Table_2_A 2/1 Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Provides Superior Antitumor Effectiveness and Less Toxicity Than a 4/2 Schedule for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.DOCX
Background: The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse events (AEs) in patients on this schedule. An alternative schedule, 2 weeks on/1 week off (2/1), may overcome this issue. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness and toxicity between the 2/1 and 4/2 sunitinib dosing schedules.
Methods: We acquired relevant studies by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our main endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and AEs.
Results: We identified 9 medium- and high-quality studies. Both schedules were effective for mRCC, with comparable OS and similar ORR. However, the 2/1 schedule had better PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.99, P = 0.04), higher DCR [risk rate (RR) = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01–1.47, P = 0.04] and fewer dosage interruptions (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43–0.84, P = 0.003). Additionally, the 2/1 schedule elicited fewer specific severe AEs, including thrombocytopenia/platelet disorder, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and fatigue. In our subanalysis, PFS was better among East Asians using the 2/1 schedule than among other populations (HR= 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.98, P = 0.03), and patients administered an initial dosage of 50 mg/d on the 2/1 schedule had superior PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.97, P = 0.03) than those others.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that the 2/1 schedule is more suitable for mRCC than 4/2, due to superior PFS, better DCR and fewer AEs. Nevertheless, more large-scale studies with good quality are needed.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.3322/caac.21551
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.049
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.radonc.2005.03.022
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ctrv.2007.12.001
- https://doi.org//10.6004/jnccn.2009.0043
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70162-7
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa065044
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2005.02.2194
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1743-7563.2012.01525.x
- https://doi.org//10.1200/jco.2013.31.6_suppl.406
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00280-007-0498-4
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdv357
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.juro.2013.08.090
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1745-6215-8-16
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11255-016-1380-2
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12032-018-1195-3
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.03.008
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clgc.2016.10.010
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clgc.2017.01.016
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jjco/hyt232
- https://doi.org//10.7150/jca.25693
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03204.x
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdv589
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2017.77.1485
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ejca.2014.01.025
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12032-015-0528-8
- https://doi.org//10.1080/14737140.2017.1276830
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40268-017-0209-5
- https://doi.org//10.1111/ajco.12849