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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmidt, Elvira, Lister, Johanna, Neumann, Monika, Wiecek, Witold, Fu, Shuai, Vataire, Anne-Lise, Sostar, Jelena, Huang, Shengnan, Marteau, Florence
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