A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of first-line and second-line therapies for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most common type of kidney cancers. Disease-specific survival for mRCC has been significantly improved with the introduction of new targeted agents since 2005. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy between therapies. This study compared indirectly progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among first-line and second-line therapies in patients with mRCC using network meta-analysis (NMA). The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of targeted and biological therapies in patients with mRCC published between January 2000 and June 2020. The Bayesian fixed-effect NMA was performed to evaluate relative PFS and OS of first-line and second-line therapies of axitinib, bevacizumab, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib, nivolumab, ipilimumab, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, tivozanib, avelumab and pembrolizumab, which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. End points were compared using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible interval (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated to assess the probability of being the best treatment. A total of 26 RCTs (first line: 19, second line: 9) with 13 893 patients were included in the NMA. For the first-line therapy, cabozantinib was associated with the highest improved PFS (HR = 0.26, 95% CrI = 0.14-0.44) followed by avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib (HR = 0.27, SUCRA = 90%). Pembrolizumab + axitinib had a high likelihood of being the preferred treatment when using OS as the outcome measure (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.16-0.85). Avelumab + axitinib had the lowest HR compared with placebo + interferon on discontinuations due to AE (HR = 1.04, 95% CrI = 0.54-1.86). For second-line therapy, cabozantinib was identified as the most effective treatment option when assessing PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12-0.24). Axitinib had the lowest HR of OS and discontinuation due to AE (HR = 0.54, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.71; HR = 0.98, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.97, respectively). Pazopanib was the second choice in terms of OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.28-1.00; SUCRA = 76%) compared with placebo. With respect to PFS and OS improvement, cabozantinib, avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib are likely to be the preferred options for the first-line therapy and cabozantinib and axitinib for the second-line therapy in the management of mRCC. Regarding safety, avelumab + axitinib and temsirolimus were considered preferred treatment options in first-line and second-line therapies. More future research is needed to establish subgroup analyses, allowing evaluation of the impact of some of the differences in patient characteristics, including treatment effect modifiers.

Heo JH ，Park C ，Ghosh S ，Park SK ，Zivkovic M ，Rascati KL ... -  《-》

The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Swallow E ，Messali A ，Ghate S ，McDonald E ，Duchesneau E ，Perez JR ... -  《-》

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Edwards SJ ，Wakefield V ，Cain P ，Karner C ，Kew K ，Bacelar M ，Masento N ，Salih F ... -  《-》

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》

Role of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the first-line setting: A Bayesian network analysis.

Several novel immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments exhibited promising survival benefits for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), yet there is no current guidance regarding the optimum first-line regimen. We performed this network analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of all available treatments for mRCC. A systematic search of literature was conducted up to April 30, 2019, and the analysis was done on a Bayesian fixed-effect model. Twenty-five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 13,010 patients were included in this study. The results showed that for overall survival, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.38-0.73) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR: 0.63; 95% CrI: 0.50-0.79) were significantly more effective than sunitinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib was probably (68%) to be the best choice. For progression-free survival, cabozantinib (HR: 0.66; 95% CrI: 0.46-0.94), pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR: 0.69; 95% CrI: 0.57-0.84), avelumab plus axitinib (HR: 0.69; 95% CrI: 0.56-0.85), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR: 0.82; 95% CrI: 0.68-0.99), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR: 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.74-0.99) were statistically superior to sunitinib, and cabozantinib was likely (43%) to be the preferred options. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR: 0.50; 95% CrI: 0.28-0.84), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (OR: 0.56; 95% CrI: 0.36-0.83) were associated with significantly lower rate of high-grade adverse events than sunitinib. Our findings demonstrate that pembrolizumab plus axitinib might be the best treatment for mRCC, while nivolumab plus ipilimumab has the most favorable balance between efficacy and acceptability, and may provide new guidance to make treatment decisions. FUND: This research was supported by the Henan Provincial Scientific and Technological Research Project (Grant No. 192102310036).

Wang J ，Li X ，Wu X ，Wang Z ，Zhang C ，Cao G ，Zhang X ，Peng F ，Yan T ... -  《EBioMedicine》