Siebels M, Hegele A, Varga Z, Oberneder R, Doehn C, Heinzer H
Gemeinschaftspraxis Urologie Pasing, Josef-Retzer-Straße 48, 81241, München, Deutschland.
Urologe A. 2011 Sep;50(9):1110-7. doi: 10.1007/s00120-011-2553-3.
Since 2006 in Germany six different target drugs for therapy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) have been used. Comparative studies for the application with the same indication are absent, and the order of potential sequential therapy is up to now unclear. The aim of the study was to collect data on therapy decisions in Germany regarding mRCC in the age of "targeted therapy". At the same time the study addressed the central question of sequencing of the different therapy options. In addition, the data of this study were to be compared to a study already published in 2008.
In 2010, four groups of doctors specialized in the therapy of patients with mRCC were asked for their behaviour in the first-, second- and third-line or sequential therapy. Those questioned included urologists in private practice (n=40), oncologists in private practice (n=40), hospital urologists (n=35) and hospital oncologists (n=35). Further the reasons for a therapy decision should be stated or weighted.
Altogether 92% of all patients with mRCC were treated. Urologists in private practice treat only 30% of their patients themselves. The earlier used immune therapies (IFN, IL-2) no longer play a role. Sunitinib is used most often in first-line therapy by urologists in private practice (50.4%) and oncologists in private practice (47.1%). In second- and third-line therapy everolimus is used by urologists in private practice (27.1%, 26.3%) and sorafenib (28.6%) or everolimus (26.4%) by oncologists in private practice. Hospital oncologists use primarily sunitinib (56.1%), in second-line sorafenib (45.5%) and in third-line above all everolimus (19.4%). Hospital urologists use sunitinib most often for first-line therapy (57.6%) and sorafenib for second-line treatment (37.3%), while in third-line therapy temsirolimus (49.6%) and also everolimus (30.4%) were used.
The therapy of mRCC is determined very strongly by the substances sunitinib and sorafenib. The mTOR inhibitors have recently been increasingly included in the second- and third-line therapy. With the introduction of the new targeted therapies, the treatment of these special patients is performed less by urologists and increasingly more by oncologists. This trend is strengthened in comparison to the DGFIT study from 2008.
自2006年以来,德国已使用六种不同的靶向药物治疗转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)。目前尚无针对相同适应症应用的比较研究,潜在序贯治疗的顺序至今仍不明确。本研究的目的是收集德国在“靶向治疗”时代关于mRCC治疗决策的数据。同时,该研究探讨了不同治疗方案排序的核心问题。此外,本研究的数据将与2008年已发表的一项研究进行比较。
2010年,询问了四组专门从事mRCC患者治疗的医生在一线、二线和三线或序贯治疗中的行为。被询问者包括私人执业泌尿科医生(n = 40)、私人执业肿瘤内科医生(n = 40)、医院泌尿科医生(n = 35)和医院肿瘤内科医生(n = 35)。此外,应说明或权衡治疗决策的原因。
总共92%的mRCC患者接受了治疗。私人执业泌尿科医生仅亲自治疗其30%的患者。早期使用的免疫疗法(IFN、IL - 2)不再起作用。舒尼替尼在私人执业泌尿科医生的一线治疗中使用最为频繁(50.4%),在私人执业肿瘤内科医生中为(47.1%)。在二线和三线治疗中,私人执业泌尿科医生使用依维莫司(27.1%,26.3%),私人执业肿瘤内科医生使用索拉非尼(28.6%)或依维莫司(26.4%)。医院肿瘤内科医生主要使用舒尼替尼(56.1%),二线使用索拉非尼(45.5%),三线主要使用依维莫司(19.4%)。医院泌尿科医生一线治疗最常使用舒尼替尼(57.6%),二线治疗使用索拉非尼(37.3%),而在三线治疗中使用替西罗莫司(49.6%)以及依维莫司(30.4%)。
mRCC的治疗很大程度上由舒尼替尼和索拉非尼这两种药物决定。mTOR抑制剂最近越来越多地被纳入二线和三线治疗。随着新靶向疗法的引入,这些特殊患者的治疗由泌尿科医生进行的较少,而由肿瘤内科医生进行的越来越多。与来自2008年的DGFIT研究相比,这一趋势得到了加强。