Cabozantinib versus everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib and best supportive care: A network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in second line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Banana-shaped survival curves of metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line immune-combinations, not just a matter of "palateau"

The first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has revolutionized with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with or without tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). The choice among the many different immuno-combinations (ICI-ICI or ICI-TKI) is challenging due to the lack of predictive factors. The different shapes of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves (e.g. "banana-shaped curves") have raised many questions on the long-term survival benefit. Here, we analyzed the factors that could have impacted the different long-term survival, including the prognostic factors distribution (IMDC score), histological factors (sarcomatoid features, PD-L1 expression), and treatment characteristics (mechanism of action, duration, discontinuation rate). This overview highlights the factors that should be considered in the first-line setting for the patients' therapeutic choice and prognostic assessment. They are also fundamental parameters to examined for head-to-head studies and real-life, large-scale studies.

Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Following First-Line Immune Checkpoint Therapy Failure: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant gap in the literature concerning the effective management of second-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Most of the published articles were small multicenter series or phase 2 studies. To our knowledge, a systematic review that comprehensively outlines the range of treatment options available for patients with metastatic RCC who do not respond to first-line ICIs has not yet been conducted. Our aim was to synthesize evidence on second-line therapies for patients with metastatic RCC after initial treatment with ICIs and to offer recommendations on the best treatment regimens based on the current literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on 29 February 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected articles that met the predetermined inclusion criteria (written in English, retrospective observational studies, prospective series, and randomized trials reporting second-line therapy for metastatic RCC after failure of ICI-based therapy). Relevant articles were identified in the reference lists. The main endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), with the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

We included 27 studies reporting the outcomes of 1970 patients. Salvage therapies were classified as targeted therapy (VEGFR TKIs) in 18 studies and ICIs in 8 studies. In studies where TKIs were the second line of choice, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% CI: 30.2-38%). In studies where ICIs, alone or in combination with TKIs, were used as second-line therapies, the ORR was 25.7% (95% CI: 15.7-39.2%). In studies where TKIs and ICIs were the second-line choices, the pooled median PFS values were 11.4 months (95% CI: 9.5-13.6 months) and 9.8 months (95% CI: 7.5-12.7 months), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that VEGFR TKIs and ICIs are effective second-line therapies following an initial treatment with anti-PD(L)1 alone or in combination. The treatment choice should be personalized, taking into account the patient's response to first-line ICIs, the site of the disease, the type of first-line combination (with or without VEGFR TKIs), and the patient's overall condition.

Cabozantinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Context

Cabozantinib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has brought a new therapeutic effect for the medical treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Objectives

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and single-arm trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus ICIs in RCC.

Methods

We extracted data from PubMed, Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases, and rated literature quality through Cochrane risk of bias tool and MINORS. RevMan5.3 software was used to analyze the results of randomized controlled trials and single-arm trials.

Results

A total of 7 studies were included. Treatment with cabozantinib plus ICIs improved PFS [HR 0.75, (95%CI: 0.52, 1.08), p = 0.12] and the OS [HR 0.80, (95%CI: 0.60, 1.07), p = 0.13] in randomized controlled trials. Meanwhile, the result of the ORR in randomized controlled trials was [risk ratio (RR) 1.37, (95%CI: 1.21, 1.54), p < 0.00001] and in single-arm trials was [risk difference (RD) 0.49, (95%CI: 0.26, 0.71), p < 0.0001].

Conclusion

Cabozantinib plus ICIs prolonged the PFS and OS, and improved ORR in patients with RCC. Our recommendation is to use cabozantinib plus ICIs to treat advanced RCC, and to continuous monitor and manage the drug-related adverse events.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier CRD42023455878.

Network meta-analysis of second line and beyond treatment options in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Deciding on the optimal second-line (2L) treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains challenging due to the limited information comparing each of the available options and the influence of the newly expanding first-line (1L) agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 2L treatments in metastatic ccRCC. This Network Meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse events (SAE). We used normal likelihood model to incorporate log hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (OR), and 95%-confidence-intervals (CI). Treatment p-scores were used for ranking. Data was analyzed in a fixed-effects model using the netmeta package in R v.1.5-0.

RESULTS

All therapies demonstrated some benefits over placebo. Lenvatinib + everolimus ranked first for OS (HR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.24-0.82; p-score = 0.92), PFS (HR = 0.13; 95%CI = 0.07-0.24, p-score = 0.98), and ORR (OR = 35.95; 95%CI = 11.55-111.87; p-score = 0.93) compared to placebo, though with a higher SAE (OR = 5.27; p-score = 0.23). Cabozantinib ranked second for OS (HR = 0.57, p-score = 0.80), PFS (HR = 0.19; p-score = 0.86), and ORR (OR = 27.24, p-score = 0.84). Nivolumab was third for ORR (p-score = 0.79), fourth for OS (p-score = 0.69), fifth for PFS (p-score = 0.61), and last for SAE (p-score = 0.83). Lenvatinib monotherapy ranked worst SAE (OR = 5.89, p-score = 0.17) and third for OS and PFS. The latest drug, tivozanib, was sixth for PFS, OS, and ORR. The NMA matrix revealed no differential OS benefit between cabozantinib, lenvatinib + everolimus, and nivolumab. Other regimens had no significant OS benefit when compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on OS and PFS, the lenvtatinib + everolimus combination yielded superior, followed by cabozantinib and Lenvatinib monotherapies; all were limited by a worse SAE profile. Nivolumab and pazopanib had the lowest odds of SAEs.

A Comparison of Alternative Network Meta-Analysis Methods in the Presence of Nonproportional Hazards: A Case Study in First-Line Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Network meta-analysis (NMA) of time-to-event outcomes based on constant hazard ratios can result in biased findings when the proportional hazards (PHs) assumption does not hold in a subset of trials. We aimed to summarize the published non-PH NMA methods for time-to-event outcomes, demonstrate their application, and compare their results.

METHODS

The following non-PH NMA methods were compared through an illustrative case study in oncology of 4 randomized controlled trials in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival: (1) 1-step or (2) 2-step multivariate NMAs based on traditional survival distributions or fractional polynomials, (3) NMAs with restricted cubic splines for baseline hazard, and (4) restricted mean survival NMA.

RESULTS

For progression-free survival, the PH assumption did not hold across trials and non-PH NMA methods better reflected the relative treatment effects over time. The most flexible models (fractional polynomials and restricted cubic splines) fit better to the data than the other approaches. Estimated hazard ratios obtained with different non-PH NMA methods were similar at 5 years of follow-up but differed thereafter in the extrapolations. Although there was no strong evidence of PH violation for overall survival, non-PH NMA methods captured this uncertainty in the relative treatment effects over time.

CONCLUSIONS

When the PH assumption is questionable in a subset of the randomized controlled trials, we recommend assessing alternative non-PH NMA methods to estimate relative treatment effects for time-to-event outcomes. We propose a transparent and explicit stepwise model selection process considering model fit, external constraints, and clinical validity. Given inherent uncertainty, sensitivity analyses are suggested.

Adjuvant Therapy for High-Risk Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: Current Landscape and Future Direction

Locally and regionally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can recur at high rates even after visually complete resection of primary disease. Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies represent potential agents that might help reduce recurrence of RCC in these patients. This paper reviews the current body of evidence defining their potential impact and examines the large Phase III randomized clinical trials that have been performed to assess the safety and efficacy of these systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting. Given that the findings from these trials have been predominantly negative, this paper also explores the role of other potential adjuvant agents, including single and combination agent targeted therapies and immunotherapies, whose use is currently limited to metastatic RCC. Finally, the use of radiation therapy and the use of advanced imaging modalities in RCC are also considered.

Current Options for Second-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Standard systemic therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) involves targeting angiogenesis, mainly through tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway and targeting the immune checkpoints, namely, programmed death-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4). With current strategies of combining these two approaches in the front-line setting, less is known about optimal selection of therapy upon development of resistance in the second and later lines of treatment for progressive disease. This review discusses currently available therapeutic options in patients who have progressive RCC after prior treatment with double immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) or ICI-TKI combinations.

Systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the second-line setting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the survival benefit and safety profile of current available second-line treatment options of metastatic renal cell carcinomav.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically researched for eligible articles which were published before July 20, 2021. Studies comparing overall/progression free survival (OS/PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and/or adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomav were included.

RESULTS

Nine trials (with 4911 patients) were finally included for final network meta-analysis. Cabozantinib, lenvatinib, and lenvatinib plus everolimus were associated with significantly better PFS, OS, and ORR compared with everolimus, and lenvatinib plus everolimus emerged as the best option. As for grade 3 to 4 AEs, nivolumab showed significantly lower risk of AEs compared with everolimus. Other included treatments were associated with significantly increased risk of AEs. When comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of included treatments based on the ranking analysis of PFS, ORR, and grade 3 to 4 AEs, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinib, and nivolumab showed superior efficacy over other treatments, with relatively lower risk of grade 3 to 4 AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all included therapies, Lenvatinib plus everolimus was identified as the most effective treatment approach, with the best PFS, OS, and ORR. nivolumab was associated with decreased incidence of grade 3 to 4 AEs among included treatment therapies. When comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of included treatment options, lenvatinib plus everolimus, cabozantinb, and nivolumab were associated with better survival benefits and lower risk of AEs. Future studies should focus on the direct comparison of different second-line treatment in real-world populations.

Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Therapies and Ongoing Trials

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now the bedrock for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Clear cell RCC (ccRCC) represents the most common subtype of this malignancy. Herein, we explore the therapeutic landscape of ccRCC by discussing the standard of care whose backbone consists of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF). For ccRCC, pembrolizumab-axitinib, pembrolizumab-lenvatinib, and avelumab-axitinib or nivolumab-cabozantinib are now FDA-approved frontline options for all risk groups while nivolumab-ipilimumab is reserved for intermediate- and poor-risk groups. Monotherapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab is a potential option for patients who are unable to take VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. While outcomes have improved with the adoption of ICI therapies, many patients develop therapy-resistant disease, creating an unmet need for further investigation. The efficacy of novel therapies as well as novel combinations in the post-ICI era is unclear. This review summarizes the most significant clinical trials involving dual ICI/ICI and ICI/VEGFR therapies, in addition to other selected combination therapies that are likely to inform management in the near future.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Second-line treatment with axitinib plus toripalimab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment with axitinib plus toripalimab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and failure of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods: Data were collected restropectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model determined the efficacy outcomes. Results: In 57 patients, objective response rate was 31.6% and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months, while median overall survival was not reached. Median PFS was not reached in favorable-risk patients, whereas PFS of 11.0 and 7.8 months were observed in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, respectively (p = 0.011). The treatment-related toxicities were mild in nature. Conclusion: Second-line therapy with axitinib plus toripalimab provided durable response rate, longer PFS and a tolerable safety profile.

Kidney Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Antiangiogenic Properties of Axitinib versus Sorafenib Following Sunitinib Resistance in Human Endothelial Cells-A View towards Second Line Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors predominate as first-line therapy options for renal cell carcinoma. When first-line TKI therapy fails due to resistance development, an optimal second-line therapy has not yet been established. The present investigation is directed towards comparing the anti-angiogenic properties of the TKIs, sorafenib and axitinib on human endothelial cells (HUVECs) with acquired resistance towards the TKI sunitinib. HUVECs were driven to resistance by continuously exposing them to sunitinib for six weeks. They were then switched to a 24 h or further six weeks treatment with sorafenib or axitinib. HUVEC growth, as well as angiogenesis (tube formation and scratch wound assay), were evaluated. Cell cycle proteins of the CDK-cyclin axis (CDK1 and 2, total and phosphorylated, cyclin A and B) and the mTOR pathway (AKT, total and phosphorylated) were also assessed. Axitinib (but not sorafenib) significantly suppressed growth of sunitinib-resistant HUVECs when they were exposed for six weeks. This axinitib-associated growth reduction was accompanied by a cell cycle block at the G0/G1-phase. Both axitinib and sorafenib reduced HUVEC tube length and prevented wound closure (sorafenib > axitinib) when applied to sunitinib-resistant HUVECs for six weeks. Protein analysis revealed diminished phosphorylation of CDK1, CDK2 and pAKT, accompanied by a suppression of cyclin A and B. Both drugs modulated CDK-cyclin and AKT-dependent signaling, associated either with both HUVEC growth and angiogenesis (axitinib) or angiogenesis alone (sorafenib). Axitinib and sorafenib may be equally applicable as second line treatment options, following sunitinib resistance.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information of Cabozantinib Treatment for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After Failure of Prior Therapy in South Korea

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and value of information of cabozantinib compared to nivolumab in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients, who previously failed treatment from a societal perspective in South Korea.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of cabozantinib versus nivolumab. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were obtained from a network meta-analysis that included METEOR and CheckMate 025 trial results. Utility values for health states and adverse events were estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L data of METEOR trial with a Korean-specific tariff. Costs were estimated by a micro-costing approach using healthcare claims data and expert consultation. The impact of uncertainties in the model were explored by scenario analyses, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was estimated to assess the value of future research to decrease decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was associated with improved OS, PFS, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at greater cost. The ICUR was $34,445 per QALY. In sensitivity analysis, drug costs had the greatest influence on the ICUR. Cabozantinib had a 68.0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of 2 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The population EVPI was $82.6 million at 2 GDP threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib was found to be cost-effective for advanced RCC patients after failure of prior therapy at a 2 GDP threshold. Future research that costs less than the estimated population EVPI would be worth considering for a comparison of cabozantinib and nivolumab.

Second-line treatment in renal cell carcinoma: clinical experience and decision making

Currently, conventional treatments for metastatic RCC (mRCC) include immune-based combination regimens and/or targeted therapies, the latter mainly acting on angiogenesis, a key element of the process of tumor growth and spread. Although these agents proved able to improve patients’ outcomes, drug resistance and disease progression are still experienced by a substantial number of VEGFR-TKIs-treated mRCC patients. Following the inhibition of the VEGF/VEGFRs axis, two strategies have emerged: either specifically targeting resistance pathways, at the same time continuing to inhibit angiogenesis, or using a completely different approach aimed at re-activating the immune system through the use of inhibitors of specific negative immune checkpoints. These two approaches, practically represented by the use of either cabozantinib or nivolumab, seem to remain a rational therapeutic approach also when first-line immune-based combinations are used. The objective of this study is to design a preferential therapeutic pathway for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The procedure applied in this project was a group discussion, based on the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) method in a meeting session, aimed at defining the therapeutic choice for the second-line treatment of mRCC. The NGT process defined the most relevant parameters that, according to the interviewed panelists, clinicians should consider for the selection of the second-line therapy in the context of advanced renal cell carcinoma of mRCC. The algorithm developed for the treatment selection as a result of this process should thus be considered by clinicians as reference for therapy selection.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Combination drug regimens for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) make up about 90% of kidney cancers, of which 80% are of the clear cell subtype. About 20% of patients are already metastatic at the time of diagnosis. Initial treatment is often cytoreductive nephrectomy, but systemic therapy is required for advanced RCC. Single agent targeted therapies are moderately toxic and only somewhat effective, leading to development of immunotherapies and combination therapies. This review identifies limitations of monotherapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, discusses recent advances in combination therapies, and highlights therapeutic options under development. The goal behind combining various modalities of systemic therapy is to potentiate a synergistic antitumor effect. However, combining targeted therapies may cause increased toxicity. The initial attempts to create therapeutic combinations based on inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor or mammalian target of rapamycin pathways were largely unsuccessful in achieving a profile of increased synergy without increased toxicity. To date, five combination therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with the most recently approved therapies being a combination of checkpoint inhibition plus targeted therapy. Several other combination therapies are under development, including some in the phase 3 stage. The new wave of combination therapies for metastatic RCC has the potential to increase response rates and improve survival outcomes while maintaining tolerable side effect profiles.

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting.

Methods:

Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer’s perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Results:

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations.

Conclusions:

The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.

Clinical outcomes of second-line treatment following prior targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of axitinib and nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Sequential treatment starting with target therapy is still the standard care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), even in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes between axitinib and nivolumab as second-line therapy following prior targeted therapy in mRCC patients.

METHODS

We identified 41 patients treated with axitinib and 39 patients treated with nivolumab as a second-line regimen after targeted therapy, and retrospectively compared the treatment efficacy and safety in these patients.

RESULTS

The clinical benefit rate of axitinib was significantly higher than that of nivolumab (82.9% versus 56.4%; p = 0.014) and patients who received axitinib tended to show longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those who received nivolumab (10.3 months versus 7.3 months; p = 0.067). There was no difference in the overall survival (OS) of the two groups (both not reached; p = 0.581). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between the two groups, but one patient in the nivolumab group died due to an immune-related AE. In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model showed that the pre-treatment KPS, the baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and an objective response in second-line therapy were significantly associated with PFS, while the pre-treatment KPS, the number of metastatic organs, and an objective response in second-line therapy significantly contributed to the predicted OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the prognosis did not differ markedly between the two groups, axitinib resulted in a better tumor response rate. Further randomized prospective studies are needed for the ideal order of this sequential treatment.

Systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Emerging challenges in therapeutic choice

The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone a substantial evolution in the past decade, with a dramatic increase in the number of available systemic therapies. Although this offers promise for improved patient outcomes, this rapid pace in development has led to new challenges in therapeutic choice. For instance, the absence of direct comparative evidence across all therapeutic options has led to a critical gap in evidence to clearly define preferred systemic therapy choice. Additionally, the rising cost of systemic therapies being evaluated for mRCC necessitates demonstration of cost-effectiveness prior to widespread adoption. This review provides an overview of the current treatment landscape in mRCC to highlight the emerging challenges faced by clinicians and health policy-makers. In addition, this review summarizes the currently available evidence that aims to address the above challenges.

Systemic treatment of the metastatic renal cell carcinoma: usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion-weighted MRI in prediction of early therapeutic response

Accurate prediction of early treatment response to systemic therapy (ST) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) could help avoid ineffective and expensive treatment with serious side effects. Neither RECIST v.1.1 nor Choi criteria successfully discriminate between patients with mRCC who received ST having a short or long time to progression (TTP). There is no biomarker, which is able to predict early therapeutic response to TKIs application in patients with mRCC. The goal of our study was to investigate the potential of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of MRI in prediction of early therapeutic response to ST with pazopanib in patients with mRCC. The retrospective study enrolled 32 adult patients with conventional mRCC who received pazopanib (mean duration-7.5 ± 3.45). The mean duration of follow-up was 11.85 ± 4.34 months. In all patients as baseline examination and 1 month after treatment, 1.5T MRI including DWI sequence was performed followed by ADC measurement of the main renal lesion. For assessment of the therapeutic response, RECIST 1.1 is used. Partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) were observed in 12 (37.50%), 10 (31.25%) and 10 (31.25%) cases with mean TTP of 10.33 ± 2.06 months (95% confidence interval, CI = 9.05-11.61), 7.40 ± 2.50 months (95% CI = 5.61-9.19) and 4.20 ± 1.99 months (95% CI = 2.78-5.62) accordingly (p < 0.05). There was no difference in change of main lesions' longest size 1 month after ST in patients with PR, SD and PD. Comparison of mean ADC values before and 1 month after systemic treatment showed significant decrease by 19.11 ± 10.64% (95% CI = 12.35-25.87) and by 7.66 ± 6.72% (95% CI = 2.86-12.47) in subgroups with PR and SD, respectively (p < 0.05). There was shorter TTP in patients with mRCC if ADC of the main renal lesion 1 month after the ST increased from the baseline less than 1.73% compared to patients with ADC levels above this threshold: 5.29 ± 3.45 versus 9.50 ± 2.04 months accordingly (p < 0.001). Overall, our findings highlighted the use of ADC as a predictive biomarker for early therapeutic response assessment. Use of ADC will be effective and useful for reliable prediction of responders and non-responders to systemic treatment with pazopanib.

Efficacy and Prognostic Factors of Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in an Arab Population

PURPOSE

Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been the mainstay first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We reviewed the efficacy of first-line therapy with sunitinib in patients with mRCC in an Arab population.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with mRCC treated at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia, during the period from 2007 to 2016, were reviewed. Demographic data, treatment received, response, and prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients who received sunitinib were identified. The median age was 60 years (range, 18 to 78 years), and 42 of the 55 patients were men (76.3%). International Metastatic RCC Diagnostic Consortium prognostic scores for favorable/intermediate/poor were 14.5%/43.6%/38.2%, respectively. The median performance status was 1, and the median Charlson comorbidity index score was 9. Thirty-seven patients (67.2%) had cytoreductive nephrectomy. Thirty-seven patients (67.2%) had clear cell histology. Twenty-two patients (40%) underwent dose reduction. Twenty-seven patients (49%) received second-line therapy, and seven patients (12.7%) received third-line therapy. Response rates were complete response in one patient (1.8%), partial response in 17 (30.9%), stable disease in 10 (18.1), and disease progression in 20 (36.3%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 and 24.7 months, respectively. Univariate analysis showed statistically improved PFS for dose reduction (P = .015) and the development of hypothyroidism (P = .03). It also showed statistically improved OS for dose reduction (P = .035), hypothyroidism (P = .0002), and cytoreductive nephrectomy (P = .0052). Multivariate analysis showed statistically improved PFS for dose reduction (P = .01) and OS for development of hypothyroidism (P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Our data for sunitinib in mRCC show significantly lower PFS than expected. The absence of prognostic value of the International Metastatic RCC Diagnostic Consortium scoring system and pathologic subtype warrant further investigation and possible inclusion of genetic scoring in this ethnic group of patients.

Tumor burden and liver function in HCC patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy: SARAH post-hoc study

Aim: To determine whether a liver tumor burden ≤25% and well-preserved liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1) are appropriate criteria for identifying patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who may benefit from selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using ⁹⁰yttrium resin microspheres versus sorafenib. Patients & methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients in the intention-to-treat population of the SARAH trial (SIRT vs sorafenib) with ≤25% tumor burden and albumin-bilirubin grade 1. Primary end point: overall survival. Results: Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI: 15.2-32.5, n = 37) with SIRT and 17.0 months (11.6-20.8, n = 48) with sorafenib (hazard ratios: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.44-1.21; p = 0.22). Conclusion: A combination of good liver function and low tumor burden may be relevant for selection of hepatocellular carcinoma patients for SIRT.

Does an Alternative Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Really Improve Survival Outcomes over a Conventional Dosing Schedule in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) can obfuscate the maintenance of a conventional schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, alternative schedules seeking to improve the safety profile of sunitinib have been tested. Recently, two meta-analyses similarly described improved safety profiles favoring a two weeks on and one week off (2/1) schedule, but with conflicting results for survival outcomes. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, including all recently published studies and using complementary statistical methods. Endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and AEs of 15 types. Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis. Using adjusted findings, we noted statistically better results in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.005), but no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.04; p = 0.08). Moreover, the 2/1 schedule was beneficial for reducing the incidence of several AEs. Conclusively, our meta-analysis suggests that the 2/1 schedule holds promise as an alternative means of reducing AEs and maintaining patient quality of life. While the survival outcomes of the 2/1 schedule seem also to be favorable, the level of evidence for this was low, and the interpretation of these findings should warrant caution. Large scale randomized trials are needed to support these results.

Immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma from poverty to the spoiled of choice

Management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has been enriched by the advent of new therapeutic compounds. The approval of new combination strategies between targeted agents and immune-checkpoint inhibitors as well as the administration of combinations between immune-checkpoint inhibitors has clearly demonstrated significant improvement toward patients' prognosis and other clinical outcomes. Due to the availability of different treatments, the choice between them may be a difficult issue in our clinical practice. We have summarized current knowledge about available treatments focusing on criteria, which may help clinicians to make decisions.

Second line therapy with axitinib after only prior sunitinib in metastatic renal cell cancer: Italian multicenter real world SAX study final results

BACKGROUND

This multi-institutional retrospective real life study was conducted in 22 Italian Oncology Centers and evaluated the role of Axitinib in second line treatment in not selected mRCC patients.

METHODS

148 mRCC patients were evaluated. According to Heng score 15.5%, 60.1% and 24.4% of patients were at poor risk, intermediate and favorable risk, respectively.

RESULTS

PFS, OS, DCR and ORR were 7.14 months, 15.5 months, 70.6% and 16.6%, respectively. The duration of prior sunitinib treatment correlated with a longer significant mPFS, 8.8 vs 6.3 months, respectively. Axitinib therapy was safe, without grade 4 adverse events. The most frequent toxicities of all grades were: fatigue (50%), hypertension (26%), and hypothyroidism (18%). G3 blood pressure elevation significantly correlated with longer mPFS and mOS compared to G1-G2 or no toxicity. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg and 10 mg bid was feasible in 24% with no statistically significant differences in mPFS and mOS. The sunitinib-axitinib sequence was safe and effective, the mOS was 41.15 months. At multivariate analysis, gender, DCR to axitinib and to previous sunitinib correlated significantly with PFS; whereas DCR to axitinib, nephrectomy and Heng score independently affected overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib was effective and safe in a not selected real life mRCC population. Trial registration INT - Napoli - 11/16 oss. Registered 20 April 2016. http://www.istitutotumori.na.it.

Targeted therapies for previously treated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of treatments for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted treatment.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2018.

PARTICIPANTS

People with amRCC requiring treatment after VEGF-targeted treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib with everolimus, nivolumab, sorafenib and best supportive care (BSC).

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included (n=5144): five RCTs and seven observational studies. Lenvatinib with everolimus significantly increased OS and PFS over everolimus (HR 0.61, 95% Credible Interval [95%CrI]: 0.36 to 0.96 and 0.47, 95%CrI: 0.26 to 0.77, respectively) as did cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95%CrI: 0.53 to 0.82 and 0.51, 95%CrI: 0.41 to 0.63, respectively). This remained the case when observational evidence was included. Nivolumab also significantly improved OS versus everolimus (HR 0.74, 95%CrI: 0.57 to 0.93). OS sensitivity analysis, including observational studies, indicates everolimus being more effective than axitinib and sorafenib. However, inconsistency was identified in the OS sensitivity analysis. PFS sensitivity analysis suggests axitinib is more effective than everolimus, which may be more effective than sorafenib. The results for ORR supported the OS and PFS analyses. Nivolumab is associated with fewer grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events than lenvatinib with everolimus or cabozantinib. HRQoL could not be analysed due to differences in tools used.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib with everolimus, cabozantinib and nivolumab are effective in prolonging the survival for people with amRCC subsequent to VEGF-targeted treatment, but there is considerable uncertainty about how they compare to each other and how much better they are than axitinib and sorafenib.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017071540.

Molecular Profiling of Druggable Targets in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Through Targeted RNA Sequencing

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) comprises more than 80% of all renal cancers and when metastasized leads to a 5-year survival rate of only 10%. The high rate of therapy failure and resistance development calls for reliable methods that provide information on the actionable biological pathways and predict optimal treatment protocols for individual patients. We here applied targeted RNA sequencing (t/RNA-NGS) using single molecule Molecular Inversion Probes on tumor nephrectomy samples of five ccRCC patients, comparing tumor with healthy kidney tissues. Transcriptome profiling focused on expression of genes with involvement in ccRCC biology that can be targeted with clinically available drugs. Results confirm high expression of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) in tumor tissue relative to healthy-appearing kidney, in line with the angiogenic nature of ccRCC. PDGFRα and KIT, targets of the multi-kinase inhibitor sunitinib which is one of the current choices of first-line drug in metastasized ccRCC patients, were expressed at relatively low levels in tumor tissues, whereas significantly increased in normal kidney. Of all measured druggable tyrosine kinases, MET, AXL, or EGFR were expressed at higher levels in tumors than in normal kidney tissues, although intertumor differences were observed. Using cancer cell lines we show that t/RNA-NGS gene expression profiles can be used to predict in vitro sensitivity to targeted drugs. In conclusion, t/RNA-NGS analysis may provide insights into the (druggable) molecular make-up of individual renal cancers, and may guide personalized therapy of renal cell cancers.

Cancer du rein métastatique : quels critères de choix en 2e ligne ?

METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

HOW TO CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE SECOND-LINE TREATMENT?: The treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) has dramatically improved in the past ten years. In the second-line setting, for patients who progressed on prior antiangiogenic therapy (mainly the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or pazopanib), axitinib and everolimus have been recommended. Since 2015, other drugs have proven their efficacy and are currently considered the standard of care: cabozantinib (TKI that targets VEGFR, MET and AXL) and nivolumab (first anti-PD-1 check point inhibitor). Lenvatinib has also demonstrated promising results in association with everolimus, but this combination is not available in France. The optimal treatment choice for a given patient is challenging for the clinician when facing multiple options. In this article, we review the efficacy, safety and quality of life results of the main pivotal clinical studies involving advanced or metastatic RCC in the second-line setting, to help clinicians in selecting the most appropriate treatment. Beyond that, it is important to define all the sequencing strategy for patients to successively receive all the drugs that have demonstrated an increase in overall survival.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses

Background

In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials.

Methods

Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82–1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69–1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00–1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95–1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36–0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45–0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42–0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59–1.18]).

Conclusions

MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab improves overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared with sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for first-line treatment of advanced RCC from the payer perspectives high- and middle-income regions.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of first-line sunitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment associated with advanced RCC. The clinical and utility data were obtained from published reports. The cost data were acquired for the payer perspectives of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainties of the results. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab gained 0.70–0.76 QALYs compared with sunitinib. Our analysis determined the following ICERs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in first-line advanced RCC treatment: US $ 85,506 /QALY; UK $ 126,499/QALY; and China $ 4682/QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for body weight and for the prices of nivolumab, sunitinib and ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced RCC in comparison with standard sunitinib, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US and China but not in the UK.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0440-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biomarkers defining probability of receiving second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

In order to facilitate long-term treatment decisions, we aimed to define biomarkers defining the probability of receiving second-line (SL) targeted therapy (TT) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on their characteristics present at first-line TT initiation. We analysed 152 consecutive mRCC patients treated and used multivariable binominal logistic regression to identify factors contributing to the probability of receiving SL TT. Final model was assessed with bias-corrected indices (Nagelkerke’s R² and area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) and two bootstrap procedures were used for internal validation. Factors associated with the probability of SL TT eligibility were the presence of brain metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.084, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.010–0.707), number of metastatic sites (OR 0.740, 95% CI 0.575–0.953 per each site), platelet count (OR 0.971, 95% CI 0.947–0.997, per 10⁴/ml), lactate dehydrogenase level (OR 0.952, 95% CI 0.910–0.997 per 10 units/l), and albumin concentration (OR 1.924, 95% CI 1.057–3.503 per 1 g/dl). We developed on-line calculator that enables practicing clinicians to estimate SL treatment probability (http://www.r-calc.com).

Efficacy and safety of first-line sunitinib in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

AIM

We report the first prospective study of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in China.

METHODS

Chinese mRCC patients received first-line sunitinib 50 mg daily (4/2 regimen). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate and safety were assessed. Potential efficacy biomarkers were explored in post hoc analyses.

RESULTS

Median PFS was 61.7 weeks; median OS was 133.4 weeks; objective response rate was 31.1%. Most frequent adverse events (AEs) were: hand-foot syndrome (63.8%), decreased white blood cell count (52.4%), fatigue (51.4%) and decreased platelet count (51.4%). AEs were identified that predicted longer PFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib showed efficacy and manageable AE profile in treatment-naive Chinese mRCC patients. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm identified AEs as predictors of efficacy.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of cabozantinib with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma following the failure of prior therapy in England

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib with the standard of care in England in adult patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), following prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy.

Methods

We developed a partitioned-survival model with three health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib and its comparators. The model time horizon was 30 years. Efficacy and safety data were derived from pivotal clinical trials (METEOR: NCT01865747, CheckMate025: NCT01668784, and AXIS: NCT00678392). METEOR data were used for a direct comparison of cabozantinib and everolimus. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were compared indirectly, whereas equal efficacy for axitinib and everolimus was assumed based on a previously published expert opinion. For all efficacy endpoints, the best-fitting log-logistic or fractional polynomial curves were used to estimate outcomes. Utilities were converted from the 5-level EQ-5D version instrument applied during the METEOR study for specific health states. Reductions in utility scores due to adverse events were applied. English costs (eg, drug prices) and resource use (eg, visit to consultant) data were used.

Results

The total treatment cost was estimated to be 84,136 Great British Pounds (GBP) per patient treated with cabozantinib. The health gains were 2.26 life-years (LYs) and 1.78 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus axitinib and everolimus were 98,967 GBP/QALY and 137,450 GBP/QALY, respectively. Cabozantinib was less costly and more effective than nivolumab; the incremental cost was −6,742 GBP and the QALY difference was 0.18.

Conclusion

Treatment with cabozantinib was more effective than treatment with axitinib or everolimus but was associated with higher total costs. When compared with nivolumab, cabozantinib represents an efficient option with nominally better efficacy and lower costs.

Cabozantinib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in adults following prior vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy: clinical trial evidence and experience

Cabozantinib is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that potently inhibits MET and AXL, both associated with poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), next to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, KIT, FLT3 and RET. Chronic treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeting sunitinib upregulates MET and AXL in RCC, indicating that cabozantinib may be particularly effective in patients with advanced RCC whose disease progressed on prior VEGFR-targeted treatment. Cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) has been investigated in comparison to everolimus (10 mg once daily) in a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 658 patients with advanced RCC of whom 71% had received one prior and 29% had received at least two prior lines of VEGR-targeted therapy. This study demonstrated highly significant improved progression-free survival of 7.4 months versus 3.9 months with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.51 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.62] in favour of cabozantinib. Cabozantinib also showed a superior overall survival of 21.4 months versus 16.5 months (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53-0.83). Objective response rate was higher in cabozantinib-treated patients, 17% versus 3%. Clinical benefit was shown in all subgroups of patients, including in patients with bone or visceral metastases. The safety profile was acceptable with manageable side effects. Based on this study, cabozantinib is a highly effective approved second-line treatment option for patients with advanced RCC with a manageable toxicity profile. Other recently approved second-line agents include checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and VEGF-targeting agent lenvatinib combined with everolimus. In the absence of predictive markers as well as head-to-head comparisons of these three recently approved treatments, the choice between these drugs in second-line treatment will probably be made based on comorbidities, tolerability of previous treatment and presence of high tumour burden with rapidly progressive disease. Future pretreatment assessment of MET and AXL tumour aberration may aid clinicians to make a rational choice between currently approved second-line treatment options.

A network meta-analysis of short-term efficacy of different single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

The network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short-term efficacy of different single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We initially searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different single-drug targeted therapies in treating RCC. The meta-analysis combined the direct and indirect evidence to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and draw surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). A total of 14 eligible RCTs were ultimately selected. The partial response (PR) of Cabozantinib in the treatment of RCC was better than Sunitinib (OR = 2.7, 95%CI = 1.0–7.8), Everolimus (OR = 8.1, 95%CI = 3.1–25.0), and Temsirolimus (OR = 4.8, 95%CI = 1.0–31.0); the overall response rate (ORR) of Cabozantinib was better than Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Everolimus, and Temsirolimus (OR = 5.5, 95%CI = 1.1–27.0; OR = 2.6, 95%CI = 1.1–6.6; OR = 8.3, 95%CI = 3.5–20.0; OR = 5.7, 95%CI = 1.3–28.0 respectively). In addition, as for complete response (CR), PR, stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), ORR, and disease control rate (DCR), Cabozantinib had the best short-term efficacy among nine single-drug targeted therapies in the treatment of RCC (CR: 50.3%; PR: 93.6%; SD: 75.1%; PD: 68.0%; ORR: 95.5%; DCR: 73.2%); while Everolimus had the worst short-term efficacy (CR: 33.6%; PR: 22.3%; SD: 78.0%; PD: 35.9%; ORR: 22.9%; DCR: 19.9%). Our network meta-analysis indicated that Cabozantinib might have better short-term efficacy than other regimens in the treatment of RCC, while Everolimus might have poor short-term efficacy.