Home > Search Results
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Treats kidney cancer.

UsesSide effectsLatest evidence reviewsResearch summaries for consumersBrand names

Results: 10

Renal cell carcinoma: What are the advantages or disadvantages of axitinib (Inlyta)?

The drug axitinib (trade name Inlyta) was approved in Germany in September 2012 for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer (advanced renal cell carcinoma) in people for whom previous drug treatment was unsuccessful.

Informed Health Online [Internet] - Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).

Version: April 11, 2013

Risk of cardiovascular toxicities in patients with solid tumors treated with sunitinib, axitinib, cediranib or regorafenib: an updated systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of cardiovascular toxicities associated with sunitinib, axitinib, cediranib or regorafenib; oral multi tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Incidence and risk of hypertension with a novel multitargeted kinase inhibitor axitinib in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS: To investigate the overall incidence and risk of hypertension in cancer patients who receive axitinib and compare the differences in incidences between axitinib and the other four approved vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

The risk of hand-foot skin reaction to axitinib, a novel VEGF inhibitor: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

Axitinib is a potent, selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor. We have performed a systematic analysis to investigate the risk of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) to axitinib and compare the differences in incidences between sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib and axitinib. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed (1998-2012). Eligible studies were limited to prospective Phase II-III clinical trials in which cancer patients were treated with axitinib monotherapy at a starting dose of 5 mg orally twice daily. Incidence, relative risk (RR), and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity of included studies. A total of 984 patients from 6 prospective clinical trials were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of all-grade and high-grade HFSR was 29.2 % (95 % CI: 14.0-51.1 %) and 9.6 % (95 % CI: 4.2-20.7 %), respectively. The relative risks of all-grade and high-grade HFSR to axitinib compared to sorafenib were decreased for all-grade (RR=0.54, 95 % CI: 0.44-0.65, p<0.001) and high-grade HFSR (RR=0.31, 95 % CI: 0.19-0.52, p<0.001). The risk of all-grade and high-grade HFSR to axitinib, sunitinib and sorafenib was significantly higher as compared to pazopanib (RR=6.49, 95 % CI: 4.65-9.05, p<0.001; RR=6.40, 95 % CI: 3.60-11.37, p<0.001, and RR=4.20, 95 % CI: 3.07-5.75, p<0.001; RR=3.67, 95 % CI: 2.15-6.24, p<0.001, and RR=7.51, 95 % CI: 5.5-10.3, p<0.001; RR=5.93, 95 % CI: 3.5-10.0, p<0.001, respectively). Similar to sorafenib and sunitinib, axitinib is associated with a significant risk of HFSR, despite having an increased specificity for VEGF receptors. These findings underscore the importance of supportive dermatologic care in patients treated with axitinib, in order to maintain quality of life, adherence, and persistence to therapy.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety between seven newer targeted agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety among 7 newer targeted agents for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). All randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of targeted therapeutic drugs for mRCC were included. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes [improvement in the median progression-free survival (PFS)] and safety outcomes (number of withdrawals due to adverse events). The network analysis included direct and indirect analyses. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. We identified 7 articles eligible for inclusion in the study. The direct comparison of the targeted agents indicated better efficacy in terms of longer PFS, but worse safety (more withdrawals due to adverse events). The indirect analysis demonstrated that axitinib was significantly more effective compared to panzopanib; sunitinib was superior to sorafenib and temsirolimus regarding efficacy outcome, without any statistically significant difference in the safety outcome. The results of the quality assessment indicated moderate scores using the GRADE method. In conclusion, the result of this network analysis suggested that sunitinib and axitinib may be more clinically efficient and axitinib is associated with a lower risk of adverse events compared to sorafenib, pazopanib and temsirolimus.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Risk of thyroid dysfunction in patients with solid tumors treated with VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a critical literature review and meta analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of thyroid function abnormalities associated with seven vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sorafenib, sunitinib, axitinib, cediranib, pazopanib, regorafenib and vandetanib). Eligible studies included randomized Phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on sorafenib OR sunitinib OR axitinib OR cediranib OR pazopanib OR regorafenib OR vandetanib; describing events of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism. Our search strategy yielded 195 potentially relevant citations on the seven agents from Pubmed/Medline, CENTRAL Cochrane registry and ASCO meeting library. After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 12 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis, including six sunitinib studies, four cediranib studies and two axitinib studies. Patients treated with these agents had a significantly increased risk of all-grade hypothyroidism and the relative risk (RR) of all-grade hypothyroidism was 3.59 (95% CI = 2.40-5.38, p ≤ 0.0001). Exploratory subgroup analysis showed no effect of tumor types or agent used on the RR of hypothyroidism. Our meta-analysis has demonstrated that these three agents are associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade hypothyroidism; with no difference - on subgroup analysis - between sunitinib and cediranib. Clinicians should be aware of these risks and perform regular thyroid function monitoring.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2014

Second-line treatments for the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Venous thromboembolic events with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

A trial-level meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative risk (RR) of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) associated with approved vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Eligible studies included randomized phase 2 and 3 trials comparing arms with and without a Food and Drug Administration-approved VEGFR TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, vandetanib, and axitinib). Statistical analyses calculated the RR and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity. A total of 7441 patients from 9 phase III trials and 8 phase II trials were selected. The RR of all grade and high-grade VTEs for the TKI vs. no TKI arms was 1.10 (95% CI 0.73-1.66, p=0.64) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.58-1.25, p=0.41), respectively. No difference in risk was found based on tumor type, age and trial design. The majority of trials exhibited high quality per Jadad scoring and no heterogeneity or publication bias was found.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Renal Cell Cancer Treatment (PDQ®): Health Professional Version

Expert-reviewed information summary about the treatment of renal cell cancer.

PDQ Cancer Information Summaries [Internet] - National Cancer Institute (US).

Version: December 5, 2014

Chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Most patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) require systemic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy plus multitargeted antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI; e.g., sorafenib, sunitinib, cediranib, vandetanib, BIBF 1120, pazopanib, axitinib) has recently been evaluated in patients with NSCLC. However, the advantage of this therapy over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced NSCLC remains largely unknown.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet] - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK).

Version: 2013

Systematic Reviews in PubMed

See all (25)...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...