Is there a preferred first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A network meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background:
In recent years, new therapeutic combinations based on immunotherapy provided significant benefits as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Objective:
This work aims to address the lack of head-to-head comparisons and the uncertainty of the benefit from immunotherapy-based combinations in all the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. Design, setting, and participants:
A systematic review and a network meta-analysis were performed. Overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was the primary endpoint. OS according to IMDC subgroups (favorable, intermediate, poor), PD-L1 expression, and grade ⩾3 adverse events (AEs) were secondary endpoints. A SUCRA analysis was performed. Results and limitations:
Six randomized phase III trials with 5121 patients were included. There was a high likelihood (82%) that nivolumab-cabozantinib was the preferred treatment in OS. The benefit of ICI-based combinations over sunitinib was unclear in the favorable-risk subgroup. Nivolumab-ipilimumab had the best risk/benefit ratio among all the ICI-based combinations. The limitations were the lack of individual patient data; the heterogeneity of patients’ characteristics, trial designs, and follow-up times; and a limited number of studies for indirect comparisons. Conclusions:
A customized approach for the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC should consider the risk/benefit profile of each treatment option, especially considering the likeliness of long-term survival finally reached in this setting.
SUBMITTER: Cattrini C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8558789 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeManagement of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments.Materials and methodsMultiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible.ResultsSix studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73-0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75-0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74-0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib.ConclusionPembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy-tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.
| S-EPMC7889529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextConsiderable advances have been made in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with immunotherapy-based combinations including immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (IO-TKIs) and dual immunotherapy (IO-IO) favored. A lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing these treatments means that there is uncertainty regarding their use in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo compare and rank the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments for mRCC with a focus on IO-based combinations.Evidence acquisitionMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and abstracts of recent major scientific meetings were searched to identify the most up-to-date phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line IO-based combinations for mRCC up to June 2021. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were completed using the Bayesian framework. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), treatment-related drug discontinuation (TRDD), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The analysis was performed for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population as well as by clinical risk group.Evidence synthesisA total of six phase 3 RCTs were included involving a total of 5121 patients. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit in the ITT population (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 82%). Avelumab plus axitinib (AVEL-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with favorable risk (65%). Pembrolizumab plus AXI (PEMBRO-AXI) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with intermediate risk (78%). PEMBRO plus lenvatinib (PEMBRO-LENV) had the highest likelihood of an OS benefit for patients with poor risk (89%). PEMBRO-LENV was associated with a superior PFS benefit across all risk groups (89-98%). Maximal ORR was achieved with PEMBRO-LENV (97%). The highest likelihood for CR was attained with NIVO plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI; 85%) and PEMBRO-LENV (83%). The highest grade 3-4 TRAE rate occurred with PEMBRO-LENV (95%) and NIVO-CABO (83%), but the latter was associated with the lowest TRDD rate (2%). By contrast, NIVO-IPI had the lowest grade 3-4 TRAE rate (6%) and the highest likelihood of TRDD (100%). HRQoL consistently favored NIVO-CABO (66-75%), PEMBRO-LENV (44-85%), and NIVO-IPI (65-93%) in comparison to the other treatments.ConclusionsIO-TKI drug combinations are associated with consistent improvements in clinically relevant outcomes for all mRCC risk groups. This benefit may be at the cost of higher TRAE rates; however, lower TRDD rates suggest a manageable side-effect profile. Longer follow-up is required to determine if the benefits of IO-TKIs will be sustained and if they should be favored in the first-line treatment of mRCC.Patient summaryCombination treatments based on immunotherapy agents continue to show meaningful benefits in the first-line treatment of metastatic kidney cancer. Our review and network meta-analysis shows that immunotherapy combined with another class of agents called tyrosine kinase inhibitors is promising. However, longer follow-up is needed for this treatment strategy to clarify if the benefits are long-lasting.
| S-EPMC8792068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The introduction of molecularly targeted therapies (TTs) has transformed the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Within a relatively short period of time, systemic treatment of mRCC has evolved from a disease treated only by cytokines to a disease where TT is the cornerstone of patient management. Since the approval of sorafenib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), in December 2005, 7 drugs have been introduced that have provided a high level of clinical efficacy in patients with mRCC, with a median survival of ~30 months in an unselected patient population that generally fits trials eligibility. Despite such success, advancements in therapies have reached a plateau: different combinations of targeted agents have not demonstrated additional benefit mainly owing to toxicity concerns, and some novel agents have failed to show benefit over approved drugs in clinics. In this review, we aim to focus on optimizing selection of agents in mRCC after progression on first-line TT. We also review how new drugs may transform existing guidelines and break through the current plateau reached with approved agents.
| S-EPMC4654640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in order to provide support for evidence-based treatment decisions. Previous NMAs of first-line mRCC treatments either predate the approval of all the first-line TKIs currently available or do not include evaluation of safety data for all treatments.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing approved first-line TKI therapies for mRCC. A random effects model with a frequentist approach was computed for progression-free survival (PFS) data and for the proportion of patients experiencing a maximum of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs).ResultsThe network meta-analysis of PFS demonstrated no significant differences between cabozantinib and either sunitinib (50 mg 4/2), pazopanib or tivozanib. The network meta-analysis indicated that in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs, tivozanib had the most favourable safety profile and was associated with significantly less risk of toxicity than the other TKIs.ConclusionThese network meta-analysis data demonstrate that cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib do not significantly differ in their efficacy, but tivozanib is associated with a more favourable safety profile in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Consequently, the relative toxicity of these first-line TKIs may play a more significant role than efficacy comparisons in treatment decisions and in planning future RCTs.
| S-EPMC7004428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The change in renal function induced by first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma remains unclear.One hundred and thirty-four patients were evaluated. Sunitinib (SU) and sorafenib (SO) were administered to 91 (67.9%) and 43 (32.1%) patients, respectively. The change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (?eGFR) was calculated as [(eGFR at each time point - pre-treatment eGFR)/pre-treatment eGFR] × 100. ?eGFR was compared between SU- and SO users using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures data with two or greater. Additionally, predictors for ?eGFR ? -10% at 6 months after therapy initiation were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.Throughout the 24 months after therapy initiation, ?eGFR was negatively greater in SU users, compared with that in SO users (P < 0.0001). In SU users, renal dysfunction was observed regardless of pre-treatment chronic kidney disease (CKD) status, whereas the magnitude of renal dysfunction was milder in SO users. In SO users without pre-treatment CKD, renal function did not significantly deteriorate. Moreover, ?eGFR ? -10% was more frequently observed in SU users after 3 months (P = 0.0121) and 6 months (P = 0.0009). Finally, SU usage was an independent predictor for ?eGFR ? -10% at 6 months (odds ratio 8.87, P = 0.0053), along with pre-treatment hypertension (odds ratio 4.69, P = 00072).Deterioration of renal function was stronger with SU than SO. During SU therapy, renal function should be monitored and pre-treatment kidney function should be taken into consideration for therapy selection.
| S-EPMC5896698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Axitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, will be used in combination first-line therapies against metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its effects as a first-line monotherapy are unclear. Thus, we aimed to elucidate pretreatment clinical factors that predict the prognosis of patients with mRCC receiving first-line axitinib therapy. We enrolled 63 patients with mRCC treated with axitinib as first-line therapy between Nov. 2003 and Jul. 2018. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Wald ?2 statistic in Cox proportional hazards regression. Median patient age was 67 (range: 25-85) years. Seven (11.1%) patients were classified as being at favorable risk, 33 (52.4%) at intermediate risk, and 23 (36.5%) at poor risk according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification system. Median follow-up duration after axitinib initiation was 14 (range: 1-72) months. Median PFS and OS were 18 months and 65 months, respectively. Cox regression analyses of clinical predictors revealed that high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were significantly correlated with shorter PFS [hazard ratio (HR), 1.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-4.0)], whereas spindle cells and poor IMDC risk scores were related to worse OS (HR, 2.87 and 2.88, respectively; 95% CI 1.4-11.0 and 1.1-8.5, respectively). Thus, patients with mRCC and spindle histology or poor IMDC risk scores had worse OS, and those with high CRP levels had shorter PFS in first-line axitinib treatment. Other therapies might be more suitable for initial management of such patients.
| S-EPMC7675987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, no head-to-head phase-3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of different ICI-based combination therapies. Here, we compared the efficacy of various first-line ICI-based combination therapies in patients with mRCC using updated survival data from phase-3 RCTs. Three databases were searched in June 2023 for RCTs that analyzed oncologic outcomes in mRCC patients treated with ICI-based combination therapies as first-line treatment. A network meta-analysis compared outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. Subgroup analyses were based on the International mRCC Database Consortium risk classification. The treatment ranking analysis of the entire cohort showed that nivolumab + cabozantinib (81%) had the highest likelihood of improving OS, followed by nivolumab + ipilimumab (75%); pembrolizumab + lenvatinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS (99%), ORR (97%), and CR (86%). These results remained valid even when the analysis was limited to patients with intermediate/poor risk, except that nivolumab + ipilimumab had the highest likelihood of achieving CR (100%). Further, OS benefits of ICI doublets were not inferior to those of ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations. Recommendation of combination therapies with ICIs and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on survival benefits and patient pretreatment risk classification will help advance personalized medicine for mRCC.
| S-EPMC10827892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.
| S-EPMC7352474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since 2005, an abundance of targeted agents has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), without any specification as to what may be the most optimal first-line and second-line sequence. Hence, our objective was to critically examine the evidence supporting the use of first-line and second-line agents in the management of mRCC. Our review suggests that in first line, sunitinib and pazopanib represent treatment options for patients with favorable or intermediate-risk features and clear cell histology. Unfortunately, the Phase III trial cannot conclusively prove the noninferiority of pazopanib relative to sunitinib. Hence, the use of sunitinib as first-line standard of care remains justified. Pazopanib represents an option for specific patients in whom sunitinib might not be tolerated. In patients with poor-risk features, temsirolimus represents the only option supported with level 1 evidence. Less optimal alternatives include sunitinib and bevacizumab combined with interferon, based on the minimal inclusion of poor-risk patients in pivotal Phase III studies of these two molecules. In patients with non-clear cell mRCC, the use of temsirolimus is supported by Phase III data, unlike for any other molecule. In second line, the options consist of everolimus and axitinib. However, the axitinib data are substantially more robust given the inclusion of more patients considered as true second-line, and validly justify the choice of axitinib over everolimus. Nonetheless, the Phase III trial of everolimus may be considered as level 1 evidence for use as third-line or subsequent lines of therapy.
| S-EPMC4219683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The RCC-SELECT study showed the correlation between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in STAT3 gene and survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with first-line interferon-α (IFN-α). In that study, even patients with STAT3 SNP linked to shorter overall survival (OS) exhibited remarkably improved prognosis. All 180 patients evaluated in the above study were further analyzed for correlation between OS and demographics/clinicopathological parameters. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between OS and potential prognostic factors were assessed using the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. The median OS was 42.8 months. Univariate analysis showed that worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-performance status (ECOG-PS), high T stage, regional lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, higher grade, infiltrative growth pattern, the presence of microscopic vascular invasion (MVI), hypercalcemia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and elevated C-reactive protein were significantly associated with OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that ECOG-PS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.665, P = 0.0004), hypercalcemia (HR = 6.428, P = 0.0005) and the presence of MVI (HR = 2.668, P = 0.0109) were jointly significant poor prognostic factors. This is the first study analysing prognostic factors of mRCC patients with first-line IFN-α using large cohort of the prospective study. The present study suggests that first-line IFN-α is still a useful therapy for mRCC even in the era of molecular targeted therapy.
| S-EPMC4946720 | biostudies-literature