Pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single-center, real-world, retrospective Chinese study.
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)
pazopanib
real-world
the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk model (IMDC risk model)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
entrez:
14
4
2021
pubmed:
15
4
2021
medline:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC. Patients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed. A total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%). Pazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Pazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33850766
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-111
pii: tau-10-03-1321
pmc: PMC8039632
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1321-1331Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-111). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Clin Drug Investig. 2019 Oct;39(10):931-938
pubmed: 31250401
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 26;16:299
pubmed: 27456701
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Jun;17(3):e526-e533
pubmed: 31196680
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 Oct 22;6(1):109
pubmed: 30348216
Immunotherapy. 2020 Dec;12(17):1237-1246
pubmed: 32878521
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1116-1127
pubmed: 30779529
Cancer Treat Rev. 2008 May;34(3):193-205
pubmed: 18313224
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010 Oct;40(10):980-5
pubmed: 20457723
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Dec;21(12):1563-1573
pubmed: 33284113
Oncologist. 2019 Apr;24(4):491-497
pubmed: 30867244
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1278-1285
pubmed: 31693980
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1412-8
pubmed: 24687826
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Jul;8(2):
pubmed: 32661118
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):722-31
pubmed: 23964934
Chin J Cancer Res. 2019 Feb;31(1):29-48
pubmed: 30996565
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Feb 20;28(6):1061-8
pubmed: 20100962
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Nov 22;33(51):e325
pubmed: 30546281
Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(8):1450-3
pubmed: 24762587
Oncotarget. 2018 Jun 12;9(45):27752-27759
pubmed: 29963234
Ann Transl Med. 2015 Nov;3(19):279
pubmed: 26697439
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5794-9
pubmed: 19826129
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370(18):1769-70
pubmed: 24785224
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Apr;15(2):291-299.e1
pubmed: 27638198
Oncologist. 2021 Feb;26(2):e290-e297
pubmed: 32918790
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;107:37-45
pubmed: 30529901
Eur Urol. 2015 Nov;68(5):837-47
pubmed: 25952317
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Oct;16(5):355-359.e1
pubmed: 29803346
BMC Cancer. 2020 Mar 14;20(1):219
pubmed: 32171288
Br J Nurs. 2011 May 13-26;20(9):536, 538-9
pubmed: 21647012
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Jun 15;15(12):4220-7
pubmed: 19509175
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Feb;14(2):141-8
pubmed: 23312463
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jun;15(6):804-834
pubmed: 28596261
Clin Ther. 2012 Mar;34(3):511-20
pubmed: 22341567