Comparison of Two Prognostic Models in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cancer Treated with Sunitinib: a Retrospective, Registry-Based Study
Jazyk angličtina Země Francie Médium print
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
25903462
DOI
10.1007/s11523-015-0366-9
PII: 10.1007/s11523-015-0366-9
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- indoly terapeutické užití MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk farmakoterapie patologie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- metastázy nádorů MeSH
- nádory ledvin farmakoterapie patologie MeSH
- přežití bez známek nemoci MeSH
- prognóza MeSH
- protinádorové látky terapeutické užití MeSH
- pyrroly terapeutické užití MeSH
- registrace MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- statistické modely * MeSH
- sunitinib MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- indoly MeSH
- protinádorové látky MeSH
- pyrroly MeSH
- sunitinib MeSH
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare two prognostic models in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), and 1-year survival in patients treated first-line with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Data from patients who met prognostic model criteria for recording of baseline parameters and outcomes in the Czech Patient Registry RENal Information System (RENIS) were included in the retrospective analysis (n = 495). Performance of the modified Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model and International Database Consortium (IDC) model was compared. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The statistical significance of differences in Kaplan-Meier estimates was assessed using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Median OS for prognostic groups according to MSKCC and IDC criteria, respectively, was 39.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 23.9-55.2) versus 44.3 months (95 % CI: 31.6-56.9) for favourable-risk patients (no adverse factors), 28.5 months (95 % CI: 20.1-36.8) versus 24.8 months (95 % CI: 19.8-29.8) for intermediate-risk patients (1-2 adverse factors), and 10.6 months (95 % CI: 6.3-14.8) versus 9.3 months (95 % CI: 5.1-13.5) for poor-risk patients (≥3 adverse factors). The majority of MSKCC poor-risk patients (54.1 %, n = 72) were reclassified as intermediate-risk using IDC criteria, and 20.2 % (n = 61) of MSKCC intermediate-risk patients were reclassified to the IDC favourable-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Both prognostic models were validated in the present cohort. Use of the IDC model resulted in an upward shift in prognostic assessment compared to the MSKCC model.
Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute Brno Czech Republic
Department of Oncology University Hospital in Motol Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 Feb;38(1):28-34 PubMed
PLoS One. 2013 May 03;8(5):e63341 PubMed
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Feb;14(2):141-8 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5794-9 PubMed
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87 PubMed
Med Oncol. 2012 Dec;29(5):3314-20 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Feb 1;23(4):832-41 PubMed
Front Oncol. 2012 May 18;2:49 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 2007 May 31;356(22):2271-81 PubMed
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Aug;17(8):2530-40 PubMed
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47 PubMed
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Oct;10(10):992-1000 PubMed
Urol Oncol. 2014 May;32(4):488-95 PubMed
Cancer. 2006 Oct 15;107(8):1793-800 PubMed
Ann Oncol. 2002 Sep;13(9):1460-8 PubMed
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Aug 15;17 (16):5443-50 PubMed
Cancer. 2008 Oct 1;113(7):1552-8 PubMed
Ann Oncol. 2007 Feb;18(2):249-55 PubMed
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Dec;20(13):4397-404 PubMed
