Cargando…

Improved Long-Term Clinical Outcomes And Safety Profile Of Sunitinib Dosing Schedule With 4/2 Switched To 2/1 In Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the survival benefit and safety of alternative dosage schedules for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic and survival data of patients treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy were retrospectively reviewed. P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Xingming, Sun, Guangxi, Zhao, Jinge, Shu, Kunpeng, Zhao, Peng, Liu, Jiandong, Yang, Yaojing, Tang, Qidun, Chen, Junru, Shen, Pengfei, Wang, Jia, Zeng, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6160671/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30271490
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/jca.25693
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: This study aimed to identify the survival benefit and safety of alternative dosage schedules for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic and survival data of patients treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: a standard dosing schedule (4/2 schedule), alternative dosing schedule (2/1 schedule), and switched dosing schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule). Results: Ninety-nine patients were retrospectively included. Seventy-five (75.8%) patients were initially administrated with a 4/2 schedule of sunitinib, while 24 were started with the 2/1 schedule. During treatment, 45 (60.0%) patients with an initial 4/2 schedule switched to a 2/1 schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule) due to severe adverse events (AEs) or poor tolerance. Compared to that with a 4/2 schedule, patients with a 2/1 schedule had a much lower incidence of grade 3/4 AEs (69.6% vs. 40.6%, p=0.001). Overall, the 4/2-2/1 schedule was associated with the best survival benefits. Among the 4/2, 2/1, and 4/2-2/1 schedule groups, the median PFS was 12.5, 11.0, and 25.0 months, respectively (p=0.003), and the median OS was 21.0, 28.0, and 52.0 months, respectively (p=0.03). Multivariate analysis identified the 4/2-2/1 schedule as an independent factor predicting favorable PFS. Although without statistical significance, 4/2-2/1 schedule could decrease 55% risk of death. Furthermore, patients with unfavorable IMDC risk seemed to have more opportunity to achieve better survival from the 4/2-2/1 dosing schedule. Conclusion: Patients with a 4/2-2/1 schedule could minimize treatment-related toxicities; more importantly, patients with 4/2-2/1 schedule could achieve a superior survival benefit.