Aly-Khan A Lalani1, Haocheng Li2, Daniel Y C Heng3, Lori Wood4, Austin Kalirai5, Georg A Bjarnason6, Hao-Wen Sim7, Christian K Kollmannsberger8, Anil Kapoor9, Sebastien J Hotte9, Marie Vanhuyse10, Piotr Czaykowski11, M Neil Reaume12, Denis Soulieres13, Peter Venner1, Scott North1, Naveen S Basappa1. 1. Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2. Departments of Oncology & Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 4. Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada. 5. Faculty of Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 6. Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. BC Cancer Agency Vancouver Cancer Centre, Vancouver BC, Canada. 9. Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 10. Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 11. Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 12. The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 13. Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting. METHODS: Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting. METHODS: Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Camillo Porta; Petri Bono; Thomas Powles; Tim Eisen; Cora N Sternberg; Jürgen E Gschwend; Ugo De Giorgi; Omi Parikh; Robert Hawkins; Emmanuel Sevin; Sylvie Négrier; Sadya Khan; Jose Diaz; Suman Redhu; Faisal Mehmud; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jose Manuel Ruiz-Morales; Marcin Swierkowski; J Connor Wells; Anna Paola Fraccon; Felice Pasini; Frede Donskov; Georg A Bjarnason; Jae-Lyun Lee; Hao-Wen Sim; Andrzej Sliwczynsk; Aneta Ptak-Chmielewska; Zbigniew Teter; Benoit Beuselinck; Lori A Wood; Takeshi Yuasa; Carmel Pezaro; Brian I Rini; Cezary Szczylik; Toni K Choueiri; Daniel Y C Heng Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-07-31 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Georg A Bjarnason; Bishoy Khalil; John M Hudson; Ross Williams; Laurent M Milot; Mostafa Atri; Alex Kiss; Peter N Burns Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-12-08 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Lauren C Harshman; Georg A Bjarnason; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Mary Mackenzie; Lori Wood; Frede Donskov; Min-Han Tan; Sun-Young Rha; Neeraj Agarwal; Christian Kollmannsberger; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sara Nazha; Simon Tanguay; Anil Kapoor; Michael Jewett; Christian Kollmannsberger; Lori Wood; G A Georg Bjarnason; Daniel Heng; Denis Soulières; Martin Neil Reaume; Naveen Basappa; Eric Lévesque; Alice Dragomir Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Sebastien J Hotte; Anil Kapoor; Naveen S Basappa; Georg Bjarnason; Christina Canil; Henry J Conter; Piotr Czaykowski; Jeffrey Graham; Samantha Gray; Daniel Y C Heng; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Christian Kollmannsberger; Aly-Khan A Lalani; Scott A North; François Patenaude; Denis Soulières; Phillippe Violette; Eric Winquist; Lori A Wood; Shaan Dudani; Ranjena Maloni; M Neil Reaume Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: S Nazha; S Tanguay; A Kapoor; M Jewett; C Kollmannsberger; L Wood; G Bjarnason; D Heng; D Soulières; N Reaume; N Basappa; E Lévesque; A Dragomir Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: M Neil Reaume; Naveen S Basappa; Lori Wood; Anil Kapoor; Georg A Bjarnason; Normand Blais; Rodney H Breau; Christina Canil; Patrick Cheung; Henry J Conter; Sebastien J Hotte; Claudio Jeldres; Michael A S Jewett; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Christian Kollmannsberger; Francois Patenaude; Alan So; Denis Soulières; Peter Venner; Phillippe Violette; Pawel Zalewski; Heather Chappell; Scott A North Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Nicholas J Vogelzang; Sumanta K Pal; Sameer R Ghate; Elyse Swallow; Nanxin Li; Miranda Peeples; Miriam L Zichlin; Mark K Meiselbach; Jose Ricardo Perez; Neeraj Agarwal Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.845