Real life patterns of care and progression free survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data

Background: Patient characteristics and survival outcomes in randomized trials may be different from those in real-life clinical practice. The objective of this study was to describe treatment pathways, safety, drug costs and survival in patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) in a real world setting. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using IQVIA real world oncology cross-sectional survey data, a retrospective treatment database collecting anonymized patient-level data in Europe. Data on treatment naive patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy in France were extracted for the period 2005-2015. Descriptive analyses were performed on treatment patterns, patient characteristics and safety profiles. Progression Free Survival (PFS) was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: One thousand three hundred thirty-one patients with mRCC who received a first-line targeted therapy were included. The male/female sex ratio was 2.5 and 66% of patients were aged > 60 years. 83% of patients had clear cell adenocarcinoma. 83% of patients underwent a surgical procedure, 10% had radiotherapy. In patients who received a first-line targeted therapy, 73% received sunitinib. The mean time from diagnosis to first-line treatment by targeted therapies in patients initially diagnosed with metastatic disease was 3.3 months [95% CI: 2.5-4.1]. In patients who received second-line targeted therapy n = 257 (19%), the most frequently observed treatment sequences were sunitinib-everolimus (33%) and sunitinib-sorafenib (27%). Adverse events data were available for 501 patients and adverse events were documented in 70% of patients, most frequently diarrhoea. The overall median PFS was 13 months [95% CI: 11.5-16]. Conclusion: Patient characteristics were consistent with the literature. Treatment patterns appeared to follow current practice guidelines. Despite some variations, PFS in our study seems to be consistent with findings from other real world studies. Nevertheless, PFS results were higher than those observed in clinical trials. Due to the use of cross-sectional data, PFS in our study should be interpreted with caution.