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.

Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective

PURPOSE

A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty.

FINDINGS

In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions.

IMPLICATIONS

These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

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.