Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial
TL;DR: Overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, but investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group, establishing axit inib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Abstract: Summary Background In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Methods Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. Findings Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p Interpretation Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Citations
More filters
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Harvard University3, Roswell Park Cancer Institute4, Johns Hopkins University5, Stanford University6, University of Washington7, Vanderbilt University8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, Macquarie University10, Aarhus University11, University of Helsinki12, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust13, University of Duisburg-Essen14, Niigata University15, Swansea University16, University of British Columbia17, Bristol-Myers Squibb18, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center19
TL;DR: Overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. MethodsA total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. ResultsThe median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The haz...
4,643 citations
TL;DR: This document describes the development and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme, a non-volatile substance that acts as a “spatially aggregating substance” to reduce the chances of heart attack in women.
Abstract: 2-D
: two-dimensional
3-D
: three-dimensional
5-FU
: 5-fluorouracil
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ARB
: angiotensin II receptor blocker
ASE
: American Society of Echocardiography
BNP
: B-type natriuretic peptide
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft
CAD
: coronary artery
1,875 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, Netherlands Cancer Institute2, Cleveland Clinic3, Institut Gustave Roussy4, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center5, University of Glasgow6, University of British Columbia7, University of Lyon8, Osaka University9, University of Ulsan10, Russian Railways11, McGill University12, Medical University of Vienna13, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust14, Georgetown University15, University of Tübingen16, Pfizer17, Harvard University18
TL;DR: Progression‐free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunit inib among patients who received these agents as first‐line treatment for advanced renal‐cell carcinoma.
Abstract: Background In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously...
1,597 citations
TL;DR: No abstract available Keywords: European Society of Cardiology; arrhythmias; cancer therapy; cardio-oncology; cardiotoxicity; chemotherapy; early detection; ischaemia; myocardial dysfunction; surveillance.
Abstract: No abstract available
Keywords: European Society of Cardiology; arrhythmias; cancer therapy; cardio-oncology; cardiotoxicity; chemotherapy; early detection; ischaemia; myocardial dysfunction; surveillance.
1,421 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors summarize lessons learned from preclinical and clinical studies over the past decade and propose strategies for improving antiangiogenic therapy outcomes for malignant and nonmalignant diseases.
1,093 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment is proposed, which is largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines.
Abstract: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
14,926 citations
TL;DR: As compared with placebo, treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed; however, treatment is associated with increased toxic effects.
Abstract: Background We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. Methods From November 2003 to March 2005, we randomly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo; 451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo. Consequently, crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib, beginning in May 2005. Results At the January 2005 cutoff, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group, 0.44;...
4,592 citations
TL;DR: As compared with interferon alfa, temsirolimus improved overall survival among patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and a poor prognosis.
Abstract: Background Interferon alfa is widely used for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma but has limited efficacy and tolerability. Temsirolimus, a specific inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin kinase, may benefit patients with this disease. Methods In this multicenter, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 626 patients with previously untreated, poor-prognosis metastatic renal-cell carcinoma to receive 25 mg of intravenous temsirolimus weekly, 3 million U of interferon alfa (with an increase to 18 million U) subcutaneously three times weekly, or combination therapy with 15 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus 6 million U of interferon alfa three times weekly. The primary end point was overall survival in comparisons of the temsirolimus group and the combination-therapy group with the interferon group. Results Patients who received temsirolimus alone had longer overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92; P=0.008) and progression-free survival (P<0.001) than did patie...
3,474 citations
TL;DR: Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity.
2,822 citations
TL;DR: Recent progress in the evolution of adverse effects grading systems is updated and the development of CTCAE v3.0 is reviewed, which represents an international collaboration and consensus of the oncology research community.
2,321 citations