Current systemic management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma – first line and second line therapy

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Wright ◽  
Anil Kapoor
Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3634
Author(s):  
Nicola Longo ◽  
Marco Capece ◽  
Giuseppe Celentano ◽  
Roberto La Rocca ◽  
Gianluigi Califano ◽  
...  

A high percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) require a second-line option. We aimed to summarize available evidences about the clinicopathological profile of mRCC patients who receive a second-line therapy. A systematic review was performed in August 2020. We included papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling mRCC patients entering a second-line therapy. Twenty-nine studies enrolling 7650 patients (73.5% male, mean age: 55 to 70 years) were included. Clear cell histology was reported in 74.4% to 100% of cases. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, bevacizumab, mTOR inhibitors, and chemotherapy were adopted as first line option in 68.5%, 29.2%, 2.9%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients, respectively. Discontinuation of first-line therapy was due to progression and toxicity in 18.4% to 100% and in 17% to 48.8% of patients, respectively. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 or 1 in most cases. Most prevalent prognostic categories according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Centre score were intermediate and good. About 77.8% of patients harboured ≥2 metastatic sites. In conclusion, patients who enter a second-line therapy are heterogeneous in terms of a clinical-pathological profile. Tailoring of second-line treatment strategies is strongly advocated.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 469-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Sei Naito ◽  
Naoto Sassa ◽  
Atsushi Takahashi ◽  
Tsunenori Kondo ◽  
...  

469 Background: SWITCH, a prospective, randomized sequential trial to evaluate SU/SO versus SO/SU, revealed no difference in first-line or total PFS or OS, but no direct comparison was obtained between 1st line sunitinib (SU) and sorafenib (SO) for clear cell (CC) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with CC mRCC, ECOG PS 0/1 and MSKCC favorable or intermediate risk were randomized to receive open-label SU/SO or SO/SU at the standard dosage and schedule. The primary endpoint was 1st line PFS, and secondary endpoints were total PFS and OS. The calculated sample size was 59 per group, with α = 0.05, β = 0.10, and a censoring rate of 15%. Results: Of 124 patients enrolled in this study from February 2010 to July 2012 from 39 institutions, 120 could be evaluated (SU/SO, 57 and SO/SU, 63). Baseline patients' characteristics in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups were as follows: favorable risk, 21% and 22%; and presence ofnephrectomy, 88% and 89%, respectively. First-line mPFS was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42–1.08; p= 0.095). There was no statistically significant difference in total (T)-PFS, 27.8 M, and 22.6 m (HR 0.73, CI 0.428-1.246; p=0.247), or OS 38.4 m and 30.9 m (HR 0.934, CI 0.588-1.485; p=0.773). Subgroup analyses showed that T-PFS was NR and 27.8 m (p=0.021) in the favorable risk, and 38.4 m and 16.1 m (p=0.009) in with less than 5 metastatic sites, 6.5 m and 13.6 m (p=0.025) without nephrectomy in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) in case of first-line SU or SO (all grade, all cause) were hand–foot syndrome (71% vs. 86%), hypothyroidism (70% vs. 33%), fatigue (57% vs. 40%), hypertension (55% vs. 44%), and diarrhea (23% vs. 38%). AEs were generally lower during second-line therapy. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in first-line PFS, T-PFS, and OS between the two sequential treatments. Although fewer patients received second-line treatment in the SU/SO group, OS in this group was numerically longer than that in the SO/SU group. Clinical trial information: 01481870.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. e1081-e1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalisa Guida ◽  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Lisa Derosa ◽  
Yohann Loriot ◽  
Christophe Massard ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e595-e607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Oudard ◽  
Florence Joly ◽  
Lionnel Geoffrois ◽  
Brigitte Laguerre ◽  
Nadine Houede ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimma Rizzo ◽  
Gaetano Facchini ◽  
Clementina Savastano ◽  
Giuseppe Di Lorenzo ◽  
Luigi De Lucia ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Schmidinger ◽  
Günther G Steger ◽  
Alexandra C Budinsky ◽  
Catharina Wenzel ◽  
Thomas Brodowicz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document