Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses

Table 1 Baseline demographics and characteristics before and after matching in prior sunitinib-treated patients

Trial	AXIS	AXIS	METEOR	AXIS	METEOR
Arm	Axitinib, before matching (N = 194)	Axitinib, after matching vs. cabozantinib (ESS = 104/114)	Cabozantinib (N = 135)	Axitinib, after matching vs. everolimus (ESS = 61/95)	Everolimus (N = 132)
Sex, %
Male	74	79	79	72	72
Female	26	21	21	28	28
Median age, years	62	62	62	62	62
Geographic regions, %
Europe	51	53	53	50	50
North America	29	33	33	33	33
Asia	15	13	13	17	17
Other	5	< 1	< 1	1	1
ECOG PS or KPS, %
0 (KPS 90–100)	52	70	70	66	66
1 (KPS 70–80)	48	30	30	34	34
MSKCC in the base-case analysis, %
Favourable	20	41	41	45	45
Intermediate	42	47	47	44	44
Poor	34	13	13	11	11
NR	4	0	0	0	0
MSKCC in the sensitivity analysis, %
Favourable	33	41	41	45	45
Intermediate	58	47	47	44	44
Poor	5	13	13	11	11
NR	4	0	0	0	0
Histology, %
Clear cell or clear cell component	98	100	100	100	100
Metastatic site, %
Lung	73	59	59	67	67
Bone	30	20	20	42	42
Liver	33	32	32	17	17
Prior nephrectomy, %	88	86	86	85	85
Prior radiotherapy, %	23	29	29	31	31

ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, ESS effective sample size, KPS Karnofsky performance score, MSKCC Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NR not reported

ISSN: 1471-2407