4.6 Review

What is the optimal therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who progress on an initial VEGFr-TKI?

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 366-374

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.06.010

关键词

Anticancer therapy; Axitinib; Everolimus; Kidney cancer; Mechanism of action; Metastatic disease; Resistance; Sequential therapy

类别

资金

  1. Bayer
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Novartis
  4. Pfizer
  5. Roche
  6. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sequential treatment with targeted therapies is the current standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Most patients are initially treated with a first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI), but will eventually develop resistance and subsequent disease progression. Patients with mRCC whose disease progresses during initial VEGFr-TKI therapy may continue treatment with a different VEGFr-TKI or they may switch to treatment with a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor which has a different mechanism of action. Based on positive results of the phase III RECORD-1 trial, clinical guidelines in the United States and Europe recommend use of everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in patients with VEGFr-TKI-refractory mRCC. Positive results of the phase III AXIS trial led to recent approval in the United States of the VEGFr-TKI axitinib for use in patients with mRCC who failed one previous therapy. VEGFr-TKIs and mTOR inhibitors have distinct clinical effects with differing safety profiles, but to date, no head-to-head comparisons in the post-VEGFr-TKI second-line setting are available. This review discusses multiple factors that should be considered when selecting a second-line therapy for patients with VEGFr-TKI-refractory mRCC, including evidence-based guidelines, efficacy, safety, patient profile, and clinician familiarity with available agents. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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