Cargando…

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deng, Huan, Liu, Wenfeng, He, Ting, Hong, Zhengdong, Yi, Fengming, Wei, Yiping, Zhang, Wenxiong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31293962
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00479
_version_ 1783430765464256512
author Deng, Huan
Liu, Wenfeng
He, Ting
Hong, Zhengdong
Yi, Fengming
Wei, Yiping
Zhang, Wenxiong
author_facet Deng, Huan
Liu, Wenfeng
He, Ting
Hong, Zhengdong
Yi, Fengming
Wei, Yiping
Zhang, Wenxiong
author_sort Deng, Huan
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib. Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6598399
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65983992019-07-10 Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Deng, Huan Liu, Wenfeng He, Ting Hong, Zhengdong Yi, Fengming Wei, Yiping Zhang, Wenxiong Front Oncol Oncology Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib. Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6598399/ /pubmed/31293962 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00479 Text en Copyright © 2019 Deng, Liu, He, Hong, Yi, Wei and Zhang. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Deng, Huan
Liu, Wenfeng
He, Ting
Hong, Zhengdong
Yi, Fengming
Wei, Yiping
Zhang, Wenxiong
Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy, safety, and costs of sorafenib vs. sunitinib as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598399/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31293962
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00479
work_keys_str_mv AT denghuan comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuwenfeng comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT heting comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hongzhengdong comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yifengming comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT weiyiping comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangwenxiong comparativeefficacysafetyandcostsofsorafenibvssunitinibasfirstlinetherapyformetastaticrenalcellcarcinomaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis