Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Urology, Coimbra University Hospital, Coimbra, Portugal.
Eur Urol. 2018 Nov;74(5):611-620. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.002. Epub 2018 May 18.
Contradictory data exist with regard to adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy in surgically managed patients for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic benefit (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy for resected localized RCC.
A critical review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in January 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was performed. We identified reports and reviewed them according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Of eight full-text articles that were eligible for inclusion, five studies (two of five were updated analyses) were retained in the final synthesis. Study characteristics were abstracted and the number needed to treat (NNT) per trial was estimated.
The three randomized controlled phase III trials included the following comparisons: sunitinib versus placebo or sorafenib versus placebo (Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma [ASSURE] study, n=1943), sunitinib versus placebo (S-TRAC, n=615), and pazopanib versus placebo (Pazopanib As Adjuvant Therapy in Localized/Locally Advanced RCC After Nephrectomy study, n=1135). The NNT ranged from 10 (S-TRAC) to 137 (ASSURE study). The pooled analysis showed that VEGFR-targeted therapy was not statistically significantly associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-1.03, p=0.16) or OS (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84-1.15, p=0.84) compared with the control group. The adjuvant therapy group experienced significantly higher odds of grade 3-4 AEs (OR: 5.89, 95% CI: 4.85-7.15, p<0.001). In exploratory analyses focusing on patients who started on the full-dose regimen, DFS was improved in patients who received adjuvant therapy (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95, p=0.005).
This pooled analysis of reported randomized trials did not reveal a statistically significant effect between adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy and improved DFS or OS in patients with intermediate/high-risk local or regional fully resected RCC. Improvement in DFS may be more likely with the use of full-dose regimens, pending further results. However, adjuvant treatment was associated with high-grade AEs.
Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapy after nephrectomy for localized kidney cancer is not associated with consistent improvements in delaying cancer recurrence or prolonging life and comes at the expense of potentially significant side effects.
对于接受手术治疗的局限性肾细胞癌(RCC)患者,辅助血管内皮生长因子受体(VEGFR)靶向治疗存在相互矛盾的数据。
系统评估目前关于辅助 VEGFR 靶向治疗在切除的局限性 RCC 中的治疗获益(无病生存期[DFS]和总生存期[OS])和 3-4 级不良事件(AE)的证据。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明,于 2018 年 1 月对 PubMed/Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了关键性文献回顾。我们根据临床试验的统一报告标准和诊断准确性研究报告标准对报告进行了识别和回顾。在符合纳入标准的 8 篇全文文章中,保留了 5 项研究(其中两项为更新分析)进行最终综合分析。提取了研究特征,并估计了每项试验的需要治疗人数(NNT)。
三项随机对照 III 期试验包括以下比较:舒尼替尼与安慰剂或索拉非尼与安慰剂(辅助索拉非尼或舒尼替尼治疗不利肾细胞癌[ASSURE]研究,n=1943)、舒尼替尼与安慰剂(S-TRAC,n=615)和帕唑帕尼与安慰剂(帕唑帕尼作为肾切除术后局部/局部晚期 RCC 的辅助治疗研究,n=1135)。NNT 范围从 10(S-TRAC)到 137(ASSURE 研究)。荟萃分析显示,与对照组相比,VEGFR 靶向治疗与改善 DFS(风险比[HR]:0.92,95%置信区间[CI]:0.82-1.03,p=0.16)或 OS(HR:0.98,95% CI:0.84-1.15,p=0.84)无统计学意义相关。辅助治疗组发生 3-4 级 AE 的几率明显更高(OR:5.89,95% CI:4.85-7.15,p<0.001)。在关注开始全剂量方案的患者的探索性分析中,接受辅助治疗的患者 DFS 得到改善(HR:0.83,95% CI:0.73-0.95,p=0.005)。
本报告的随机试验的荟萃分析并未显示辅助 VEGFR 靶向治疗与接受局部或区域完全切除的中高危局限性或局部 RCC 患者的 DFS 或 OS 改善之间存在统计学显著关联。使用全剂量方案可能更有可能改善 DFS,但辅助治疗与高等级 AE 相关。
肾切除术后用于局部肾癌的血管内皮生长因子受体靶向治疗并不能一致改善癌症复发或延长生命的效果,并且要付出潜在的重大副作用的代价。