Efficacy of cabozantinib and sunitinib for the treatment of intermediate/poor risk renal cell carcinoma based upon UK real-world data

D. Lee , G.J. Melendez-Torres , A. Challapalli , R. Frazer , J. McGrane , A. Bahl
{"title":"Efficacy of cabozantinib and sunitinib for the treatment of intermediate/poor risk renal cell carcinoma based upon UK real-world data","authors":"D. Lee ,&nbsp;G.J. Melendez-Torres ,&nbsp;A. Challapalli ,&nbsp;R. Frazer ,&nbsp;J. McGrane ,&nbsp;A. Bahl","doi":"10.1016/j.esmorw.2024.100087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of cabozantinib versus sunitinib for the treatment of first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma in intermediate/poor risk patients.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Retrospective review of cases between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2021 across 17 UK centres. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling to identify prognostic factors. Inverse probability of treatment weighting, to estimate the causal effect of first-line treatment type.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Cabozantinib patients (<em>n</em> = 106) had poorer risk status, less prior nephrectomy, shorter time to therapy, and more clear cell histology than sunitinib patients (<em>n</em> = 218). More sunitinib patients received a second or third line of subsequent treatment (56% and 23% versus 43% and 13%). Though there was no significant difference between treatments in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) across models, the difference in PFS bordered on significant in a multipredictor analysis (benefit in favour of cabozantinib; <em>P</em> = 0.06). When the Kaplan–Meier curves were stratified by risk status (intermediate versus poor), patients had similar OS within the risk groups. PFS appeared to differ with poor risk patients performing better on cabozantinib. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis showed little difference from the unadjusted results: OS hazard ratio = 1.119 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.823-1.521); PFS hazard ratio 0.825 (95% CI 0.636-1.070) for cabozantinib versus sunitinib.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results showed no significant difference in either OS or PFS between treatments. Cabozantinib trended towards improved PFS and reduced OS. Decision-making for tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy should consider later-line treatment options. This analysis is of particular relevance as sunitinib is now off-patent meaning that the cost of a course of treatment has considerably reduced.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100491,"journal":{"name":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100087"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820124000651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of cabozantinib versus sunitinib for the treatment of first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma in intermediate/poor risk patients.

Materials and methods

Retrospective review of cases between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2021 across 17 UK centres. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modelling to identify prognostic factors. Inverse probability of treatment weighting, to estimate the causal effect of first-line treatment type.

Results

Cabozantinib patients (n = 106) had poorer risk status, less prior nephrectomy, shorter time to therapy, and more clear cell histology than sunitinib patients (n = 218). More sunitinib patients received a second or third line of subsequent treatment (56% and 23% versus 43% and 13%). Though there was no significant difference between treatments in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) across models, the difference in PFS bordered on significant in a multipredictor analysis (benefit in favour of cabozantinib; P = 0.06). When the Kaplan–Meier curves were stratified by risk status (intermediate versus poor), patients had similar OS within the risk groups. PFS appeared to differ with poor risk patients performing better on cabozantinib. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis showed little difference from the unadjusted results: OS hazard ratio = 1.119 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.823-1.521); PFS hazard ratio 0.825 (95% CI 0.636-1.070) for cabozantinib versus sunitinib.

Conclusions

Our results showed no significant difference in either OS or PFS between treatments. Cabozantinib trended towards improved PFS and reduced OS. Decision-making for tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy should consider later-line treatment options. This analysis is of particular relevance as sunitinib is now off-patent meaning that the cost of a course of treatment has considerably reduced.
基于英国真实世界数据的卡博替尼和舒尼替尼治疗中危/低危肾细胞癌的疗效
背景本研究旨在探讨卡博替尼对舒尼替尼治疗中危/低危患者一线转移性肾细胞癌的有效性。采用单变量和多变量 Cox 比例危险度模型确定预后因素。结果与舒尼替尼患者(n = 218)相比,卡博赞替尼患者(n = 106)的风险状况更差、既往肾切除术更少、治疗时间更短、透明细胞组织学更多。接受二线或三线后续治疗的舒尼替尼患者更多(56% 和 23% 对 43% 和 13%)。虽然不同治疗方法在总生存期(OS)或无进展生存期(PFS)方面没有显著差异,但在多预测因子分析中,PFS的差异接近显著(卡博赞替尼获益;P = 0.06)。当 Kaplan-Meier 曲线按风险状态(中度风险与重度风险)分层时,各风险组患者的 OS 相似。PFS似乎存在差异,风险较低的患者使用卡博替尼后表现更好。治疗的逆概率加权分析显示,与未调整的结果差别不大:卡博替尼对舒尼替尼的OS危险比=1.119(95%置信区间(CI)0.823-1.521);PFS危险比0.825(95% CI 0.636-1.070)。卡博替尼有改善 PFS 和降低 OS 的趋势。酪氨酸激酶抑制剂单药治疗的决策应考虑晚期治疗方案。由于舒尼替尼目前已过专利期,这意味着一个疗程的费用已大大降低,因此这项分析具有特别重要的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信