Efficacy and Safety in Previously Untreated, Advanced/Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma – a Systematic Literature Review Update

Author(s)

Kraan C1, Nientker L2, May J3, Malcolm B4, Ejzykowicz F5, Kurt M5, Chun DS6, Branchoux S7, Ho S3, Spoorendonk J2
1Pharmerit – an OPEN Health Company, Rotterdam, ZH, Netherlands, 2Pharmerit – an OPEN Health Company, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 3Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK, 4Bristol Myers Squibb, Middlesex, UK, 5Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA, 6Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA, 7Bristol Myers Squibb, Rueil-Malmaison, France

OBJECTIVES: To review the available literature on efficacy and safety for patients with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: An update to the existing systematic literature review (SLR) from March 2018 was carried out by two independent reviewers to identify publications up to September 2019. Inclusion criteria were in line with previous standards: phase II, III or II/III RCTs in previously untreated aRCC patients. Databases and sources included: MEDLINE (in-Process), Embase, Cochrane, trial registries, and conference proceedings. RESULTS: In total, 111 relevant publications were identified. Amongst identified therapies, sunitinib was most frequently investigated (n=22), followed by sorafenib (n=13) and pazopanib (n=8). Of the included studies, patients’ median age ranged from 49-68 years. Most frequent efficacy outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and overall response rate (ORR), ranging from 1.9-17.3 months, 7.1-42.7 months, and 0%-59.3%, respectively for patients that were not stratified according to MSKCC/IMDC risk status. Respectively, identified mPFS and mOS reported by MSKCC/IMDC risk status ranged between 5.7-16.7 months and 26.9-37.2 months in favorable risk patients, between 4-13.3 months and 13.9-22.6 months in intermediate risk patients, and between 1-10.9 months and 1.6-6.6 months in poor risk patients. Experience of any grade AEs ranged between 48% and 100% and grade ≥3 ranged between 4% and 88%. Most common all grade AEs were diarrhea (3%-88%), fatigue (8%-93%), and hypertension (0%-81%). Novel immuno-oncology (IO) therapies under investigation, such as nivolumab + ipilimumab, have shown promising results in aRCC, with long follow-up and mOS yet to be reached. CONCLUSIONS: This updated SLR highlighted that there is still a considerable unmet need for improved survival in aRCC patients, with novel IO therapies showing assuring results. The results are consistent with the earlier review presented in 2018.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy

Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)

Code

PCN21

Topic

Clinical Outcomes

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy

Disease

Drugs, Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×