Evaluation of Provider Preferences in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Comparison Between Dual Immunotherapy vs. Immunotherapy/Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.


Journal

Clinical genitourinary cancer
ISSN: 1938-0682
Titre abrégé: Clin Genitourin Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101260955

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2022
Historique:
received: 11 05 2022
accepted: 07 06 2022
pubmed: 23 7 2022
medline: 6 12 2022
entrez: 22 7 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Dual immunotherapy (ipilimumab/nivolumab, IO/IO) and immunotherapy/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) combinations (e.g. pembrolizumab/axitinib) are approved for the first-line treatment of intermediate/poor risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but there is limited comparative data between these two options. We sought to understand how oncologists decide between IO/IO vs. IO/TKI. We sent a 10-question electronic survey centered on a patient scenario of intermediate/poor risk metastatic RCC to 294 academic/disease-focused and general oncologists in the US. We received 105 responses (36% response rate): 61% (64) of providers chose IO/IO, 39% (41) chose IO/TKI. 78% (82) of oncologists were academic or disease-focused, 22% (23) were general. Academic/disease-focused oncologists were significantly more likely to choose IO/IO (56/82, 68%) than general oncologists (8/23, 35%), P = .004. Among those who chose IO/IO, the perceived main issue with IO/TKI was: long-term toxicities - 31% (20), short-term toxicities - 28% (18), less effective - 28% (18), less convenient - 8% (5). Among those who chose IO/TKI, the perceived main issue with IO/IO was: short-term toxicities - 43% (17), less effective - 28% (11), long-term toxicities - 15% (6), and risk of death - 10% (4). 88% (92) of providers would be comfortable enrolling patients into a phase III trial comparing IO/IO vs. IO/TKI. We found no associations between therapy chosen by a provider and participation as PI in a trial of IO/IO or IO/TKI, or receipt of outside funding from an IO/IO or IO/TKI company. In response to a patient scenario of intermediate/poor risk metastatic RCC, 61% of providers chose IO/IO, 39% chose IO/TKI. There was a significant association between type of practice and choice of therapy, with academic/disease-focused oncologists more likely to choose IO/IO. The majority of oncologists would be comfortable enrolling patients into a phase III trial comparing IO/IO vs. IO/TKI.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35869002
pii: S1558-7673(22)00132-X
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2022.06.008
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Protein Kinase Inhibitors 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

510-514

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Priyanka V Chablani (PV)

Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Theodore Karrison (T)

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Walter M Stadler (WM)

Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH