Indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety between seven newer targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A network meta‑analysis of randomised clinical trials

Leung,Henry  W.C.; Chan,Agnes  L.F.; Lin,Shun‑Jen

doi:10.3892/mco.2014.323

Indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety between seven newer targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A network meta‑analysis of randomised clinical trials

Authors:
- Henry W.C. Leung
- Agnes L.F. Chan
- Shun‑Jen Lin
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiation Oncology, Tainan Municipal An‑Nan Hospital‑China Medical University, Tainan 709, Taiwan, Hsin Sheng College of Medicine Care and Management, Taoyuan 325, Taiwan, School of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
Published online on: June 23, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.323
Pages: 858-864

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

This network meta‑analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety among 7 newer targeted agents for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). All randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of targeted therapeutic drugs for mRCC were included. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes [improvement in the median progression‑free survival (PFS)] and safety outcomes (number of withdrawals due to adverse events). The network analysis included direct and indirect analyses. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. We identified 7 articles eligible for inclusion in the study. The direct comparison of the targeted agents indicated better efficacy in terms of longer PFS, but worse safety (more withdrawals due to adverse events). The indirect analysis demonstrated that axitinib was significantly more effective compared to panzopanib; sunitinib was superior to sorafenib and temsirolimus regarding efficacy outcome, without any statistically significant difference in the safety outcome. The results of the quality assessment indicated moderate scores using the GRADE method. In conclusion, the result of this network analysis suggested that sunitinib and axitinib may be more clinically efficient and axitinib is associated with a lower risk of adverse events compared to sorafenib, pazopanib and temsirolimus.

View Figures

View References

1	Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C and Parkin DM: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 127:2893–2917. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA, et al: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 100:1672–1694. 2008.
3	Mathew A, Devesa SS, Fraumeni JF Jr and Chow WH: Global increases in kidney cancer incidence, 1973–1992. Eur J Cancer Prev. 11:171–178. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
4	Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J and Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 60:277–300. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Taiwan Cancer Registry. http://tcr.cph.ntu.edu.tw/main.php?Page=N1. Accessed June 21, 2012
6	Gupta K, Miller JD, Li JZ, Russell MW and Charbonneau C: Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. Cancer Treat Rev. 34:193–205. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Athar U and Gentile TC: Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a review. Can J Urol. 15:3954–3966. 2008.PubMed/NCBI
8	Shih YC, Chien CR, Xu Y, Pan IW, Smith GL and Buchholz TA: Economic burden of renal cell carcinoma: Part I - an updated review. Pharmacoeconomics. 29:315–329. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
9	Finley DS, Pantuck AJ and Belldegrun AS: Tumor biology and prognostic factors in renal cell carcinoma. Oncologist. 16(Suppl 2): 4–13. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
10	Schünemann H, Brozek J and Oxman A: GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation, version 3.2 (updated March 2009). The GRADE Working Group. http://ims.cochrane.org/revman/gradepro. Accessed June 21, 2012
11	Higgins JPT and Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008, View Article : Google Scholar
12	Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 21:2313–2324. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Lu G and Ades AE: Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 23:3105–3124. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Review Manager (RevMan) computer program, version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013
15	Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE and Walter SD: The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 50:683–691. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Caldwell DM, Ades AE and Higgins JP: Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 331:897–900. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M and Coyle D: Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC) computer program, version 1.0. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009
18	R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed August 14, 2013
19	Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al: TARGET Study Group: Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 356:125–134. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S, et al: RECORD-1 Study Group: Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results and analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer. 116:4256–4265. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Sternberg CN, Davis ID, Mardiak J, et al: Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 28:1061–1068. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Mulders P, Hawkins R, Nathan P, et al: Cediranib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomised phase II study. Eur J Cancer. 48:527–537. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, Kaprin A, Szczylik C, Hutson TE, et al: Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 378:1931–1939. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Hutson TE, Escudier B, Esteban E, et al: Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 32:760–767. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, et al: Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 369:722–731. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Mills EJ, Rachlis B, O’Regan C, et al: Metastatic renal cell cancer treatments: an indirect comparison meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 9:342009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Leung HW and Chan AL: Multikinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: indirect comparison meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 33:708–716. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Larkin J, Paine A, Tumur I, Cappelleri JC, Healey PJ Sr, Foley G, Mitchell S, Kroes M and Chen C: Second-line treatments for the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 14:27–39. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Hoyle M, Green C, Thompson-Coon J, Liu Z, Welch K, Moxham T and Stein K: Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib for second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Value Health. 13:55–60. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Hoyle M, Green C, Thompson-Coon J, Liu Z, Welch K, Moxham T and Stein K: Cost-effectiveness of temsirolimus for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Value Health. 13:61–68. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Higgins JPT and Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011