Authors reply: an adjusted indirect comparison of everolimus and sorafenib therapy in sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using repeated matched samples.
University Federico II of Napoli, Department of Medical Oncology, Endocrinology and Oncology , Naples , Italy.Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy (Impact Factor: 2.86). 03/2012; DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2012.668097
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00410124. All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 [37%] events in the everolimus group, 90 [65%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, p<0.0001; median progression-free survival 4.0 [95% CI 3.7-5.5] vs 1.9 [1.8-1.9] months). Stomatitis (107 [40%] patients in the everolimus group vs 11 [8%] in the placebo group), rash (66 [25%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (53 [20%] vs 22 [16%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity. Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies.The Lancet 08/2008; 372(9637):449-56. · 39.21 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: No previous prospective trials have been reported with sorafenib in patients with sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell cancer (MRCC). We conducted a multicenter study to determine the activity and tolerability of sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib progression in MRCC. Between January 2006 and September 2008, 52 patients were enrolled onto this single-arm phase II study. All patients received sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete or partial response) evaluated every 8 weeks by use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; secondary end points were toxicity, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). All patients were included in response and safety analyses. Partial responses were observed in 9.6% of patients (five of 52 patients; 95% CI, 5% to 17%) after two cycles. Grade 1 to 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, rash, and neutropenia were the most common side effects, noted in 16 (30.8%), 19 (36.5%), 20 (38.5%), 19 (36.5%), and 20 patients (38.5%), respectively. The most common grade 3 toxicity was diarrhea, noted in six patients (11.5%). Median TTP was 16 weeks (range, 8 to 40 weeks), and median OS was 32 weeks (range, 16 to 64 weeks). Although well tolerated, sorafenib shows limited efficacy in sunitinib-refractory MRCC. Further randomized trials comparing sorafenib with other drugs that target different biologic pathways are needed to define the best second-line treatment option in these patients.Journal of Clinical Oncology 09/2009; 27(27):4469-74. · 18.04 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The absence of head-to-head trials is a common challenge in comparative effectiveness research and health technology assessment. Indirect cross-trial treatment comparisons are possible, but can be biased by cross-trial differences in patient characteristics. Using only published aggregate data, adjustment for such biases may be impossible. Although individual patient data (IPD) would permit adjustment, they are rarely available for all trials. However, many researchers have the opportunity to access IPD for trials of one treatment, a new drug for example, but only aggregate data for trials of comparator treatments. We propose a method that leverages all available data in this setting by adjusting average patient characteristics in trials with IPD to match those reported for trials without IPD. Treatment outcomes, including continuous, categorical and censored time-to-event outcomes, can then be compared across balanced trial populations. The proposed method is illustrated by a comparison of adalimumab and etanercept for the treatment of psoriasis. IPD from trials of adalimumab versus placebo (n = 1025) were re-weighted to match the average baseline characteristics reported for a trial of etanercept versus placebo (n = 330). Re-weighting was based on the estimated propensity of enrolment in the adalimumab versus etanercept trials. Before matching, patients in the adalimumab trials had lower mean age, greater prevalence of psoriatic arthritis, less prior use of systemic treatment or phototherapy, and a smaller mean percentage of body surface area affected than patients in the etanercept trial. After matching, these and all other available baseline characteristics were well balanced across trials. Symptom improvements of ≥75% and ≥90% (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] score at week 12) were experienced by an additional 17.2% and 14.8% of adalimumab-treated patients compared with the matched etanercept-treated patients (respectively, both p < 0.001). Mean percentage PASI score improvements from baseline were also greater for adalimumab than for etanercept at weeks 4, 8 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Matching adjustment ensured that this indirect comparison was not biased by differences in mean baseline characteristics across trials, supporting the conclusion that adalimumab was associated with significantly greater symptom reduction than etanercept for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.PharmacoEconomics 01/2010; 28(10):935-45. · 2.86 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.