Efficacy and safety of sorafenib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: largest single-center retrospective analysis

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.

Vascularized Composite Iliac Flap Grafting for Trapezial Metastasectomy in Clear Cell Renal Carcinoma: A Case Report

CASE

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) metastases rarely occur in the trapezium. We present the case of a 69-year-old man with clear cell RCC metastasis to the trapezium. After tumor resection, bone and soft-tissue defects were reconstructed with a vascularized osseo-fascio-fat composite iliac flap. Four years later, sorafenib was administered to treat subsequent pulmonary and femoral metastases.

CONCLUSION

At the 7-year follow-up, neither local recurrence nor additional metastatic sites were observed. The affected wrist could perform 50° of extension and 40° of flexion. The patient could use his right thumb in daily activities without pain.

Gene Expression-Based Signature Can Predict Sorafenib Response in Kidney Cancer

Sorafenib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitory drug with multiple molecular specificities that is approved for clinical use in second-line treatments of metastatic and advanced renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). However, only 10–40% of RCC patients respond on sorafenib-containing therapies, and personalization of its prescription may help in finding an adequate balance of clinical efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and side effects. We investigated whether expression levels of known molecular targets of sorafenib in RCC can serve as prognostic biomarker of treatment response. We used Illumina microarrays to profile RNA expression in pre-treatment formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples of 22 metastatic or advanced RCC cases with known responses on next-line sorafenib monotherapy. Among them, nine patients showed partial response (PR), three patients—stable disease (SD), and 10 patients—progressive disease (PD) according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. We then classified PR + SD patients as “responders” and PD patients as “poor responders”. We found that gene signature including eight sorafenib target genes was congruent with the drug response characteristics and enabled high-quality separation of the responders and poor responders [area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.89]. We validated these findings on another set of 13 experimental annotated FFPE RCC samples (for 2 PR, 1 SD, and 10 PD patients) that were profiled by RNA sequencing and observed AUC 0.97 for 8-gene signature as the response classifier. We further validated these results in a series of qRT-PCR experiments on the third experimental set of 12 annotated RCC biosamples (for 4 PR, 3 SD, and 5 PD patients), where 8-gene signature showed AUC 0.83.

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.

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.

Anlotinib for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With One Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Phase 2 Trial

Introduction: Sequential therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) is effective in some patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressed from or were intolerant to a prior TKIs. Anlotinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1/2/3, PDGFR and FGFR, which has demonstrated efficacy and safety in first-line treatment of mRCC. This study assessed the potential of anloitnib as second-line treatment for patients with mRCC after prior one VEGFR-TKI.

Methods: This is a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study. Patients progressed after or were intolerant to sorafenib or sunitinib were enrolled. Anlotinib was administrated orally 12 mg once daily for 14 days every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety and quality of life (QoL).

Results: Forty three patients were enrolled and 42 received anlotinib, of whom 32 progressed after and 10 were intolerant to sorafenib or sunitinib. Median PFS were 14.0 months (95% CI 8.3–20.3) and 8.5 months (95% CI 5.6–16.6) for overall population and patients progressed after a previous VEGFR-TKI, respectively. Median OS was 21.4 months (95% CI 16.0–34.5), confirmed ORR and DCR were 16.7 and 83.3% in overall population. The most common adverse events included diarrhea (47.6%), hypertension (45.2%), hand and foot syndrome (42.9%), and fatigue (40.5%). Grade 3 hematological adverse events occurred in four cases, while no grade 4 hematological adverse events was observed.

Conclusions: Anlotinib showed promising efficacy as well as favorable safety as second-line treatment for patients with mRCC.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02072044.

Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World and Clinical Trials Data

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have stringent inclusion criteria and may not fully represent patients seen in everyday clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) can provide supportive evidence for the effectiveness of medical interventions in more heterogeneous populations than RCTs. Sunitinib is a widely used first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Objective

This is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib using the novel approach of combining RCTs and RWD.

Methods

RCTs and RWD studies published between 2000 and 2017 were identified from PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Eligible studies contained a cohort of ≥ 50 adult patients with mRCC receiving first-line sunitinib treatment. The meta-analysis combined RWD and RCT treatment groups, adjusting for data type (RCT or RWD). Recorded outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and objective response rate (ORR). Publication bias was assessed via review of funnel plots for each outcome measure. A random effects model to account for study heterogeneity was applied to each endpoint. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the overall estimates.

Results

Of the 3611 studies identified through medical database searches, 22 (15 RWD studies, 7 RCTs) met eligibility criteria and were analyzed. mPFS (18 studies), mOS (19 studies), and ORR (15 studies) were reported for aggregate measures based on 4815, 5321, and 4183 patients, respectively. Reported mPFS (RWD, 7.5–11.0 months; RCTs, 5.6–15.1 months) and ORR data (RWD, 14.0–34.6%; RCTs, 18.8–46.9%) were consistent with the overall confidence estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 9.3 (8.6–10.2) months and 27.9% (24.2–32.0), respectively. Reported mOS showed greater variation in RWD (6.8–33.2 months) compared with RCTs (21.8–31.5 months), with an overall confidence estimate (95% CI) of 23.0 (19.2–27.6) months. Inspection of funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated that there was no publication bias for any efficacy endpoint. Sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of lack of robustness for mPFS, mOS, or ORR. Interpretation of these results is limited by differences in trial design, cohort characteristics, and missing data.

Conclusions

This novel, comprehensive meta-analysis validates sunitinib as an effective first-line treatment for patients with mRCC in both RCTs and everyday clinical practice. The methodology provides a framework for future analyses combining data from RCTs and RWD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11523-019-00653-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genome-wide Analysis of the Alternative Splicing Profiles Revealed Novel Prognostic Index for Kidney Renal Cell Clear Cell Carcinoma

Alternative splicing (AS) is a major mechanism that greatly enhanced the diversity of proteome. Mounting evidence demonstrated that aberration of AS are important steps for the initiation and progression of human cancers. Here, we comprehensively investigated the association between whole landscape of AS profiles and the survival outcome of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients using RNA-seq data from TCGA SpliceSeq. Because of the limited number size of deaths in kidney chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (KICH) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (KIRP) TCGA cohorts, we only conducted survival analysis in kidney clear renal cell carcinoma (KIRC). We further constructed prognostic index (PI) based on prognosis-related AS events and built correlation network for splicing factors and prognosis-related AS events. According to the results, a total of 5351 AS events in 3522 genes were significantly correlated with the overall survival (OS) of kidney clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KIRC) patients. Seven of the PI models exhibited preferable prognosis-predicting capacity for KIRC with PI-ALL reaching the highest area under curve value of 0.875. The splicing regulatory network between splicing factors and prognosis-related AS events depicted a tangled web of relationships between them. One of the splicing factors: KHDRBS3 was validated by immunohistochemistry to be down-regulated in KIRC tissues. In conclusion, the powerful efficiency of risk stratification of PI models indicated the potential of AS signature as promising prognostic markers for KIRC and the splicing regulation network provided possible genetic mechanism of KIRC.

Augmenting the randomized controlled trial with real-world data to aid clinical decision making in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate how efficacy outcomes from real-world data (RWD) can support those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in the context of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs and RWD studies with ≥50 adult patients per arm published in 2000–2017. Outcome measures were median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 13 RCTs and 22 RWD studies met eligibility criteria; 31, 28 and 25 studies, respectively, reported median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Summary outcome measures were similar in RWD and RCTs. Conclusion: RWD validates efficacy-based outcomes from RCTs and may provide supportive evidence to inform clinical decisions.

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 use of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The systemic options for managing metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have expanded considerably over the past decade. Initially limited to cytokines, clinicians may now choose from several classes of targeted therapies and, most recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role and timing of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and its evolution starting with cytokines, and then alongside the emergence of targeted therapy and novel immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patient selection remains the most critical determinant in offering CN, and the anticipated survival benefits of CN must be weighed against the surgical morbidity and potential delay to receipt of systemic therapies. Expert opinion: Proper patient selection is key for decision-making in mRCC. Prospective data is urgently needed to define the role of CN in the contemporary immunotherapy era, with greater personalization of prognostic models.

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.

Experience of Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in a Tertiary Care Centre

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is chemoresistant and radioresistant disease with poor survival historically, but outcome has improved in past decade after introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors like sunitinib and sorafenib. Sorafenib has not been tested in Indian patients with metastatic RCC till now. Material and Methods: This is a single arm, prospective, observational study done in unselected population of 60 patients with metastatic RCC treated with sorafenib as first- line therapy to assess efficacy and safety. Results: Twenty three out of 60 patients (38.33%) continued sorafenib by the end of the study. Overall response rates (ORR), stable disease (SD) and disease control rates (DCR) were 35%, 43.33% and 78.33%, respectively. Median progression- free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6 and 8 months, respectively and associated with histopathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) risk groups, Heng risk groups and performance status. Best tolerated dose was 400 mg per day which was half of standard dose. Fatigue, diarrhea, rashes and hand foot syndrome were common side effects while hypertension was rare. Conclusion: Sorafenib, as first-line therapy, is an effective and safe treatment in Indian patients with metastatic RCC with poor tolerance to dose more than 400 mg per day. Side effects are mostly manageable.

Crosstalk between VEGFR and other receptor tyrosine kinases for TKI therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common subtype of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and is frequently accompanied by the genetic features of von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) loss. VHL loss increases the expression of hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) and their targets, including epidermal growth factor (EGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF). The primary treatment for metastatic RCC (mRCC) is molecular-targeted therapy, especially anti-angiogenic therapy. VEGF monoclonal antibodies and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the main drugs used in anti-angiogenic therapy. However, crosstalk between VEGFR and other tyrosine kinase or downstream pathways produce resistance to TKI treatment, and the multi-target inhibitors, HIF inhibitors or combination strategies are promising strategies for mRCC. HIFs are upstream of the crosstalk between the growth factors, and these factors may regulate the expression of VEGR, EGF, PDGF and other growth factors. The frequent VHL loss in ccRCC increases HIF expression, and HIFs may be an ideal candidate to overcome the TKI resistance. The combination of HIF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors is also anticipated. Various clinical trials of programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors are planned. The present study reviews the effects of current and potential TKIs on mRCC, with a focus on VEGF/VEGFR and other targets for mRCC therapy.

C-met inhibition blocks bone metastasis development induced by renal cancer stem cells

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are key players in bone metastasis. In some renal tumors CSCs overexpress the HGF receptor c-MET, speculating that c-MET targeting could lead to bone metastasis inhibition. To address this hypothesis we isolated renal CD105+/CD24−CSCs, expressing c-MET receptor from a primary renal carcinoma. Then, to study their ability to metastasize to bone, we injected renal CSCs in NOD/SCID mice implanted with a human bone and we tested the effect of a c-MET inhibitor (JNJ-38877605) on bone metastasis development. JNJ-38877605 inhibited the formation of metastases at bone implant site. We showed that JNJ-38877605 inhibited the activation of osteoclasts induced by RCC stem cells and it stimulated osteoblast activity, finally resulting in a reduction of bone turnover consistent with the inhibition of bone metastases. We measured the circulating levels of osteotropic factors induced by RCC stem cells in the sera of mice treated with c-Met inhibitor, showing that IL-11 and CCL20 were reduced in mice treated with JNJ-38877605, strongly supporting the involvement of c-MET in the regulation of this process. To address the clinical relevance of c-MET upregulation during tumor progression, we analysed c-MET in renal cancer patients detecting an increased expression in the bone metastatic lesions by IHC. Then, we dosed CCL20 serum levels resulting significantly increased in patients with bone metastases compared to non-metastatic ones. Collectively, our data highlight the importance of the c-MET pathway in the pathogenesis of bone metastases induced by RCC stem cells in mice and humans.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and quality of life between sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy for Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

Sorafenib and sunitinib are widely used as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in China. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in Chinese mRCC patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy.

Methods

Clinical data of patients with mRCC who received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; 4 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg twice daily; on a schedule of 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off) were retrieved. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and QoL (SF-36 scores), and secondary outcomes were associations of clinical characteristics with QoL.

Results

Medical records of 184 patients (110 in the sorafenib group and 74 in the sunitinib group) were reviewed. PFS and OS were comparable between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (both P > 0.05). The occurrence rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and hypothyroidism were higher in the sunitinib group (36.5% vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001; 40.5% vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001; 17.6% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.001), and that of diarrhea was higher in the sorafenib group (62.7% vs. 35.2%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in SF-36 scores between the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that role-physical and bodily pain scores were associated with the occurrence rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P = 0.017 and 0.005).

Conclusions

Sorafenib has comparable efficacy and lower toxicity profile than sunitinib as first-line therapy for mRCC. Both agents showed no significant impact on QoL of patients.

The effect of apatinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature

The aim of this study was to explore the effect of apatinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and related adverse events. A case of mRCC was reported which recurred after surgery and roferon treatment. The patient was treated with apatinib at a dose of 500 mg orally, twice daily, 28 days/cycle. The metastatic lesions improved based on computed tomography after apatinib administration in the fourth and eighth month. The progression-free survival of the patient had increased almost to 8 months. The patient showed a good tolerance with only an adverse effect of mild-to-moderate hand-foot syndrome which was managed well. Apatinib is an option for mRCC after previous treatment. However, more and larger trials are still needed.

Sorafenib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the largest multicenter retrospective analysis of survival and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib with regard to overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to elucidate the relationship between clinical variables and prognosis comparing sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with mRCC. Between September 2006 and December 2014, 845 patients received either sorafenib (400 mg bid; n = 483) or sunitinib (50 mg q.d; n = 362). The primary end point was OS and PFS.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with low and moderate risk according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) score was significantly higher in sunitinib group, and that with high risk was significantly higher in sorafenib group (15.1 vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Median OS was similar in sorafenib and sunitinib group (24 vs. 24 months; p = 0.298). Sorafenib group exhibited higher mPFS compared to sunitinib group (11.1 vs. 10.0 months; p = 0.028). Treatment (sorafenib vs sunitinib), pathology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, MSKCC scores, Heng's criteria of risk, and number of metastases were identified as significant predictors for OS and along with liver metastasis for PFS. Clinical outcomes in terms of mOS was significantly better with sorafenib in patients ≥65 years of age (p = .041), ECOG 0 (p = 0.0001), and median MSKCC risk score (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Sorafenib and sunitinib are both effective in treating mRCC. However, sorafenib might be more effective in elderly patients (≥65 years) and in patients with an ECOG status of 0, classified under MSKCC moderate risk.