Second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with targeted therapies in 251 consecutive patients.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15049-e15049
Author(s):  
Antonin Levy ◽  
Jean Menard ◽  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Mario Di Palma ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
...  

e15049 Background: Sequential treatment is currently the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, very little is known on how many patients (pts) can receive second line or further, and on how to predict those pts. Methods: Data from all mRCC patients treated at the IGR from 2005 to 2009 with first-line targeted therapy (sunitinib (SU), sorafenib (SO), bevacizumab (B), temsirolimus or everolimus (pooled together as mTOR)) were analyzed. Only patients with subsequent follow up have been included in this analysis. Patients were defined as “non eligible” for second treatment if: they were (i) still on first line treatment, (ii) not showing progressive (durable stable disease or partial response or complete response), or (iii) if they refused a second line treatment. Results: 251 patients, median age 60 years, median follow-up 20.2 months were treated with targeted therapy with a median OS of 25.8 months. Median OS with SU (127), SO (60) or B (61) were respectively 26.3, 16.4 and 32.5 months respectively. Only 3 patients received an mTOR inhibitor as first line. According to the eligibility criteria, the percentage of patients who received a second line was 59% (n=61/103), 52% (n=30/58) and 79% (n=38/48) for Su, So and B, respectively. MSKCC classification (p = 0.02) and first line agent (p = 0.001) were significant predictive factor for receiving a second line of treatment. Overall, patients receiving B were in better general condition, with 77% of PS = 0 compared to SO (53%) and SU (48%) (p = 0.005). Among the 131 patients who received a second line, the median OS from the start of second line treatment was 20.8 months for a TKI (n=98; 75%) and 16.6 months for an mTOR (n=32; 42%) (p = 0.12). Furthermore, the percentage of patients who received a third line was 56% (27/48), 28% (7/25) and 65% (13/20) for SU, SO and B, respectively. Conclusions: The median OS in patients treated with targeted therapies for mRCC in The Institut Gustave Roussy exceeds 2 years. The use of second line varies from 52% to 79%. Further studies are needed to validate the MSKCC groups and first line therapy as predictive factor for 2nd line treatment.

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-141
Author(s):  
Galina N. Alekseeva ◽  
L. I Gurina ◽  
M. V Volkov ◽  
E. V Evtuchenko

Objective. To study the relapse-free overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients after the targeted therapy and to develop optimal approach to the treatment shedule. Material and methods. The research included 88 mRCC patients of mean age of 55.5 + 9.6 years, 63 (71.6%) men and 25 (28.4%) women. 42.0% patients had a favorable prognosis, 52.3% - intermediate one and 5.7% of the cases had poor prognosis. First line targeted therapy was carried out in 88 patients, the second line - in 26 patients, and the third line - in 7 patients. Results. The one or several lines of targeted therapy allowed to achieve 20 months of a median in survival without progression of the disease. Several lines of treatment increased a median of general survival up to 42 months in comparison with the patients who were involved in the one line of treatment (a median = 30 months), p = 0.001. Side effects of targeted therapy were reversible. In the first line targeted therapy the preference was given to sunitinib, in the second line - to sorafenib. Sorafenib had an advantage in case of not light-cellular forms of renal carcinoma. In cases with favorable prognosis factors, metastases into organ parenchyma, targeted therapy with bevacizumab was carried out.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 544-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Manuel Ruiz Morales ◽  
J Connor Wells ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
...  

544 Background: Sunitinib (SU) and Pazopanib (PZ) have been compared head-to-head in the first-line phase III COMPARZ study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We compared SU versus PZ, to confirm outcomes and subsequent second-line therapy efficacy in a population-based setting. Methods: We used the IMDC to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS2 and PFS2 were also evaluated. Results: We obtained data from 3,606 patients with mRCC treated with either first line SU (n=3226) or PZ (n=380) with an overall median follow-up of 43.5 months (m) (CI95% 41.4 – 46.4). IMDC risk group distribution for favorable prognosis was 440 (17.3%) for SU vs 72 (25%) for PZ, intermediate prognosis 1414 (55.6%) for SU vs 153 (53%) for PZ, poor prognosis 689 (27.1%) for SU vs 62 (22%) for PZ, p= 0.0027. We found no difference between SU vs. PZ for OS (20.1 [CI95% 18.76-21.42] vs. 23.68 m [CI95% 19.54 - 28.81] p=0.19), PFS (7.22 [CI95% 6.76 - 7.78] vs. 6.83 m [CI95% 5.58 - 8.27] p=0.49). The RR was similar in both groups (Table 1). Adjusted HR for OS and PFS were 0.952 (CI95% 0.788 – 1.150 p=0.61) and 1.052 (CI95% 0.908 – 1.220 p = 0.49), respectively. We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU vs. post-PZ groups for OS2 (12.88 [CI95% 11.89 – 14.19] vs. 12.91 m [CI95% 10.3 – 19.1] p=0.47) and PFS2 (3.67 [CI95% 3.38 – 3.87] vs. 4.53 m [CI95% 3.08 – 5.35] p=0.4). There was no statistical difference in OS2 and PFS2 if everolimus was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.33 and p = 0.41, respectively) or if axitinib was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.73 and p = 0.72, respectively). Conclusions: We confirmed in real world practice, that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document