+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcomes According to MSKCC Risk Score with Focus on the Intermediate-Risk Group in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with First-Line Sunitinib: A Retrospective Analysis of 2390 Patients


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Background: The Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic model has been widely used for the prediction of the outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with systemic therapies, however, data from large studies are limited. This study aimed at the evaluation of the impact of the MSKCC score on the outcomes in mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib, with a focus on the intermediate-risk group. Methods: Clinical data from 2390 mRCC patients were analysed retrospectively. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were analysed according to the MSKCC risk score. Results: ORR, median PFS, and OS for patients with one risk factor were 26.7%, 10.1, and 28.2 months versus 18.7%, 6.2, and 16.2 months, respectively, for those with two risk factors (ORR: p = 0.001, PFS: p < 0.001, OS: p < 0.001). ORR, median PFS, and OS were 33.0%, 17.0, and 44.7 months versus 24.1%, 9.0, and 24.1 months versus 13.4%, 4.5, and 9.5 months in the favourable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively (ORR: p < 0.001, PFS: p < 0.001, OS: p < 0.001). Conclusions: The results of the present retrospective study demonstrate the suitability of the MSKCC model in mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib and suggest different outcomes between patients with one or two risk factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma.

          To define outcome data and prognostic criteria for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with interferon-alfa as initial systemic therapy. The data can be applied to design and interpretation of clinical trials of new agents and treatment programs against this refractory malignancy. Four hundred sixty-three patients with advanced RCC administered interferon-alpha as first-line systemic therapy on six prospective clinical trials were the subjects of this retrospective analysis. Three risk categories for predicting survival were identified on the basis of five pretreatment clinical features by a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The median overall survival time was 13 months. The median time to progression was 4.7 months. Five variables were used as risk factors for short survival: low Karnofsky performance status, high lactate dehydrogenase, low serum hemoglobin, high corrected serum calcium, and time from initial RCC diagnosis to start of interferon-alpha therapy of less than one year. Each patient was assigned to one of three risk groups: those with zero risk factors (favorable risk), those with one or two (intermediate risk), and those with three or more (poor risk). The median time to death of patients deemed favorable risk was 30 months. Median survival time in the intermediate-risk group was 14 months. In contrast, the poor-risk group had a median survival time of 5 months. Progression-free and overall survival with interferon-alpha treatment can be compared with new therapies in phase II and III clinical investigations. The prognostic model is suitable for risk stratification of phase III trials using interferon-alpha as the comparative treatment arm.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

            In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. Pfizer Inc. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial.

              Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

                Author and article information

                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                27 March 2020
                April 2020
                : 12
                : 4
                [1 ]Department of Oncology and Radiotherapeutics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic; finek@ 123456fnplzen.cz
                [2 ]Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 76, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic
                [3 ]Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Zluty kopec 7, 656 53 Brno, Czech Republic; poprach@ 123456mou.cz
                [4 ]Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
                [5 ]Department of Oncology, Palacky University Medical School and Teaching Hospital, I.P. Pavlova 6, 775 20 Olomouc, Czech Republic; bohuslav.melichar@ 123456fnol.cz
                [6 ]Department of Oncology, University Hospital in Hradec Králové, Sokolská 581, 50005 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic; kopecjin@ 123456fnhk.cz
                [7 ]Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, U Nemocnice 499/2, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic; Milada.Zemanova@ 123456vfn.cz
                [8 ]Department of Oncology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, V Uvalu 84, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic; katerina.kopeckova@ 123456fnmotol.cz
                [9 ]Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment (iHETA), Vaclavska 316/12, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; mlcoch@ 123456iheta.org (T.M.); dolezal@ 123456iheta.org (T.D.)
                [10 ]Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Department of Pharmacology, Kamenice 753/5, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
                [11 ]Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Ltd., Poštovská 68/3, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic; capkova@ 123456biostatistika.cz
                [12 ]Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Thomayer University Hospital, Videnska 800, 140 59 Prague, Czech Republic; tomas.buchler@ 123456ftn.cz
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: fialao@ 123456fnplzen.cz ; Tel.: +42-0728655488
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



                Comment on this article