Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes With Two Different Starting Doses of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus for Previously Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

First-line sunitinib versus pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated. RESULTS: We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.