Unverzagt Susanne, Moldenhauer Ines, Nothacker Monika, Roßmeißl Dorothea, Hadjinicolaou Andreas V, Peinemann Frank, Greco Francesco, Seliger Barbara
Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburge Straße 8, Halle/Saale, Germany, 06097.
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Gartenstadtstrasse 22, Halle/Saale, Germany, 06126.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 May 15;5(5):CD011673. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011673.pub2.
Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients.
To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit.
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC.
We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables.
We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.
自21世纪中叶以来,转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)领域经历了从使用具有广泛作用的细胞因子进行非特异性治疗到直接针对癌症、肿瘤微环境或两者的特异性治疗方案的范式转变。当前指南推荐使用舒尼替尼、帕唑帕尼或替西罗莫司(用于预后较差的患者)等药物进行靶向治疗,作为mRCC患者一线治疗的标准治疗方案,并提及非特异性细胞因子可作为部分患者的替代选择。2015年11月,纳武单抗,一种针对程序性死亡-1(PD-1)的检查点抑制剂,被批准作为首个特异性免疫治疗药物,用于既往接受过治疗的mRCC患者的二线治疗。
评估免疫疗法单独或与标准靶向疗法联合用于治疗转移性肾细胞癌的效果及其使患者获益最大化的疗效。
我们于2016年11月检索了Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE(Ovid)、Embase(Ovid)、ISI科学网以及正在进行的临床试验注册库,无语言限制。我们浏览了参考文献列表并联系了该领域的专家以获取更多信息。
我们纳入了涉及mRCC患者的随机对照试验(RCT)和准RCT,有无盲法均可。
我们根据已发表的方案收集和分析研究。主要终点的汇总统计量为风险比(RRs)和均值差(MD)及其95%置信区间(CIs)。我们使用GRADE方法对证据质量进行评级,并在我们的“结果总结”表中总结每个主要结局的相对和绝对效应的质量和大小。
我们确定了8项研究,共4732名符合条件的参与者,另有13项正在进行的研究。我们将研究分类为比较,所有这些比较均针对mRCC的一线治疗(5项比较)或二线治疗(1项比较)的标准疗法。与使用替西罗莫司或舒尼替尼的标准靶向疗法相比,干扰素(IFN)-α单药治疗可能会增加一年的总死亡率(RR 1.30,95% CI 1.13至1.51;2项研究;1166名参与者;中等质量证据),可能导致相似的生活质量(QoL)(例如癌症通用功能评估量表(FACT-G)的MD为-5.58分,95% CI -7.25至-3.91;1项研究;730名参与者;低质量证据),并且可能会轻微增加3级或更高级别的不良事件(AE)发生率(RR 1.17,9% CI 1.03至1.32;1项研究;408名参与者;低质量证据)。IFN-α联合替西罗莫司与单独使用替西罗莫司在一年总死亡率方面可能没有差异(RR 1.13,95% CI 0.95至1.34;1项研究;419名参与者;中等质量证据),但3级或更高级别的AE发生率可能会增加(RR 1.30,95% CI 1.17至1.45;1项研究;416名参与者;低质量证据)。没有关于QoL的信息。与IFN-α联合贝伐单抗相比,单独使用IFN-α可能会轻微增加一年的总死亡率(RR 1.17,95% CI 1.00至1.36;2项研究;1381名参与者;低质量证据)这种影响可能伴随着3级或更高级别AE发生率的降低(RR 0.77,95% CI 0.71至0.84;2项研究;1350名参与者;中等质量证据)。由于数据不足,无法评估QoL。使用IFN-α联合贝伐单抗或标准靶向治疗(舒尼替尼)可能会导致相似的一年总死亡率(RR 0.37,95% CI 0.13至1.08;1项研究;83名参与者;低质量证据)和3级或更高级别的AE发生率(RR 1.18,95% CI 0.85至1.62;1项研究;82名参与者;低质量证据)。由于数据不足,无法评估QoL。使用疫苗(如MVA-5T4或IMA901)或标准治疗可能会导致相似的一年总死亡率(RR 1.10,95% CI 0.91至1.32;低质量证据)和3级或更高级别的AE发生率(RR 1.16,95% CI 0.97至1.39;2项研究;1065名参与者;低质量证据)。由于数据不足,无法评估QoL。在既往接受过治疗的患者中,与使用依维莫司的标准靶向治疗相比,靶向免疫治疗(纳武单抗)可能会降低一年的总死亡率(RR 0.70,95% CI 0.56至0.当87;1项研究;821名参与者;中等质量证据),可能会改善QoL(例如癌症相关症状的FACT-肾脏症状指数(FKSI-DRS)临床相关改善的RR为1.51,95% CI 1.28至1.78;1项研究,704名参与者;中等质量证据),并且可能会降低3级或更高级别AE的发生率(RR 0.51,95% CI 0.40至0.65;1项研究;803名参与者;中等质量证据)。
中等质量的证据表明,与单独的标准靶向疗法相比,IFN-α单药治疗会增加死亡率,而IFN与标准靶向疗法联合使用则没有差异。低质量的证据表明,单独使用IFN时QoL较差,单独使用或联合使用IFN时严重AE会增加。低质量的证据表明,与IFN-α联合贝伐单抗相比,单独使用IFN-α会增加死亡率,但在AE减少方面有中等质量的证据。低质量的证据表明,在死亡率和严重AE方面,IFN-α联合贝伐单抗与舒尼替尼相比没有差异。低质量的证据表明,在死亡率和AE方面,疫苗治疗与标准靶向疗法相比没有差异,而有中等质量的证据表明,靶向免疫疗法可降低死亡率和AE并改善QoL。