Individualized treatment with sunitinib versus standard dosing with sunitinib or pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). Academic Article uri icon

  •  
  • Overview
  •  
  • Research
  •  
  • Identity
  •  
  • Additional Document Info
  •  
  • View All
  •  

abstract

  • 468 Background: Recent analysis using CKCis, a prospective database, showed that mRCC patients receiving first-line sunitinib (S) had better survival than patients receiving pazopanib (P) and greater than expected absolute survival in the real world setting. We conducted further analyses to see if an individualized approach (treatment starting at standard dose/schedule with subsequent schedule/dose alterations based on toxicity) using S results in better outcomes in mRCC patients. Methods: Patients within CKCis diagnosed with clear cell mRCC treated with first-line S or P between January 2011 to December 2015 were analyzed by three treatment groups: 1) S as per individualized approach (SI), 2) S as per product monograph (SS), or 3) P as per product monograph (PS). Overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure (TTF) were calculated. Cox regression analysis allowed for adjustment of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria with age as a continuous variable. Results: A total of 573 patients were identified, 261 patients in SI, 201 patients in SS, and 111 patients in PS. Differences in baseline characteristics were noted (Table). Median OS was improved in SI vs. SS (40.8 vs. 22.6 months (m), p<0.001) and SI vs. PS (40.8 vs. 20.3 m, p<0.001). TTF was better in SI vs. SS (16.6 vs. 5.4 m, p<0.001) and SI vs. PS (16.6 vs. 7.0 m, p<0.001). SS vs. PS showed no difference in median OS (22.6 vs. 20.3 m, p=0.76) or TTF (5.4 vs. 7.0 m, p=0.11). Adjusted hazard ratio showed significance in SS vs. SI (OS 1.81, p=0.004 TTF 2.42, p<0.001) and PS vs. SI (OS 3.16, p<0.001; TTF 2.03, p<0.001). Conclusions: Significant improvement in OS and TTF is seen using an individualized approach to mRCC patients, further supporting the growing body of evidence endorsing this practice. Further prospective validation awaits from the NCT01499121 study. [Table: see text]

authors

  • Basappa, Naveen S
  • Lalani, Aly-Khan
  • Li, Haocheng
  • Kalirai, Austin
  • Wood, Lori
  • Kollmannsberger, Christian K
  • Sim, Hao-Wen
  • Kapoor, Anil
  • Hotte, Sebastien J
  • Czaykowski, Piotr
  • Canil, Christina M
  • Reaume, M Neil
  • Bjarnason, Georg A
  • Vanhuyse, Marie
  • Soulieres, Denis
  • Levesque, Eric
  • North, Scott A
  • Heng, Daniel Yick Chin

publication date

  • February 20, 2017