scholarly journals Does an Alternative Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Really Improve Survival Outcomes Over a Conventional Dosing Schedule in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1830
Author(s):  
Doo Yong Chung ◽  
Dong Hyuk Kang ◽  
Jong Won Kim ◽  
Do Kyung Kim ◽  
Joo Yong Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Dosing Schedule ◽  
Free Survival

Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) can obfuscate the maintenance of a conventional schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, alternative schedules seeking to improve the safety profile of sunitinib have been tested. Recently, two meta-analyses similarly described improved safety profiles favoring a two weeks on and one week off (2/1) schedule, but with conflicting results for survival outcomes. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, including all recently published studies and using complementary statistical methods. Endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and AEs of 15 types. Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis. Using adjusted findings, we noted statistically better results in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.005), but no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.04; p = 0.08). Moreover, the 2/1 schedule was beneficial for reducing the incidence of several AEs. Conclusively, our meta-analysis suggests that the 2/1 schedule holds promise as an alternative means of reducing AEs and maintaining patient quality of life. While the survival outcomes of the 2/1 schedule seem also to be favorable, the level of evidence for this was low, and the interpretation of these findings should warrant caution. Large scale randomized trials are needed to support these results.

Survival outcomes associated with different sunitinib dosing regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winnie Cheng ◽  
Victoria Kletas ◽  
Christian Kollmannsberger ◽  
Mário de Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Dosing Regimens ◽  
Continuous Dosing

Background Standard dosing regimen of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists of four weeks treatment followed by two weeks rest (intermittent dosing). Alternative regimens have been suggested, including continuous daily dosing (continuous dosing) and non-conventional dosing (non-conventional dosing: e.g. two weeks on/one week off, non-conventional dosing), to provide more individualized therapy with less toxicities. It is unclear whether non-standard sunitinib dosing affects survival outcomes. Patients Metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib between 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2011 at our institution. Methods Medical records and dispensing data were reviewed retrospectively to categorize sunitinib dosing as intermittent dosing, continuous dosing, or non-conventional dosing. Primary outcome was to compare overall survival associated with varying regimens, with secondary outcomes of progression-free survival and incidence of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects. Results A total of 180 patients were identified. Most patients received intermittent dosing ( n = 120, 67%), followed by continuous dosing ( n = 32, 18%) and non-conventional dosing ( n = 28, 16%). Compared to intermittent dosing, continuous dosing was associated with similar overall survival (median 9 vs. 13 months, HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.43–1.06, p = 0.088) while non-conventional dosing was associated with significantly longer overall survival (median 9 vs. 23 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34–0.90, p = 0.016). Progression-free survival was significantly better for continuous dosing (median 4 vs. 9 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.94, p = 0.025) and non-conventional dosing (median 4 vs. 10 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, p = 0.03) when compared to intermittent dosing. Similar to prior sunitinib trials, a significant proportion of patients (20%) discontinued sunitinib therapy due to adverse effects. Conclusions Based on retrospective, real-world data, alternative sunitinib dosing regimens appear to be viable options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

scholarly journals Comparison of the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in treatment of early-stage ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingduo Kong ◽  
Hongyi Wei ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Yilin Li ◽  
Yongjun Wang
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Review Manager ◽  
Early Stage Ovarian Cancer

Abstract Background Laparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC. Methods According to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2). Results A total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008). Conclusions Laparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document