Comparison of Two Prognostic Models in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cancer Treated with Sunitinib: a Retrospective, Registry-Based Study

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.

Objectives

The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Methods

The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Results

The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the First-Line Treatment of Intermediate/Poor-Risk Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus both sunitinib and pazopanib for the treatment of first-line unresectable advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) from a healthcare system perspective in Switzerland.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model, consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death, was constructed. Efficacy estimates were based on data from the CheckMate 214 trial (NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 42 months. Two Swiss oncologists were consulted to determine disease management resource use. Costs were derived from the Swiss tariff lists for outpatient (TARMED Online Browser 1.09) and inpatient (2020 data from Swiss diagnosis-related groups) treatments. Drug acquisition costs (ex-factory prices) were obtained from the March 2020 price list published by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Treatment-specific EQ-5D-3L-based utilities were derived from CheckMate 214 using a French value set as a proxy for Switzerland. The model utilized a 1-week cycle length and a 40-year time horizon, with costs and effects discounted by 3.0% per annum. One-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analysis, and scenario analyses assessed the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded incremental 1.43 life-years and 1.36 lifetime discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to sunitinib and pazopanib at an additional cost of 147,453 Swiss Francs (CHF) and CHF145,643, respectively. With an incremental cost-utility ratio of CHF108,326 per QALY gained versus sunitinib, and CHF106,996 per QALY gained versus pazopanib, the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination can be considered a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients with aRCC in Switzerland, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF200,000. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the deterministic results.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab, which represents one of the standard-of-care first-line treatments for intermediate- or poor-risk aRCC patients, is a life-extending and cost-effective treatment option for patients in Switzerland.

Prognosis of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in the targeted therapy era

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to investigate prognosis and validate prognostic models [Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Data Consortium (IMDC), and Japanese metastatic renal cancer (JMRC) models] in the targeted therapy era in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 692 patients who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2008 to August 2018 in the Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group database. Nivolumab as sequential therapy was widely used. Other immune checkpoint inhibitors were excluded from this study.

RESULTS

The median overall survival (95% confident interval) in all, MSKCC favorable, intermediate, and poor risk patients was 41.0 months (33.9-46.8), not reached (63.5 to not estimable), 46.8 months (37.1-52.9), and 10.4 months (8.9-14.4), respectively. The median overall survival (95% confident interval) in IMDC favorable, intermediate, and poor risk patients was not reached (61.6 to not estimable), 47.4 months (41.4-56.5), and 11.5 (9.9-16.3), respectively. The c-index of the MSKCC, IMDC, and JMRC models calculated at mRCC diagnosis was 0.680, 0.689, and 0.700, respectively. No statistical differences were found in the c-index among the models.

CONCLUSION

While the real-world overall survival in Japanese patients with mRCC in the targeted therapy era improved compared to that previously reported in the cytokine era, there was no clear difference in the survival of poor risk patients between these eras. There were no differences in the superiority among the models.

The clinical significance of routine risk categorization in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and its impact on treatment decision-making: a systematic review

Aim: To analyze responses to first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment stratified by risk criteria. Patients & methods: Clinical trials and observational studies of patients aged ≥18 years, published January 2005-May 2019, were identified via Ovid from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Trials Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extracted included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: 47/1269 articles met eligibility criteria. Most studies stratified patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (n = 19) or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (n = 21). PFS, OS and ORR varied according to risk group. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + axitinib, ipilimumab + nivolumab and avelumab + axitinib were most effective across all risk groups. Favorable-risk patients benefit from sunitinib treatment.

Outcomes According to MSKCC Risk Score with Focus on the Intermediate-Risk Group in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with First-Line Sunitinib: A Retrospective Analysis of 2390 Patients

Background: The Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic model has been widely used for the prediction of the outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with systemic therapies, however, data from large studies are limited. This study aimed at the evaluation of the impact of the MSKCC score on the outcomes in mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib, with a focus on the intermediate-risk group. Methods: Clinical data from 2390 mRCC patients were analysed retrospectively. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analysed according to the MSKCC risk score. Results: ORR, median PFS, and OS for patients with one risk factor were 26.7%, 10.1, and 28.2 months versus 18.7%, 6.2, and 16.2 months, respectively, for those with two risk factors (ORR: p = 0.001, PFS: p < 0.001, OS: p < 0.001). ORR, median PFS, and OS were 33.0%, 17.0, and 44.7 months versus 24.1%, 9.0, and 24.1 months versus 13.4%, 4.5, and 9.5 months in the favourable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively (ORR: p < 0.001, PFS: p < 0.001, OS: p < 0.001). Conclusions: The results of the present retrospective study demonstrate the suitability of the MSKCC model in mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib and suggest different outcomes between patients with one or two risk factors.

Contemporary treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma is the 14th most common cancer worldwide. It is a heterogeneous group of histopathological entities, of which the most common is clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Approximately 20-30% of patients present initially with metastatic disease and an additional 20% will progress after radical surgical treatment. Metastatic disease that is non-feasible for surgical treatment remains incurable. Numerous studies have demonstrated that-with the introduction of new drugs-the treatment outcomes of metastatic disease have improved. The development of new therapies as well as the optimization and individualization of procedures allow us to hope for further progress in this area.

Renal cell carcinomas mass of <4 cm are not always indolent

Context:

The rate of progression to metastatic disease in patients undergoing active surveillance for small renal tumors varies in the literature between 1% and 8%.

Aims:

This study aims to examine the incidence of metastasis in small renal tumors of <4 cm in a Danish cohort.

Settings and Design:

Retrospective.

Materials and Methods:

Data on 106 patients who were diagnosed with renal cancer (RCC) of <4 cm by CT scan from January 2005 to December 2013 were collected retrospectively in January 2016 from patient charts and analyzed.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results:

The mean age was 62 years (range 40–84 years). Two patients (1.9%) had metastases at the time of diagnosis. Radical nephrectomy was performed in 74 patients (70%); of them, one patients (1.4%) experienced late metastasis (LM). Partial nephrectomy was performed in 30 patients (28%); of them, two patients (6.7%) experienced LM. The mean time to LM was 27 ± 12 months (95% confidence interval: 4–56). CSS rates were 98%, 97%, and 97% for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, while OS rates were 96%, 92%, and 86% for 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, tumor size (P = 0.04), pT3a (P = 0.0017), and patient's age (P = 0.02) at the time of diagnosis were significant predictors of LM.

Conclusions:

Even small renal carcinomas may be aggressive, and caution should be taken when offering active surveillance.

Repositioning Bevacizumab: A Promising Therapeutic Strategy for Cartilage Regeneration

Drug discovery and development has been garnering an increasing trend of research due to the growing incidence of the diverse types of diseases. Recently, drug repositioning, also known as drug repurposing, has been emerging parallel to cancer and tissue engineering studies. Drug repositioning involves the application of currently approved or even abandoned drugs as alternative treatments to other diseases or as biomaterials in other fields including cell therapy and tissue engineering. In this review, the advancement of the antiangiogenesis drugs that were used as treatment for cancer and other diseases, with particular focus on bevacizumab, will be described. This will include an overview of the nature and progression of osteoarthritis (OA), one of the leading global degenerative diseases that cause morbidity, and the development of its therapeutic strategies. In addition, this will also feature the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that are commonly prescribed for OA and the benefits of repositioning bevacizumab as alternative treatments for other diseases and as biomaterials for cartilage regeneration. To date, a few number of studies, employing different modes of administration and varying dosages in diverse animal models, have shown that bevacizumab can be used as a signal and can promote both in vitro and in vivo cartilage regeneration. However, other antiangiogenesis drugs and their effects in chondrogenesis and cartilage regeneration are also worth investigating.