-
1.
Sorafenib Versus Observation Following Radical Metastasectomy for Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 2 Randomized Open-label RESORT Study.
Procopio, G, Apollonio, G, Cognetti, F, Miceli, R, Milella, M, Mosca, A, Chiuri, VE, Bearz, A, Morelli, F, Ortega, C, et al
European urology oncology. 2019;(6):699-707
Abstract
BACKGROUND In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy. OBJECTIVE To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11-NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.
-
2.
Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial.
Bracarda, S, Bamias, A, Casper, J, Negrier, S, Sella, A, Staehler, M, Tarazi, J, Felici, A, Rosbrook, B, Jardinaud-Lopez, M, et al
Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2019;(3):e689-e703
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS AXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors. RESULTS Of 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSION In patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.
-
3.
High fat mass associates with occurrence of targeted therapy-induced left ventricular ejection fraction reduction in patients with renal cell carcinoma.
Kazemi-Bajestani, SMR, Becher, H, Venner, P, North, S, Baracos, V
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2018;(3):1070-1072
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Recent research suggests that variations of skeletal muscle (SM) and fat predict the severity of chemotherapy-induced toxicities in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Cardio-toxicity has not been evaluated in this context. METHODS In this study we considered 47 RCC patients who participated in randomized clinical trials of sorafenib or sunitinib (i.e., targeted therapy). To capture cardio-toxicity, multi gated acquisition (MUGA) scan-defined left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) tests (at least 3 tests over 1 year of treatment) were abstracted. Computed tomography (CT) cross-sectional images were analyzed before start of targeted therapy and at 1 year to define SM and fat at baseline and changes over time concurrent with MUGA-defined LVEF measurement. RESULTS MUGA-defined cardio-toxicity (usually fall in LVEF >10% to an absolute LVEF<55%) occurred in 8/47 (17%) patients over 1 year of targeted therapy (all were male). Percentage of patients with high fat mass (baseline CT-defined total adipose tissue/indexed by height2 greater than the gender-specific median value) was higher among patients with cardio-toxicity versus patients without cardio-toxicity [7 (87.5%) versus 16 (41.0%); p = 0.02]. The percentage of SM loss in patients with cardio-toxicity was higher than the patients without cardio-toxicity [median of loss (%) -7 versus 0 respectively; p = 0.04]. CONCLUSION Cardio-toxicity in RCC patients might be associated with high fat mass. This finding is distinct from prior observations that low body weight and sarcopenia associated with non-cardiac toxicities of targeted therapies. Concurrence of SM loss over time and development of cardio-toxicity is reported for the first time.
-
4.
Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.
Hutson, TE, Al-Shukri, S, Stus, VP, Lipatov, ON, Shparyk, Y, Bair, AH, Rosbrook, B, Andrews, GI, Vogelzang, NJ
Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2017;(1):72-76
Abstract
BACKGROUND In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). RESULTS Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.
-
5.
Effects of Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib on Cardiac Function in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients without Overt Metastases: Results from ASSURE, ECOG 2805.
Haas, NB, Manola, J, Ky, B, Flaherty, KT, Uzzo, RG, Kane, CJ, Jewett, M, Wood, L, Wood, CG, Atkins, MB, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2015;(18):4048-54
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Sunitinib and sorafenib are used widely in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These agents are associated with a significant incidence of cardiovascular (CV) dysfunction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) declines, observed largely in the metastatic setting. However, in the adjuvant population, the CV effects of these agents remain unknown. We prospectively defined the incidence of cardiotoxicity among resected, high-risk RCC patients treated with these agents. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo was administered for up to 12 months in patients with high-risk, resected RCC. LVEF was measured by multigated acquisition (MUGA) scans at standard intervals. Additional CV adverse events were reported according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). RESULTS Among 1,943 patients randomized, 1,599 had at least 1 post-baseline MUGA. Within 6 months, 21 patients (1.3%) experienced a cardiac event, defined as an LVEF decline from baseline that was >15% and below the institutional lower limit of normal. Nine of 513 patients (1.8%) were on sunitinib, 7 of 508 (1.4%) on sorafenib, and 5 of 578 (0.9%) on placebo (P = 0.28 and 0.56 comparing sunitinib and sorafenib to placebo, respectively). With dose interruption or adjustment, 16 of the 21 recovered their LVEF to >50%. The incidence of symptomatic heart failure, arrhythmia, or myocardial ischemia did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS In the adjuvant setting, we prospectively define low incidence of cardiotoxicity with sunitinib and sorafenib. These findings may be related to close CV monitoring, or potentially to fewer CV comorbidities in our nonmetastatic population.
-
6.
Hypertension among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving axitinib or sorafenib: analysis from the randomized phase III AXIS trial.
Rini, BI, Quinn, DI, Baum, M, Wood, LS, Tarazi, J, Rosbrook, B, Arruda, LS, Cisar, L, Roberts, WG, Kim, S, et al
Targeted oncology. 2015;(1):45-53
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway frequently induce hypertension when used to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis characterizes hypertension and hypertension-related events in patients treated with the VEGF pathway inhibitors axitinib or sorafenib in the AXIS trial. AXIS was a randomized phase III study of axitinib versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic RCC following failure of one prior systemic regimen. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were excluded, but patients with hypertension controlled with antihypertensive medication were allowed to participate. Guidelines for hypertension management included adjustment or addition of antihypertensive medications and/or axitinib or sorafenib dose reductions, interruptions, or discontinuations. Treatment-emergent all-causality hypertension occurred in 145 (40.4 %) axitinib-treated patients (N = 359) and 103 (29.0 %) sorafenib-treated patients (N = 355), with grade 3 hypertension reported in 55 (15.3 %) and 38 (10.7 %) patients, respectively, and grade 4 hypertension reported in one (0.3 %) patient in each arm. Hypertension-related events led to axitinib dose interruptions (n = 46; 12.8 %), dose reductions (n = 16; 4.5 %), or discontinuations (n = 1; 0.3 %). Approximately 50 % of axitinib-treated patients with grade 3 or 4 hypertension continued treatment for ≥ 9 months. Hypertension-related sequelae occurred in <1 % of axitinib-treated patients. Hypertension was more frequently observed during treatment with axitinib than sorafenib in patients with RCC, but axitinib-induced hypertension rarely led to treatment discontinuation or cardiovascular sequelae. Recommendations for monitoring blood pressure and managing hypertension during axitinib therapy are presented.
-
7.
Patient-reported outcomes for axitinib vs sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase III (AXIS) trial.
Cella, D, Escudier, B, Rini, B, Chen, C, Bhattacharyya, H, Tarazi, J, Rosbrook, B, Kim, S, Motzer, R
British journal of cancer. 2013;(8):1571-8
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Axitinib demonstrated greater progression-free survival vs sorafenib in a phase III study of previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Here, we report patient-reported kidney-specific symptoms and health status, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Cancer Symptom Index (FKSI) and the European Quality of Life self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D). METHODS In all, 723 patients received axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.)) or sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.). The FKSI-15, including the disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale, was administered on day 1 before dosing, every 4 weeks and at end of treatment (EOT)/withdrawal. Statistical methods included a mixed-effects repeated-measures model. RESULTS At baseline, patients in both arms had relatively high mean FSKI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores, comparable to the general US population. Subsequent on-treatment overall mean scores were similar between axitinib and sorafenib, and there was no substantial decline during treatment. Scores substantially worsened at EOT, mainly due to disease progression. CONCLUSION Patient-reported outcomes were comparable for second-line axitinib and sorafenib and were maintained at relatively high levels while on treatment, but worsened at EOT. As duration of treatment was longer with axitinib than sorafenib, time to worsening of symptoms can be delayed longer with axitinib.
-
8.
Development and validation of a prediction index for hand-foot skin reaction in cancer patients receiving sorafenib.
Dranitsaris, G, Vincent, MD, Yu, J, Huang, L, Fang, F, Lacouture, ME
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2012;(8):2103-2108
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study describes a repeated measures prediction index to identify patients at high risk of ≥grade 2 hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) before each week of sorafenib therapy. METHODS Data from 451 patients who received a sorafenib (400 mg bid) as part of a clinical trial were reviewed (Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 125-134). Generalized estimating equations were used to develop the final risk model. A risk-scoring algorithm (range 0-58) was then derived from the final model coefficients. External validation was then carried out on a new sample of 1145 patients who received sorafenib under an expanded access program. RESULTS Pretreatment white blood cell count, female gender, good performance status, presence of lung and liver metastases and number of affected organs were predictors for ≥grade 2 HFSR. A nonlinear association between HFSR risk and treatment duration was also identified where risk was maximized at week 5 followed by a gradual decline. Before each week of therapy, patients with risk scores>40 would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 HFSR. CONCLUSIONS The application and planned continued refinement of this prediction tool will be an important source of patient-specific risk information for the development of moderate to severe HFSR.
-
9.
Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial.
Rini, BI, Escudier, B, Tomczak, P, Kaprin, A, Szczylik, C, Hutson, TE, Michaelson, MD, Gorbunova, VA, Gore, ME, Rusakov, IG, et al
Lancet (London, England). 2011;(9807):1931-9
Abstract
BACKGROUND The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.
-
10.
Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with and without prior cytokine therapy, a subanalysis of TARGET.
Negrier, S, Jäger, E, Porta, C, McDermott, D, Moore, M, Bellmunt, J, Anderson, S, Cihon, F, Lewis, J, Escudier, B, et al
Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England). 2010;(3):899-906
Abstract
Before the development of targeted therapies, administration of cytokines (e.g., interleukin-2, interferon-alpha) was the primary systemic treatment option for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sorafenib, an oral targeted, multikinase inhibitor, significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET), a large (N = 903) phase III, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma resistant to standard therapy. This analysis of a patient subgroup from TARGET evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients who had received prior cytokine therapy (sorafenib: n = 374; placebo: n = 368) and in patients who were cytokine-naïve (sorafenib: n = 77; placebo: n = 84). Progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with sorafenib therapy compared with placebo among patients with and without prior cytokine therapy (respectively 5.5 vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64 and 5.8 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73). Clinical benefit rates for sorafenib-treated patients compared with placebo patients were also higher (cytokine-treated: 83 vs. 54.3%; cytokine-naïve: 85.7 vs. 56.0%). Sorafenib was well tolerated in both subgroups (grade 3/4: 20 and 22%, respectively). Sorafenib demonstrated a consistent, significant clinical benefit against advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a twofold improvement in progression-free survival and disease control rate, with similar toxicities in patients with or without prior cytokine treatment.