Bonadioa Renata Colombo, Velho Pedro Isaacsson, Marta Guilherme Nader, Nardo Mirella, Souza Manoel Carlos LA, Muniz David Qb, Bezerra Regis Of, Bispo Raisa Ka, Faraj Sheila F, Bastos Diogo A, Dzik Carlos
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5818-922X.
Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av Dr Arnaldo 251, São Paulo 01246-000, Brazil.
Ecancermedicalscience. 2019 Nov 4;13:973. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.973. eCollection 2019.
Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) are underrepresented in clinical trials. Treatment approaches are frequently extrapolated from data of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, in which pazopanib is non-inferior to sunitinib. We aim to compare the effectiveness of first-line sunitinib and pazopanib for nccRCC and sRCC.
We evaluated a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic nccRCC and sRCC treated with first-line sunitinib or pazopanib at an academic cancer centre. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate were measured. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses were used for time-to-event data. Cox regression was used for prognostic factors.
Fifty-three patients were included; 16 (30.1%) treated with sunitinib and 37 (69.9%) with pazopanib. Forty-six (86.8%) patients had nccRCC and 7 (13.2%) had sRCC. The majority had intermediate or poor International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk (93%).Median PFS was 6.6 months with sunitinib and 4.9 months with pazopanib (HR 1.75; = 0.078). Treatment with pazopanib was associated with inferior OS in comparison with sunitinib (median OS: 30.4 months versus 8.7 months; HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.31-5.58, = 0.007). These results were confirmed in subgroup analysis of patients with papillary, chromophobe and MiT family translocation histologies (median OS: 38.7 months versus 14.7 months; HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.20-8.29, = 0.019). Unclassified and sarcomatoid histologies had inferior OS (median: 6.9 and 1.1 months, respectively) regardless of the treatment used.
In this patient cohort, pazopanib was associated with inferior OS in comparison with sunitinib for metastatic nccRCC. Larger trials are ideally warranted to confirm these results.
非透明细胞肾细胞癌(nccRCC)和肉瘤样肾细胞癌(sRCC)在临床试验中的代表性不足。治疗方法常常是根据透明细胞肾细胞癌的数据推断而来,在透明细胞肾细胞癌中,帕唑帕尼不劣于舒尼替尼。我们旨在比较一线使用舒尼替尼和帕唑帕尼治疗nccRCC和sRCC的疗效。
我们评估了在一家学术癌症中心接受一线舒尼替尼或帕唑帕尼治疗的转移性nccRCC和sRCC患者的回顾性队列。测量总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)和缓解率。采用Kaplan-Meier法和对数秩检验分析事件发生时间数据。使用Cox回归分析预后因素。
共纳入53例患者;16例(30.1%)接受舒尼替尼治疗,37例(69.9%)接受帕唑帕尼治疗。46例(86.8%)患者为nccRCC,7例(13.2%)为sRCC。大多数患者具有国际转移性肾细胞癌数据库联盟中危或低危风险(93%)。舒尼替尼组的中位PFS为6.6个月,帕唑帕尼组为4.9个月(风险比[HR] 1.75;P = 0.078)。与舒尼替尼相比,帕唑帕尼治疗与较差的OS相关(中位OS:30.4个月对8.7个月;HR 2.71,95%置信区间[CI] 1.31 - 5.58,P = 0.007)。这些结果在对具有乳头状、嫌色细胞和MiT家族易位组织学类型患者的亚组分析中得到证实(中位OS:38.7个月对14.7个月;HR 3.16,95% CI 1.20 - 8.29,P = 0.019)。无论采用何种治疗,未分类和肉瘤样组织学类型的患者OS均较差(中位分别为6.9个月和1.1个月)。
在该患者队列中,对于转移性nccRCC,与舒尼替尼相比,帕唑帕尼与较差的OS相关。理想情况下需要更大规模的试验来证实这些结果。