical complexity, likely reflecting appropriateness for an expanded population of patients. As advances in cancer treatment continue, rigorous methods that account for unobserved confounders will be needed to evaluate their real-world impact on outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Li P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6575152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent phase III studies of targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have generated median survival estimates that far exceed those observed during the cytokine era. However, substantial population-based data does not exist to confirm this trend. We sought to determine whether survival has improved for patients with mRCC diagnosed in the era of targeted therapies, as compared to the era of immunotherapy.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry was used to identify patients aged 18 and older diagnosed stage IV RCC between 1992 and 2009. Patients had documented clear cell, papillary or chromophobe histology. The Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients diagnosed from 1992-2004 (i.e., the cytokine era) and 2005-2009 (i.e., the targeted therapy era). Univariate and multivariate analyses of relevant clinicopathologic characteristics were also performed.Of 5,176 patients identified using the above characteristics, 2,392 patients were diagnosed from 1992-2004 and 2,784 from 2005-2009. Median DSS was improved in those patients diagnosed from 2005-2009 (16 months vs 13 months; P<0.0001). A similar temporal trend towards improving survival was noted in patients with clear cell (P = 0.0006), but not in patients with non-clear cell disease (P = 0.32). Notable findings on multivariate analysis include an association between shorter DSS and the following characteristics: (1) diagnosis from 1992-2004, (2) advanced age (80+), and (3) absence of cytoreductive nephrectomy.These data reflect progress in the management of mRCC, specifically in the era of targeted therapies. Notably, it was inferred that certain treatment strategies were employed during pre-specified time periods, representing a major caveat of the current analysis. Further studies related to the influence of age and race/ethnicity are warranted, as are studies exploring the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy and novel treatments for non-clear cell disease.

Project description:BackgroundThe metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy combined with α-interferon yields additional overall survival (OS) benefits. It is unclear whether mRCC patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) will benefit from such cytoreductive nephrectomy either. The aim of the study was to identify variables for selection of patients who would benefit from upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy for mRCC treated with VEGFR-TKI.MethodsClinical data on 74 patients enrolled in 5 clinical trials conducted in Cancer Hospital (Institute), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2006 to January 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons between patient groups were performed by Chi-square test. A Cox regression model was adopted for analysis of multiple factors affecting survival, with a significance level of α = 0.05.ResultsFifty-one patients underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy followed by targeted therapy (cytoreductive nephrectomy group) and 23 patients were treated with targeted therapy alone (noncytoreductive nephrectomy group). The median OS was 32.2 months and 23.0 months in cytoreductive nephrectomy and noncytoreductive nephrectomy groups, respectively (P = 0.041). Age ≤45 years (P = 0.002), a low or high body mass index (BMI <19 or >30 kg/m2) (P = 0.008), a serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentration >1.5 × upper limit of normal (P = 0.025), a serum calcium concentration >10 mg/ml (P = 0.034), and 3 or more metastatic sites (P = 0.023) were independent preoperative risk factors for survival. The patients only with 0-2 risk factors benefited from upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy in terms of OS when compared with the patients treated with targeted therapy alone (40.0 months vs. 23.2 months, P = 0.042), while those with more than 2 risk factors did not.ConclusionsFive risk factors (age, BMI, LDH, serum calcium, and number of metastatic sites) seemed to be helpful for selecting patients who would benefit from undergoing upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough commonly observed, malnutrition is poorly characterized and frequently underdiagnosed in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The ability of nutritional screening tools to predict overall survival (OS) in patients with RCC has not been adequately validated. The objective of this study was to investigate the performance of nutritional screening tools and their additional prognostic value in patients with metastatic RCC treated with targeted therapies.MethodsPatients were prospectively recruited from three tertiary hospitals between 2009 and 2013. Nutritional status was evaluated using the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF). Their OS and early grade 3/4 adverse events were recorded as outcomes of interest, and their associations with nutritional status were assessed using Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively. The incremental value in prognostication was evaluated using concordance index and decision curve analyses.ResultsOf the 300 enrolled patients, 95 (31.7%) and 64 (21.3%) were classified as being at risk of malnutrition according to the GNRI and MNA-SF, respectively. Both GNRI and MNA-SF were independent predictors of OS in multivariate analyses and provided significant added benefit to Heng risk classification. Compared with the MNA-SF, the GNRI contributed a higher increment to the concordance index (0.041 vs. 0.016). Nutritional screening, however, was not associated with early grade 3/4 adverse events in multivariate analyses. Further investigations are needed using more comprehensive and accurate assessment tools.ConclusionsThis prospective study confirmed the importance of nutritional screening tools in survival prognostication in patients with metastatic RCC. The standardized and objective measurements would allow clinicians to identify metastatic RCC patients at risk of poor survival outcomes. Individualized nutritional assessment and intervention strategies may be included in the multidisciplinary treatment.

Project description:Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) affects over 330,000 new patients every year, of whom 1/3 present with metastatic RCC (mRCC) at diagnosis. Most mRCC patients treated with a first-line agent relapse within 1 year and need second-line therapy. The present study aims to compare overall survival (OS) between nivolumab and cabozantinib from two recent pivotal studies comparing, respectively, each one of the two emerging treatments against everolimus in patients who relapse following first-line treatment. Comparison is traditionally carried out using the Bucher method, which assumes proportional hazard. Since OS curves intersected in one of the pivotal studies, models not assuming proportional hazards were also considered to refine the comparison. Four Bayesian parametric survival network meta-analysis models were implemented on overall survival (OS) data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves reported in the studies. Three models allowing hazard ratios (HR) to vary over time were assessed against a fixed-HR model. The Bucher method favored cabozantinib, with a fixed HR for OS vs. nivolumab of 1.09 (95% confidence interval: [0.77, 1.54]). However, all models with time-varying HR showed better fits than the fixed-HR model. The log-logistic model fitted the data best, exhibiting a HR for OS initially favoring cabozantinib, the trend inverting to favor nivolumab after month 5 (95% credible interval <1 from 10 months). The initial probability of cabozantinib conferring superior OS was 54%, falling to 41.5% by month 24. Numerical differences in study-adjusted OS estimates between the two treatments remained small. This study evidences that HR for OS of nivolumab vs. cabozantinib varies over time, favoring cabozantinib in the first months of treatment but nivolumab afterwards, a possible indication that patients with poor prognosis benefit more from cabozantinib in terms of survival, nivolumab benefiting patients with better prognosis. More evidence, including real-world observational data, is needed to compare effectiveness between cabozantinib and nivolumab.