Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifu-chou, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan.
Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.
Med Oncol. 2018 Nov 24;36(1):6. doi: 10.1007/s12032-018-1231-3.
We aimed to compare oncological outcomes and safety of axitinib and sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We retrospectively evaluated 169 patients with mRCC who were treated with axitinib or sunitinib as the first-line therapy in five hospitals between October 2008 and August 2018. Oncological outcomes and safety were compared between axitinib (n = 68) and sunitinib (n = 101) groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW)-adjusted Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate effects of first-line therapies on progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Patients in the axitinib group were significantly older (66 vs. 72 years) than those in the sunitinib group. Median relative dose intensity was significantly higher in the axitinib group (94 ± 62%) than in the sunitinib group (65 ± 20%; P = 0.001). Objective response rate was significantly higher in the axitinib group (21%) than in the sunitinib group (10%; P = 0.042). IPTW-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed significant differences in CSS and OS but not in PFS between the two groups. Safety in terms of grade ≥ 3 adverse events was significantly different between the axitinib (34%) and sunitinib (55%) groups (P = 0.006). Compared with sunitinib, axitinib significantly prolonged CSS and OS and showed a safer profile as the first-line therapy for treatment-naïve mRCC.
我们旨在比较阿昔替尼和舒尼替尼在初治转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者中的肿瘤学结局和安全性。我们回顾性评估了 2008 年 10 月至 2018 年 8 月期间五家医院的 169 例接受阿昔替尼或舒尼替尼作为一线治疗的 mRCC 患者。比较了阿昔替尼(n = 68)和舒尼替尼(n = 101)组的肿瘤学结局和安全性。采用逆概率治疗加权(IPTW)调整 Cox 回归分析评估一线治疗对无进展生存期(PFS)、癌症特异性生存期(CSS)和总生存期(OS)的影响。阿昔替尼组患者明显比舒尼替尼组患者年龄大(66 岁比 72 岁)。阿昔替尼组的中位相对剂量强度明显高于舒尼替尼组(94 ± 62%比 65 ± 20%;P = 0.001)。阿昔替尼组的客观缓解率明显高于舒尼替尼组(21%比 10%;P = 0.042)。IPTW 调整的 Cox 回归分析显示两组在 CSS 和 OS 上存在显著差异,但在 PFS 上无显著差异。两组在 3 级及以上不良事件的安全性方面存在显著差异,阿昔替尼组(34%)明显低于舒尼替尼组(55%)(P = 0.006)。与舒尼替尼相比,阿昔替尼显著延长了 CSS 和 OS,作为初治 mRCC 的一线治疗具有更好的安全性。