The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Q3 Medicine Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings Pub Date : 2024-06-17 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08998280.2024.2363616
Majd M AlBarakat, Yaman B Ahmed, Sakhr Alshwayyat, Asmaa Ellaithy, Yaqoub Y Al-Shammari, Youssef Soliman, Hazem Rezq, Basel Abdelazeem, Arvind Kunadi
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Majd M AlBarakat, Yaman B Ahmed, Sakhr Alshwayyat, Asmaa Ellaithy, Yaqoub Y Al-Shammari, Youssef Soliman, Hazem Rezq, Basel Abdelazeem, Arvind Kunadi","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2024.2363616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cabozantinib, a new first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), targets essential tyrosine kinases and outperforms the established comparator (sunitinib) in various efficacy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib compared to other aRCC treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, our protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search, without date limits, was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and EMBASE until October 8, 2023. Data extraction encompassed study details, baseline information, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were employed for each outcome, and a random-effects model was applied to account for expected heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies, encompassing 967 patients, were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, the pooled rate for overall survival significantly favored cabozantinib. However, in subgroup analyses, cabozantinib was only statistically superior to everolimus. For progression-free survival and tumor objective response rate, cabozantinib outperformed both everolimus and sunitinib. In adverse events, compared to sunitinib, cabozantinib exhibited inferiority in nearly all evaluated aspects, except for nausea and stomatitis, which showed no difference between the two groups. Conversely, it demonstrated a comparable risk profile with everolimus across various side effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cabozantinib shows significant efficacy in extending overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor objective response rate despite a potentially higher risk of adverse events compared to sunitinib. These findings support cabozantinib as a first-line therapy for aRCC, either as an initial treatment or after prior VEGFR-targeted therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":"37 5","pages":"822-830"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2024.2363616","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cabozantinib, a new first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), targets essential tyrosine kinases and outperforms the established comparator (sunitinib) in various efficacy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib compared to other aRCC treatments.

Methods: Following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, our protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search, without date limits, was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and EMBASE until October 8, 2023. Data extraction encompassed study details, baseline information, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were employed for each outcome, and a random-effects model was applied to account for expected heterogeneity.

Results: Three studies, encompassing 967 patients, were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, the pooled rate for overall survival significantly favored cabozantinib. However, in subgroup analyses, cabozantinib was only statistically superior to everolimus. For progression-free survival and tumor objective response rate, cabozantinib outperformed both everolimus and sunitinib. In adverse events, compared to sunitinib, cabozantinib exhibited inferiority in nearly all evaluated aspects, except for nausea and stomatitis, which showed no difference between the two groups. Conversely, it demonstrated a comparable risk profile with everolimus across various side effects.

Conclusion: Cabozantinib shows significant efficacy in extending overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor objective response rate despite a potentially higher risk of adverse events compared to sunitinib. These findings support cabozantinib as a first-line therapy for aRCC, either as an initial treatment or after prior VEGFR-targeted therapies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卡博替尼对转移性或晚期肾细胞癌患者的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:卡博替尼是治疗晚期肾细胞癌(aRCC)的一种新的一线疗法,它以重要的酪氨酸激酶为靶点,在各种疗效结果方面优于既有的比较药(舒尼替尼)。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估卡博替尼与其他aRCC治疗方法相比的疗效和安全性:按照 PRISMA 和 Cochrane 指南,我们的研究方案在 PROSPERO 上进行了注册。截至 2023 年 10 月 8 日,我们在 PubMed、Cochrane、Web of Science 和 EMBASE 上进行了无日期限制的系统性检索。数据提取包括研究细节、基线信息和结果。每种结果都采用了带有95%置信区间的危险比(HR)和风险比(RR),并采用随机效应模型来考虑预期的异质性:我们的分析包括三项研究,共涉及 967 名患者。在疗效方面,卡博替尼的总生存率明显优于其他药物。然而,在亚组分析中,卡博替尼仅在统计学上优于依维莫司。在无进展生存期和肿瘤客观反应率方面,卡博替尼优于依维莫司和舒尼替尼。在不良反应方面,与舒尼替尼相比,卡博替尼除恶心和口腔炎在两组间无差异外,几乎在所有评估方面都表现出劣势。相反,在各种副作用方面,卡博替尼与依维莫司的风险状况相当:卡博替尼在延长总生存期、无进展生存期和肿瘤客观反应率方面疗效显著,尽管与舒尼替尼相比,卡博替尼发生不良反应的风险可能更高。这些研究结果支持将卡博替尼作为aRCC的一线疗法,无论是作为初始疗法还是在既往接受过VEGFR靶向疗法之后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
245
期刊最新文献
The importance of screening and surveillance: Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. A brief descriptive analysis of a pilot study of peer support training and supervision for Texas firefighters. Contrast-associated acute kidney injury: How can we do better? "In a word, partnership"-lessons from a student-led health fair. A review of professionalism in surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1