Efficacy analyses of axitinib and nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of targeted therapy: which is better?

Q2 Medicine

Journal of Buon Pub Date : 2021-09-01

Oktay Halit Aktepe, Fadime Sinem Ardic, Deniz Yuce, Deniz Can Guven, Gurkan Guner, Hasan Cagri Yildirim, Saadettin Kilickap, Alev Turker, Neyran Kertmen, Serkan Akin, Sercan Aksoy, Omer Dizdar, Suayib Yalcin, Mustafa Erman

{"title":"Efficacy analyses of axitinib and nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of targeted therapy: which is better?","authors":"Oktay Halit Aktepe, Fadime Sinem Ardic, Deniz Yuce, Deniz Can Guven, Gurkan Guner, Hasan Cagri Yildirim, Saadettin Kilickap, Alev Turker, Neyran Kertmen, Serkan Akin, Sercan Aksoy, Omer Dizdar, Suayib Yalcin, Mustafa Erman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of axitinib and nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with targeted therapy.Methods: A total of 79 patients were enrolled (39 patients in axitinib group, 40 patients in nivolumab group). Survival outcomes of patients, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The associations between potential prognostic variables and OS were evaluated in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.Results: The median PFS and OS of all cohort were 8.1 and 36.6 months, respectively. Higher PFS and OS were evaluated in axitinib group than nivolumab group (PFS: 9.4 months vs 6.3 months, p=0.386; OS: 38.2 months vs 36.6 months, p=0.671, respectively). Patients treated with axitinib had numerically higher objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) than those treated with nivolumab (ORR: 43.6% vs 27.6%, p=0.157, DCR: 74.4% vs 62.5%, p=0.157, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that the independent predictors of OS were higher tumor grade (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.178, p=0.004), worse response to axitinib and nivolumab (HR:4.902, p=0.011), the presence of lung metastasis (HR:15.637, p=0.002) and the presence of liver metastasis (HR:12.010, p=0.001).Conclusion: Comparable survival outcomes were detected in the axitinib and nivolumab groups. However, head to head comparisons are needed to highlight the relative efficacy of these therapies in mRCC.","PeriodicalId":50248,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Buon","volume":" ","pages":"2067-2073"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Buon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of axitinib and nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with targeted therapy.

Methods: A total of 79 patients were enrolled (39 patients in axitinib group, 40 patients in nivolumab group). Survival outcomes of patients, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The associations between potential prognostic variables and OS were evaluated in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses.

Results: The median PFS and OS of all cohort were 8.1 and 36.6 months, respectively. Higher PFS and OS were evaluated in axitinib group than nivolumab group (PFS: 9.4 months vs 6.3 months, p=0.386; OS: 38.2 months vs 36.6 months, p=0.671, respectively). Patients treated with axitinib had numerically higher objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) than those treated with nivolumab (ORR: 43.6% vs 27.6%, p=0.157, DCR: 74.4% vs 62.5%, p=0.157, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that the independent predictors of OS were higher tumor grade (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.178, p=0.004), worse response to axitinib and nivolumab (HR:4.902, p=0.011), the presence of lung metastasis (HR:15.637, p=0.002) and the presence of liver metastasis (HR:12.010, p=0.001).

Conclusion: Comparable survival outcomes were detected in the axitinib and nivolumab groups. However, head to head comparisons are needed to highlight the relative efficacy of these therapies in mRCC.

本刊更多论文

阿西替尼和纳武单抗在转移性肾细胞癌靶向治疗失败后的疗效分析:哪个更好?

目的:本研究的目的是比较阿西替尼和纳武单抗在转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)先前接受靶向治疗的疗效。方法:共纳入79例患者(阿西替尼组39例，纳武单抗组40例)。使用Kaplan-Meier方法估计患者的生存结局、无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)，并与log-rank检验进行比较。通过单因素和多因素Cox回归分析评估潜在预后变量与OS之间的关系。结果:所有队列的中位PFS和OS分别为8.1和36.6个月。阿西替尼组的PFS和OS均高于纳武单抗组(PFS: 9.4个月vs 6.3个月，p=0.386;OS: 38.2个月vs 36.6个月，p=0.671)。阿西替尼治疗患者的客观缓解率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)数值高于纳武单抗治疗患者(ORR: 43.6% vs 27.6%， p=0.157, DCR: 74.4% vs 62.5%， p=0.157)。多因素分析显示，肿瘤分级高(危险比[HR]: 6.178, p=0.004)、对阿西替尼和尼武单抗的反应差(危险比[HR]: 4.902, p=0.011)、存在肺转移(危险比:15.637,p=0.002)和存在肝转移(危险比:12.010,p=0.001)是OS的独立预测因素。结论:在阿西替尼组和纳武单抗组中检测到可比的生存结果。然而，需要进行头对头比较，以突出这些治疗在mRCC中的相对疗效。

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

Journal of Buon 医学-肿瘤学

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： JBUON aims at the rapid diffusion of scientific knowledge in Oncology. Its character is multidisciplinary, therefore all aspects of oncologic activities are welcome including clinical research (medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, nursing oncology, psycho-oncology, supportive care), as well as clinically-oriented basic and laboratory research, cancer epidemiology and social and ethical aspects of cancer. Experts of all these disciplines are included in the Editorial Board. With a rapidly increasing body of new discoveries in clinical therapeutics, the molecular mechanisms that contribute to carcinogenesis, advancements in accurate and early diagnosis etc, JBUON offers a free forum for clinicians and basic researchers to make known promptly their achievements around the world. With this aim JBUON accepts a broad spectrum of articles such as editorials, original articles, reviews, special articles, short communications, commentaries, letters to the editor and correspondence among authors and readers. JBUON keeps the characteristics of its former paper print edition and appears as a bimonthly e-published journal with continuous volume, issue and page numbers.