Öz
Amaç
Bu çalışmanın amacı, metastatik renal hücreli karsinomda (mRHK) birinci basamak tedaviyi belirlemek için kullanılan Uluslararası mRCC Veritabanı Konsorsiyumu (IMDC) ve Memorial Sloan Kettering Kanser Merkezi (MSKCC) risk modelleri ile daha az yaygın olarak Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) prognostik risk modeli arasındaki ilişkiyi ve korelasyonu ortaya koymaktır.
Yöntem
İmmünoterapi ve moleküler hedefli tedavi gören mRCC hastalarının IMDC, MSKCC ve CCF skorları tanı anında retrospektif olarak hesaplandı. Skor sonuçlarına göre hastalar düşük, orta ve kötü riskli olarak gruplandırıldı. Bu risk gruplarına göre hastaların medyan progresyonsuz sağkalım (mPSK) ve medyan genel sağkalım (mGSK) değerleri hesaplandı ve uygun istatistiksel analizler kullanılarak birbirleriyle korelasyon anlamlı kabul edildi ve p<0,05 anlamlı kabul edildi.
Bulgular
Çalışmaya katılan 189 hastanın medyan takip süresi 45,5 ay, mPSK 23,6 ay [95% güven aralığı (CI): 18,6-28,5 ay] ve mGSK 34,6 ay (95% CI: 23,3-45,9 ay) idi. Hastaların risk gruplarına göre dağılımı her üç prognostik risk modeline göre benzerdi. Düşük risk grubunda hem mPSK hem de mGSK her üç risk modeline göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha kısaydı (mPSK, IMDC: 14,2 ay, MSKCC: 15,6 ay, CCF: 17,1 ay; mGSK, IMDC: 17,6 ay, MSKCC: 17,7 ay, CCF: 22,4 ay, p<0,001). CCF, MSKCC ve IMDC arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı pozitif bir korelasyon gözlendi (r=0,656 vs. r=0,690, p<0,001). MSKCC ve IMDC arasında daha güçlü ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı pozitif bir korelasyon gözlemlendi (r=793, p<0,001).
Sonuç
Çalışmamız, immünoterapi ve hedefli tedavi alan mRHK’de IMDC, MSKCC ve CCF risk modellerini karşılaştıran literatürdeki bildiğimiz ilk çalışmadır ve çalışmamızın sonucunda, üç risk modelinin de birbirleriyle ilişkili olduğu gösterilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), prognostik model, metastatik renal hücreli kanser (RHK)
Kaynakça
Fitzgerald KN, Lee CH. Personalizing first-line management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: leveraging current and novel therapeutic options. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20.
Yang J, Wang K, Yang Z. Treatment strategies for clear cell renal cell carcinoma: past, present and future. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1133832.
Choueiri TK, Rini B, Garcia JA, et al. Prognostic factors associated with long-term survival in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:249-55.
Mekhail TM, Abou-Jawde RM, Boumerhi G, et al. Validation and extension of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering prognostic factors model for survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:832-41.
Ko JJ, Xie W, Kroeger N, et al. The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:293-300.
Kim JK, Kim SH, Song MK, et al. Application of the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk models in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional retrospective study using the Korean Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Registry. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51:758-68.
Okita K, Hatakeyama S, Tanaka T, et al. Impact of disagreement between two risk group models on prognosis in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e440-6.
Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, et al. External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:141-8.
Motzer RJ, Mazumdar M, Bacik J, Berg W, Amsterdam A, Ferrara J. Survival and prognostic stratification of 670 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2530-40.
Heng DY, Xie W, Regan MM, et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5794-9.
Tannir NM, Albigès L, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial. Ann Oncol. 2024;35:1026-38.
Plimack ER, Powles T, Stus V, et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: 43-month follow-up of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study. Eur Urol. 2023;84:449-54. Epub 2023;25. Erratum in: Eur Urol. 2023;84:e123-4. Erratum in: Eur Urol. 2024;85:e58-9. Available from: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.016.
Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M, et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:829-41.
Motzer R, Alekseev B, Rha SY, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1289-1300.
Shinohara N, Abe T. Prognostic factors and risk classifications for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urol. 2015;22:888-97.
Kubackova K, Melichar B, Bortlicek Z, et al. Comparison of two prognostic models in patients with metastatic renal cancer treated with sunitinib: a retrospective, registry-based study. Target Oncol. 2015;10:557-63.
Noe A, de Bruijn RE, Blank C, Horenblas S, Haanen J, Bex A. Comparison of pre-treatment MSKCC and IMDC prognostic risk models in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in the era of targeted therapy. World J Urol. 2016;34:1067-72.
Sella A, Michaelson MD, Matczak E, Simantov R, Lin X, Figlin RA. Heterogeneity of patients with intermediate-prognosis metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:291-299.e1.
Tanaka N, Mizuno R, Ito K, et al. External validation of the MSKCC and IMDC risk models in patients treated with targeted therapy as a first-line and subsequent second-line treatment: a Japanese multi-institutional study. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:303-9.
