Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74(3):309-321. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.036. Epub 2018 Apr 13.
In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, direct comparative data are lacking for most of these agents.
To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in the first-line treatment of mRCC.
Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched using the OvidSP platform for studies indexed from database inception to October 23, 2017. Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were included, and the systematic search was supplemented by hand search. For the systematic review, we identified any parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing first-line systemic therapy. For network meta-analysis, we limited these to a clinically-relevant network based on standard practice patterns. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes.
In total, 37 trials reporting on 13 128 patients were included in the systematic review. The network meta-analysis comprised 10 trials reporting on 4819 patients. For PFS (10 trials, 4819 patients), there was a high likelihood (SUCRA 91%) that cabozantinib was the preferred treatment. For OS (5 trials, 3379 patients), there was a 48% chance that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the preferred option. There was a 67% likelihood that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the best tolerated regime with respect to AEs.
Cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be the preferred first-line agents for treating mRCC; however, direct comparative studies are warranted. These findings may provide guidance to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions and may help inform future direct comparative trials.
There are many treatment options for patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We indirectly compared the available options and found that cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable choices as the first-line treatment in this situation.
在过去十年中,转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)的治疗选择呈爆炸式增长。然而,大多数这些药物缺乏直接比较的数据。
间接比较转移性肾细胞癌一线治疗中使用的系统治疗的疗效和安全性。
使用 OvidSP 平台在 Medline、EMBASE、Web of Science 和 Scopus 数据库中进行检索,检索时间从数据库建立到 2017 年 10 月 23 日。会议摘要也包含在相关医学协会的会议中,并通过手工搜索补充系统搜索。对于系统评价,我们确定了任何评估一线系统治疗的平行组随机对照试验。对于网络荟萃分析,我们将其限制在基于标准实践模式的临床相关网络中。无进展生存期(PFS)是主要结局。总生存期(OS)和 3 级和 4 级不良事件(AE)是次要结局。
共有 37 项试验报告了 13128 例患者,纳入系统评价。网络荟萃分析包括 10 项试验报告了 4819 例患者。对于 PFS(10 项试验,4819 例患者),卡博替尼是首选治疗方法的可能性很大(SUCRA 91%)。对于 OS(5 项试验,3379 例患者),纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗是首选方案的可能性为 48%。纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗在 AE 方面最有可能是最耐受的方案,可能性为 67%。
卡博替尼和纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗可能是治疗 mRCC 的首选一线药物;然而,需要直接比较研究。这些发现可能为患者和临床医生在做出治疗决策时提供指导,并可能有助于为未来的直接比较试验提供信息。
转移性肾细胞癌患者有许多治疗选择。我们间接比较了现有的选择,发现卡博替尼和纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗可能是这种情况下作为一线治疗的首选。