Urogenital Tumors and Clinical Pharmacology Department, National Institute of Oncology, Ráth György u. 7-9, 1122, Budapest, Hungary.
Department of Oncology, Szent László Hospital, Albert Flórián út 5, 1097, Budapest, Hungary.
Pathol Oncol Res. 2020 Oct;26(4):2201-2207. doi: 10.1007/s12253-020-00809-z. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited.
We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy between January 1, 2008 and May 31, 2017 from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database of Hungary. Overall survival (OS) and duration of first-line treatment (DFT) were obtained for patients receiving sunitinib-everolimus, sunitinib-axitinib, or pazopanib-everolimus treatment sequences. OS of sunitinib-everolimus and sunitinib-axitinib sequences was also determined for patients having better or worse response to sunitinib first-line therapy.
Median OS was significantly longer among patients treated with sunitinib-axitinib compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus. Median DFT was also significantly longer in the sunitinib-axitinib vs. sunitinib-everolimus group. Sunitinib-axitinib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus in patients with better response to first-line sunitinib in the pooled sunitinib population. In patients with worse response to sunitinib, sunitinib-axitinib was associated with a trend towards greater OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
In this nationwide database analysis, mRCC patients treated with the sunitinib-axitinib sequence had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus therapy. The OS benefits of second-line axitinib were consistent among patients with better response to sunitinib defined by DFT values.
靶向治疗显著改善了转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者的临床结局。已有几种新的药物被批准用于一线和二线治疗。然而,缺乏比较治疗方案的有力证据,而且关于不同治疗序列在真实世界中的有效性的现有比较数据有限。
我们从匈牙利国家健康保险基金(NHIF)数据库中确定了 2008 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 5 月 31 日期间开始接受靶向治疗的 mRCC 患者。我们获得了接受舒尼替尼-依维莫司、舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼或帕唑帕尼-依维莫司治疗方案的患者的总生存期(OS)和一线治疗持续时间(DFT)。我们还确定了对舒尼替尼一线治疗反应较好或较差的患者中,舒尼替尼-依维莫司和舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼序列的 OS。
与接受舒尼替尼-依维莫司治疗的患者相比,接受舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼治疗的患者的中位 OS 显著延长。与舒尼替尼-依维莫司组相比,舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼组的中位 DFT 也显著延长。在接受舒尼替尼一线治疗的患者中,舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼与舒尼替尼-依维莫司相比,与更好的 OS 相关。在对舒尼替尼反应较差的患者中,与舒尼替尼-依维莫司相比,舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼与 OS 延长趋势相关,但差异无统计学意义。
在这项全国性数据库分析中,与接受舒尼替尼-依维莫司治疗的患者相比,接受舒尼替尼-阿昔替尼治疗的 mRCC 患者的 OS 显著延长。在根据 DFT 值定义的对舒尼替尼反应较好的患者中,二线阿昔替尼的 OS 获益一致。