From the Journals

In Brazil, few patients get second- and third-line treatment for metastatic RCC

 

Key clinical point: Few Brazilians with mRCC receive anything after their first-line treatment.

Major finding: First-line agents were used in 79% of the cohort, but only 20% got second-line treatments and just 5%, third-line treatment.

Study details: A retrospective database study involving 3,990 patients with mRCC.

Disclosures: Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.


 

FROM THE JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ONCOLOGY

The first-line agents used for metastatic renal cell cancers in Brazil are similar to those used in fully developed countries, but many fewer patients go on to receive second- and third-line therapy, a retrospective study showed.

Of 3,990 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), 79% received an appropriate first-line treatment – mainly a vascular endothelial growth factor agent. But only 20% went on to get a second-line agent, and just 5% received a third-line agent, Paulo G. Bergerot, MD, and his colleagues reported in the Journal of Global Oncology.

Patients in private institutions were significantly more likely to receive appropriate first- and second-line treatment than those in public institutions, although the numbers receiving third-line agents were similarly low, reported Dr. Bergerot of the Federal University of São Paulo and his coauthors.

The study highlights sharp discrepancies between treatment in Brazil and more developed countries, the team noted.

“Previous reports from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium suggest that approximately 48% of patients who receive first-line therapy proceed to second-line therapy. In addition, among patients who received first-line therapy in this experience, approximately 21% received third-line therapy,” the investigators wrote.

The reasons behind the differences aren’t entirely clear, but cost and clinicians’ knowledge of emerging study data could be major factors, they suggested.

“In particular, we suspect limited availability and cost of second-line treatments to be a barrier, although our data set did not have the capability of confirming this. Another barrier to receipt of second-line therapy might be educational gaps among practitioners. Emerging data from phase 3 studies supporting the use of agents in the refractory setting may not be widely broadcast. The discordance in receipt of therapies in private and public settings is perhaps the greatest indication that financial and social barriers likely affect treatment paradigms in Brazil,” the authors wrote.

Slow dissemination of clinical knowledge may also be reflected in another of the team’s findings: 240 patients received “nontraditional” first-line cytotoxic treatments, which lacked regulatory approval and had little supporting evidence for treating mRCC, the investigators reported.

Dr. Bergerot had no relevant financial disclosures, although several of his coauthors reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Bergerot et al. J Glob Oncol. 2017 Dec 27. doi: 10.1200/JGO.17.00113.

Next Article:

   Comments ()