IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Line Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Observational Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Y Heng
  • James Signorovitch
  • Elyse Swallow
  • Nanxin Li
  • Yichen Zhong
  • Paige Qin
  • Daisy Y Zhuo
  • Xufang Wang
  • Jinhee Park
  • Sotirios Stergiopoulos
  • Christian Kollmannsberger

Abstract

Objective: The optimal sequencing of targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is unknown. Observational studies with a variety of designs have reported differing results. The objective of this study is to systematically summarize and interpret the published real-world evidence comparing sequential treatment for mRCC. Methods: A search was conducted in Medline and Embase (2009–2013), and conference proceedings from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO-GU), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2011–2013). We systematically reviewed observational studies comparing second-line mRCC treatment with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) versus vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Studies were evaluated for 1) use of a retrospective cohort design after initiation of second-line therapy, 2) adjustment for patient characteristics, and 3) use of data from multiple centers. Meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Ten studies reported OS and exhibited significant heterogeneity in estimated second-line treatment effects (I2 = 68%; P = 0.001). Four of these were adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies, and these showed no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.61) and a significant association between second-line mTORi (>75% everolimus) and longer OS compared to VEGF TKI (>60% sorafenib) (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98) in a meta-analysis. Seven studies comparing PFS showed significant heterogeneity overall and among the adjusted, multicenter, retrospective cohort studies. Real-world observational data for axitinib outcomes was limited at the time of this study. Conclusions: Real-world studies employed different designs and reported heterogeneous results comparing the effectiveness of second-line mTORi and VEGF TKI in the treatment of mRCC. Within the subset of adjusted, multicenter observational studies, second-line use of mTORi was associated with significantly prolonged survival compared with second-line use of VEGF TKI.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Y Heng & James Signorovitch & Elyse Swallow & Nanxin Li & Yichen Zhong & Paige Qin & Daisy Y Zhuo & Xufang Wang & Jinhee Park & Sotirios Stergiopoulos & Christian Kollmannsberger, 2014. "Comparative Effectiveness of Second-Line Targeted Therapies for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114264
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114264
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114264&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114264?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.