Comparison of efficacy, safety, and quality of life between sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy for Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
10.1186/s40880-017-0230-7
- Author:
Cai WEN
1
;
Kong WEN
;
Dong BAIJUN
;
Zhang JIN
;
Chen YONGHUI
;
Xue WEI
;
Huang YIRAN
;
Zhou LIXIN
;
Huang JIWEI
Author Information
1. Department of Urology
- Keywords:
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma;
Sorafenib;
Sunitinib;
Quality of life
- From:Chinese Journal of Cancer
2017;36(11):574-582
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Background: Sorafenib and sunitinib are widely used as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in China. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in Chinese mRCC patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. Methods: Clinical data of patients with mRCC who received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; 4 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg twice daily; on a schedule of 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off) were retrieved. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and QoL (SF-36 scores), and secondary outcomes were associations of clinical characteristics with QoL. Results: Medical records of 184 patients (110 in the sorafenib group and 74 in the sunitinib group) were reviewed. PFS and OS were comparable between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (bothP > 0.05). The occurrence rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and hypothyroidism were higher in the sunitinib group (36.5％ vs. 10.9％, P < 0.001; 40.5％ vs. 10.9％,P < 0.001; 17.6％ vs. 3.6％,P= 0.001), and that of diarrhea was higher in the sorafenib group (62.7％ vs. 35.2％,P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in SF-36 scores between the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that role-physical and bodily pain scores were associated with the occurrence rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P= 0.017 and 0.005). Conclusions: Sorafenib has comparable efficacy and lower toxicity profile than sunitinib as first-line therapy for mRCC. Both agents showed no significant impact on QoL of patients.
