pazopanib and tivozanib

Anti-angiogenic treatment is an important option that has changed the therapeutic landscape in various tumors, particularly in patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Agents that block signaling pathways governing tumor angiogenesis have raised high expectations among clinicians. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) comprise a heterogeneous class of drugs with distinct pharmacological profiles, including potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions. Among them, tivozanib is one of the last TKIs introduced in the clinical practice; this drug selectively targets VEGFRs, it is characterized by a favorable pharmacokinetics and safety profile and has been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). In this article, we describe the clinical pharmacology of selected VEGFR-TKIs used for the treatment of mRCC, highlighting the relevant differences; moreover we aim to define the main pharmacologic characteristics of these drug.

Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Anilides; Axitinib; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Drug Interactions; Humans; Indazoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib

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.. To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.. We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.. 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.. 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.. 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 mon. 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.

Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors still play a very important role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma despite a continuously changing scenario, in which immunotherapy and several combination-based approaches are also available. In this light, patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life are important factors in the selection of the best first-line treatment. This Review focuses on the existing evidence on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life with several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (pazopanib, sunitinib, cabozantinib and tivozanib) used as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Indazoles; Indoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib; Treatment Outcome

While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown.. To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC.. Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.. The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 80% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67-2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9-2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91-1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3-4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant.. This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed.. We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.

Topics: Anilides; Antineoplastic Agents; Axitinib; Benzimidazoles; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Disease-Free Survival; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Everolimus; Humans; Imidazoles; Indazoles; Indoles; Interferons; Interleukin-2; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Pyrrolidinones; Quinolines; Quinolones; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib

In the recent years, a number of targeted therapies have been approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A systematic review was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and effect of all first-line treatments evaluated to date on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A systematic search of Embase, Cochrane and MEDLINE databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (1980-2015) evaluating any targeted therapy/immunotherapy against placebo or any other targeted intervention/immunotherapy in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Conference proceedings from major cancer congresses (2007-2015) were handsearched. Sixteen randomized controlled trials were identified, mostly phase III. Overall, targeted therapies were associated with either improved [sunitinib, bevacizumab+interferon α (IFNα) and temsirolimus] or comparable (sorafenib) progression-free survival (PFS) versus IFNα monotherapy. Sunitinib demonstrated comparable PFS and overall survival to pazopanib, comparable PFS to sorafenib and shorter PFS compared with bevacizumab+IFNα (although no conclusions were made with regard to superiority/inferiority). Compared with sorafenib, tivozanib demonstrated a significantly longer PFS, and both tivozanib and axitinib demonstrated higher response rates. Nintedanib demonstrated comparable PFS and overall survival to sunitinib in a phase II trial. Temsirolimus, sunitinib and sorafenib treatment led to better HRQoL versus IFNα; pazopanib was associated with better HRQoL versus sunitinib. No direct meta-analyses or indirect treatment comparison analysis were undertaken because of noncomparability of the trials. In general, targeted therapies demonstrated favourable clinical efficacy and improved HRQoL compared with IFNα monotherapy. The newer therapies, tivozanib and axitinib (but not nintedanib), appeared to exhibit greater clinical benefit (response rate) than older tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Imidazoles; Indazoles; Indoles; Interferon-alpha; Kidney Neoplasms; Neoplasm Metastasis; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib

Kinase activity is frequently altered in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are part of the standard treatment strategy in patients with metastatic disease. However, there are still no established biomarkers to predict clinical benefits of a specific TKI. Here, we performed protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) profiling using PamChip

Topics: Anilides; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Humans; Indazoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Nerve Growth Factors; Phenylurea Compounds; Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Phosphatidylinositols; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; src-Family Kinases; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib