Dataset Information

Sunitinib and bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness.

ABSTRACT: Two new agents have recently been licensed for use in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe. This paper aims to systematically review the evidence from all available randomised clinical trials of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha)) in the treatment of advanced metastatic RCC.Systematic literature searches were performed in six electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies were searched for further relevant studies. Individual conference proceedings were searched using their online interfaces. Studies were selected according to the predefined criteria. All randomised clinical trials of sunitinib or bevacizumab in combination with IFN for treating advanced metastatic RCC in accordance with the European licensed indication were included. Study selection, data extraction, validation and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers with disagreements being settled by discussion. The effects of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with IFN-alpha) on progression-free survival were compared indirectly using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) sampling in Win BUGS, with IFN as a common comparator.Three studies were included. Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with both interventions (from approximately 5 months to between 8 and 11 months) compared with IFN. Overall survival was also prolonged, compared with IFN, although the published data are not fully mature. Indirect comparison suggests that sunitinib is superior to bevacizumab plus IFN in terms of progression-free survival (hazard ratios 0.796; 95% CI 0.63-1.0; P=0.0272).There is evidence to suggest that treatment with sunitinib and treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC.

SUBMITTER: Thompson Coon JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2720220 | biostudies-other | 2009 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

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: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

Sunitinib and bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets