"Real world" treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a joint community-academic cohort: progression-free survival over three lines of therapy

Sorafenib exhibits lower toxicity and comparable efficacy to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the safety and efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), to provide evidence-based support for clinical decision-making regarding rational drug use.

METHODS

Until May 10, 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify clinical studies comparing sorafenib with sunitinib as first-line treatment for mRCC. The literature was screened, data extracted, and quality evaluated independently by 2 researchers. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4 software.

RESULTS

A total of 3741 patients were enrolled in 20 studies. The meta-analysis results indicated that there were no significant differences in the 2- and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (P > .05). The disease control rate (DCR) was comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05), while the objective response rate (ORR) was higher in the sunitinib group (P = .03). However, subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in ORR, DCR, 2- and 5-year PFS, and OS rates between sorafenib and sunitinib among both Asian populations as well as European and American populations (P > .05). In terms of drug-related adverse events, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 hypertension, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in the sorafenib group compared to the sunitinib group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

In the first-line treatment of mRCC, sorafenib exhibits comparable efficacy to sunitinib but with lower toxicity.

Real-world Evidence of Diagnostic Testing and Treatment Patterns in US Patients With Breast Cancer With Implications for Treatment Biomarkers From RNA Sequencing Data

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

We performed a retrospective analysis of longitudinal real-world data (RWD) from patients with breast cancer to replicate results from clinical studies and demonstrate the feasibility of generating real-world evidence. We also assessed the value of transcriptome profiling as a complementary tool for determining molecular subtypes.

METHODS

De-identified, longitudinal data were analyzed after abstraction from records of patients with breast cancer in the United States (US) structured and stored in the Tempus database. Demographics, clinical characteristics, molecular subtype, treatment history, and survival outcomes were assessed according to strict qualitative criteria. RNA sequencing and clinical data were used to predict molecular subtypes and signaling pathway enrichment.

RESULTS

The clinical abstraction cohort (n = 4000) mirrored the demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer in the US, indicating feasibility for RWE generation. Among patients who were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+), 74.2% received anti-HER2 therapy, with ∼70% starting within 3 months of a positive test result. Most non-treated patients were early stage. In this RWD set, 31.7% of patients with HER2+ immunohistochemistry (IHC) had discordant fluorescence in situ hybridization results recorded. Among patients with multiple HER2 IHC results at diagnosis, 18.6% exhibited intra-test discordance. Through development of a whole-transcriptome model to predict IHC receptor status in the molecular sequenced cohort (n = 400), molecular subtypes were resolved for all patients (n = 36) with equivocal HER2 statuses from abstracted test results. Receptor-related signaling pathways were differentially enriched between clinical molecular subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

RWD in the Tempus database mirrors the overall population of patients with breast cancer in the US. These results suggest that real-time, RWD analyses are feasible in a large, highly heterogeneous database. Furthermore, molecular data may aid deficiencies and discrepancies observed from breast cancer RWD.

Clinical use of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

In recent years, there have been increased incidences of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. Owing to the insensitivity to traditional therapy, targeted therapy becomes a possible alternative strategy. Over the past decade, the development of targeted treatments for metastatic RCC has advanced considerably. Several studies have shown that the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway is an important mediator for the occurrence and development of RCC, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) have been considered optimal therapeutic options for RCC. Six small molecules that inhibit VEGFR1/2/3, namely, sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of RCC. Additionally, clinical trials assessing seven TKIs that target VEGFRs are currently in progress. To some extent, these drugs improve quality of life and prolong the survival of patients. This paper presents a review of the systemic targeted therapies against VEGFRs that have been approved so far or are undergoing trials as treatments for RCC.

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients.

Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib.

Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

The Current and Evolving Landscape of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGFRs), as well as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immune checkpoint receptor programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling pathway have improved clinical outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) pazopanib and sunitinib are FDA-approved first-line treatment options for advanced RCC; however, other treatment options in this setting are available, including the recently approved combination of nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 [CTLA-4]) for patients with intermediate or poor risk. Unfortunately, treatment guideline recommendations provide little guidance to aid first-line treatment choice. In addition, several ongoing randomized phase III trials of investigational first-line regimens may complicate the RCC treatment paradigm if these agents gain approval. This article reviews clinical trial and real-world evidence for currently approved and investigational first-line treatment regimens for advanced RCC and provides clinical evidence to aid first-line treatment selection. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as first-line treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, the treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving. The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was recently approved for intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and other combination strategies and novel first-line agents will likely be introduced soon.

Real life patterns of care and progression free survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and survival outcomes in randomized trials may be different from those in real-life clinical practice. The objective of this study was to describe treatment pathways, safety, drug costs and survival in patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) in a real world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using IQVIA real world oncology cross-sectional survey data, a retrospective treatment database collecting anonymized patient-level data in Europe. Data on treatment naïve patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy in France were extracted for the period 2005-2015. Descriptive analyses were performed on treatment patterns, patient characteristics and safety profiles. Progression Free Survival (PFS) was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

One thousand three hundred thirty-one patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy were included. The male/female sex ratio was 2.5 and 66% of patients were aged > 60 years. 83% of patients had clear cell adenocarcinoma. 83% of patients underwent a surgical procedure, 10% had radiotherapy. In patients who received a first-line targeted therapy, 73% received sunitinib. The mean time from diagnosis to first-line treatment by targeted therapies in patients initially diagnosed with metastatic disease was 3.3 months [95% CI:2.5-4.1]. In patients who received second-line targeted therapy n = 257 (19%), the most frequently observed treatment sequences were sunitinib-everolimus (33%) and sunitinib-sorafenib (27%). Adverse events data were available for 501 patients and adverse events were documented in 70% of patients, most frequently diarrhoea. The overall median PFS was 13 months [95% CI:11.5-16].

CONCLUSION

Patient characteristics were consistent with the literature. Treatment patterns appeared to follow current practice guidelines. Despite some variations, PFS in our study seems to be consistent with findings from other real world studies. Nevertheless, PFS results were higher than those observed in clinical trials. Due to the use of cross-sectional data, PFS in our study should be interpreted with caution.

Real-world costs and outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with targeted therapies: a cohort study from the French health insurance database

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe treatment patterns, survival, healthcare use and costs in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a real-world setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used the National Health Insurance (NHI) claims database for the Ile-de-France region to perform a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with mRCC treated by a first-line targeted therapy. Treatment naïve patients were identified combining the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes (C64 & C77-C79) and a first prescription of targeted therapies. Descriptive analyses were performed on treatment patterns and patients' characteristics. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Kaplan-Meier actuarial survival analysis. All healthcare resource use and costs were estimated on a per patient per month (PPPM) basis (€2016).

RESULTS

A total of 327 treatment naïve patients with mRCC were included. Median follow-up was 13.4 months. Sunitinib accounted for 73% of first-line treatments. The most frequently observed treatment sequence for the first two lines was sunitinib-everolimus (16%; n = 137) and for the first three lines sunitinib-everolimus-axitinib (20%; n = 49). First-line PFS for sunitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib and other was 8.7, 6.2, 10.7, 5.7 and 11.2 months, respectively. Median OS for patients treated by first-line sunitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib and other was respectively 14.7, 8.1, 21.1, 8.9 and 14.0 months. From the NHI's perspective, the mean PPPM was €5546. The average PPPM in pre-progression was €5597 compared to €5541 beyond progression of the disease. Oral targeted therapies accounted for 53% of the total PPPM.

CONCLUSION

This descriptive study showed that the economic burden of mRCC is substantial with oral targeted therapies accounting for 53% of the PPPM. OS and PFS in real life are poorer than observed in clinical trials.

Real-World Axitinib Use in the United States: A Retrospective Study Using Linked Datasets

BACKGROUND

Axitinib is approved by the FDA for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure of 1 previous systemic therapy and is distributed primarily through specialty pharmacies. Although the efficacy and safety of axitinib have been established in clinical trials, information from real-world populations will help to elucidate patients' clinical profiles and utilization patterns. Prescription records alone provide limited information on patient characteristics and other treatment experiences. Expansion of these data with information from medical claims databases should yield observational real-world data that may help to optimize therapy for patients with advanced RCC.

OBJECTIVE

To link information from a specialty pharmacy database with information from medical and pharmacy claims databases to characterize real-world treatment patterns of axitinib as subsequent systemic therapy in patients with RCC in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study linked de-identified patient-level data from 22 specialty pharmacies that dispense axitinib with databases of longitudinal medical and pharmacy claims. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of RCC (> 1 claim for RCC defined as ICD-9-CM code 189.0), previously received > 1 systemic therapy, had the first prescription for axitinib dispensed between May 2012 and April 2013 (index), and had consistent claims reporting by pharmacies and physicians. All treatment data were used to calculate cycle, line of therapy, and duration of therapy; prescription data were used to determine axitinib dose modifications. Multivariate and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of patient/prescriber characteristics on duration of axitinib therapy and dose modifications, respectively.

RESULTS

In all, 1,175 patients met the study inclusion criteria and had data present in specialty pharmacy and claims databases. Most patients (74%) were male, and 68% were aged 55-74 years. Mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2.7 (± 1.1); the most common comorbidity was hypertension (in 199 patients, 17%). Based on Rx-Risk-V, the most frequent concomitant conditions were pain (40%) and ischemic heart disease/hypertension (30%); the most frequent concomitant medications were antihypertensive medications (46%) and opiates (40%). Most prescribers (63%) were affiliated with an academic center, and all U.S. geographic regions were represented. In all, 847 patients (72%) had commercial insurance. Axitinib was prescribed as second-line therapy in 659 patients (56%), as third-line therapy in 326 patients (28%), and as fourth-line or later therapy in 190 patients (16%). In the overall population, mean (SD) duration of axitinib therapy was 168.6 (± 148.4) days. Axitinib treatment duration was 21 days longer in males than females (P = 0.013); 28 days longer in patients in the Northeast than in the Midwest or West (P = 0.010 and P = 0.016, respectively); and 26 days longer in patients receiving baseline hypothyroidism treatment (P = 0.004). In patients receiving second-line axitinib, the most common first-line therapy was sunitinib (56%), followed by pazopanib (16%) and everolimus (12%). Mean (SD) duration of second-line axitinib treatment was 172.3 (± 150.6) days and ranged from 127 days in patients who previously received temsirolimus to 196 days in those who previously received sorafenib. Of 1,025 patients who initiated axitinib at the standard 5 mg twice daily starting dose, 70% remained at this dose throughout treatment, whereas 10% had a dose increase. Younger age and gender (male) were associated with dose increases (OR = 0.958, 95% CI = 0.941-0.975 and OR = 0.573, 95% CI = 0.364-0.903, respectively). Baseline hypothyroidism treatment was associated with dose decreases and increases (OR = 1.662, 95% CI = 1.088-2.539 and OR = 2.149, 95% CI = 1.353-3.413, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the feasibility and utility of linking specialty pharmacy data to other longitudinal databases to better understand patient, provider, and reimbursement characteristics. These data provide insight into routine clinical use of axitinib as subsequent RCC therapy in the United States in the period following FDA approval, as well as additional information on sequencing of targeted agents in patients with advanced RCC.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Pfizer. MacLean and Cisar are employees of and hold stock in Pfizer. At the time of this analysis, Mehle, Eremina, and Quigley were employees of IMS Health who were paid consultants to Pfizer during the conduct of this study and in connection with the development of this manuscript. MacLean and Cisar contributed to study design and manuscript development. Mehle, Eremina, and Quigley contributed to study design, analysis, and manuscript development.

Sequence of treatment in locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The spectrum of drugs that have shown activity in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to a debate on the optimal sequence of treatments. There is agreement on recommending targeted agents as the standard of care in this disease. Uncertainty, however, remains on the best first-line drug choice. Physicians and patients may select sunitinib, bevacizumab in combination with interferon-alpha (IFN-α), pazopanib, or-in poor risk patients-temsirolimus. There are also a variety of therapies with proven efficacy on hand in the second-line setting: sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib, and everolimus. While most randomized RCC trials assessed progression free survival (PFS) as primary endpoint, some agents were shown to improve median overall survival (OS), and given in sequence they have extended the life expectancy of RCC patients from 13 months in the cytokine era to over 30 months. Despite the progress made, there are sobering aspects to the oncologic success story in RCC, as the new treatments do not obtain an objective response or disease stabilization (SD) in all patients. There are also as yet no predictors to select patients who might benefit and those who are primary resistant to specific drugs, and ultimately almost all patients will experience disease progression. Bearing inevitable treatment failure in mind, availability of further drugs and switching therapy while the patient is in a condition to continue pharmacotherapy is essential. Of note, depending on the setting, only 33-59% of patients receive second-line treatment. In this review we present data on first-, second-, and third-line treatment in RCC, and discuss the difficulties in their interpretation in the context of treatment sequence. We summarize biological aspects and discuss mechanisms of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy and their implications for treatment selection.

MET Expression in Primary and Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Implications of Correlative Biomarker Assessment to MET Pathway Inhibitors

Aims. Inhibitors of the MET pathway hold promise in the treatment for metastatic kidney cancer. Assessment of predictive biomarkers may be necessary for appropriate patient selection. Understanding MET expression in metastases and the correlation to the primary site is important, as distant tissue is not always available. Methods and Results. MET immunofluorescence was performed using automated quantitative analysis and a tissue microarray containing matched nephrectomy and distant metastatic sites from 34 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Correlations between MET expressions in matched primary and metastatic sites and the extent of heterogeneity were calculated. The mean expression of MET was not significantly different between primary tumors when compared to metastases (P = 0.1). MET expression weakly correlated between primary and matched metastatic sites (R = 0.5) and a number of cases exhibited very high levels of discordance between these tumors. Heterogeneity within nephrectomy specimens compared to the paired metastatic tissues was not significantly different (P = 0.39). Conclusions. We found that MET expression is not significantly different in primary tumors than metastatic sites and only weakly correlates between matched sites. Moderate concordance of MET expression and significant expression heterogeneity may be a barrier to the development of predictive biomarkers using MET targeting agents.

Clinical Trial Participants With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Differ From Patients Treated in Real-World Practice

PURPOSE

Although narrow eligibility criteria improve the internal validity of clinical trials, they may result in differences between study populations and real-world patients, threatening generalizability. Therefore, we evaluated whether patients treated for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) in routine clinical practice are similar to those enrolled onto clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this cohort study, we compared baseline characteristics of patients with mRCC in phase III clinical trials of new targeted therapies and those in a retrospective registry composed of academic (Duke) and community (ACORN Network) practices.

RESULTS

A total of 438 registry patients received sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, or pazopanib (most commonly used agents) in first-line treatment. Registry patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) were more likely to have poor-risk disease by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria (poor, 7.4% v 2.9%; P < .001; favorable, 30.1% v 43.8%; P < .001) and to have impaired performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group > 1, 11.1% v 0.6%; P < .001). However, registry patients receiving temsirolimus were less likely to have poor-risk disease (poor, 10.2% v 69.4%; P < .001; favorable, 16.9% v 0%; P < .001). Thus, 39.0% of registry patients would have been excluded from the phase III clinical trial testing the drug they received.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mRCC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in real-world clinical practice are sicker than those enrolled onto pivotal clinical trials, and more than one third are trial ineligible. Application of clinical trial findings to dissimilar populations may result in patient harm. Clinical research with more inclusive eligibility criteria is needed to appropriately guide real-world practice.

A Decade of Research on the Quality of Systemic Cancer Therapy in Routine Care: What Aspects of Quality Are We Measuring?

Most studies evaluating quality of systemic cancer therapy have focused on access to cytotoxic chemotherapy in early-stage disease. Studies on other aspects of quality and in different clinical settings are needed.

Efficacy of targeted treatment beyond third-line therapy in metastatic kidney cancer: retrospective analysis from a large-volume cancer center

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Currently, 7 agents are approved for the first- and second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In contrast, data supporting their use beyond second line are limited. Here we summarize our experience in patients treated with more than 4 lines of therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the outcome of 24 patients treated at our institution with at least 4 lines of therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Median OS from the initiation of first-line therapy for the whole cohort is 64.7 months. Up to 96% of the patients received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (mTOR-I) within the first 3 lines of treatment. In the fourth or following lines, patients were treated with TKI, mTOR-I, bevacizumab/interferon, or experimental drugs. Seven patients continued treatment with a sixth-line agent; one has been treated up to the ninth line. Sixteen percent of the patients receiving fourth-line therapy and 13% receiving fifth-line therapy experienced a partial remission, which was independent from response to previous therapies. Median OS from fourth and fifth line was 30.8 and 26.2 months, respectively. Median PFS for fourth-line therapy was 5.8 months. No significant difference in PFS was observed for patients with disease that responded or did not respond to first-line therapy.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our study suggests that selected patients benefit from multiple lines of treatment, independent of response to first-line therapy. However, the optimal sequence of treatment with regard to later lines remains to be determined.

Use of "Real-World" data to describe adverse events during the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in routine clinical practice

Insights into the experience of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are needed to optimize patient care. A retrospective, multicenter registry of mRCC patients treated at academic (Duke) and community (ACORN) practices was developed to fill this need. Treatment data were collected on 466 patients who received first-line therapy from 2007 to 2011. Clinically significant adverse events (AEs) were abstracted from medical records and compared to clinical trials. Two hundred and seventy patients received first-line therapy with sunitinib, 60 temsirolimus, 53 sorafenib, 25 pazopanib, and 58 "other." A total of 85.8 % of all patients experienced at least one AE: fatigue (56.7 %), vomiting (40.1 %), diarrhea (33.7 %), asthenia (32.8 %), and mucosal inflammation (20.8 %). When comparisons were made between patients >65 versus <65 years old, rates of AEs were higher in the younger group. Dosing approaches and timing of AEs during therapy were varied. These data shine light on the patient experience in routine practice versus structured clinical trials. Real-world AE frequency and severity differ from pivotal trials demonstrating the need to monitor patients closely and manage their AEs to optimize outcomes. As the number of treatment options with similar effectiveness grows, it is imperative to understand the real-world patient experience.

First-, second-, third-line therapy for mRCC: benchmarks for trial design from the IMDC

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with multiple lines of therapy. Benchmarks for survival are required for patient counselling and clinical trial design.

METHODS

Outcomes of mRCC patients from the International mRCC Database Consortium database treated with 1, 2, or 3+ lines of targeted therapy (TT) were compared by proportional hazards regression. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using different population inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 2705 patients were treated with TT of which 57% received only first-line TT, 27% received two lines of TT, and 16% received 3+ lines of TT. Overall survival of patients who received 1, 2, or 3+ lines of TT were 14.9, 21.0, and 39.2 months, respectively, from first-line TT (P<0.0001). On multivariable analysis, 2 lines and 3+ lines of therapy were each associated with better OS (HR=0.738 and 0.626, P<0.0001). Survival outcomes for the subgroups were as follows: for all patients, OS 20.9 months and PFS 7.2 months; for those similar to eligible patients in the first-line ADAPT trial, OS 14.7 months and PFS 5.6 months; for those similar to patients in first-line TIVO-1 trial, OS 24.8 months and PFS 8.2 months; for those similar to patients in second-line INTORSECT trial, OS 13.0 months and PFS 3.9 months; and for those similar to patients in the third-line GOLD trial, OS 18.0 months and PFS 4.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who are able to receive more lines of TT live longer. Survival benchmarks provide context and perspective when interpreting and designing clinical trials.

Controversies in renal cell carcinoma: treatment choice after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy

The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORI) everolimus and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib are the only two post-first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) licensed at present. Extrapolation of robust phase III studies suggests that median progression-free survival (PFS) is similar between agents. This presents a dilemma for the physician planning treatment for their patients with mRCC: should they be treated with a TKI-mTORI or a TKI-TKI sequence? The lack of direct comparison between axitinib and everolimus leaves the clinician without clear guidance on the optimal choice in second-line therapy. In phase III studies, both post first-line everolimus and axitinib have been shown to delay disease progression; however, cumulative toxicity with sequential use of TKIs may result in more treatment interruptions or dose reductions or increased likelihood of adverse events. While everolimus exerts a tolerability advantage, axitinib is associated with higher response rate and a similar PFS benefit. Proven superiority cannot be used to guide treatment sequence selection in mRCC. Instead, therapeutic planning requires us to take a long-term view of our patient's treatment that includes quality of life and a balance between symptom control, adverse event management and avoidance of unnecessary drug interruptions or dose reductions. In the absence of curative therapies, sustaining a patient's quality of life is a major goal throughout the course of treatment and choosing a second-line agent that is able to adequately achieve this by limiting adverse events should be a priority.