4.3 Review

The Role of Pazopanib in Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

期刊

CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 419-424

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.09.001

关键词

Kidney cancer; Metastatic; nccRCC; Protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor; Sunitinib

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pazopanib is a protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor that limits tumor growth through angiogenesis inhibition. The use of other protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors, specifically sunitinib, within non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) has led to increased survival with a decreased adverse event profile. The data for the treatment of nccRCC is limited, with most studies evaluating the use of sunitinib. Therefore, the evaluation of pazopanib is of particular clinical interest in the treatment of nccRCC. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib for nccRCC. PubMed (1946 to April 2019) and Embase (1947 to April 2019) were queried using the search term combination: protein tyrosine kinase inhibitor or pazopanib and non clear cell renal cell carcinoma or non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Studies evaluating clinical outcomes of pazopanib for nccRCC were included, represented by 3 retrospective cohort studies and 1 single-arm, open-label prospective study. In patients with advanced or metastatic nccRCC, treatment with pazopanib resulted in positive effects for multiple markers of efficacy, including progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rates. The median duration of follow-up ranged from 11.8 months to 24.4 months. Pazopanib was well-tolerated in most studies. The most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension. Pazopanib appears to be an effective and safe option for the treatment of advanced or metastatic nccRCC. Future investigation with larger randomized controlled trials is warranted to further define the role of pazopanib in patients with nccRCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据