Comparison of quality-adjusted survival in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line treatment with temsirolimus (TEMSR) or interferon-α (IFN) or the combination of IFN+TEMSR

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5049-5049 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Parasuraman ◽  
G. Hudes ◽  
D. Levy ◽  
A. Strahs ◽  
L. Moore ◽  
...  

5049 Background: In a phase 3, randomized, 3-arm study of TEMSR or IFN or the combination of TEMSR + IFN in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and poor-prognostic features, TEMSR improved overall survival (p=0.0069) and progression-free survival (p=0.0001) vs. IFN (Hudes et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:LBA4). Quality-adjusted survival was a pre-defined endpoint and is reported. Methods: Quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity (QTWiST) was estimated by partitioning overall survival into 3 distinct health states: time with serious toxicity, time with progression, and time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST). Survival was value-weighted when patients completed quality of life questionnaires (EQ-5D) at weeks 12 and 32, when a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) was reported, upon relapse or progression, or upon withdrawal from the study. Treatment group comparisons used restricted means analyses estimated from censored survival data. Restricted means were computed for duration of each health state by truncating data at median follow-up (17.9 months). Variance and covariance were estimated using bootstrap methods. Results: All 626 randomized patients in the study were included in computation of health state durations. EQ-5D questionnaires were obtained from 260/300 (87%) upon progression and 230/570 (40%) after a grade 3/4 AE. Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 38% greater TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=6.5 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.00048). There was no significant difference in TWiST between the combination arm and IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=5.4 months vs. IFN=4.7 months, p=0.1288). Patients receiving TEMSR alone had 23% greater Q-TWiST than those receiving IFN alone (TEMSR=7.0 months vs. IFN=5.7 months; p=0.0015). There was no significant difference in Q-TWiST for the combination arm compared with IFN alone (IFN+TEMSR=6.1 months vs. IFN=5.7 months, p=0.3469). Conclusions: Patients with advanced RCC receiving TEMSR alone had significantly greater quality-adjusted survival than those receiving IFN alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5024-5024 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Figlin ◽  
T. E. Hutson ◽  
P. Tomczak ◽  
M. D. Michaelson ◽  
R. M. Bukowski ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sil-ling Pruis ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz ◽  
Fiona Pearce ◽  
Min Han Tan ◽  
David Bin-Chia Wu ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesThis study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Singapore.MethodsA partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Survival curves from the pivotal trial of sunitinib versus interferon-alfa were extrapolated beyond the trial period to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from local public healthcare institutions. The sunitinib dose in the model reflected local prescribing practices whereby a combination of 50 mg (28 percent) and 37.5 mg (72 percent) strengths are used.ResultsThe base-case analysis comparing sunitinib versus interferon-alfa resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD191,061 (USD139,757) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility value assumed for the progression-free health state and the price of sunitinib.ConclusionsIn the absence of any price reduction, sunitinib had an exceedingly high ICER and was not considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore's context for the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. The findings from our evaluation will be useful to inform local healthcare decision making and resource allocations for tyrosine kinase inhibitors when appraised alongside comparative clinical effectiveness data and payer affordability considerations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15080-e15080
Author(s):  
Seongjoon Park ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Inkeun Park ◽  
Kwonoh Park ◽  
Yongchel Ahn ◽  
...  

e15080 Background: Currently, sunitinib has been recommended as the primary treatment in the patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) among the vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI). However, there are no published clinical data that compared directly the efficacy of targeted agents in the first line setting, and first-line treatment in mRCC patients is yet to be determined. Methods: To compare the efficacy and toxicities between sorafenib and sunitinb, clinical database was used to identify all patients with mRCC treated with VEGF TKIs in Asan Medical Center from April 2005 to March 2011. Among 304 patients, we identified 49 and 220 patients who were treated first with sorafenib and sunitinib, respectively. Results: The patients in the sorafenib group were older than those in the sunitinib group (62 vs 56.5 years, p=0.019). Disease control rate (DCR) of 82% was achieved in both groups. After a median follow-up duration of 49 months, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different (sorafenib vs sunitinib, PFS; 8.6 months vs 9.9 months, p=0.948, OS; 25.7 months and 22.6 months, p=0.774). The patients treated with sorafenib have required dose reduction due to toxicities less frequently than those treated with sunitinib (37% vs 54%, p=0.034). Hematologic toxicities of grade 3 or 4 were more common in sunitinib group (4.2% vs 44.6%, p<0.001), and also was grade 3 or 4 hypertension, although it was not statistically significant (4.2% vs 13.7%, p=0.06). Age (> 60 years), duration from diagnosis to treatment (less than 1 year), Anemia, Neutrophilia, thorombocytosis, bone and liver metastases were independent prognostic factors affecting OS. Multivariate analysis also showed first-line VEGF TKI did not affect OS [hazard ratio (HR, sorafenib vs sunitinib) = 0.94, p=0.774]. Conclusions: Sorafenib showed comparable efficacy to sunitinb and demonstrated superiority in toxicities in the treatment of mRCC patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Kilonzo ◽  
Jenni Hislop ◽  
Andrew Elders ◽  
Cynthia Fraser ◽  
Donald Bissett ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document