Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

First-line Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis [Figure presented]

  • Christopher J.D. Wallis
    ,
  • Zachary Klaassen(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Bimal Bhindi
    ,
  • Xiang Y. Ye
    ,
  • Thenappan Chandrasekar
    ,
  • Ann M. Farrell
*Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Toronto
    ,
  • ,
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
    ,
  • University Health Network
    ,
  • University of Calgary
    ,
  • Houston Methodist
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Abstract

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. There are many options for first-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, there is a paucity of comparative data. Using a network meta-analysis approach, we found that cabozantanib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are likely to be preferable agents in this space. However, these findings require validation in direct comparative studies.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 309-321 (13 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

European urology (Volume 74, Issue 3)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 09/2018

Publication status

Published - 09/2018

ISSN

0302-2838

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85045314361
  • PubMed: 29656851

Publication metrics

Metrics

Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.07
Fractional count
14
Fractional count
0.93
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
citations
36
Scopus
citations
SciVal
FWCI
3.51
SciVal
Author count
15
SciVal
Paper percentile
97
SciVal
Top percentile
5

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
49
Captures
116
Social media
1