Background: Renal cell carcinoma represents a dynamic therapeutic area with multiple classes of treatments and several new agents on the horizon with novel mechanisms of action. Understanding prescriber perceptions of efficacy and tolerability among leading treatments in a real-world population may inform current areas of unmet need and provide context for the adoption of new therapeutics. We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing the duration of therapy for sunitinib and pazopanib, the 2 leading systemic therapy options for newly diagnosed and relapsed patients with renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Using claims data (MORE² Registry), patients with renal cell carcinoma who started and completed at least one line of treatment with sunitinib and/or pazopanib during the study period (January 2012 to February 2014) were identified by ICD9 code 189.0. Each patient’s treatment history was analyzed by line of therapy, defined as the line of therapy at disease progression or last regimen 90 days prior to date of data extraction (February 1, 2014). Patients were evaluated for duration of first-line therapy. Independent t-test analysis was performed to compare mean durations of first-line treatment with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Results: A total of 532 patients with renal cell carcinoma received a complete first-line treatment course with sunitinib (n = 361) or pazopanib (n = 171). Median duration of first-line therapy for sunitinib was 2.6 months (mean 4.0 months) compared to 3.0 months (mean 3.9 months) for pazopanib. There was no statistical difference in mean duration of therapy between the two groups of patients, P= .99. Conclusions: The duration of therapy was not statistically different for the two leading systemic agents used for the first-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma (sunitinib and pazopanib). Both agents had lower treatment duration than published trial results (range 4-8 months). Statistically equivalent and brief duration of treatment for both agents support toxicity and cost considerations as influential factors and suggest a continued unmet need in this therapeutic area.