TY - JOUR
T1 - Adjuvant Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor–targeted Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma
T2 - A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis [Figure presented]
AU - Sun, Maxine
AU - Marconi, Lorenzo
AU - Eisen, Tim
AU - Escudier, Bernard
AU - Giles, Rachel H.
AU - Haas, Naomi B.
AU - Harshman, Lauren C.
AU - Quinn, David I.
AU - Larkin, James
AU - Pal, Sumanta K.
AU - Powles, Thomas
AU - Ryan, Christopher W.
AU - Sternberg, Cora N.
AU - Uzzo, Robert
AU - Choueiri, Toni K.
AU - Bex, Axel
N1 - Funding Information:
Financial disclosures: Maxine Sun certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Bernard Escudier receives honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Exelixis, and Genentech; holds a consulting or advisory role for Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ipsen; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. Naomi B. Haas holds a consulting or advisory role for Cerulean Pharma, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Novartis; has been an expert testimony for Eli Lilly (I); and possesses stock or other ownership in Tetralogic. Lauren C. Harshman is the principal investigator/study chair of the National Clinical Trials Network PROSPER EA8143 study. She also has received research grants to her institution from, acted as a paid member of the advisory board for, and received travel expenses from Bayer; received research grants to her institution from and acted as a paid member of the advisory board for Genentech, Dendreon/Valeant, Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, and Merck; acted as a paid member of the advisory board for Kew Group, Exelixis, and Corvus; acted in an uncompensated advisory role for Theragene Pharmaceuticals; received research grants to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squib, Sotio, Janssen, and Takeda; received fees for Continuing Medical Education from PER and Applied Clinical Education; and received travel fees from Sanofi for work performed outside of the current study. David I. Quinn reports personal fees from Exelixis, Genentech, Pfizer, Bayer, Peleton, and Merck outside the submitted work. James Larkin has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and travel or accommodations expenses paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Christopher W. Ryan reports personal fees from Pfizer and Genentech, and a research grant to institution from Onyx. Sumanta Pal receives honoraria from Novartis, Medivation, and Astellas Pharma; holds a consulting or advisory role for Pfizer, Novartis, AVEO, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Eisai; and has received research funding from Medivation. Cora N. Sternberg received honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Janssen, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Eisai, Ipsen, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Eli Lilly, and has received research funding from Exelixis (Inst). Tim Eisen is employed by AstraZeneca and reports grants from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Thomas Powles is a company consultant for Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline; has received company speaker honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; has participated in trials for GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, BMS, Genentech, and Genetech; and has received grants/research support from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis. Toni K. Choueiri declares receiving fees for consulting and for serving on advisory boards from GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech, Exelixis, Eisai, Cerulean, Foundation Medicine Inc., Corvus, and Prometheus, and grant support through his institution from BMS, GSK, Novartis, Exelixis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, and Peloton. Axel Bex has received company speaker honoraria from Pfizer; has participated in trials for Pfizer Europe; has participated in advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; is a company consultant for Pfizer and Novartis; and has received grants/research support from Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 European Association of Urology
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
N2 - Context: Contradictory data exist with regard to adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy in surgically managed patients for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective: To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic benefit (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) and grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) for adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy for resected localized RCC. Evidence acquisition: A critical review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in January 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was performed. We identified reports and reviewed them according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Of eight full-text articles that were eligible for inclusion, five studies (two of five were updated analyses) were retained in the final synthesis. Study characteristics were abstracted and the number needed to treat (NNT) per trial was estimated. Evidence synthesis: The three randomized controlled phase III trials included the following comparisons: sunitinib versus placebo or sorafenib versus placebo (Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma [ASSURE] study, n = 1943), sunitinib versus placebo (S-TRAC, n = 615), and pazopanib versus placebo (Pazopanib As Adjuvant Therapy in Localized/Locally Advanced RCC After Nephrectomy study, n = 1135). The NNT ranged from 10 (S-TRAC) to 137 (ASSURE study). The pooled analysis showed that VEGFR-targeted therapy was not statistically significantly associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HRrandom]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–1.03, p = 0.16) or OS (HRrandom: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15, p = 0.84) compared with the control group. The adjuvant therapy group experienced significantly higher odds of grade 3–4 AEs (ORrandom: 5.89, 95% CI: 4.85–7.15, p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses focusing on patients who started on the full-dose regimen, DFS was improved in patients who received adjuvant therapy (HRrandom: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.95, p = 0.005). Conclusions: This pooled analysis of reported randomized trials did not reveal a statistically significant effect between adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy and improved DFS or OS in patients with intermediate/high-risk local or regional fully resected RCC. Improvement in DFS may be more likely with the use of full-dose regimens, pending further results. However, adjuvant treatment was associated with high-grade AEs. Patient summary: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–targeted therapy after nephrectomy for localized kidney cancer is not associated with consistent improvements in delaying cancer recurrence or prolonging life and comes at the expense of potentially significant side effects. Adjuvant targeted therapy following complete resection of localized renal cell carcinoma have not consistently demonstrated clinical benefit.
AB - Context: Contradictory data exist with regard to adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy in surgically managed patients for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objective: To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic benefit (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) and grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) for adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy for resected localized RCC. Evidence acquisition: A critical review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in January 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was performed. We identified reports and reviewed them according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Of eight full-text articles that were eligible for inclusion, five studies (two of five were updated analyses) were retained in the final synthesis. Study characteristics were abstracted and the number needed to treat (NNT) per trial was estimated. Evidence synthesis: The three randomized controlled phase III trials included the following comparisons: sunitinib versus placebo or sorafenib versus placebo (Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma [ASSURE] study, n = 1943), sunitinib versus placebo (S-TRAC, n = 615), and pazopanib versus placebo (Pazopanib As Adjuvant Therapy in Localized/Locally Advanced RCC After Nephrectomy study, n = 1135). The NNT ranged from 10 (S-TRAC) to 137 (ASSURE study). The pooled analysis showed that VEGFR-targeted therapy was not statistically significantly associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HRrandom]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–1.03, p = 0.16) or OS (HRrandom: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15, p = 0.84) compared with the control group. The adjuvant therapy group experienced significantly higher odds of grade 3–4 AEs (ORrandom: 5.89, 95% CI: 4.85–7.15, p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses focusing on patients who started on the full-dose regimen, DFS was improved in patients who received adjuvant therapy (HRrandom: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.95, p = 0.005). Conclusions: This pooled analysis of reported randomized trials did not reveal a statistically significant effect between adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy and improved DFS or OS in patients with intermediate/high-risk local or regional fully resected RCC. Improvement in DFS may be more likely with the use of full-dose regimens, pending further results. However, adjuvant treatment was associated with high-grade AEs. Patient summary: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–targeted therapy after nephrectomy for localized kidney cancer is not associated with consistent improvements in delaying cancer recurrence or prolonging life and comes at the expense of potentially significant side effects. Adjuvant targeted therapy following complete resection of localized renal cell carcinoma have not consistently demonstrated clinical benefit.
KW - Adjuvant therapy
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Metastatic renal cell carcinoma
KW - Systemic therapy
KW - Targeted therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047193180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047193180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.002
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.002
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29784193
AN - SCOPUS:85047193180
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 74
SP - 611
EP - 620
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 5
ER -