Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Hofmann F
，Hwang EC
，Lam TB
，Bex A
，Yuan Y
，Marconi LS
，Ljungberg B
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Cost-effectiveness of everolimus for second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Serbia.
New targeted therapeutics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) enable an increment in progression-free survival (PFS) ranging from 2 to 6 months. Compared with best supportive care, everolimus demonstrated an additional PFS of 3 months in patients with mRCC whose disease had progressed on sunitinib and/or sorafenib. The only targeted therapy for mRCC currently reimbursed in Serbia is sunitinib.
The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness and the budget impact of the introduction of everolimus in Serbia in comparison to best supportive care, for mRCC patients refractory to sunitinib.
A Markov model was designed corresponding with Serbian treatment protocols. A health care payer perspective was taken, including direct costs only. Treated and untreated cohorts were followed up over 18 cycles, each cycle lasting 8 weeks, which covered the lifetime horizon of mRCC patients refractory to the first-line treatment. Annual discounted rates of 1.5% for effectiveness and 3% for costs were applied. Transitions between health states were modeled by time-dependent probabilities extracted from published Kaplan-Meier curves of PFS and overall survival (OS). Utility values were obtained from the appraisals of other mRCC treatments. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to test the robustness and uncertainty of the base-case estimate. Lastly, the potential impacts of everolimus on the overall health care expenditures on annual and 4-year bases were estimated in the budget-impact analysis.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for everolimus was estimated at €86,978 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis identified the hazard multiplier, a statistical approximator of OS gain, as the main driver of everolimus cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed a wide 95% CI around the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimate (€32,594-€425,258 per quality-adjusted life-year). Finally, an average annual budgetary impact of everolimus in first 4 years after its potential reimbursement would be around €270,000, contributing to <1% of the total budget in Serbian oncology.
Everolimus as a second-line treatment of mRCC is not likely to be a cost-effective option under the present conditions in Serbia, with a relatively limited impact on its budget in oncology. A major constraint on the estimation of the cost-effectiveness of everolimus relates to the uncertainty around the everolimus effect on extending OS. However, prior to a final decision on the acceptance/rejection of everolimus, reassessment of the whole therapeutic group might be needed to construct an economically rational treatment strategy within the mRCC field.
Mihajlović J
，Pechlivanoglou P
，Sabo A
，Tomić Z
，Postma MJ
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
