Dataset Information

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy between January 1, 2008 and May 31, 2017 from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database of Hungary. Overall survival (OS) and duration of first-line treatment (DFT) were obtained for patients receiving sunitinib-everolimus, sunitinib-axitinib, or pazopanib-everolimus treatment sequences. OS of sunitinib-everolimus and sunitinib-axitinib sequences was also determined for patients having better or worse response to sunitinib first-line therapy. RESULTS:Median OS was significantly longer among patients treated with sunitinib-axitinib compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus. Median DFT was also significantly longer in the sunitinib-axitinib vs. sunitinib-everolimus group. Sunitinib-axitinib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus in patients with better response to first-line sunitinib in the pooled sunitinib population. In patients with worse response to sunitinib, sunitinib-axitinib was associated with a trend towards greater OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:In this nationwide database analysis, mRCC patients treated with the sunitinib-axitinib sequence had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus therapy. The OS benefits of second-line axitinib were consistent among patients with better response to sunitinib defined by DFT values.

SUBMITTER: Geczi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7471136 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Géczi Lajos L Bodoky György G Rokszin György G Fábián Ibolya I Torday László L

Pathology oncology research : POR 20200415 4

<h4>Background</h4>Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy betwe ...[more]

PMID: 32291570

Similar Datasets

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.

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:BackgroundIn a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety.ResultsA total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups.ConclusionsProgression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

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

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Publications

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets