Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Deng H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6598399 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Deng Huan H Liu Wenfeng W He Ting T Hong Zhengdong Z Yi Fengming F Wei Yiping Y Zhang Wenxiong W

Frontiers in oncology 20190621

<b>Purpose:</b> 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. <b>Materials and methods:</b> 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 ...[more]

PMID: 31293962

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: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: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.

Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets