scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Elaidi ◽  
Letuan Phan ◽  
Delphine Borchiellini ◽  
Philippe Barthelemy ◽  
Alain Ravaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line

Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza ELAIDI ◽  
Letuan PHAN ◽  
Delphine Borchiellini ◽  
Philippe BARTHELEMY ◽  
Alain Ravaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
First Line

Background: Three drug-combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi) and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approvals in USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in the first-line setting. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in Pubmed, the Cochrane library and clinicaltri-al.gov website from January 2015 to October 2019, for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. The process was performed according to PRISMA guide-lines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches. The out-comes for analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate. Results: Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA: 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA: 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For OS, Pembro-Axi (SUCRA: 96%) was the most pref-erable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA= 94%) and Pembro-Axi as second best option. In the parametric models, risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterward. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Conclusions: Overall evidences suggested pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option.

A FavorAx study of axitinib in favorable risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 666-666
Author(s):  
Ilya Tsimafeyeu ◽  
Pavel Borisov ◽  
Ahmed Abdelgafur ◽  
Roman Leonenkov ◽  
Olga Novikova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
History Of

666 Background: Targeted therapy with axitinib resulted in a greater objective response rate and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in AXIS study. 75% of patients had intermediate and poor IMDC prognosis. In this phase 2 study, we assessed the activity of axitinib in mRCC patients with favourable risk and a history of prior VEGFR-directed therapy. Methods: Patients were required to have clear cell mRCC, favourable risk according to IMDC criteria, and to have received first-line treatment with sunitinib or pazopanib. Prior treatment with other agents was not permitted. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. Additional endpoints included response rate, safety, and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 21 patients were enrolled, 62% of whom were male. Median age was 59 years. 11 (52%) patients had 2 and more metastatic sites. 67% and 33% of patients received first-line sunitinib or pazopanib with a median PFS of 17 months (95% CI 14-20). After a median follow-up of 16 months, the median PFS and OS was not yet reached. The current study did achieve its primary endpoint based on the 10-month PFS of 71.4%. 3 (14.3%) patients had confirmed partial responses and 14 (66.7%) had stable disease. No grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were observed; the most frequent grade 1/2 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (57.1%), fatigue (57.1%), GI (33%) and skin (19%) toxicity. 7 patients had dose-escalation of axitinib and 1 patient had dose reduction. Conclusions: The encouraging PFS and favorable safety profile observed in FavorAx study support the administration of axitinib in mRCC patients with favourable IMDC risk and a history of prior sunitinib or pazopanib. Clinical trial information: NCT02700568.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (34) ◽  
pp. 3851-3858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans J. Hammers ◽  
Elizabeth R. Plimack ◽  
Jeffrey R. Infante ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Antitumor Activity ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

Bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha versus interferon-alpha monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of overall survival for CALGB 90206

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA5019-LBA5019 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. I. Rini ◽  
S. Halabi ◽  
J. Rosenberg ◽  
W. M. Stadler ◽  
D. A. Vaena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Interferon Alpha ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I

LBA5019 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) plus interferon alpha (IFN) demonstrated a superior objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) versus IFN monotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in 2 phase III trials. The primary objective of CALGB 90206 was to compare overall survival (OS) for advanced RCC patients receiving BEV plus IFN or IFN alone. Methods: Patients with previously-untreated, metastatic RCC with a clear cell component and Karnofsky performance status of ≥ 70% were eligible. Patients were prospectively randomized to receive BEV (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN as monotherapy. Randomization was stratified by nephrectomy status and number of MSKCC adverse features. The primary endpoint was OS, defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. The trial was designed with 86% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76, assuming a two-sided type I error of 0.05. The primary analysis was an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic, and the present analysis was based on the target number of 588 deaths. Results: Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled; 369 pts to BEV plus IFN and 363 pts to IFN monotherapy. The median duration of follow up among censored patients was 46.2 months (IQR=45.2–48.2). The median OS was 18.3 months (95% CI; 16.5–22.5) for BEV plus IFN and 17.4 months (95% CI; 14.4–20.0, unstratified log rank p = 0.097) for IFN monotherapy. The stratified HR was 0.86 (95% CI; 0.73–1.01) for BEV plus IFN compared to IFN (stratified log-rank p = 0.069). The median OS for BEV plus IFN versus IFN was 32.5 vs. 33.5 months (p = 0.524) for MSKCC good risk, 17.7 vs. 16.1 months (p = 0.174) for intermediate risk and 6.6 vs. 5.7 months (p = 0.245) for poor risk patients. The median PFS was 8.4 months vs. 4.9 months (p<0.0001). Fifty-three percent of patients received subsequent systemic therapy. Conclusions: The addition of BEV to IFN significantly improves the objective response rate and PFS versus IFN monotherapy. Overall survival favored the BEV plus IFN arm, not meeting pre-defined criteria for significance. [Table: see text]

First-line antiangiogenics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 44-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoît Rousseau ◽  
Emmanuelle Kempf ◽  
Gaelle Desamericq ◽  
Emilie Boissier ◽  
Marie Chaubet-Houdu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Line

Effects of adding necitumumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1331-1342
Author(s):  
Irena Ilic ◽  
Sandra Sipetic ◽  
Jovan Grujicic ◽  
Milena Ilic
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival

Introduction Almost half of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Our aim was to assess the effects of adding necitumumab to chemotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Material and methods A comprehensive literature search was performed according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate and adverse events were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data and pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Results The meta-analysis included four randomized clinical trials with 2074 patients. The pooled results showed significant improvement for overall survival (HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.95), p = 0.004) when necitumumab was added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No statistically significant improvement was noted for progression-free survival and objective response rate (HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–1.01), p = 0.06 and OR = 1.46 (95% CI 0.90–2.38), p = 0.13, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no benefit in overall survival and objective response rate. Patients with advanced NSCLC who received necitumumab were at the highest odds of developing a skin rash (OR = 14.50 (95% CI 3.16–66.43), p = 0.0006) and hypomagnesaemia (OR = 2.77 (95% CI 2.23–3.45), p < 0.00001), while the OR for any grade ≥3 adverse event was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28–1.87, p < 0.00001). Conclusions The addition of necitumumab to standard chemotherapy in a first-line setting in patients with stage IV NSCLC results in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, while the results were not significant for progression-free survival and objective response rate.

First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Immuno-oncology Era: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-251.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro ◽  
Andrey Soares ◽  
Márcio Debiasi ◽  
Fabio A. Schutz ◽  
Fernando Cotait Maluf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document