27 Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer and represents about 90% of all kidney cancers. As comprehensive comparison of the efficacy associated with mRCC treatments is not available, the goal of this research was to provide a comparative effectiveness analysis including overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) for first and second line treatments. Methods: Systematic literature review yielded the following randomized active-controlled studies: lenvatinib + everolimus (LEN+EVE) versus everolimus (EVE), axinitib (AXI) versus sorafenib (SOR), cabozantinib (CAB) versus EVE, nivolumab (NIV) versus EVE, and pazopanib (PAZ) versus sunitinib (SUN). In addition, placebo-controlled studies were identified for EVE, PAZ, and SOR. An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed on OS and PFS hazard ratios (HR). Results: Scenario A presents the HR and confidence intervals (95% CI) generated with ITC of all treatments against EVE. In scenario B, the HR of LEN + EVE are compared to all treatment options. Only LEN + EVE and CAB demonstrated significance against EVE for both OS and PFS. LEN + EVE proved to be significant against EVE, PAZ, SOR, SUN, AXI and NIV for PFS and against EVE, SOR and AXI for OS. The use of crossover trials in the network for the treatment compared to placebo remains a potential bias in the results. Conclusions: Even if limitations exist regarding the use of ITC, the option of LEN+EVE demonstrated a strong comparative effectiveness profile for both OS and PFS. [Table: see text]
PCN183 A Population-Based Registry for the Evaluation of New Treatment Options for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma