Search

Background: Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited., Materials and Methods: We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy between January 1, 2008 and May 31, 2017 from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database of Hungary. Overall survival (OS) and duration of first-line treatment (DFT) were obtained for patients receiving sunitinib-everolimus, sunitinib-axitinib, or pazopanib-everolimus treatment sequences. OS of sunitinib-everolimus and sunitinib-axitinib sequences was also determined for patients having better or worse response to sunitinib first-line therapy., Results: Median OS was significantly longer among patients treated with sunitinib-axitinib compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus. Median DFT was also significantly longer in the sunitinib-axitinib vs. sunitinib-everolimus group. Sunitinib-axitinib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus in patients with better response to first-line sunitinib in the pooled sunitinib population. In patients with worse response to sunitinib, sunitinib-axitinib was associated with a trend towards greater OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus, but the difference did not reach statistical significance., Conclusions: In this nationwide database analysis, mRCC patients treated with the sunitinib-axitinib sequence had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus therapy. The OS benefits of second-line axitinib were consistent among patients with better response to sunitinib defined by DFT values.

A global, open-label, expanded-access trial (EAT) provided sunitinib treatment on a compassionate-use basis to patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) between 2005 and 2011. This retrospective analysis examines outcomes in patients from Central and East European (CEE) countries participating in the global EAT. Sunitinib (starting dose 50 mg orally once daily, with dose reduction for toxicity) was administered in repeated 6-week cycles (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off) until occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor assessments were guided by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria but were performed according to local standards of care. In total, 401 CEE patients received sunitinib (median treatment duration 9.6 months), of whom 378 were evaluable for tumor response. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were fatigue (7.5 %), hypertension (7.0 %), thrombocytopenia (6.5 %), diarrhea (4.2 %), nausea and hand-foot syndrome (both 3.7 %) and neutropenia (3.0 %). Median overall survival was 30.7 months (95 % CI 23.3, ‒ months). Overall survival tended to be longer in cytokine-naïve than cytokine-experienced patients (median 60.8 vs. 27.5 months; P = 0.1324). Among patients with evaluable tumors, 4.0 % achieved a complete and 14.6 % a partial response [objective response rate (ORR) 18.5 % (95 % CI 14.7, 22.8 %)]. Median progression-free survival was 11.6 months (95 % CI 10.3, 12.8 months). Sunitinib demonstrates safety and effectiveness in real-world mRCC patients in CEE countries. Expanded-access program patients showed a lower tumor response rate but similar survival outcomes to patients in the pivotal Phase III clinical trial of sunitinib in mRCC.

Our retrospective analysis compared the effectiveness of conventional antracycline-containing protocols (A+) and docetaxel/epirubicine (TE) as primary systemic chemotherapies (PSCT) for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Seventy IBC patients received either A + (n = 48) or TE (n = 22) as PSCT. The objective clinical response and clinical benefit rate of treated patients were 54.3% (A+: 54,2% vs. TE: 54,5%; p = 0,28) and 92.8% (A+: 91,7% vs. TE: 95,5%; p = 0,57), respectively. The clinical complete response rate (cCR) was 23.2% (A+: 27,1% vs. TE:4,5%; χ (2) = 4,79; p = 0,03) with 7.14% (A+: 10,4% vs. TE:0%; χ (2) = 2,47; p = 0,12) of pathological complete responses (pCR). The median progression free (PFS)/local progression free (LPFS)/overall survival (OS) was 2.0/5.4/4.0 years, respectively. Patients achieving cCR had a tendency for better survival parameters than patients with less than cCR. Response rates or survival data were not statistically different in the two chemotherapy (CT) treatment groups. The survival was not influenced by the number of CT cycles in either protocols. In this set of patients, the clinical efficacy of the two alternative primary systemic chemotherapies (A + and TE) is equivalent in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), despite of the significant difference in favour of A + noticed in CRs. Six cycles of CT could be enough for patients achieving CR, however sequential pre- and/or postoperative CT with non cross-resistant drugs should be considered for non-responders.