Cargando…
Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has recently been evaluated as a first-line treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess efficacy of cabozantinib versus standard-of-care (SoC) comparators in the first-line treatment of aRCC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literatur...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5887000/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-018-0559-0 |
_version_ | 1783312206557872128 |
---|---|
author | Schmidt, Elvira Lister, Johanna Neumann, Monika Wiecek, Witold Fu, Shuai Vataire, Anne-Lise Sostar, Jelena Huang, Shengnan Marteau, Florence |
author_facet | Schmidt, Elvira Lister, Johanna Neumann, Monika Wiecek, Witold Fu, Shuai Vataire, Anne-Lise Sostar, Jelena Huang, Shengnan Marteau, Florence |
author_sort | Schmidt, Elvira |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has recently been evaluated as a first-line treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess efficacy of cabozantinib versus standard-of-care (SoC) comparators in the first-line treatment of aRCC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify randomized controlled studies in the first-line setting for aRCC. The outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted comparing OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified in the SLR to be eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The overall study populations were heterogeneous in terms of risk groups; some studies included favorable risk patients. In intermediate-risk patients, HRs (95% confidence interval) for PFS were 0.52 (0.33, 0.82), 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), 0.20 (0.12, 0.36), and 0.37 (0.20, 0.68) when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, sorafenib, interferon (IFN), or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. In poor-risk patients, the NMA also demonstrated significant superiority in terms of PFS for cabozantinib; HRs were 0.31 (0.11, 0.90), 0.22 (0.06, 0.87), 0.16 (0.04, 0.64), and 0.20 (0.05, 0.88), when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, temsirolimus, IFN, or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. When the overall study populations were compared, the results were similar to the subgroup analyses. OS HRs in all analyses favored cabozantinib, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that cabozantinib significantly increases PFS in intermediate-, and poor-risk subgroups when compared to standard-of-care comparators. Although overall populations included favorable risk patients in some studies, the results seen were consistent with the subgroup analyses. [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11523-018-0559-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5887000 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58870002018-04-12 Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Schmidt, Elvira Lister, Johanna Neumann, Monika Wiecek, Witold Fu, Shuai Vataire, Anne-Lise Sostar, Jelena Huang, Shengnan Marteau, Florence Target Oncol Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib has recently been evaluated as a first-line treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). OBJECTIVE: To indirectly assess efficacy of cabozantinib versus standard-of-care (SoC) comparators in the first-line treatment of aRCC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify randomized controlled studies in the first-line setting for aRCC. The outcomes analyzed were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted comparing OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified in the SLR to be eligible for inclusion in the NMA. The overall study populations were heterogeneous in terms of risk groups; some studies included favorable risk patients. In intermediate-risk patients, HRs (95% confidence interval) for PFS were 0.52 (0.33, 0.82), 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), 0.20 (0.12, 0.36), and 0.37 (0.20, 0.68) when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, sorafenib, interferon (IFN), or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. In poor-risk patients, the NMA also demonstrated significant superiority in terms of PFS for cabozantinib; HRs were 0.31 (0.11, 0.90), 0.22 (0.06, 0.87), 0.16 (0.04, 0.64), and 0.20 (0.05, 0.88), when cabozantinib was compared with sunitinib, temsirolimus, IFN, or bevacizumab plus IFN, respectively. When the overall study populations were compared, the results were similar to the subgroup analyses. OS HRs in all analyses favored cabozantinib, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that cabozantinib significantly increases PFS in intermediate-, and poor-risk subgroups when compared to standard-of-care comparators. Although overall populations included favorable risk patients in some studies, the results seen were consistent with the subgroup analyses. [Image: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11523-018-0559-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-02-28 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5887000/ /pubmed/29492762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-018-0559-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Schmidt, Elvira Lister, Johanna Neumann, Monika Wiecek, Witold Fu, Shuai Vataire, Anne-Lise Sostar, Jelena Huang, Shengnan Marteau, Florence Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title | Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Cabozantinib Versus Standard-of-Care Comparators in the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Treatment-naïve Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | cabozantinib versus standard-of-care comparators in the treatment of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma in treatment-naïve patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5887000/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-018-0559-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schmidtelvira cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT listerjohanna cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT neumannmonika cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT wiecekwitold cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT fushuai cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT vataireannelise cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT sostarjelena cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT huangshengnan cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT marteauflorence cabozantinibversusstandardofcarecomparatorsinthetreatmentofadvancedmetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaintreatmentnaivepatientsasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis |