Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands.

Background: The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands. Methods: For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as an Adjuvant Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma Post-nephrectomy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab was recently approved as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), based on prolonged disease-free survival compared to placebo in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of RCC post-nephrectomy, from a US health sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states (disease-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus routine surveillance or sunitinib. Transition probabilities were estimated using patient-level KEYNOTE-564 data (cutoff: June 14, 2021), a retrospective study, and published literature. Costs of adjuvant and subsequent treatments, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2022 US$. Utilities were based on EQ-5D-5L data collected in KEYNOTE-564. Outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Robustness was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Total cost per patient was $549,353 for pembrolizumab, $505,094 for routine surveillance, and $602,065 for sunitinib. Over a lifetime, pembrolizumab provided gains of 0.96 QALYs (1.00 LYs) compared to routine surveillance, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,327/QALY. Pembrolizumab dominated sunitinib with 0.89 QALYs (0.91 LYs) gained while saving costs. At a $150,000/QALY threshold, pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus both routine surveillance and sunitinib in 84.2% of probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab is projected to be cost-effective as an adjuvant RCC treatment versus routine surveillance or sunitinib based on a typical willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib from a US payer perspective. Methods: Economic outcomes were estimated with Markov and partitioned survival models. Efficacy, safety and other data were taken from the CheckMate 9ER trial. Costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. Sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainties. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib was US$555,663 and $531,748 per quality-adjusted life year in the Markov and partitioned survival models, respectively, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold (US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses showed robust outcomes. Conclusion: From a US payer perspective, first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma is not cost effective.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common cancer in the USA. Up to 30% of patients with RCC are in an advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. RCC is difficult to cure, with an 11% chance of survival after 5 years for patients with advanced RCC. A recent clinical study showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NC) had a greater benefit in patients with advanced RCC than sunitinib. The US FDA approved NC for advanced RCC, but NC is relatively expensive. This study explored the cost­effectiveness of NC for advanced RCC versus sunitinib for a US payer using two cost­effectiveness models developed based on the results of the aforementioned clinical study. The results showed that to gain an additional year in perfect health, NC costs an average of US$555,663 or $531,748 more versus sunitinib, which is more than a US payer is willing to pay for an additional year in perfect health ($150,000). Therefore, NC for advanced RCC is not cost-effective versus sunitinib for a US payer at current prices.

Systematic review and cost-effectiveness of pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib individualized treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Background: Sunitinib has a narrow therapeutic window, with considerable differences between patients. Dosing based on pharmacokinetics (PK) may help overcome some of those issues. This study aims to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of PK-guided individualized treatment of sunitinib with its standard dose in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant values were used to provide information for the decision analysis model. Utility data were derived from published studies, and costs were obtained from the perspective of payers in China and the United States. A Markov model was established to evaluate the associated costs and health outcomes for patients. The primary outputs of the model included lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential uncertainties of parameters. Results: Cost-effective analysis showed that the QALY of the PK-guided group increased by 0.83 compared with that in the standard dose group. From the perspective of both countries' health systems, the cost of PK-guided dose was lower than that of standard dose. Hence, PK-guided treatment was the dominant strategy. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of these results. Conclusion: On the basis of currently available data, PK-guided sunitinib treatment may be a safe, effective, and economical intervention for patients with mRCC.

Ocular metabolism and distribution of drugs in the rabbit eye: Quantitative assessment after intracameral and intravitreal administrations.

Quantitation of ocular drug metabolism is important, but only sparse data is currently available. Herein, the pharmacokinetics of four drugs, substrates of metabolizing enzymes, was investigated in albino rabbit eyes after intracameral and intravitreal administrations. Acetaminophen, brimonidine, cefuroxime axetil, and sunitinib and their corresponding metabolites were quantitated in the cornea, iris-ciliary body, aqueous humor, lens, vitreous humor, and neural retina with LC-MS/MS analytics. Non-compartmental analysis was employed to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters of the parent drugs and metabolites. The area under the curve (AUC) values of metabolites were 12-70 times lower than the AUC values of the parent drugs in the tissues with the highest enzymatic activity. The ester prodrug cefuroxime axetil was an exception because it was efficiently and quantitatively converted to cefuroxime in the ocular tissues. In contrast to the liver, sulfotransferases, aldehyde oxidase, and cytochrome P450 3A activities were low in the eye and they had negligible impact on ocular drug clearance. With the exception of esterase substrates, metabolism seems to be a minor player in ocular pharmacokinetics. However, metabolites might contribute to ocular toxicity, and drug metabolism in various eye tissues should be investigated and understood thoroughly.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care in adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): a cost-consequence analysis from an Italian hospital perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare clinical outcomes and costs, to the Italian healthcare system, of three therapeutic options approved in the management of adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs). METHODS: We compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus (both originator and generic products), and sunitinib in patients with advanced GEP-NETs (NET G1 and G2) that had progressed following treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs). A cost-consequence model was developed and validated by a panel of clinical experts from three NET reference centres in Italy. The clinical outcomes included in the model were median progression-free survival and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), as reported in pivotal clinical trials. The costs for acquisition and administration of each treatment, and of managing AEs, were calculated from the perspective of the Italian national health service. Treatment costs per progression-free month were calculated separately for patients with NETs of pancreatic (PanNETs; all three treatments) and gastrointestinal (GI-NETs; [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and everolimus only) origin. RESULTS: In patients with PanNETs, total costs per progression-free month were €2989 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4975 for originator everolimus, €3472 for generic everolimus, and €5337 for sunitinib. In patients with GI-NETs, total costs per progression-free month were €3189 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4990 for originator everolimus, and €3483 for generic everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE was associated with lower costs per progression-free month versus relevant treatment options in patients with GI-NETs or PanNETs (NET G1-G2; progressed following SSA treatment), although acquisition and administration costs are higher. These findings provide further economic arguments in the overall context of treatment decision-making.

Use of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: Results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus relevant comparators for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours located in the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NETs) and the pancreas (P-NETs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care (high dose Octreotide LAR), everolimus and sunitinib. Effectiveness data for SoC, everolimus and sunitinib were obtained from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Given a lack of head-to-head effectiveness data, matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were performed to population-adjust [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE survival data based on prognostic factors and derive estimates of relative effectiveness. Health state utilities were estimated from real-world evidence. Drug acquisition costs were taken from nationally published sources (BNF, NICE), and administration costs were based on treatment protocols in [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE studies, combined with nationally published unit costs (PSSRU, DoH reference costs). Incidence of adverse events were estimated using published sources. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both utilities and costs, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were included from an NHS perspective and presented in 2017/18 GBP (and PPP Euros for base case). RESULTS: In GI-NETs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC and everolimus was £26,528 (€27,672) and £24,145 (€25,186) per QALY, respectively. In P-NETs, the ICER of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC was £22,146 (€23,101) or £28,038 (€29,251) dependent on matched population, and £21,827 (€22,766) and £15,768 (€16,445) compared to everolimus and sunitinib, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000, [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for GI-NET and P-NET patients versus relevant treatment comparators (NHS perspective).

Assessment of Intratumor Heterogeneity in Parametric Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Images: A Comparative Study of Novel and Established Methods.

Intratumor heterogeneity is associated with aggressive disease and poor survival rates in several types of cancer. A novel method for assessing intratumor heterogeneity in medical images, named the spatial gradient method, has been developed in our laboratory. In this study, we measure intratumor heterogeneity in K trans maps derived by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using the spatial gradient method, and we compare the performance of the novel method with that of histogram analyses and texture analyses using the Haralick method. K trans maps of 58 untreated and sunitinib-treated pancreatic ductal adenocaricoma (PDAC) xenografts from two PDAC models were investigated. Intratumor heterogeneity parameters derived by the spatial gradient method were sensitive to tumor line differences as well as sunitinib-induced changes in intratumor heterogeneity. Furthermore, the parameters provided additional information to the median value and were not severely affected by imaging noise. The parameters derived by histogram analyses were insensitive to spatial heterogeneity and were strongly correlated to the median value, and the Haralick features were severely influenced by imaging noise and did not differentiate between untreated and sunitinib-treated tumors. The spatial gradient method was superior to histogram analyses and Haralick features for assessing intratumor heterogeneity in K trans maps of untreated and sunitinib-treated PDAC xenografts, and can possibly be used to assess intratumor heterogeneity in other medical images and to evaluate effects of other treatments as well.

Comprehensive geriatric assessment is an independent prognostic factor in older patients with metastatic renal cell cancer treated with first-line Sunitinib or Pazopanib: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: There is poor data on the prognostic role of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in older patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of mRCC patients older than 70 years treated at our Institute with first-line Sunitinib or Pazopanib for at least 6 months. Every patient received a CGA at baseline and was identified as fit, vulnerable or frail according to Balducci's Criteria. We then assessed the impact of CGA category on survival, disease control and tolerability of TKIs. RESULTS: We identified 86 eligible patients. Median age: 74.5 years, 56% males; 45.4% were fit, 37.2% vulnerable and 17.4% frail at CGA. There were no significant differences in the rate of Grade (G)1-2 and G3-4 toxicities, dose reduction rates, PFS and OS between Sunitinib and Pazopanib. Fit, vulnerable and frail patients achieved significantly different median PFS (18.9 vs 11.2 vs 5.1 months; p < 0.001) and OS (35.5 vs 14.6 vs 10.9 months; p < 0.001). Patients categorized as fit had higher chance of receiving a second-line treatment (66.6% vs 28.9% in vulnerable/frail; p = 0.002). The incidence of G3/4 events was significantly lower in the fit subgroup (19% vs 45% in vulnerable/frail; p = 0.0025). CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective single-center experience, CGA could accurately discriminate patients with higher risk of experiencing G3/4 toxicities, shorter PFS, and lower chance of receiving a second line treatment. CGA strongly impacted on OS, independently from International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) classification.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: The data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well. RESULTS: Upon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from an Italian National Health Service perspective, considering the evolving Italian landscape in terms of new reimbursement agreements trend. METHODS: This analysis is an update of the previously published cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate recent 2019 costs and additional changes regarding drug discounting. A partitioned-survival analysis model with three different health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was utilized. Outcomes included progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs calculated for both treatments. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit (NMB) of pazopanib versus sunitinib. In the base case analysis, a time horizon of 5 years was used and future costs and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. An impact of methodological and parameter uncertainly on base case results was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib had higher QALYs (+0.060) at lower costs (-€5,857) versus sunitinib, hence it dominated sunitinib. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the NMB with pazopanib were €7,647 and €8,841 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 97.5% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 95.4% at a threshold of €30,000, and 90.2% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions as demonstrated by deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Model-based assessment of pharmacokinetic changes of sunitinib, tacrolimus, and everolimus in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after renal transplantation.

The safety of the coadministration of sunitinib with tacrolimus and everolimus with regard to therapeutic drug monitoring has not been demonstrated. Here, we report a patient who showed high sunitinib concentrations, in addition to pharmacokinetic changes in tacrolimus and everolimus after sunitinib therapy. A living-donor renal transplant patient treated with tacrolimus and everolimus was diagnosed with pulmonary and pleural metastases of renal cell carcinoma. The patient received sunitinib therapy (37.5 mg/day, 2 weeks on and 1 week off). This patient exhibited a high total sunitinib concentration (sunitinib, 105.8 ng/mL; N-desethyl sunitinib, 27.9 ng/mL) on day 10 postinitiation and experienced grade 3 diarrhea. The observed sunitinib concentrations were a little higher than those reported in the 421C>A polymorphism of the ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 gene carrier. The observed concentrations of both tacrolimus and everolimus gradually decreased compared with the Bayesian-predicted values after the onset of sunitinib therapy, and the doses of tacrolimus and everolimus were increased. Careful therapeutic drug monitoring of sunitinib, tacrolimus, and everolimus concentrations is necessary during combination therapy, especially after episodes of diarrhea.

Investigating the cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of sunitinib upon K-562 chronic myelogenous leukemia cell line and assessment of gene profiling.

OBJECTIVE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which efficiently inhibit BCR-ABL are highly effective for clinical treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), but development of resistance to TKIs is a big challenge to treatment. Sunitinib is a multitargeted TKI targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and is defined a safe and effective candidate target, but its effect on other signaling pathways is unknown. To investigate the cytotoxic and apoptotic effect of sunitinib in CML cell model K-562 on JAK-STAT signaling pathway components, suppressor genes and oncogenes, hematopoiesis-related genes, cell cycle and VEGF pathway components, and mRNA level expression changes was aimed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sunitinib's effective dose cytotoxic IC50 was determined by trypan blue and WST-1 cell proliferation assay tests. Expression levels of target genes were determined by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction simultaneously after sunitinib application. Protein expression analysis was determined by "WesternBreeze Chromogenic Kit-Anti-Rabbit" based on the principles of the application kit by Western blot analysis. RESULTS: Assessing the cytotoxicity of K-562 cells following sunitinib treatment revealed that sunitinib decreased cell proliferation in a time- and dose-dependent manner. According to the sunitinib inhibition curve, IC50 dose was calculated as 3.5 µM at 48th h for K-562 cells and apoptosis assays pointed that sunitinib induces apoptotic cell death of leukemic cells at moderate levels. CONCLUSION: Our study supports that sunitinib might be used as a novel therapeutic target to trigger apoptosis in CML cells which in turn might accelerate therapeutic response in regard to inhibiting oncogenes and enhancing tumor suppressors in cooperation with cell cycle regulatory genes.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Sunitinib First-line Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Costs and Effects.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are important in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs and effects of sunitinib in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 81 mRCC patients who received first-line sunitinib therapy between 2010 and 2014 were recruited. Drug doses, laboratory and imaging studies, outpatient visits and inpatient stays were recorded. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured (15D- and EQ-5D - 3L questionnaires). RESULTS: The cost of sunitinib (mean 22,268 €/patient range 274 € to 105,121 €) covered 73% of the total costs during the treatment period. The total treatment cost was 30,530 €/patient (range=1,661-111,516 €). The median overall survival was 17.9 months. HRQoL decreased during treatment. CONCLUSION: The main cost during sunitinib treatment of mRCC was the drug itself (73% of the total costs). Drug costs and HRQoL should be considered when choosing treatment for mRCC.

An in vitro Assessment of Thermo-Reversible Gel Formulation Containing Sunitinib Nanoparticles for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have been widely used to treat several eye diseases including age-related macular degeneration (AMD). An approach to maximize the local concentration of drug at the target site and minimize systemic exposure is to be sought. Sunitinib malate, a multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor was encapsulated in poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles to impart sustained release. The residence time in vitreal fluid was further increased by incorporating nanoparticles in thermo-reversible gel. Nanoparticles were characterized using TEM, DSC, FTIR, and in vitro drug release profile. The cytotoxicity of the formulation was assessed on ARPE-19 cells using the MTT assay. The cellular uptake, wound scratch assay, and VEGF expression levels were determined in in vitro settings. The optimized formulation had a particle size of 164.5 nm and zeta potential of - 18.27 mV. The entrapment efficiency of 72.0% ± 3.5% and percent drug loading of 9.1 ± 0.7% were achieved. The viability of ARPE-19 cells was greater than 90% for gel loaded, as such and blank nanoparticles at 10 µM and 20 µM concentration tested, whereas for drug solution viability was found to be 83% and 71% respectively at above concentration. The cell viability results suggest the compatibility of the developed formulation. Evaluation of cellular uptake, wound scratch assay, and VEGF expression levels for the developed formulations indicated that the formulation had higher uptake, superior anti-angiogenic potential, and prolonged inhibition of VEGF activity compared with drug solution. The results showed successful development of sunitinib-loaded nanoparticle-based thermo-reversible gel which may be used for the treatment of neovascular AMD.

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib. Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.