Is there still a role for sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of sorafenib over other targeted agents

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has largely improved over the last decade, due to the availability of several targeted agents (TAs). Sorafenib was the first TA to report a benefit in terms of PFS in this disease, and it has largely been used as a comparator in randomized trials. We tested its activity compared to other TAs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ASCO university websites were searched for randomized phase II or III trials that compared other TAs to sorafenib in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the overall response rate (ORR). Sub-analyses were performed for MSKCC prognostic groups and lines of therapy. Results: A total of 3094 patients were evaluable for PFS. Other TAs significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to sorafenib (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; p <0.001). This difference remains significant in patients in a good prognostic group with respect to both first- (HR = 0.61; 95%CI, 0.44-0.85; p = 0.003) and second-line therapy (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; p <0.001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients with an intermediate prognosis in terms of both first- (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; p = 0.05) and second-line treatment (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.21).In 2922 patients evaluable for OS, no significant difference was found between other TAs and sorafenib (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.18; p = 0.18). A benefit was also not identified when the analysis was limited to patients treated with first or subsequent lines of therapy or in patients previously treated with sunitinib. Significant differences were found in terms of the ORR in the 2963 evaluable patients favoring other TAs (RR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.76; p <0.001). This difference remain significant when a sub-analysis was performed per line of therapy. Conclusions: Other TAs improve PFS but not OS when compared to sorafenib. The use of sorafenib in patients with an intermediate prognosis, especially in second-line therapy, does not have a detrimental effect on PFS and might be an option for certain patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)324-331
Number of pages8
JournalCritical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Volume99
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Renal Cell Carcinoma
Meta-Analysis
Disease-Free Survival
Survival
Therapeutics
sorafenib
Group Psychotherapy
PubMed
MEDLINE
Libraries

Keywords

  • Axitinib
  • First line
  • MRCC
  • Phase II trial
  • Phase III trial
  • Second line
  • Sorafenib
  • Sunitinib
  • Tivozanib

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Hematology
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

@article{c864dc8c7130428c8488b8a5eb0c8f55,
title = "Is there still a role for sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of sorafenib over other targeted agents",
abstract = "Background: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has largely improved over the last decade, due to the availability of several targeted agents (TAs). Sorafenib was the first TA to report a benefit in terms of PFS in this disease, and it has largely been used as a comparator in randomized trials. We tested its activity compared to other TAs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ASCO university websites were searched for randomized phase II or III trials that compared other TAs to sorafenib in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the overall response rate (ORR). Sub-analyses were performed for MSKCC prognostic groups and lines of therapy. Results: A total of 3094 patients were evaluable for PFS. Other TAs significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to sorafenib (HR = 0.78; 95{\%} CI, 0.72-0.85; p <0.001). This difference remains significant in patients in a good prognostic group with respect to both first- (HR = 0.61; 95{\%}CI, 0.44-0.85; p = 0.003) and second-line therapy (HR = 0.58; 95{\%} CI, 0.42-0.79; p <0.001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients with an intermediate prognosis in terms of both first- (HR = 0.80; 95{\%} CI, 0.60-1.00; p = 0.05) and second-line treatment (HR = 0.89; 95{\%} CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.21).In 2922 patients evaluable for OS, no significant difference was found between other TAs and sorafenib (HR = 1.07; 95{\%} CI, 0.97-1.18; p = 0.18). A benefit was also not identified when the analysis was limited to patients treated with first or subsequent lines of therapy or in patients previously treated with sunitinib. Significant differences were found in terms of the ORR in the 2963 evaluable patients favoring other TAs (RR = 1.48; 95{\%} CI, 1.24-1.76; p <0.001). This difference remain significant when a sub-analysis was performed per line of therapy. Conclusions: Other TAs improve PFS but not OS when compared to sorafenib. The use of sorafenib in patients with an intermediate prognosis, especially in second-line therapy, does not have a detrimental effect on PFS and might be an option for certain patients.",
keywords = "Axitinib, First line, MRCC, Phase II trial, Phase III trial, Second line, Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Tivozanib",
author = "Roberto Iacovelli and Elena Verri and {Cossu Rocca}, Maria and Gaetano Aurilio and Daniela Cullur{\`a} and Matteo Santoni and {de Cobelli}, Ottavio and Franco Nol{\'e}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.01.014",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "324--331",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology",
issn = "1040-8428",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is there still a role for sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of sorafenib over other targeted agents

AU - Iacovelli, Roberto

AU - Verri, Elena

AU - Cossu Rocca, Maria

AU - Aurilio, Gaetano

AU - Cullurà, Daniela

AU - Santoni, Matteo

AU - de Cobelli, Ottavio

AU - Nolé, Franco

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Background: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has largely improved over the last decade, due to the availability of several targeted agents (TAs). Sorafenib was the first TA to report a benefit in terms of PFS in this disease, and it has largely been used as a comparator in randomized trials. We tested its activity compared to other TAs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ASCO university websites were searched for randomized phase II or III trials that compared other TAs to sorafenib in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the overall response rate (ORR). Sub-analyses were performed for MSKCC prognostic groups and lines of therapy. Results: A total of 3094 patients were evaluable for PFS. Other TAs significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to sorafenib (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; p <0.001). This difference remains significant in patients in a good prognostic group with respect to both first- (HR = 0.61; 95%CI, 0.44-0.85; p = 0.003) and second-line therapy (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; p <0.001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients with an intermediate prognosis in terms of both first- (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; p = 0.05) and second-line treatment (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.21).In 2922 patients evaluable for OS, no significant difference was found between other TAs and sorafenib (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.18; p = 0.18). A benefit was also not identified when the analysis was limited to patients treated with first or subsequent lines of therapy or in patients previously treated with sunitinib. Significant differences were found in terms of the ORR in the 2963 evaluable patients favoring other TAs (RR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.76; p <0.001). This difference remain significant when a sub-analysis was performed per line of therapy. Conclusions: Other TAs improve PFS but not OS when compared to sorafenib. The use of sorafenib in patients with an intermediate prognosis, especially in second-line therapy, does not have a detrimental effect on PFS and might be an option for certain patients.

AB - Background: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has largely improved over the last decade, due to the availability of several targeted agents (TAs). Sorafenib was the first TA to report a benefit in terms of PFS in this disease, and it has largely been used as a comparator in randomized trials. We tested its activity compared to other TAs by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ASCO university websites were searched for randomized phase II or III trials that compared other TAs to sorafenib in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the overall response rate (ORR). Sub-analyses were performed for MSKCC prognostic groups and lines of therapy. Results: A total of 3094 patients were evaluable for PFS. Other TAs significantly reduce the risk of progression compared to sorafenib (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; p <0.001). This difference remains significant in patients in a good prognostic group with respect to both first- (HR = 0.61; 95%CI, 0.44-0.85; p = 0.003) and second-line therapy (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; p <0.001). No significant differences were, however, found in patients with an intermediate prognosis in terms of both first- (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; p = 0.05) and second-line treatment (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.07; p = 0.21).In 2922 patients evaluable for OS, no significant difference was found between other TAs and sorafenib (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.18; p = 0.18). A benefit was also not identified when the analysis was limited to patients treated with first or subsequent lines of therapy or in patients previously treated with sunitinib. Significant differences were found in terms of the ORR in the 2963 evaluable patients favoring other TAs (RR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.76; p <0.001). This difference remain significant when a sub-analysis was performed per line of therapy. Conclusions: Other TAs improve PFS but not OS when compared to sorafenib. The use of sorafenib in patients with an intermediate prognosis, especially in second-line therapy, does not have a detrimental effect on PFS and might be an option for certain patients.

KW - Axitinib

KW - First line

KW - MRCC

KW - Phase II trial

KW - Phase III trial

KW - Second line

KW - Sorafenib

KW - Sunitinib

KW - Tivozanib

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959553335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959553335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.01.014

DO - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.01.014

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84959553335

VL - 99

SP - 324

EP - 331

JO - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

JF - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

SN - 1040-8428

ER -