OBJECTIVES: A systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib. METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Indirect comparisons using a fixed-effect Bayesian model were used to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments and reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Although 24 RCTs met eligibility criteria, only three studies were included in the fixed-effect Bayesian meta-analysis, due to differences in patient inclusion criteria/reported outcomes in the wider dataset. Robust meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroup pretreated with cytokines. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), axitinib was superior compared with placebo (HR = 0.25, 95% CrI: 0.17 - 0.38), sorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.32 - 0.68) and pazopanib (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.26 - 0.85). An analysis including all patients, regardless of previous first-line treatment, reported similar results. There was no significant difference in PFS between sorafenib and pazopanib. CONCLUSION: Results from the present study suggest that axitinib will be an important treatment option to extend PFS in the management of advanced RCC in the second-line setting. Ongoing research will define the optimal treatment algorithm leading to a patient-focused treatment strategy.
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib. METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Indirect comparisons using a fixed-effect Bayesian model were used to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments and reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Although 24 RCTs met eligibility criteria, only three studies were included in the fixed-effect Bayesian meta-analysis, due to differences in patient inclusion criteria/reported outcomes in the wider dataset. Robust meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroup pretreated with cytokines. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), axitinib was superior compared with placebo (HR = 0.25, 95% CrI: 0.17 - 0.38), sorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.32 - 0.68) and pazopanib (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.26 - 0.85). An analysis including all patients, regardless of previous first-line treatment, reported similar results. There was no significant difference in PFS between sorafenib and pazopanib. CONCLUSION: Results from the present study suggest that axitinib will be an important treatment option to extend PFS in the management of advanced RCC in the second-line setting. Ongoing research will define the optimal treatment algorithm leading to a patient-focused treatment strategy.