| Abstract: |
A retrospective analysis of patient outcome according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic model from a phase III trial of sunitinib versus interferon-α as treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma was performed; IMDC benchmarks from this analysis for objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival for sunitinib-treated patients are reported. Background: Sunitinib malate, a targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and serves as the active comparator in several ongoing mRCC clinical trials. In this analysis we report benchmarks for clinical outcomes on the basis of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups for patients treated with sunitinib for mRCC in a first-line setting. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on data from sunitinib-treated patients (n = 375) in the pivotal phase III trial of sunitinib versus interferon-α as first-line treatment for mRCC. Objective response rates (ORRs) were determined from independently reviewed radiologic assessments. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) according to patient risk group. Results: Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 14.1 (13.4-17.1), 10.7 (10.5-12.5), 2.4 (1.1-4.7), and 10.6 (8.1-10.9) months in sunitinib-treated patients in the IMDC favorable (n = 134), intermediate (n = 205), poor (n = 34), and intermediate + poor (n = 239) risk groups, respectively. Median OS (95% CI) was 23.0 (19.8-27.8), 5.1 (4.3-9.9), and 20.3 (16.8-23.0) months in sunitinib-treated patients in IMDC intermediate, poor, and intermediate + poor risk groups, respectively, and was not reached in the favorable risk group (>50% of patients were alive at data cutoff). ORRs (95% CI) was 53.0% (44.2%-61.7%), 33.7% (27.2%-40.6%), 11.8% (3.3%-27.5%), and 30.5% (24.8%-36.8%) in sunitinib-treated patients in IMDC favorable, intermediate, poor, and intermediate + poor risk groups, respectively. Conclusion: Results of this retrospective analysis show differences in patient outcomes for PFS, OS, and ORR on the basis of IMDC prognostic risk group assignment for patients with mRCC. © 2018 Elsevier Inc. |
