Citations

Background: Four large RCTs (ASSURE, S-TARC, PROTECT, ATLAS) tested adjuvant VEGF-TKI therapy in high risk RCC. The results were variable for efficacy and there were concerns for increased toxicity and decline in quality of life (QoL). We performed an updated meta-analysis including results of ATLAS trial to asses a risk-benefit for adjuvant post-operative treatments in high risk RCC patients by assessing reported disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity endpoints. Methods: Literature search was done using Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to pool estimates for DFS, OS, and common side effects across the 4 trials. A subgroup analysis was performed for sunitinib alone because of its FDA approval. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q statistic and was quantified with I2 test. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Results: The 4 RCTs included 4,820 patients. Adjuvant therapy with TKIs yielded no significant improvement in DFS or OS as compared to placebo (DFS HR=0.916; 95% CI, 0.832–1.009 and OS HR=1.09; 95% CI, 0.886–1.150). Separate analysis of DFS in sunitinib vs placebo did not show any benefit (2 studies, N=1,909; HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.67–1.19). Use of TKIs was associated with significantly increased risk of drug toxicity. Increased risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR=5.110; 95% CI, 3.765–6.935), diarrhea (RR=10.725; 95% CI, 4.672–24.622), fatigue (RR=3.310; 95% CI, 1.879–5.829), hypertension (RR=4.274; 95% CI, 3.452–5.292) and palmar/plantar dysesthesia (RR=20.53; 95% CI, 9.006–46.801) was observed. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity amongst included trials. QoL endpoints were inconsistently reported. Risk of bias was low. Conclusions: This pooled analysis provides further evidence that there is no OS or DFS benefit associated with adjuvant TKI treatment. There was a significantly increased risk of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in greater than half of the patient population leading to decline in QoL during TKI therapy. Carefully selected very high-risk patients who can tolerate these agents without dose modifications may benefit from adjuvant TKI approach.

263 Background: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA or ENZA with ADT have shown to slow development of metastasis. We performed an indirect comparison of APA and ENZA clinical effectiveness (efficacy and side effects) using network meta-analysis. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify relevant RCTs. Collected data included hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for primary outcome of median time to metastasis free survival (MFS) and secondary outcomes of median time to overall survival (OS), PSA progression, initiation of cytotoxic therapy and number of adverse events (AE) in each study arm. Risk for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We used a fixed effects model using Bayesian approach to generate pooled estimates. Results: Two randomized trials (n=2608) were analyzed. SPARTAN trial compared APA plus ADT to ADT alone and PROSPER compared ENZA plus ADT to ADT alone. Risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant differences between APA and ENZA in MFS, OS, median time to PSA progression and initiation of cytotoxic therapy. The MFS endpoint hazard ratio (HR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.28) for comparing the two drugs. APA had fewer reports of hypertension (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.91) compared to enzalutamide. However, no significant differences were observed in other AEs including grade 3 or higher AE, serious AE, AE leading to death or trial discontinuation. Common AEs (nausea, diarrhea, fall, dizziness, arthralgia, weight loss) and AEs of special interests (mental impairment disorders, seizures) were also comparable between APA and ENZA. Conclusions: In non-metastatic CRPC with short PSA doubling time, APA and ENZA showed similar time to metastasis free survival. APA was associated with lower incidence of hypertension than ENZA; otherwise, side effect profile was similar. Given similar efficacy and risk profile demonstrated in this study, clinical decision making should depend on other factors such as cost and availability.