Current management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: evolving new therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Targeted therapies have recently replaced cytokine treatments as the gold standard for management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Currently approved treatments include the tyrosine kinase inhibitors sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, cabozantinib and lenvatinib; the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab; the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus; and the immunologic nivolumab. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated analysis of the clinical data supporting the use of these agents in the first-line and second-line setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the first-line setting, pazopanib may be better tolerated than sunitinib, an individualized dosing sunitinib regimen based on toxicity might improve survival and cabozantinib appears to be an emerging option. In the second-line setting, three new therapies (cabozantinib, lenvatinib/everolimus and nivolumab) have shown superiority against everolimus, the previous standard therapy. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic model may be useful in guiding the selection of subsequent therapy and patients eligible for metastasectomy.

SUMMARY

Targeted therapies are the standard treatment for mRCC. Despite advancements in survival, progression-free survival and tolerability, these targeted therapies remain largely noncurative. Further characterization of the RCC oncogenic pathway, and the ongoing clinical trials should help optimize the management of mRCC.

First-line sunitinib versus pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated.

RESULTS

We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.