2626 Efficacy and safety of axitinib as third line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Retrospective analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. S521 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Guida ◽  
M. Matias ◽  
L. Albiges ◽  
L. Derosa ◽  
Y. Loriot ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4) ◽  
pp. 1114-1121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumanta Kumar Pal ◽  
Dewan Md Sakib Hossain ◽  
Qifang Zhang ◽  
Paul Henry Frankel ◽  
Jeremy O. Jones ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15578-e15578
Author(s):  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Igor Stukalin ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sei Naito ◽  
Osamu Ichiyanagi ◽  
Tomoyuki Kato ◽  
Hidenori Kanno ◽  
Takafumi Narisawa ◽  
...  

Abstract Data on the outcomes of third- or fourth-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are limited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of therapy beyond the second line. We retrospectively analysed data of mRCC patients who underwent systemic therapy at Yamagata University Hospital. The best objective response (BOR), response rate (RR), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each line of treatment. To investigate the correlation between overall survival (OS) and the number of treatment lines during a patient’s lifetime, the median OS was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. In the first-, second-, and third-line therapies, approximately 20% of patients had long PFS of >15 months. In targeted treatments beyond the third line, only one treatment suppressed disease progression for >10 months. Among patients who died during the follow-up period, those treated with triple and quadruple lines had similar OS (42.5 months vs. 48.4 months, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with triple or more lines of therapy had better OS; however, quadruple or more lines of therapy was not an independent prognostic factor. We concluded that third-line systemic therapy could improve OS; however, fourth-line therapy could not.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 430-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Connor Wells ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
...  

430 Background: Third-line targeted therapy efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is not well characterized and many funding bodies do not provide reimbursement for it. Methods: The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) consists of consecutive patient series from 25 cancer centers. It was queried for specific sequences of targeted therapy and third-line therapy. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust hazard ratios for confounders. Patients that stopped second-line therapy were divided into two groups: those that went onto third-line therapy and those did not. Results: 4,050 patients were treated with first-line targeted therapy, of which 2,011 (49.6%) had second-line therapy and 879 (21.7%) had third-line targeted therapy. The most common third-line therapies were everolimus 25%, sorafenib 14%, sunitinib 13%, temsirolimus 11%, pazopanib 10%, and axitinib 6%. IMDC prognostic groups at third-line therapy initiation were 6% favorable risk, 67% intermediate risk, and 27% poor risk. Overall response rate for third-line therapy was 10.5% and 50.9% had stable disease in those patients that were evaluable. Median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.7) and median OS from third-line therapy initiation was 12.0 months (95% CI, 10.7-12.9). Patients stopping second-line therapy that move on to third-line therapy vs. those that do not receive third line therapy have a median OS from stopping second-line therapy of 13.1 vs. 2.3 mons (p<0.0001). When adjusted for second-line IMDC prognostic criteria and KPS at second-line treatment cessation, patients who do receive third-line therapy have a HR of death of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32-0.52; p<0.0001) compared to those that do not receive third-line therapy. This may be in part due to patient selection. To further limit bias, when excluding patients that live less than 3 months after second-line therapy cessation, the adjusted HR was similar. Conclusions: Third-line targeted therapy has demonstrated activity and is prevalent in use. Further studies are required to determine appropriate sequencing.


2018 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Zerdes ◽  
Maria Tolia ◽  
Nikolaos Tsoukalas ◽  
Michail Mitsis ◽  
Dimitrios Kardamakis ◽  
...  

Introduction: Renal cell carcinoma represents a neoplasm with usually aggressive behavior. Due to its nature, it is often diagnosed in an advanced stage or when metastatic dissemination has been occurred. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and briefly discuss the potential new therapeutic strategies for this disease. Methods: Review of the literature was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE and we included English articles up to February 2018. Results: Over the past years, many efforts have been made in the context of confronting metastatic disease and led to the introduction of targeted therapies. More available agent options, including various tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, can be served nowadays as the first-, second-, and third-line therapy in the metastatic setting of the disease providing better outcomes. Discussion: Moreover, regarding the recent advances in the field of cancer immunotherapy, the landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma management is being shaped toward novel immunotherapeutic interventions alone or in combination with other types of therapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document