Efficacy and Safety of Approved First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatments in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

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.

Comparison of cutaneous adverse events between second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors and imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) often experience cutaneous adverse events, such as rashes and pruritus. In this study, we aimed to compare the risks of cutaneous adverse events between imatinib- and second-generation TKI-treated patients with CML.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Paired reviewers independently obtained studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library published until 15 March 2022. The following terms were searched: (Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic and BCR-ABL Positive), chronic myeloid leukemia, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, TKI, imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, and radotinib. Two independent reviewers screened the results and selected articles on cutaneous adverse events. RevMan 5.4 and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to perform the meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Eleven trials involving 4502 patients were analyzed in this study. Patients treated with second-generation TKIs were significantly more likely to experience cutaneous adverse events than those treated with imatinib with a relative risk (RR) of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], [1.25-2.09]). Except dasatinib (RR [95% CI], 1.39 [0.75-2.56]), the risk of adverse events was more with second-generation TKIs than with imatinib as follows: nilotinib (2.11 [1.53-2.90]), bosutinib (1.41 [1.07-1.86]), and radotinib (1.87 [1.33-2.63]). Rash was the most common cutaneous adverse event that was observed in 21.6% of cases across all grades, followed by pruritus (5.7%) and alopecia (4.3%). In conclusion, our findings suggest that cutaneous adverse events occur more frequently with second-generation TKIs than with imatinib. Therefore, effective management of the cutaneous outcome is necessary to achieve high patient adherence to medication and successful treatment with TKIs.

Comparative safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. Results: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. Conclusion: The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.

ExPert ConsEnsus on the management of Advanced clear-cell RenaL celL carcinoma: INDIAn Perspective (PEARL-INDIA)

In advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC), systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment, with no or little role for surgery in these patients. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune-oncological (IOs) therapies, either alone or in combination, are recommended in these patients depending on patient and tumour factors. The sequencing of therapies is critical in RCC because the choice of subsequent line therapy is heavily dependent on the response and duration of the previous treatment. There are additional barriers to RCC treatment in India. Immunotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment in ccRCC, but it is prohibitively expensive and not always reimbursed, effectively putting it out of reach for the vast majority of eligible patients in India. Furthermore, in advanced RCC (particularly the clear cell variety), Indian oncologists consider the disease burden of the patients, which is particularly dependent on the quantum of the disease load, clinical symptoms, and performance status of the patient, before deciding on treatment. There are no India-specific guidelines for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) treatment or the positioning and sequencing of molecules in the management of advanced ccRCC that take these country-specific issues into account. The current consensus article provides expert recommendations and treatment algorithms based on existing clinical evidence, which will be useful to specialists managing advanced ccRCC.

Analysis of Anti-Angiogenesis-Related Adverse Events Associated with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have evaluated anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events involving oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma using real-world data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the incidence, patterns, and impact on the dose intensity of anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events associated with the use of VEGFR-TKIs in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma using real-world data.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included patients with a diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib at a tertiary hospital in South Korea. We categorized the patients into those who had not previously received a VEGFR-TKI (VEGFR-TKI-naive) and those who had previously received a VEGFR-TKI (VEGFR-TKI-experienced). Anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events were defined as hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, thrombosis, hypothyroidism, and left ventricular dysfunction, which were rated "possible" or higher based on a causality assessment scale.

RESULTS

Among a total of 988 patients, 674 patients were VEGFR-TKI-naïve and 314 patients were VEGFR-TKI-experienced. Anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events of any grade and severe adverse events occurred in 65.1 and 34.6% of VEGFR-TKI-naïve patients and 54.8 and 36.0% of VEGFR-TKI-experienced patients, respectively. Regardless of treatment history, the most common adverse event was hypertension, with 48.6% in VEGFR-TKI-naïve patients and 35.0% in VEGFR-TKI-experienced patients. For VEGFR-TKI-experienced patients, the overall rate of anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events for sorafenib (24.3%) was lower than that for other VEGFR-TKIs (p < 0.05). Patients experiencing anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events were 1.6 times more likely to receive a low relative dose intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half and more than one-third of patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving VEGFR-TKIs experienced any and severe anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events, respectively. The relative dose intensity of VEGFR-TKI treatment was associated with anti-angiogenesis-related adverse events.

Comparing efficacy and safety of first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A Bayesian network meta-regression analysis

Background

This Bayesian network meta-regression analysis provides a head-to-head comparison of first-line therapeutic immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combinations for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using median follow-up time as covariate.

Methods

We searched Six databases for a comprehensive analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of different interventions at the same time node by Bayesian network meta-analysis. Bayesian network meta-regression analysis was performed on objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥ 3) and the hazard ratios (HR) associated with PFS and OS, with the median follow-up time as the covariate.

Results

Eventually a total of 22 RCTs reporting 11,090 patients with 19 interventions. Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab (LenPem) shows dominance of PFS, and Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib (PemAxi) shows superiority in OS at each time point. After meta-regression analysis, for HRs of PFS, LenPem shows advantages; for HRs of OS, PemAxi shows superiority; For ORR, LenPem provides better results. For AEs (grade ≥ 3), Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is better.

Conclusion

Considering the lower toxicity and the higher quality of life, PemAxi should be recommended as the optimal therapy in treating mRCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD4202236775.

Patient-reported experiences with side effects of kidney cancer therapies and corresponding information flow

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have improved over recent years. Various therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma are currently approved for first and successive lines. Having various treatment options makes it important to reflect how patients experience side effects in the real-world setting. So far, data on the side effects of these treatments have only been collected within clinical trials, and have been mostly assessed by the investigator and not as patient-reported outcomes. Our aim was to determine patient-reported experiences of side effects in the real-world setting and to evaluate the doctor-patient communication regarding side effects. Data were collected via an anonymous, voluntary online survey given to members of a support group for RCC; the questionnaire was completed by 104 mRCC patients.

RESULTS

89.1% of participants were suffering from side effects of any grade. These appeared to be higher for patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared to those treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (98.4% vs. 68.4%). However, information on side effects is scarce: 4.0% had never heard anything about them while only 18.8% of participants received detailed information on possible side effects. Although 85.6% of participants reported side effects to their physician, 34.6% did not encounter an improvement. Limitations of the study include the design as an online questionnaire and the small sample, consisting only of members of a support group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences can be seen between patient-reported side effects within our survey and those based on clinical trials. A shift towards more patient-reported outcomes is needed. In addition, patients seeking the advice of their physician on side effects are in need of more-or better-information and support.

Optimizing targeted drug selection in combination therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of safety

OBJECTIVE

For patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the dose of targeted agents was recommended in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a network meta-analysis to describe a categorized safety ranking profile and assess the adaptability of the combination options of targeted agents.

METHODS

The targeted agents refer to vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials comparing these drugs were enrolled in a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical trials with 11 treatments and 10,615 patients were included. For grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), compared with placebo, lenvatinib plus everolimus showed worse safety than all other treatments except for lenvatinib (placebo vs. OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.78). Everolimus was generally the safest agent (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.50-3.14). Sorafenib arose the least renal AEs (placebo vs. OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06-11.64), whereas lenvatinib plus everolimus had the highest risk of renal toxicity (placebo vs. 0.17 95% CI 0.01-1.02). For gastrointestinal symptoms, everolimus was related to much lower toxicity than other agents. In the respiratory safety analysis, tivozanib (placebo vs. OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.31) and axitinib (OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.26-9.22) were the riskiest agents. In terms of hepatobiliary (placebo vs. OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09-2.10) and hemotoxicity (placebo vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.14-7.68) related AEs, lenvatinib was found to be the safest treatment compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus, with the best safety of grade ≥ 3, gastrointestinal, and respiratory AEs, was more likely to be considered for combination therapies. Lenvatinib appears to be the safest for blood/lymphatic and hepatobiliary AEs. For patients with renal disorders, sorafenib arises the least renal toxicity AEs. This study will guide treatment options and optimize the trial design for advanced or metastatic RCC.

Improved overall survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in the era of modern tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors: results from a real-life, population-based Austrian study comprising three decades of follow-up

BACKGROUND

The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has substantially advanced over the last three decades, whereby data from controlled clinical trials indicate significant improvements regarding patients' overall survival (OS) in highly selected patient cohorts. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of potentially game changing drugs on patients' outcomes by comparing three different historical mRCC treatment eras.

METHODS

In all, 914 mRCC patients who were diagnosed between July 1985 and September 2020 were included into this observational study and assigned to three different treatment eras ['cytokine', 'first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)', and 'modern TKIs/immunotherapy'] based on the EMA approval dates of sunitinib (July 2006) and nivolumab (June 2015) in mRCC treatment. OS was considered the primary study endpoint. Kaplan-Meier analyses, log-rank tests, and uni- and multivariable Cox regression models were performed.

RESULTS

OS was significantly longer in patients of the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era (median OS not reached) as compared to the cytokine (2.4 years) and first-generation TKIs era (1.7 years, all p < 0.001). Moreover, patients of the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era demonstrated a significantly better prognosis [hazard ratio (HR): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.55, p < 0.001] compared to those of the cytokine era, while no statistically significant difference was observed between the cytokine and the first-generation TKIs era cohort (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.89-1.41, p = 0.341). Subgroup analyses stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups showed a significantly longer OS in the modern TKIs/immunotherapy era as compared to first-generation TKIs and cytokines across all IMDC risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Significant advances in the systemic medical treatment of mRCC during the recent decade and the introduction of immunotherapy exerted a major impact on patient outcomes in terms of OS in a real-life population.

Combination Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: the Best Choice for Every Patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Therapeutic alternatives to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are increasing, and combination therapies, including antiangiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase/mTOR/immune checkpoint inhibitors, are identified as the gold standard driven by the results of recent clinical studies. Nevertheless, the real-world RCC population is very heterogeneous, with categories of patients not represented in the enrolled trial population who may not benefit more from these treatments. The purpose of this expert review is to assess the rationale on which tyrosine kinase alone may still be a viable first-line treatment option for some subgroups of patients with mRCC.

RECENT FINDINGS

The first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy can still be considered an effective tool for addressing selected mRCCs, as highlighted by the successful outcome in a range of subjects such as favorable-risk patients, the ones suffering from autoimmune diseases, those with pancreatic or lung metastases, or previously undergoing organ transplantation and elderly subjects. Some selected categories of patients may still benefit from monotherapy with TKI, and smart sequential therapies can also be considered instead of a combination strategy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also act as immune modulator agents, boosting the immune response to facilitate and potentiate the therapeutic effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.

Safety and Efficacy of Tivozanib in First-Line mRCC: A Multicenter Compassionate-Use Study (Meet-Uro 16)

INTRODUCTION

Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR-1), VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3, recently approved in Europe for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of safety and activity of tivozanib administered at 1.34 mg daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off) within a compassionate-use program to patients with mRCC with no prior systemic treatment in Italy.

RESULTS

From August 2018 to April 2019, 64 patients have started tivozanib in 9 oncology units. The median age was 67.5 years (range 40-85), 62.5% males. According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, 27.1% of patients were good prognosis, 57.6% intermediate, and 15.3% poor. Primary tumor had been removed in 71.9% of patients. Histology was clear cell 89%, papillary 4.7%, and unclassified 6.3%. The response rate was 34.4%, stable disease 40.6%, and progression 15.6%. Grade 3-4 toxicities were 7.8% hypertension, 4.7% anemia, 3.1% mucositis, 3.1% asthenia, 1.6% diarrhea, 1.6% anorexia, 1.6% worsening of renal function, and 3.1% cardiac events. Dose reduction to 0.89 mg was applied to 17.2% of patients, and the discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 5.8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months, with 68.7% of patients alive at 12 months. The developing of hypertension predicted increased progression-free survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 0.128; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Tivozanib showed good activity and favorable safety profile in a real-world cohort of unselected patients with mRCC. Predictive biomarkers of response to antiangiogenic therapy are urgently needed in order to identify RCC patients who could still receive a monotherapy with VEGFR inhibitors in the first line.

Comorbidity and frailty assessment in renal cell carcinoma patients

PURPOSE

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) incidence has considerably increased during the last decades without any real impact on age-standardized mortality. It questions the relevance of aggressive treatments carrying potential side effects. Conservative management should be considered for frail patients. Comorbidity and frailty assessment in RCC patients is paramount before engaging a treatment.

METHODS

Narrative, non-systematic review based on PubMed and EMBASE search with the terms "renal neoplasm", "elderly, frail", "comorbidities", "active surveillance", "metastatic". The selection was restricted to articles written in English.

RESULTS

Comorbidity and frailty assessment go along with the cancer-specific aggressivity and intervention risks assessment. In localized disease, several standardized algorithms offer patient health evaluation to define how suitable the patient would be for curative treatment. The pre-operative American Society of Anesthesiologists and the age-adjusted Charlson's scores are the most widely used. At the metastatic stage, drug combinations based on immunotherapies and targeted therapies improved cancer outcomes at the price of significant toxicities. Frail patients are not always suitable for such strategies. Commonly used scores like the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center integrate features to define patients' risk groups, more specifically the Karnofsky Performance Score is an easy way to document the frailty.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidity and frailty have to be assessed at any stage of the RCC disease based on a standardized scoring system to define the most suitable treatment strategy ranging from surveillance to aggressive treatment.

A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

CONTEXT

Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations.

OBJECTIVE

To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons.

PATIENT SUMMARY

It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published.

Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular risks among nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs in patients with solid tumors: a Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) as anticancer drugs in patients with solid tumors.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials. We have included 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with nine VEGFR-TKIs Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs used to treat patients with solid tumors. To evaluate the trials’ risk of bias, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was assessed. A direct comparison was assessed by RevMan5.3 software, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested by the I² statistic and Chi-square test for P value. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software, calculated OR along with corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). The model’s convergence was evaluated by the potential scale reduced factor (PSRF). Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed by the “node-splitting” method.

Results

In this network meta-analysis, a total of 20,027 patients from 45 randomized controlled trials and associated with nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib), were enrolled. Findings indicated that lenvatinib had the most significant probability of provoking all grades cardiovascular incident and hypertension, followed by vandetanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and nintedanib. The nine agent’s severe cardiovascular and severe hypertension risk was probably similar. The ranking probability of cardiac toxicity shows that vandetanib ranked most likely to have the highest risk for cardiotoxicity among all the VEGFR-TKIs reviewed, followed by pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, sunitinib. In contrast, regorafenib and nintedanib did not exhibit an increased risk of cardiac damage.

Conclusions

The association between the nine VEGFR-TKIs with potential cardiotoxicity occurrence was reviewed. Both the regorafenib and nintedanib did not display detectable signs of cardiotoxic damage. In contrast, lenvatinib and vandetanib are ranked to have the most severe cardiotoxicity side impacts. These results may provide information for clinical practice guidelines, implementing strategies in selecting the adequate VEGFR-TKIs, and understanding the cardiovascular toxicity inflicted by the VEGFR-TKIs.

PROSPERO identifier

CRD 42,020,167,307.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-021-03521-w.