Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving pazopanib or placebo in a randomised phase III trial

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Patients' self-management of adverse events and patient-reported outcomes in advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A prospective, longitudinal, observational study

BACKGROUND

Early intervention to reduce the impact of adverse events (AEs) may improve patients' quality of life and enable optimal treatment duration.

METHODS

This nationwide, multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, 1-year observational study investigated patients' self-management of AEs associated with targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and explored corresponding outcomes, including treatment duration and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

We enrolled 77 advanced RCC patients (mean age 62 years) treated with a first targeted therapy. 210 cases of seven AEs of interest (fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, oral mucosal inflammation, diarrhea, gastrointestinal symptoms, hypertension, and anorexia) were observed. Most AEs were mild to moderate. Overall, 63.4% of patients were identified as managing their AEs well, reporting numerically longer treatment duration and significantly higher PRO scores than patients identified as poor managers.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer treatment duration and improved PROs were observed when advanced RCC patients managed targeted therapy-associated AEs well. Repeated education for consolidating AE self-management could be considered to enhance overall treatment outcomes.

The Impact of Disease Progression on Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients with Oligo-Metastatic Disease at 12-Months post Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of published health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients with oligo-metastatic disease (OMD) who receive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and no available data assessing the impact of disease progression post SBRT on HRQOL in this patient population.

METHODS

Patients with OMD who received SBRT in a phase II single-arm research ethics board approved study were included, HRQOL was a secondary outcome. This study hypothesized that there is a different pattern of change from baseline HRQOL in patients with OMD treated with SBRT that have disease progression by 12-months (progressors) compared to those that do not progress by 12-months (non-progressors) as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were included in this analysis, 41 without progression and 66 with progression by 12-months; median time to progression was 7.7 (0.3-57) months. A statistically significant (SS) decline in the mean Global Health/Quality of Life (GHQOL) score (73 (SD 21.8) to 67.2 (SD 27.1), p=0.04) from baseline in the entire population at the 12-month follow-up was found. Mean GHQOL change score in non-progressors were: -0.8; progressors -8.8 (p=0.07). However, only progressors demonstrated a difference between baseline and 12-month mean GHQOL scores (71.2 vs 62.4, p=0.01) which was both statistically and clinically significant (-8.8) in the range of small minimal clinically important difference (MCID). There was a higher proportion of patients who experienced a MCID deterioration in progressors compared to non-progressors (37.4% vs 24.4%, p=0.14).

CONCLUSION

Patients who progress by 12-months do not have a statistical or clinically significant difference in mean GHQOL change score compared to non-progressors. However, there are signals to suggest that patients who progress by 12-months post SBRT experience a different pattern of change compared to non-progressors, which is worse compared to baseline.

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (-0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0-14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2-17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82-1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87-1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95-1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups.

Measuring the Time to Deterioration for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Using a Web-Based Monitoring Application: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is used to evaluate the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In a long-term therapy setting, HRQoL can be used as an important benchmark for treatment success. With the help of digital apps, HRQoL monitoring can be extended to more remote areas and be administered on a more frequent basis.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate 3 common HRQoL questionnaires in metastasized breast cancer in terms of TTD in a digital, web-based setting. We further aim to examine the development of the HRQoL in different systemic treatment groups in each of these evaluation instruments.

Methods

A total of 192 patients with metastatic breast cancer were analyzed in this bicentric prospective online cohort study at two German university hospitals. Patients completed questionnaires on HRQoL (EuroQol Visual Analog Scale [EQ-VAS], EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level [EQ-5D-5L], European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 item [EORTC QLQ-C30]) via an online platform over a 6-month period. Treatment schedules and medical history were retrieved from medical records. Unadjusted Cox regression analysis on treatment-related factors was performed. We conducted subgroup analyses in regard to TTD events between different treatments.

Results

The EQ-VAS showed a higher rate of deterioration after 8 weeks (84/179, 46.9%) than the EQ-5D-5L (47/163, 28.8%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (65/176, 36.9%). Unadjusted Cox regression revealed significant connections between known metastases in the liver (P=.03, HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.52) and pleura (P=.04, HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.96) in the EQ-VAS. Significant relations between EQ-VAS events and single EQ-5D-5L items and the EQ-5D-5L summary score were demonstrated. All treatment groups significantly differed from the CDK4/6 inhibition subgroup in the EQ-VAS.

Conclusions

Compared to the EQ-5D-5L and QLQ-C30, the EQ-VAS showed a higher rate of deterioration after 8 weeks. Significant connections to certain metastatic locations were only detected in the EQ-VAS. The EQ-VAS is capable of reflecting the distinctive HRQoL profiles of different systemic treatments as well as the different aspects of HRQoL presented in the EQ-5D-5L. TTD with the EQ-VAS is an adequate mean of examining longitudinal development of HRQoL among breast cancer patients.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors' Newly Reported Endocrine Side Effect: Pazopanib-Induced Primary Adrenal Insufficiency in a Patient With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been used in the treatment of multiple types of cancer. Pazopanib is one of the TKIs and is considered a first-line treatment for adult patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Many endocrine-related adverse effects have been noted with the use of TKIs including hypothyroidism, vitamin D deficiency, altered bone density, secondary hyperparathyroidism, abnormal glucose metabolism, gynecomastia, and hypogonadism. Subclinical glucocorticoid deficiency and adrenal insufficiency have been reported with the use of TKIs in only a few cases so far; thus, its true prevalence and clinical significance have yet to be fully elucidated. The mechanism is still not fully understood; however, adrenal toxicity with hemorrhage and/or necrosis of the adrenal glands has been observed in studies. In this article, we describe the first reported case of pazopanib inducing primary adrenal insufficiency in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma diagnosed after the exclusion of all other causes of primary adrenal insufficiency.

Quality of life in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma receiving the combination encorafenib plus binimetinib: Results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study (COLUMBUS)

BACKGROUND

In COLUMBUS, treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma showed improved progression-free and overall survival with favourable tolerability compared to vemurafenib treatment. Here, results on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are presented.

METHODS

COLUMBUS was a two-part, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma. In PART-I, 577 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to encorafenib plus binimetinib, encorafenib or vemurafenib. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival. As a secondary objective, HRQoL was assessed by the EQ-5D, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-M questionnaires. Furthermore, time to definitive 10% deterioration was estimated with a Kaplan-Meier analysis and differences in mean scores between groups were calculated with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Hospitalisation rate and the impact of hospitalisation on HRQoL were also assessed.

RESULTS

Patients receiving the combination treatment showed improvement of their FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scores, compared to those receiving vemurafenib (post-baseline score differences: 3.03 [p < 0.0001] for FACT M and 5.28 [p = 0.0042] for EORTC QLQ-C30), indicative of a meaningful change in patient's status. Furthermore, a delay in the deterioration of QoL was observed in non-hospitalised patients compared to hospitalised patients (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.16 [0.80; 1.68] for EORTC QLQ-C30 and 1.27 [0.81; 1.99] for FACT-M) and a risk reduction of 10% deterioration, favoured the combination in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The improved efficacy of encorafenib plus binimetinib compared to vemurafenib, translates into a positive impact on the perceived health status as assessed by the HRQoL questionnaires. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01909453 and EudraCT number 2013-001176-38.

Effect of early tumor response on the health-related quality of life among patients on second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer in the ABSOLUTE trial

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the association between early tumor response at 8 weeks, previously reported as a positive outcome prognosticator, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients enrolled in the ABSOLUTE trial.

METHODS

HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) utility index score in patients with complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) and progressive disease (PD) at 8 weeks, and time-to-deterioration (TtD) of the EQ-5D score, with the preset minimally important difference (MID) of 0.05, was compared between these populations. Among the enrolled patients, 143 and 160 patients were assessable in weekly solvent-based paclitaxel (Sb-PTX) arm and weekly nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) arm, respectively.

RESULTS

Changes of the EQ-5D score from baseline to 8 weeks in the nab-PTX arm were 0.0009 and - 0.1229 in CR + PR and PD patients, respectively; the corresponding values for the Sb-PTX arm were - 0.0019 and - 0.1549. For both treatments, changes of the EQ-5D score from baseline at 8 weeks were significantly larger in patients with PD than in those with CR + PR. The median TtD was 3.9 and 2.2 months in patients with CR + PR and PD, respectively, for nab-PTX [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.595, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.358-0.989]. For Sb-PTX, the corresponding values were 4.7 and 2.0 months (HR = 0.494, 95% CI 0.291-0.841).

CONCLUSIONS

Early tumor shrinkage was associated with maintained HRQOL in AGC patients on the second-line chemotherapy with taxanes.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis.

INTERPRETATION

With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Management of kidney cancer patients: 2018 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

In the past two decades, the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has significantly changed thanks to the approval of several targeted molecular therapies (VEGF and mTOR inhibitors) and recently immune-checkpoint inhibitors. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Renal Cell Cancer (RCC) Guidelines Panel has developed clinical guidelines to provide evidence-based information and recommendations to oncologists, urologists and all professionals involved in the management of patients with renal cell cancer.

Hypertension as a prognostic factor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the effect of hypertension on the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This study aimed to assess the predictive value of TKIs-induced hypertension in patients with mRCC.

Methods

This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019129593). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database were searched with terms: “renal cell carcinoma”, “hypertension”, “blood pressure”, “tyrosine kinase inhibitor”, “sunitinib”, “axitinib”, “sorafenib” and “pazopanib” until March 21, 2019. Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) were extracted and analyzed with Stata 15.0 software. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² value. Meta-regression, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also performed to explore heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and precisely assessed by Egger’s and Begg’s tests. The quality of evidence of outcomes was generated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

A total of 4661 patients from 22 studies were included in the study. The results showed that the increase of blood pressure was an effective predictor for longer PFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.48–0.71, p < 0.001; I² = 77.3%) and OS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.45–0.70, p < 0.001; I² = 77.4%) of patients with mRCC. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients receiving sunitinib and pazopanib could have longer PFS and OS.

Conclusions

This study indicated that TKIs-induced hypertension may be a good predictor for better prognosis of patients with mRCC receiving TKIs treatment, especially using sunitinib or pazopanib.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-019-0481-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluating Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Outcome for Health-Related Quality of Life in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

IMPORTANCE

Progression-free survival (PFS) has become a commonly used outcome to assess the efficacy of new cancer drugs. However, it is not clear if delay in progression leads to improved quality of life with or without overall survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between PFS and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology through a systematic review and quantitative analysis of published randomized clinical trials. Eligible trials addressed oral, intravenous, intraperitoneal, or intrapleural chemotherapy or biological treatments, and reported PFS or health-related quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and quantitative analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with cancer, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2000, through May 4, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We examined the association of difference in median PFS duration (in months) between treatment groups with difference in global, physical, and emotional HRQoL scores between groups (standardized to a range of 0-100, with higher scores representing better HRQoL) using weighted simple regressions.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

The association between PFS duration and HRQoL.

RESULTS

Of 35 960 records screened, 52 articles reporting on 38 randomized clinical trials involving 13 979 patients across 12 cancer types using 6 different HRQoL instruments were included. The mean (SD) difference in median PFS between the intervention and the control arms was 1.91 (3.35) months. The mean (SD) differences in change of HRQoL adjusted to per-month values were -0.39 (3.59) for the global domain, 0.26 (5.56) for the physical domain, and 1.08 (3.49) for the emotional domain. The slope of the association between the difference in median PFS and the difference in change for global HRQoL (n = 30 trials) was 0.12 (95% CI, -0.27 to 0.52); for physical HRQoL (n = 20 trials) it was -0.20 (95% CI, -0.62 to 0.23); and for emotional HRQoL (n = 13 trials) it was 0.78 (95% CI, -0.05 to 1.60).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We failed to find a significant association between PFS and HRQoL in cancer clinical trials. These findings raise questions regarding the assumption that interventions prolonging PFS also improve HRQoL in patients with cancer. Therefore, to ensure that patients are truly obtaining important benefit from cancer therapies, clinical trial investigators should measure HRQoL directly and accurately, ensuring adequate duration and follow-up.

Pazopanib: Evidence review and clinical practice in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background

Pazopanib is indicated in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of this study was to review the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib and see how these aspects are linked to clinical practice.

Methods

A non-exhaustive systematic review was conducted according to the three topics. No publication restrictions were imposed and the selected languages were Spanish and English. After that, a summary of the main results and findings of the review was presented and discussed during three meetings (one for each topic) with 13 medical oncologists that usually treat mRCC. At these meetings, a questionnaire on the first-line use of pazopanib in clinical practice was also drawn up. After the meetings, the questionnaire was completed by 60 specialist medical oncologists in renal cancer.

Results

The efficacy and safety of pazopanib have been demonstrated in several clinical trials, and subsequently confirmed in studies in real-world clinical practice. In addition to its clinical benefit and good safety profile, quality of life results for pazopanib, which compare favorably to sunitinib, make it a good option in the first-line treatment of patients. Special populations have been included in studies conducted with pazopanib, and it is safe for use in elderly patients, poor functional status, kidney failure, and mild or moderate hepatic impairment, and in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease. The results of the questionnaire have shown that pazopanib is perceived as an effective drug, in which quality of life (QoL) outcomes are valued above all.

Conclusions

This paper offers a comprehensive and critical summary of efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib in the treatment of mRCC. Pazopanib is an effective treatment with an acceptable safety profile. Its QoL and tolerability results offer certain advantages when compared with other therapeutic alternatives, and its use appears to be safe in different patient profiles.

The impact of targeted therapy on healthcare resource use in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The University of Sherbrooke experience

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the impact of targeted therapies on healthcare resource use and compared treatment regimens used in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

Clinicopathological and administrative data of patients with mRCC from our institution were retrospectively collected from January 2000 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of targeted therapies. Healthcare resource use (HCRU) data included non-scheduled total number of hospitalizations, total days hospitalized, emergency department visits, and healthcare professional consultations. Each variable was presented with absolute and relative values (i.e., per month of survival). Statistics relied on the use of t-student and Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were included in the study; 60 were treated with targeted therapy. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for demographic features and clinicopathological stage. HCRU analysis revealed an absolute increase in the median number of healthcare consultants (6 vs. 4; p<0.01) and emergency department visits (1 vs. 0; p=0.02) for the targeted therapy group. However, analysis per month of survival showed the targeted therapy group had fewer consultants (0.33 vs. 0.40; p=0.04) and hospitalizations (0.09 vs. 0.13; p=0.03) than their counterpart. Population size, non-randomization, treatment selection bias, and heterogeneity were the main limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Monthly use of HCRU is lower in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies. However, because of a greater overall survival, their absolute total HCRU will be higher than those not exposed to targeted agents.

Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in urologic oncology using large administrative databases

OBJECTIVE

Urologic cancers are not only among the most common types of cancers, but also among the most expensive cancers to treat in the United States. This study aimed to review the use of CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases to better understand the value of management strategies of these cancers.

METHODS

A literature review on CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases.

RESULTS

The options for and costs of diagnosing, treating, and following patients with urologic cancers can be expected to rise in the coming years. There are numerous opportunities in each urologic cancer to use CEAs to both lower costs and provide high-quality services. Improved cancer care must balance the integration of novelty with ensuring reasonable costs to patients and the health care system.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing focus cost containment, appreciating the value of competing strategies in caring for our patients is pivotal. Leveraging methods such as CEAs and harnessing large databases may help evaluate the merit of established or emerging strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.

REVIEW METHODS

A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prognostic role of the cumulative toxicity in patients affected by metastatic renal cells carcinoma and treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor-related toxicities have been reported to be predictive and/or prognostic factors in patients affected by metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aim to investigate the incidence of cumulative toxicity and its prognostic role in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib. mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan were reviewed for the incidence of adverse events. Cumulative toxicity was defined as the presence of more than one selected adverse event of any grade. Prognoses were evaluated by the International mRCC Database Consortium criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox analysis. A total of 104 patients were included in the final analysis. Only 18.3% did not experience any of the selected toxicities: 26.9% had one, 35.6% had two and 19.2% all three toxicities. Accordingly, 54.8% of patients experienced cumulative toxicity. In those with or without cumulative toxicity, the median PFS was 27.6 versus 7.2 months and the median OS was 61.2 versus 18.7 months, respectively. When cumulative toxicity was adjusted for International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic groups, it maintained its prognostic role for both PFS (hazard ratio: 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.49; P<0.001) and OS (hazard ratio: 0.27, 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.48; P<0.001). A major limitation was the retrospective and monocentric nature of the analysis. We reported the prognostic role of cumulative toxicity because of hypertension, hypothyroidism and hand-foot syndrome in patients affected by mRCC and treated with sunitinib or pazopanib.

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.

METHODS

Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice.

DISCUSSION

Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

Quality of life in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma given nivolumab versus everolimus in CheckMate 025: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 CheckMate 025 study, previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who were randomly assigned to nivolumab had an overall survival benefit compared with those assigned to everolimus. We aimed to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between treatment groups in this trial.

METHODS

CheckMate 025 was an open-label study done at 146 oncology centres in 24 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment between Oct 22, 2012, and March 11, 2014. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1, block size of four) to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks or everolimus once per day. The study was stopped early at the planned interim analysis in July, 2015, because the study met its primary endpoint. A protocol amendment permitted patients in the everolimus group to cross over to nivolumab treatment. All patients not on active study therapy are being followed up for survival. At the interim analysis, HRQoL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) and European Quality of Life (EuroQol)-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Prespecified endpoints were to assess, in each treatment group, disease-related symptom progression rate based on the FKSI-DRS and changes in reported global health outcomes based on the EQ-5D. Other endpoints were post hoc. We calculated the proportion of FKSI-DRS questionnaires completed using the number of patients with non-missing data at baseline and at least one post-baseline visit. We defined FKSI-DRS completion as completion of five or more of the nine items in the questionnaire; otherwise data were treated as missing. FKSI-DRS symptom index score was prorated for missing items. We made no adjustments for missing EQ-5D data. We used descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses, including mixed-effects model repeated-measures, for between group comparisons. Analyses were powered according to the original study protocol, and we analysed FKSI-DRS and EQ-5D data for all patients who underwent randomisation and had a baseline assessment and at least one post-baseline assessment. CheckMate 025 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01668784.

FINDINGS

HRQoL data were collected at baseline for 362 (88%) of 410 patients in the nivolumab group and 344 (84%) of 411 patients in the everolimus group. The mean difference in FKSI-DRS scores between the nivolumab and everolimus groups was 1·6 (95% CI 1·4-1·9; p<0·0001) with descriptive statistics and 1·7 (1·2-2·1; p<0·0001) with mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. In terms of FKSI-DRS score, more patients had a clinically meaningful (ie, an increase of at least 2 points from baseline) HRQoL improvement with nivolumab (200 [55%] of 361 patients) versus everolimus (126 [37%] of 343 patients; p<0·0001). Median time to HRQoL improvement was shorter in patients given nivolumab (4·7 months, 95% CI 3·7-7·5) than in patients given everolimus (median not reached, NE-NE).

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab was associated with HRQoL improvement compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Pazopanib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Pazopanib is an orally available multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (a class of targeted therapies) that inhibits tumor angiogenesis and cell proliferation. The safety and efficacy of pazopanib (noninferior to sunitinib for progression-free survival) in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated in several clinical trials. However, in addition to therapeutic efficacy, treatment choices should also take into account health-related quality of life (HRQoL) aspects of cancer therapy. Here, we summarize the HRQoL findings related to pazopanib use, based on patient-reported outcome measures; pazopanib has been shown to be superior to sunitinib on several HRQoL domains (including patient preference). A further consideration for treatment choice is how well the findings from clinical trials correlate with evidence from general clinical practice. This review therefore includes descriptions of real-world experience of pazopanib use in the treatment of patients with mRCC, following its approval by medical regulatory authorities in a number of countries. Naturalistic observational studies demonstrate that the efficacy of pazopanib in patients with mRCC is consistent with clinical trial findings. Similarly, consistent results were observed for the safety profile of pazopanib between observational studies and clinical trials, with most treatment-associated adverse events being mild to moderate in severity, and manageable.

Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust

OBJECTIVE

To further evaluate the higher order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), with the aim of generating a summary score.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N = 3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status, and change over time (N = 244) as grouping variables.

RESULTS

Although all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 summary score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this summary score can avoid problems with potential type I errors that arise because of multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire and may reduce sample size requirements for health-related quality of life studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome.

Clinical management of metastatic kidney cancer: the role of new molecular drugs

Over the last few years, the most recent advances of the molecular mechanisms involved in renal cell carcinoma have led to the use of new drugs targeting VEGF, such as bevacizumab plus interferon, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib, or the mTOR, such as temsirolimus and everolimus. The purpose of this review is to analyze the results of Phase III trial with these targeted agents, and on the management of the treatment and, in particular, when to start and to stop therapy and the use of alternative schedule of sunitinib. Recent developments in immunotherapy are also discussed.

Health-related quality-of-life results from PALETTE: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with soft tissue sarcoma whose disease has progressed during or after prior chemotherapy-a European Organization for research and treatment of cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group global network study (EORTC 62072)

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint in the PALETTE trial, a global, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial of pazopanib 800 mg versus placebo as second-line or later treatment for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (N = 369). In that trial, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the pazopanib arm (median, 4.6 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; P < .001), and toxicity of pazopanib consisted mainly of fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, weight loss, and hypertension.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, and 12 in patients who received treatment on protocol. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale.

RESULTS

Compliance with HRQoL assessments was good, ranging from 94% at baseline to 81% at week 12. Differences in scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status subscale between the 2 treatment arms were not statistically significant and did not exceed the predetermined, minimal clinically important difference of 10 points (P = .291; maximum difference, 3.8 points). Among the other subscales, the pazopanib arm reported significantly worse symptom scores for diarrhea (P < .001) loss of appetite (P < .001), nausea/vomiting (P < .001), and fatigue (P = .012). In general, HRQoL scores tended to decline over time in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL did not improve with the receipt of pazopanib. However, the observed improvement in progression-free survival without impairment of HRQoL was considered a meaningful result. The toxicity profile of pazopanib was reflected in the patients' self-reported symptoms but did not translate into significantly worse overall global health status during treatment.

Receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Are they real tumor killers?

Inhibiting tumor growth by targeting the tumor vasculature was first proposed by Judah Folkman almost 40 years ago. Since then, different approaches and numerous drugs and agents have been developed to achieve this goal, either with the aim of inhibiting tumor neoangiogenesis or normalizing the tumor vasculature. Among the most promising therapeutic targets are receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), some of which are predominantly expressed on tumor endothelial cells, although they are sometimes also present on tumor cells. The majority of RTK inhibitors investigated over the past two decades competes with ATP at the active site of the kinase and therefore block the phosphorylation of intracellular targets. Some of these drugs have been approved for therapy, whereas others are still in clinical trials. Here, we discuss the scientific basis, current status, problems and future prospects of RTK inhibition in anti-tumor therapy.

Is progression-free survival associated with a better health-related quality of life in patients with lung cancer? Evidence from two randomised trials with afatinib

OBJECTIVE

Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as an efficacy end point in oncology clinical trials. However, there is limited evidence to support a positive association between improvement in PFS and improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The association between PFS and HRQoL was evaluated in two randomised trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from two randomised controlled trials in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; LUX-Lung 1 and LUX-Lung 3) were used to investigate HRQoL in patients to determine whether tumour progression is accompanied by worsening HRQoL. HRQoL was assessed using the cancer-specific European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30, the EuroQol EQ-5D overall utility and EuroQol EQ visual analogue scale. In both studies, progression was evaluated by independent review using RECIST criteria (primary end point) and also by investigator assessment. The relationship between tumour progression and HRQoL was evaluated using analysis of covariance and a longitudinal model.

RESULTS

Compliance with HRQoL questionnaire completion was high. In both studies, patients with progression consistently experienced numerically poorer HRQoL at the time of progression than patients without progression. Differences in mean scores were statistically significant (p<0.05) between patients with and without progression at week 4 in all analyses in LUX-Lung 1 and at multiple time points in LUX-Lung 3. Results from the longitudinal analysis showed that progression (by independent review and investigator assessment) appears to have consistent negative impact on all three HRQoL measures (all p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Tumour progression in patients with NSCLC was associated with statistically significant worsening in HRQoL. These findings confirm the value of PFS as a patient-relevant end point.

Emerging antiangiogenics for renal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Antiangiogenic therapy is considered to be the backbone of treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). New, more focused, targeted drugs are emerging, while other targeted drugs oriented toward resistance or alternative mechanisms are under development.

AREAS COVERED

Antiangiogenic agents include two types of agents: the monoclonal antibody, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents are reported. Differences between the first generation of TKIs, sunitinib, sorafenib, and the new generation, pazopanib, axitinib and tivozanib are also detailed. Most of these agents have been approved in the treatment of kidney cancer in specific settings of the disease.

EXPERT OPINION

The class of antiangiogenic drugs for treatment of mRCC is already relatively full. After 'me-too' drugs, more targeted drugs against VEGFR have been developed but have to demonstrate a benefit in first-line treatment. Another option for the development is to combine a known drug with an antiangiogenic inhibition profile and at least one additional target involved in resistance to an antiangiogenic or in an alternative pathway. The cost of approach with targeted drugs, including antiangiogenics, has led to a tremendous increase in the cost of care in mRCC.

A contemporary update on rates and management of toxicities of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To provide an updated review of adverse events associated with sunitinib, pazopanib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus, axitinib, everolimus and sorafenib and their management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a PubMed and Cochrane-based review of side effects associated with the seven agents including product monographs to provide an outline of treatment measures aiming to reduce their toxicities. Subject and outcome of interest, design type, sample size, pertinence and quality, and detail of reporting were the indicators of manuscript quality.

RESULTS

All targeted therapies cause adverse events. Most adverse events may be prevented or tested before they escalate to severe levels.

CONCLUSION

Prevention, early recognition, and prompt management of side effects are of key importance and avoid unnecessary dose reductions, which may undermine treatment efficacy.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: assessment of long-term survivors

BACKGROUND

An emerging literature describes the potential for long-term survival with targeted agents, but the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients who receive chronic therapy with these agents is poorly defined.

METHODS

From an institutional database including 562 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), patients were identified who (1) were alive 3 years beyond initiation of systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and (2) received a targeted therapy as a component of their treatment. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 36 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-15) questionnaires were administered by telephone survey. Data from questionnaires were compared with historical estimates derived from pivotal studies evaluating targeted agents.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients met eligibility criteria for the study, and 28 patients participated in the telephone survey. Most were male patients and had clear cell histologic type (75% for both). All patients had either good- or intermediate-risk disease by Heng criteria. The mean QLQ-C30 Global QOL score in the present cohort was higher than the mean score among patients evaluated at baseline in the phase III evaluations of pazopanib (73.5 vs. 65.8; P = .07) and everolimus (73.5 vs. 61.0; P = .007). The FKSI-15 score in the present cohort was similar to the mean score among patients evaluated at baseline in the phase III evaluation of sunitinib (45.1 and 46.5, respectively; P = .41).

CONCLUSION

In this small pilot study, long-term survivors with mRCC who received targeted therapies appear to have an HR-QOL comparable to that of patients who participated in relevant phase III studies. Given the many emerging treatment options for mRCC, the HR-QOL of long-term survivors warrants greater attention.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: focus on pazopanib

Advances in our understanding of renal cancer biology have led to a new treatment paradigm in renal cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), that target the intracellular kinase domain of the VEGF receptor, have become established as the most successful class of agent in this disease. Three TKIs are currently approved for use in patients with advanced disease. Newer, more potent inhibitors have reached phase III clinical testing, meaning others are likely to follow. In 2009, pazopanib became the most recent TKI to receive FDA approval. This review sets out to discuss the key opportunities and challenges associated with TKI use in RCC, focusing particularly on pazopanib. We also review the current place of pazopanib in the management of patients with advanced disease, in what is a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape.

Critical appraisal of pazopanib as treatment for patients with advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has undergone significant changes during the past 10 years, with the treatment of metastatic RCC undergoing the most radical changes. These developments reflect an enhanced understanding of this tumor's underlying biology, which was then translated into the development of a new treatment paradigm. Current therapeutic approaches for the management of patients with metastatic RCC utilize knowledge of histology, molecular abnormalities, clinical prognostic factors, the natural history of this malignancy, and the treatment efficacy and toxicity of available agents. The treatment options available for patients with metastatic RCC have changed dramatically over the past 6 years. Interferon-α and interleukin-2 were the previous mainstays of therapy, but since December 2005, six new agents have been approved in the US for the treatment of advanced RCC. Three are multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) including sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib, two target the mammalian target of rapamycin (temsirolimus and everolimus), and one is a humanized monoclonal antibody (bevacizumab in combination with interferon-α). The current review focuses on the newest TKI available to treat patients with metastatic RCC, pazopanib. The development of this agent both preclinically and clinically is reviewed. The efficacy and safety data from the pivotal clinical trials are discussed, and the potential role of pazopanib in the treatment of patients with metastatic RCC in comparison to other treatment alternatives is critically appraised. This agent has a favorable overall risk benefit, and the available data demonstrate efficacy in patients with metastatic RCC who are either treatment-naïve or cytokine refractory. It therefore represents another alternative for treatment of metastatic RCC patients.