BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), either alone or in combination, confers a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for metastatic RCC in the first-line setting. However, guidance for optimal treatment selection in elderly patients remains limited.
METHODS: A database search was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line regimens for patients with advanced RCC older than 65 years old. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Indirect comparisons of available regimens were estimated using a random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 14 and five RCTs were eligible for PFS and OS analyses. Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97) and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.94) were associated with improved OS. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and cabozantinib alone each showed improved PFS over sunitinib. Among these, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib showed better PFS than pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91), but no PFS difference compared to nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.03) and cabozantinib alone (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40-1.77). Network ranking showed pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib provided the favored OS and PFS benefit for elderly patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ICB with TKI such as pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib needs to be considered over monotherapy in the elderly population, but further validation using real-world data or prospective trials is necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of first-line regimens for the geriatric population with advanced RCC.
BACKGROUND: Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is the most common type of kidney cancers. Disease-specific survival for mRCC has been significantly improved with the introduction of new targeted agents since 2005. However, there is a lack of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the efficacy between therapies. This study compared indirectly progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among first-line and second-line therapies in patients with mRCC using network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of targeted and biological therapies in patients with mRCC published between January 2000 and June 2020. The Bayesian fixed-effect NMA was performed to evaluate relative PFS and OS of first-line and second-line therapies of axitinib, bevacizumab, cabozantinib, everolimus, lenvatinib, nivolumab, ipilimumab, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, tivozanib, avelumab and pembrolizumab, which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. End points were compared using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible interval (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated to assess the probability of being the best treatment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 26 RCTs (first line: 19, second line: 9) with 13 893 patients were included in the NMA. For the first-line therapy, cabozantinib was associated with the highest improved PFS (HR = 0.26, 95% CrI = 0.14-0.44) followed by avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib (HR = 0.27, SUCRA = 90%). Pembrolizumab + axitinib had a high likelihood of being the preferred treatment when using OS as the outcome measure (HR = 0.41, 95% CrI = 0.16-0.85). Avelumab + axitinib had the lowest HR compared with placebo + interferon on discontinuations due to AE (HR = 1.04, 95% CrI = 0.54-1.86). For second-line therapy, cabozantinib was identified as the most effective treatment option when assessing PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12-0.24). Axitinib had the lowest HR of OS and discontinuation due to AE (HR = 0.54, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.71; HR = 0.98, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.97, respectively). Pazopanib was the second choice in terms of OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.28-1.00; SUCRA = 76%) compared with placebo.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: With respect to PFS and OS improvement, cabozantinib, avelumab + axitinib and pembrolizumab + axitinib are likely to be the preferred options for the first-line therapy and cabozantinib and axitinib for the second-line therapy in the management of mRCC. Regarding safety, avelumab + axitinib and temsirolimus were considered preferred treatment options in first-line and second-line therapies. More future research is needed to establish subgroup analyses, allowing evaluation of the impact of some of the differences in patient characteristics, including treatment effect modifiers.
Clinical trials have previously assessed various therapies for renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, there is currently a lack of direct comparisons between these therapies. The present study identified published studies on RCC through Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials and Clinical trials.gov that were written in the English language and published by February 2019. The data were selected and extracted independently by two reviewers. Standard pair-wise meta-analyses were performed using Stata. Network meta-analyses were subsequently performed using WinBUGS (version 1.4.3). The primary outcome of the present study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events of various targeted therapies. The results were presented as cumulative odds ratio, hazard ratio, corresponding 95% confidence interval and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, which was used to rank the probabilities and outcome of each treatment in RCC. A total of 31 eligible publications for 18 randomized controlled trials consisting of 11,498 participants were included in the present study. The network meta-analyses revealed that a combination of lenvantinib and everolimus ranked first out of 16 treatments in terms of PFS, OS and ORR (probability of 54.0, 53.4 and 61.0%, respectively).
BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
CONTEXT: Systemic therapy for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has greatly evolved over the last 15yr. More recently, combination strategies involving contemporary immunotherapy have emerged as key opportunities to further shift the treatment landscape.
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of standard therapeutic options in mccRCC as well as combination immunotherapy options on the horizon.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to February 2018 and according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. A narrative review of studies was performed.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six studies were included regarding therapies for metastatic RCC including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapy (n=9), mTOR inhibitors (n=2), cytokines (n=3), vaccines (n=3), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, n=9). VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy had been the standard therapy, and its use is evolving in the front-line setting with ICIs; cabozantinib provides superior progression-free survival versus sunitinib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium criteria. The mTOR therapy is largely inferior to VEGF-directed therapy, although it has a role in combination strategies. Cytokines have largely been replaced in current practice throughout most regions, and vaccines have failed to show improved survival in phase III studies to date. ICIs have now become standard care in untreated patients with intermediate and poor risks, given overall survival benefit seen with CheckMate-214 study; survival data from IMmotion 151 are not yet mature. Several ongoing phase III combination trials, with promising early-phase data, are due to be read out.
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment landscape for mccRCC has evolved since the introduction of VEGF inhibitors. Combination therapies involving checkpoint inhibitors could be the next standard of care.
PATIENT SUMMARY: With the expanding role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the treatment paradigm has shifted to include combination therapy in the untreated setting. As the field advances, the bar has been raised in evaluating ongoing combination strategies.
BACKGROUND: Various approaches have been developed for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC). The objective was to assess the efficacy of immunotherapeutic approaches.
METHODS: We included participants diagnosed with all types of histologically confirmed MRCC, the test intervention was immunotherapy alone or combined with other immunotherapy or targeted therapies, and the study design was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We conducted the last search in March 31, 2018.
RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, and we established seven different treatment comparisons according to the type of data. Two RCTs favored nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab on account of all primary outcomes. The efficacy data of all other comparisons were either indifferent or favored the control group.
CONCLUSION: The immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab appears to be the only new immunotherapy that may improve overall survival in participants with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Interferon-α alone is unfavorable to targeted therapies with respect to overall survival and adverse events.
CONTEXT: In the last decade, there has been a proliferation of treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, direct comparative data are lacking for most of these agents.
OBJECTIVE: To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in the first-line treatment of mRCC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched using the OvidSP platform for studies indexed from database inception to October 23, 2017. Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were included, and the systematic search was supplemented by hand search. For the systematic review, we identified any parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing first-line systemic therapy. For network meta-analysis, we limited these to a clinically-relevant network based on standard practice patterns. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome. Overall survival (OS) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 37 trials reporting on 13 128 patients were included in the systematic review. The network meta-analysis comprised 10 trials reporting on 4819 patients. For PFS (10 trials, 4819 patients), there was a high likelihood (SUCRA 91%) that cabozantinib was the preferred treatment. For OS (5 trials, 3379 patients), there was a 48% chance that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the preferred option. There was a 67% likelihood that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was the best tolerated regime with respect to AEs.
CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be the preferred first-line agents for treating mRCC; however, direct comparative studies are warranted. These findings may provide guidance to patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions and may help inform future direct comparative trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY: There are many treatment options for patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We indirectly compared the available options and found that cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable choices as the first-line treatment in this situation.
ABSTRACT We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the efficacy of the targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced RCC and, via an indirect comparison, to provide an optimal treatment among these agents. A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials unpublished was performed up to Jan 1, 2015 to identify eligible randomized trials. Outcomes of interest assessing a targeted agent included progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Thirty eligible randomized controlled studies, total twentyfourth trails (5110 cases and 4626 controls) were identified. Compared with placebo and IFN-α, single vascular epithelial growth factor (receptor) tyrosine kinase inhibitor and mammalian target of rapamycin agent (VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor) were associated with improved PFS, improved OS and higher ORR, respectively. Comparing sorafenib combination vs sorafenib, there was no significant difference with regard to PFS and OS, but with a higher ORR. Comparing single or combination VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor vs BEV + IFN-α, there was no significant difference with regard to PFS, OS, or ORR. Our network ITC meta-analysis also indicated a superior PFS of axitinib and everolimus compared to sorafenib. Our data suggest that targeted therapy with VEGF(r)-TKI & mTOR inhibitor is associated with superior efficacy for treating advanced RCC with improved PFS, OS and higher ORR compared to placebo and IFN-α. In summary, here we give a comprehensive overview of current targeted therapies of advanced RCC that may provide evidence for the adequate targeted therapy selecting.
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), either alone or in combination, confers a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for metastatic RCC in the first-line setting. However, guidance for optimal treatment selection in elderly patients remains limited.
METHODS:
A database search was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line regimens for patients with advanced RCC older than 65 years old. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Indirect comparisons of available regimens were estimated using a random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS:
A total of 14 and five RCTs were eligible for PFS and OS analyses. Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97) and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.94) were associated with improved OS. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and cabozantinib alone each showed improved PFS over sunitinib. Among these, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib showed better PFS than pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91), but no PFS difference compared to nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.03) and cabozantinib alone (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40-1.77). Network ranking showed pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib provided the favored OS and PFS benefit for elderly patients.
CONCLUSIONS:
The combination of ICB with TKI such as pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib needs to be considered over monotherapy in the elderly population, but further validation using real-world data or prospective trials is necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of first-line regimens for the geriatric population with advanced RCC.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
