Systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the first-line setting. However, direct comparative data are inadequate to inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we aimed to assess first-line therapy for mRCC and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of currently available treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for articles published before June 2020. Studies that compared overall and/or progression-free survival (OS/PFS) and/or adverse events (AEs) in mRCC patients were considered eligible.

RESULTS

Six studies matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.73-0.98] and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.75-0.99) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking. For PFS, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.97) and avelumab plus axitinib (HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.74-0.98) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and avelumab plus axitinib was likely to be the preferred option based on analysis of the treatment ranking, closely followed by pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had significantly lower rates of serious AEs than sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib seemed to be the most efficacious first-line agents, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the most favorable efficacy-tolerability equilibrium. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies and inform future direct comparative trials in an expanding treatment options without direct comparison between approved drugs.

First-line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, direct comparative data are lacking for most of these agents.

OBJECTIVE

To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in the first-line treatment of mRCC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched using the OvidSP platform for studies indexed from database inception to October 23, 2017. Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were included, and the systematic search was supplemented by hand search. For the systematic review, we identified any parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing first-line systemic therapy. For network meta-analysis, we limited these to a clinically-relevant network based on standard practice patterns. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

In total, 37 trials reporting on 13 128 patients were included in the systematic review. The network meta-analysis comprised 10 trials reporting on 4819 patients. For PFS (10 trials, 4819 patients), there was a high likelihood (SUCRA 91%) that cabozantinib was the preferred treatment. For OS (5 trials, 3379 patients), there was a 48% chance that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the preferred option. There was a 67% likelihood that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the best tolerated regime with respect to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be the preferred first-line agents for treating mRCC; however, direct comparative studies are warranted. These findings may provide guidance to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions and may help inform future direct comparative trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

There are many treatment options for patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We indirectly compared the available options and found that cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable choices as the first-line treatment in this situation.

Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cabozantinib has recently been evaluated as a first-line treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

OBJECTIVE

To indirectly assess efficacy of cabozantinib versus standard-of-care (SoC) comparators in the first-line treatment of aRCC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify randomized controlled studies in the first-line setting for aRCC. The outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted comparing OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified in the SLR to be eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The overall study populations were heterogeneous in terms of risk groups; some studies included favorable risk patients. In intermediate-risk patients, HRs (95% confidence interval) for PFS were 0.52 (0.33, 0.82), 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), 0.20 (0.12, 0.36), and 0.37 (0.20, 0.68) when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, sorafenib, interferon (IFN), or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. In poor-risk patients, the NMA also demonstrated significant superiority in terms of PFS for cabozantinib; HRs were 0.31 (0.11, 0.90), 0.22 (0.06, 0.87), 0.16 (0.04, 0.64), and 0.20 (0.05, 0.88), when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, temsirolimus, IFN, or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. When the overall study populations were compared, the results were similar to the subgroup analyses. OS HRs in all analyses favored cabozantinib, but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that cabozantinib significantly increases PFS in intermediate-, and poor-risk subgroups when compared to standard-of-care comparators. Although overall populations included favorable risk patients in some studies, the results seen were consistent with the subgroup analyses.