scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of the sequential use of pazopanib followed by everolimus for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A multicentre study in Korea

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. E15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Ho Kim ◽  
Wan Lee ◽  
Tae Nam Kim ◽  
Jong Kil Nam ◽  
Tae Hyo Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Risk Criteria

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world clinical outcomes of first-line pazopanib and second-line everolimus in Korean patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Methods: Data of patients who had mRCC with clear-cell component between 2001 and 2015 at multiple institutions were collected retrospectively. To be included in the analysis, patients had to meet the following criteria: age ≥18 years; received first-line targeted therapy with pazopanib; and received second-line targeted therapy with everolimus. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs).Result: A total of 36 patients were included in the analysis. The median followup period was 33.5 months (range 17‒49.5). The median PFS was eight months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4‒9.6) after treatment with pazopanib and three months (95% CI 1.9‒4.1) with everolimus. The median OS was 27 months (95% CI 16.6‒37.4). The median treatment duration was seven months (range 4.3‒10.8) after treatment with pazopanib and 3.5 months (range 3‒4) with everolimus. Multivariate analysis revealed that the Heng risk criteria were independently associated with OS (p<0.001). Almost every patient experienced some form of AE, the majority of which were mostly mild or moderate in severity. The most common AEs were diarrhea (50%), hypertension (44.4%), and fatigue (41.7%) after treatment with pazopanib, and anemia (47.2%), stomatitis (41.7%), and fatigue (38.9%) with everolimus.Conclusions: The outcomes for the patients treated with pazopanib followed by everolimus in Korea as observed by us were consistent with those reported by previous studies. The Heng risk criteria were significantly associated with the prognosis of patients with mRCC. AEs were mainly mild to moderate and readily managed.

scholarly journals Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential First-Line Everolimus and Second-Line Sunitinib Versus First-Line Sunitinib and Second-Line Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (25) ◽  
pp. 2765-2772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Carlos H. Barrios ◽  
Tae Min Kim ◽  
Silvia Falcon ◽  
Thomas Cosgriff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy

Purpose A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients and Methods RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively). Conclusion Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.

scholarly journals STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TARGETED THERAPY IN METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA PATIENTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-141
Author(s):  
Galina N. Alekseeva ◽  
L. I Gurina ◽  
M. V Volkov ◽  
E. V Evtuchenko
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Favorable Prognosis ◽  
The One ◽  
Optimal Approach

Objective. To study the relapse-free overall survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients after the targeted therapy and to develop optimal approach to the treatment shedule. Material and methods. The research included 88 mRCC patients of mean age of 55.5 + 9.6 years, 63 (71.6%) men and 25 (28.4%) women. 42.0% patients had a favorable prognosis, 52.3% - intermediate one and 5.7% of the cases had poor prognosis. First line targeted therapy was carried out in 88 patients, the second line - in 26 patients, and the third line - in 7 patients. Results. The one or several lines of targeted therapy allowed to achieve 20 months of a median in survival without progression of the disease. Several lines of treatment increased a median of general survival up to 42 months in comparison with the patients who were involved in the one line of treatment (a median = 30 months), p = 0.001. Side effects of targeted therapy were reversible. In the first line targeted therapy the preference was given to sunitinib, in the second line - to sorafenib. Sorafenib had an advantage in case of not light-cellular forms of renal carcinoma. In cases with favorable prognosis factors, metastases into organ parenchyma, targeted therapy with bevacizumab was carried out.

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 544-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Manuel Ruiz Morales ◽  
J Connor Wells ◽  
Frede Donskov ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

544 Background: Sunitinib (SU) and Pazopanib (PZ) have been compared head-to-head in the first-line phase III COMPARZ study in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We compared SU versus PZ, to confirm outcomes and subsequent second-line therapy efficacy in a population-based setting. Methods: We used the IMDC to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS2 and PFS2 were also evaluated. Results: We obtained data from 3,606 patients with mRCC treated with either first line SU (n=3226) or PZ (n=380) with an overall median follow-up of 43.5 months (m) (CI95% 41.4 – 46.4). IMDC risk group distribution for favorable prognosis was 440 (17.3%) for SU vs 72 (25%) for PZ, intermediate prognosis 1414 (55.6%) for SU vs 153 (53%) for PZ, poor prognosis 689 (27.1%) for SU vs 62 (22%) for PZ, p= 0.0027. We found no difference between SU vs. PZ for OS (20.1 [CI95% 18.76-21.42] vs. 23.68 m [CI95% 19.54 - 28.81] p=0.19), PFS (7.22 [CI95% 6.76 - 7.78] vs. 6.83 m [CI95% 5.58 - 8.27] p=0.49). The RR was similar in both groups (Table 1). Adjusted HR for OS and PFS were 0.952 (CI95% 0.788 – 1.150 p=0.61) and 1.052 (CI95% 0.908 – 1.220 p = 0.49), respectively. We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU vs. post-PZ groups for OS2 (12.88 [CI95% 11.89 – 14.19] vs. 12.91 m [CI95% 10.3 – 19.1] p=0.47) and PFS2 (3.67 [CI95% 3.38 – 3.87] vs. 4.53 m [CI95% 3.08 – 5.35] p=0.4). There was no statistical difference in OS2 and PFS2 if everolimus was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.33 and p = 0.41, respectively) or if axitinib was used after SU or PZ (p = 0.73 and p = 0.72, respectively). Conclusions: We confirmed in real world practice, that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document