Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (13) ◽  
pp. 1287-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E Hutson ◽  
Vladimir Lesovoy ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor P Stus ◽  
Oleg N Lipatov ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 2327-2336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Figlin ◽  
Nizar M. Tannir ◽  
Robert G. Uzzo ◽  
Scott S. Tykodi ◽  
David Y.T. Chen ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A205-A206
Author(s):  
Vasilii Bushunow ◽  
Leonard Appleman ◽  
Roby Thomas

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are first-line therapy for tumors including metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Use of ICI is complicated by diverse immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can add significant morbidity but are also associated with improved efficacy of therapy.1 2 Risk factors for development of irAE are still poorly understood. We hypothesized that patients with mRCC treated with ICI as first-line therapy have higher rates of developing irAE’s than patients previously treated with other therapies.MethodsWe conducted a single-institution, retrospective medical record review of patients with mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors from March 2011 through April 15, 2020. We identified therapy duration, and presence, severity, and treatment of adverse events. We defined overall survival as time elapsed from date of diagnosis until death or until completion of study. We classified severity of adverse events according to CTCAE guidelines. Statistical methods included univariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for subgroups.ResultsA total of 64 unique charts were reviewed. 18 patients (28%) of patients were treated with ICI as first-line therapy. 28 patients (44%) experienced immune-related adverse events with a total of 40 irAE’s identified. Most irAE were grade I-II (78%), with 7 (17%) grade III and 1 (2.4%) grade IV irAE’s. Most common sites were skin (29%), thyroid (20%) and gastrointestinal (15%). Patients with irAE had increased survival compared to those who did not have irAE (median survival not reached, vs 139 weeks, p=0.0004) (figure 1). This finding remained after excluding patients who had only experienced dermatologic irAE (median survival not reached in non-derm irAE subgroup, vs 144 weeks for dermatologic or no irAE, p=0.01) (figure 2). Patients treated with ICI as first line therapy had greater rates of developing irAE (72%) than those who had prior therapies (32%) (OR 5.4; p = 0.006). There was no association between histology type and rate of irAE.Abstract 191 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with any irAE and those without any irAEAbstract 191 Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with non-dermatologic irAE and those without any irAE or only dermatologic irAEConclusionsThe development of irAE’s in patients with mRCC treated with ICI is associated with longer survival. This study joins the growing body of evidence showing that presence of irAE’s is associated with increased treatment efficacy. Use of ICI as first-line therapy is associated with higher risk of irAE. Given growing use of ICI as first-line therapy, further study to predict onset and severity of irAE’s is required.AcknowledgementsHong Wang, PhD, for statistical support.Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Approval number STUDY19100386.ReferencesElias R, Yan N, Singla N, Levonyack N, Formella J, Christie A, et al. Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated renal cell carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(7):S645.Verzoni E, Cartenì G, Cortesi E, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and association between immune-related adverse events and survival: the Italian expanded access program. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7(1):99.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C.L. Wong ◽  
Camilla Tajzler ◽  
Gaurav Vasisth ◽  
Amanda Zhu ◽  
Mathilda Chow ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Sunitinib and pazopanib are orally-administered tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitors (TKIs) approved as first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The IMDC criteria are a predictive prognostic model for patients with mRCC when stratified into three prognosis groups: favourable, intermediate and poor. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with mRCC in our single institution database. Methods: Retrospective analysis was done to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC. Patients were stratified into prognosis groups according to IMDC criteria. Disease assessment was performed on measurable aspects of disease based on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging reports. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, with disease progression as the endpoint.Results: Data was obtained from 228 patients with mRCC who were treated with either pazopanib (n=57) or sunitinib (n=171). No significant difference in PFS was found between sunitinib and pazopanib (HR for disease progression or all-cause death, 1.10; 95%CI: 0.76-1.57, p=0.62). Median PFS time for patients receiving sunitinib was 9.4 months and for pazopanib, 8.5 months. Median PFS for patients with intermediate-risk disease was similar between groups (9.4 months vs. 9.2 months, respectively, p=0.93). However, patients treated with sunitinib experienced a greater number of side effects compared to pazopanib. Conclusions: Sunitinib and pazopanib are similarly efficacious as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, adverse events are lower with pazopanib.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 134-134
Author(s):  
Stephen K. Gruschkus ◽  
Carolyn Bodnar ◽  
Amol Dhamane ◽  
Manan Shah

134 Background: Although sunitinib is effective first-line therapy (1LT) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), ~20% of patients experience rapid progressive disease (PD). Traditional RECIST monitoring often does not detect PD until 90 days after 1LT initiation. Investigational angiogenesis-specific imaging (AI) may identify PD as early as 14 days post-1LT initiation, thus allowing a switch to a potentially more effective second-line therapy and avoiding unnecessary risk of AEs. This study’s goal was to quantify the potential reduction in futile 1LT length, AEs, and costs by using AI for early detection of PD. Methods: Decision modeling with a 90-day horizon evaluated a comparator arm using RECIST monitoring at 90 days and an intervention arm using AI at 14 days. Sunitinib costs were $21,250 for the comparator arm and $13,282 for the intervention arm. RECIST costs were $619 and AI costs were tested as a breakeven analysis. A literature review quantified AE rates associated with 1LT sunitinib and claims data were used to determine costs. Early PD detection was estimated based on a 20% rapid PD rate. Results: For AI sensitivity of 50% to predict rapid PD, a 38-day reduction in futile 1LT could be achieved per PD patient by using AI vs. RECIST (AI sensitivity of 75%/100% yielded 57/76 fewer days). The potential number of AEs avoided through early PD identification is shown below. Costs saved per 1,000 mRCC patients were $684,566 for AEs and $3,187,400 for futile 1LT. Based on these results, $3,872 per mRCC patient would be freed up for AI. Conclusions: Continuing 1LT after PD brings unnecessary risk of AEs and delays potentially effective 2nd-line therapy. Results of this study indicate that early PD identification using AI may improve quality of care by minimizing duration of futile 1LT and avoiding unnecessary AEs. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document