このエントリーをはてなブックマークに追加
ID 58740
フルテキストURL
著者
Tomita, Yoshihiko Department of Urology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences
Naito, Sei Department of Urology, Yamagata University Faculty of Medicine
Sassa, Naoto Department of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine
Takahashi, Atsushi Department of Urology, Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital
Kondo, Tsunenori Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University Medical Center East
Koie, Takuya Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine
Obara, Wataru Department of Urology, Iwate Medical University
Kobayashi, Yasuyuki Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine ORCID Kaken ID
Teishima, Jun Department of Urology, Graduate School of Biomedical Health Science, Hiroshima University
Takahashi, Masayuki Department of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
Matsuyama, Hideyasu Department of Urology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine
Ueda, Takeshi Department of Urology, Chiba Cancer Center
Yamaguchi, Kenya Department of Urology, Nihon University School of Medicine
Kishida, Takeshi Department of Urology, Kanagawa Cancer Center
Shiroki, Ryoichi Department of Urology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine
Saika, Takashi Department of Urology, Ehime University
Shinohara, Nobuo Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine
Oya, Mototsugu Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine
Kanayama, Hiro-omi Department of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
抄録
Purpose: The present study compared the efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib as first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mCC-RCC) with favorable or intermediate Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk.
Patients and methods: Treatment-naive patients with mCC-RCC were randomized to receive open-label sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SU/SO) or sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SO/SU). The primary endpoint was first-line progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were total PFS and overall survival (OS).
Results: Of the 124 patients enrolled at 39 institutions from February 2010 to July 2012, 120 were evaluated. The median first-line PFS duration was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.08). The total PFS and OS were not significantly different between the SU/SO and SO/SU groups (27.8 and 22.6 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.428-1.246; and 38.4 and 30.9 months; HR, 0.934; 95% CI, 0.588-1.485, respectively). The subgroup analysis revealed that the total PFS with SU/SO was superior to the total PFS with SO/SU in the patients with favorable MSKCC risk and those with < 5 metastatic sites). SO/SU was superior to SU/SO for patients without previous nephrectomy.
Conclusions: No statistically significant differences were found in first-line PFS, total PFS, or OS between the 2 treatment arms (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01481870).
キーワード
PFS
RCT
Renal cell carcinoma
SO/SU
SU/SO.
発行日
2020-03-06
出版物タイトル
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
出版者
Elsevier
ISSN
15587673
NCID
AA12109476
資料タイプ
学術雑誌論文
言語
英語
OAI-PMH Set
岡山大学
著作権者
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
論文のバージョン
publisher
PubMed ID
DOI
関連URL
isVersionOf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.01.001
ライセンス
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
オープンアクセス(出版社)
OA
オープンアーカイブ(出版社)
非OpenArchive