Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity analysis of pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial (Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma, COMPARZ; NCT00720941), pazopanib was found to be noninferior to sunitinib in terms of progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with no prior therapy. Overall treatment differences were evaluated in a post hoc analysis with a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) methodology. METHODS: Each patient's overall survival was partitioned into 3 mutually exclusive health states: time with grade 3 or 4 toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease or grade 3/4 toxicity of treatment, and time after tumor progression or relapse (REL). The time spent in each state was weighted by a health-state utility associated with that state and summed to calculate the Q-TWiST. A threshold utility analysis was used, and utilities were applied across the range of 0 (similar to death) to 1 (perfect health). RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients were enrolled (557 on pazopanib and 553 on sunitinib). The mean TOX was 31 days (95% confidence interval, 13-48 days) longer for sunitinib versus pazopanib. In the threshold utility analysis, the difference in the Q-TWiST ranged from -11 days (utility for TOX, 1; utility for REL, 0) to 43 days (utility for TOX, 0; utility for REL, 1) in favor of pazopanib across most utility combinations. Differences were significant in less than half of the utility combinations examined, and this typically occurred when the utility for TOX was lower than the utility for REL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to pazopanib had a slightly longer Q-TWiST in comparison with sunitinib patients, and this was primarily due to the reduced length of TOX.

Health care costs among renal cancer patients using pazopanib and sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib in progression-free survival in a phase III, open-label, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 drugs for treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A secondary analysis of this trial conducted on patient-reported health care resource utilization (HCRU) endpoints revealed significantly fewer monthly telephone consultations and emergency department visits among patients treated with pazopanib over the first 6 months of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To (a) compare total costs of HCRU and adverse events (AEs) in patients with advanced RCC receiving first-line pazopanib or sunitinib from the phase III clinical trial and (b) perform a post hoc economic analysis that applied direct medical care and pharmacy unit costs, obtained from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases, to HCRU and AE rates. METHODS: Total HCRU costs included components for provider contacts, diagnostics, hospitalizations, procedures, and study/nonstudy drugs. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of an AE in order to estimate costs attributable to AEs. Costs were adjusted to 2013 U.S. dollars. The highest 1% of cost outliers were equally excluded from each group. Univariate (t-test and Kaplan-Meier sample average [KMSA]) and multivariate (using treatment group and region as covariates) analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 906 patients (pazopanib, n = 454; sunitinib, n = 452) reported HCRU; higher rates were observed for sunitinib. In unadjusted cost analyses, the mean total costs for pazopanib-treated patients were 8.0% lower than those treated with sunitinib ($80,464 vs. $86,886; P = 0.20). The difference in KMSA-estimated costs was significantly higher for sunitinib versus pazopanib ($156,128 vs. $143,585; P = 0.003). Adjusted cost differences between arms consistently suggested higher costs for sunitinib. Among patients who experienced greater than or equal to 1 AE, costs were $8,118 higher for pazopanib-treated patients and $14,343 for sunitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that health care costs were lower among patients with advanced RCC treated first-line with pazopanib versus sunitinib.

An open-label extension study to evaluate safety and efficacy of pazopanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of pazopanib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in a single-arm, open-label, extension study (VEG107769/NCT00387764) for placebo-treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study (VEG105192/NCT00334282). METHODS: Patients received pazopanib 800 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of pazopanib treatment. Secondary endpoints included response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seventy-nine placebo-treated patients from VEG105192/NCT00334282 who experienced disease progression and one pazopanib-treated patient (an exemption) were enrolled. Forty-one patients (51%) were treatment-naive; 39 (49%) were cytokine-pretreated. Median exposure to pazopanib was 9.7 months. All patients had discontinued pazopanib at the time of analysis. The most common reason for discontinuation was disease progression (61%). The most common adverse events were hypertension (45%), diarrhea (45%), hair color changes (44%), anorexia (30%), and nausea (25%). The response rate was 37.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.9-48.1]; median PFS was 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.3-12.0); median OS was 23.5 months (95% CI: 16.3-28.0). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety profiles for pazopanib in this extension study of patients with RCC previously treated with placebo were very similar to those observed for pazopanib-treated patients in the pivotal phase III study.