Suppr超能文献

转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌的二线治疗:专家共识算法

Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts' consensus algorithms.

作者信息

Rothermundt C, von Rappard J, Eisen T, Escudier B, Grünwald V, Larkin J, McDermott D, Oldenburg J, Porta C, Rini B, Schmidinger M, Sternberg C N, Putora P M

机构信息

Department of Haematology and Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2017 Apr;35(4):641-648. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1903-6. Epub 2016 Aug 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach.

RESULTS

The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

摘要

背景

转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌(mccRCC)的二线全身治疗方案多种多样,专家们的治疗策略也各不相同。我们的目的是研究一线使用酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)治疗后二线治疗的方法。最近两项III期试验证明了纳武单抗(NIV)和卡博替尼(CAB)在这种情况下的潜在作用。我们旨在评估这些试验对临床决策的影响。

材料与方法

邀请了11位国际专家提供他们在当前情况下以及NIV和CAB获批并可使用后,针对mccRCC二线全身治疗的策略。采用客观共识法对治疗策略进行分析。

结果

决策树分析显示,在当前情况下,一线TKI治疗后依维莫司(EVE)、阿昔替尼(AXI)、NIV和TKI转换(sTKI)为治疗选择,而在未来情况下大多为NIV和CAB。治疗决策最常用的标准是缓解持续时间、TKI耐受性以及“zugzwang”(几个相关标准的综合)。

结论

与一线治疗情况不同,专家们对mccRCC二线全身治疗的建议差异没有那么大。一线TKI治疗疾病进展后最常用的药物包括:EVE、AXI、NIV和sTKI。在NIV和CAB可使用的未来情况下,NIV是最常选择的药物,而一些专家指出了选择CAB更合适的情况。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验