INTRODUCTION: As new therapeutics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are quickly introduced to market, comparative randomized trial evidence guiding treatment decisions is lacking, especially in the second treatment exposure and beyond. As a demonstration case, we studied mRCC in real-world clinical settings by creating a joint community-academic retrospective mRCC registry to assess outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this overall survival (OS) analysis, the analytic cohort included all patients in the registry diagnosed between January 1, 2007, to May 31, 2011 (N = 384). Patients were grouped by up to three treatment exposures according to each drug's mechanism of action: vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR TKI), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTOR), or no systemic treatment (NSTx, which could include radiation or surgery). OS by exposure sequence was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier, pairwise comparison, and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Median OS was 17.2 months. OS (months) for one exposure was: mTOR 5.4, TKI 18.2, NSTx 18.4; for two exposures: mTOR/TKI 9.3, TKI/mTOR 13.9, TKI/TKI 35.2; and for three exposures: TKI/mTOR/TKI 20.9, TKI/TKI/mTOR 33.1. By pairwise comparison, OS for TKI, mTOR/TKI, TKI/mTOR, TKI/TKI, TKI/mTOR/TKI and TKI/TKI/mTOR sequences was greater than mTOR (all P < .04); demographics confirmed that individuals treated with early mTOR inhibition more commonly had adverse prognostic features. In Cox regression analysis, compared with the referent (TKI), TKI/TKI (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .03) had a lower risk of death, and mTOR (hazard ratio = 2.16; P = .002) had a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: mRCC survival outcomes are different by pattern, with general findings consistent with trial-based expectations in similar patient populations. Real-world data can provide context around patterns of care and impact when experimental trial data are lacking.
INTRODUCTION: As new therapeutics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are quickly introduced to market, comparative randomized trial evidence guiding treatment decisions is lacking, especially in the second treatment exposure and beyond. As a demonstration case, we studied mRCC in real-world clinical settings by creating a joint community-academic retrospective mRCC registry to assess outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this overall survival (OS) analysis, the analytic cohort included all patients in the registry diagnosed between January 1, 2007, to May 31, 2011 (N = 384). Patients were grouped by up to three treatment exposures according to each drug's mechanism of action: vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR TKI), mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTOR), or no systemic treatment (NSTx, which could include radiation or surgery). OS by exposure sequence was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier, pairwise comparison, and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Median OS was 17.2 months. OS (months) for one exposure was: mTOR 5.4, TKI 18.2, NSTx 18.4; for two exposures: mTOR/TKI 9.3, TKI/mTOR 13.9, TKI/TKI 35.2; and for three exposures: TKI/mTOR/TKI 20.9, TKI/TKI/mTOR 33.1. By pairwise comparison, OS for TKI, mTOR/TKI, TKI/mTOR, TKI/TKI, TKI/mTOR/TKI and TKI/TKI/mTOR sequences was greater than mTOR (all P < .04); demographics confirmed that individuals treated with early mTOR inhibition more commonly had adverse prognostic features. In Cox regression analysis, compared with the referent (TKI), TKI/TKI (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .03) had a lower risk of death, and mTOR (hazard ratio = 2.16; P = .002) had a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: mRCC survival outcomes are different by pattern, with general findings consistent with trial-based expectations in similar patient populations. Real-world data can provide context around patterns of care and impact when experimental trial data are lacking.
Authors: Bradford R Hirsch; Michael R Harrison; Daniel J George; Mark S Walker; Connie Chen; Beata Korytowsky; Edward Stepanski; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Jennifer Jones; Jaimin Bhatt; Jonathan Avery; Andreas Laupacis; Katherine Cowan; Naveen Basappa; Joan Basiuk; Christina Canil; Sohaib Al-Asaaed; Daniel Heng; Lori Wood; Dawn Stacey; Christian Kollmannsberger; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Sumanta Pal; Jun Gong; Shivani K Mhatre; Shih-Wen Lin; Andy Surinach; Sarika Ogale; Rini Vohra; Herschel Wallen; Daniel George Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Pedro Isaacsson Velho; Mirella Nardo; Manoel Carlos Leonardi de Azevedo Souza; Renata R C Colombo Bonadio; Guilherme Nader Marta; David Q B Muniz; Diogo Assed Bastos; Carlos Dzik Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2018-08
Authors: Sherrie L Aspinall; Xinhua Zhao; Mark C Geraci; Chester B Good; Francesca E Cunningham; Bernadette B Heron; Daniel Becker; Steve Lee; Vinay Prasad Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Susanne M Rittig; Maik Haentschel; Katrin J Weimer; Annkristin Heine; Martin R Müller; Wolfram Brugger; Marius S Horger; Olga Maksimovic; Arnulf Stenzl; Ingmar Hoerr; Hans-Georg Rammensee; Tobias A Holderried; Lothar Kanz; Steve Pascolo; Peter Brossart Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Radek Lakomy; Alexandr Poprach; Zbynek Bortlicek; Bohuslav Melichar; Renata Chloupkova; Rostislav Vyzula; Milada Zemanova; Katerina Kopeckova; Marek Svoboda; Ondrej Slaby; Igor Kiss; Hana Studentova; Jaroslav Juracek; Ondrej Fiala; Jindrich Kopecky; Jindrich Finek; Ladislav Dusek; Karel Hejduk; Tomas Buchler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 4.430