-
1.
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.
-
2.
Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.
Molina, AM, Hutson, TE, Nosov, D, Tomczak, P, Lipatov, O, Sternberg, CN, Motzer, R, Eisen, T
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2018;:87-94
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.
-
3.
Phase I/II study of S-1 in combination with sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Naito, S, Sakai, H, Hashine, K, Tomita, Y, Shinohara, N, Fujisawa, M, Eto, M, Ozono, S, Akaza, H
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2015;(9):1871-1876
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The potential of S-1 for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been shown in two phase II studies. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerance, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of S-1 combined with sorafenib in patients with mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II study of S-1 plus sorafenib, we recruited patients with clear-cell or papillary renal cell carcinoma who had received a maximum of one prior cytokine-based regimen. The phase I primary end points were the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). S-1 was administered orally at 60, 80, 100 or 120 mg/day on days 1-28 of a 42-day cycle in combination with sorafenib (400 or 800 mg/day), given daily with dose adjustment. In phase II, the primary end point was to assess the overall response rate (ORR) at the RD. RESULTS Nine patients were enrolled into phase I and 21 (including 6 patients who received the RD in the phase I portion) were enrolled into phase II. In the phase I portion, the MTD could not be determined, and the RD was defined as S-1 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-28 + sorafenib 800 mg/day on days 1-42. In the phase II portion, 21 patients were fully assessable for efficacy and safety. The confirmed ORR was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-74.3], including one complete response (5%) and 10 partial responses (48%). The median progression-free survival was 9.9 (95% CI 6.5-17.1) months. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event for all grades was hand-foot skin reaction (100%). The major reasons for dose reduction were hand-foot skin reaction (38%) and rash (14%). CONCLUSION Combination therapy with S-1 plus sorafenib is effective and tolerable for patients with mRCC. However, skin events management is important in S-1 plus sorafenib combination therapy.
-
4.
The Relationship Between the Adverse Events and Efficacy of Sorafenib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study from Northwest China.
Zheng, Y, Wang, F, Wu, G, Zhang, L, Wang, Y, Wang, Z, Chen, P, Wang, Q, Lu, J, Wang, Y, et al
Medicine. 2015;(49):e2222
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The aim of the study is to evaluate the relationship between the adverse events and efficacy of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with a purpose to guide the judgment of efficacy in sorafenib treatment.Eighty-three mRCC patients who received sorafenib therapy at northwest China were studied retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to correlate tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) with adverse event types and grades.Among 83 patients who underwent sorafenib therapy, 2 cases (2.4%) had completed response (CR), 14 cases (16.9%) had partial response (PR), 57 cases (68.7%) had stable disease (SD), and 10 cases (12.0%) developed progressive disease (PD). The median PFS and OS were 15.0 and 29.0 months, respectively. The most frequent grade 1 or 2 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (68.7%), diarrhea (54.2%), and alopecia (51.8%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (6.0%), hypertension (4.8%), and diarrhea (3.6%). The frequency and severity of adverse events correlated with tumor response rate (both with P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed the independent predictors of better PFS included rash (OR 0.307, 95%CI 0.148-0.636, P = 0.001) and diarrhea (OR 0.391, 95%CI 0.169-0.783, P = 0.008). Elevated transaminase was the independent predictor of poor PFS (OR 2.606, 95%CI 1.299-5.532, P = 0.012). For OS, rash (OR 0.473, 95%CI 0.253-0.886, P = 0.019) and diarrhea (OR 0.321, 95%CI 0.171-0.605, P = 0.000) correlated with better OS.Sorafenib-related adverse events are associated with efficacy in patients with mRCC from northwest China. Rash and diarrhea are independent protective factors of both PFS and OS, and elevated transaminase is an independent risk factor of PFS. A large prospective study is warranted.
-
5.
Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial.
Motzer, RJ, Hutson, TE, Glen, H, Michaelson, MD, Molina, A, Eisen, T, Jassem, J, Zolnierek, J, Maroto, JP, Mellado, B, et al
The Lancet. Oncology. 2015;(15):1473-1482
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733. FINDINGS Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9-20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5-7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24-0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6-10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38-0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. INTERPRETATION Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING Eisai Inc.
-
6.
A cross-sectional investigation of fatigue in advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment: results from the FAMOUS study.
P J, G, A, M, L, M, H J, H, M, K, S, B, N, M
Urologic oncology. 2014;(3):362-70
Abstract
OBJECTIVE With an increasing choice of new treatment options, the management of side effects to maintain a chosen treatment if likely to be effective on the tumor remains important. The perception of side effects however varies between the physician and the patient, leading to possible wrong assumptions on tolerability that result in dose modifications, which may ultimately affect effectiveness. The aim was to assess fatigue in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by comparing the evaluation of the physician to the one provided by their respective patient. In addition, we aimed to assess possible influences of fatigue on parameters of quality of life. METHODS Patients receiving systemic treatment for advanced RCC and their physicians were questioned independently regarding incidence and severity of fatigue and its effect on quality of life. RESULTS Both physicians and patients completed 98 matching questionnaires. Patients were treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab combined with interferon alpha, temsirolimus, everolimus, or interferon alpha alone. Incidence and severity of fatigue was differently assessed by patients and physicians, with fatigue being more severe when reported by the patient. The severity of fatigue increased with progressing treatment lines. Quality of life was significantly lower in patients experiencing fatigue compared with patients without fatigue. Emotional, functional, and physical well-being were all affected by fatigue, the latter being the most affected subscale. Social well-being was least affected. CONCLUSION Fatigue is a complex and cumulative condition of patients treated for advanced RCC, and it considerably affects patient's quality of life. As many of its underlying causes may be treated, the divergent perception of occurrence and severity of fatigue should be integrated in treatment concepts. The active role of the patient in helping to manage ailments through assessment should be implemented when optimizing treatment of RCC.
-
7.
An international expanded-access programme of everolimus: addressing safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who progress after initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.
Grünwald, V, Karakiewicz, PI, Bavbek, SE, Miller, K, Machiels, JP, Lee, SH, Larkin, J, Bono, P, Rha, SY, Castellano, D, et al
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2012;(3):324-32
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The RECORD-1 trial established the clinical benefit of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy. The REACT (RAD001 Expanded Access Clinical Trial in RCC) study was initiated to address an unmet medical need by providing everolimus prior to commercial availability, and also to further assess the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients with VEGFr-TKI-refractory mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS REACT (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00655252) was a global, open-label, expanded-access programme in patients with mRCC who were intolerant of, or who had progressed on or after stopping treatment with, any available VEGFr-TKI therapy. Patients received everolimus 10mg once daily, with dose and schedule modifications allowed for toxicity. Patients were closely monitored for the development of serious and grades 3/4 adverse events (AEs). Response was assessed by RECIST every 3months for the first year and every 6months thereafter. RESULTS A total of 1367 patients were enroled. Safety findings and tumour responses were consistent with those observed in RECORD-1, with no new safety issues identified. The most commonly reported serious AEs were dyspnoea (5.0%), pneumonia (4.7%) and anaemia (4.1%), and the most commonly reported grades 3/4 AEs were anaemia (13.4%), fatigue (6.7%) and dyspnoea (6.5%). Best overall response was stable disease in 51.6% and partial response in 1.7% of patients. Median everolimus treatment duration was 14weeks. CONCLUSION Everolimus is well tolerated in patients with mRCC and demonstrates a favourable risk-benefit ratio.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Long-term safety of sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: follow-up of patients from phase III TARGET.
Hutson, TE, Bellmunt, J, Porta, C, Szczylik, C, Staehler, M, Nadel, A, Anderson, S, Bukowski, R, Eisen, T, Escudier, B, et al
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2010;(13):2432-40
Abstract
BACKGROUND The phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) indicated that sorafenib is effective and well tolerated in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. However, few data have been published on the safety of long-term sorafenib treatment. A retrospective subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in TARGET who received treatment for >1 year. METHODS The present subgroup analysis (based on the September 2006 database with updated safety analysis) evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in all patients in the sorafenib arm of TARGET who were treated for >1 year. The assessments included the overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. The patients remained on therapy post-progression at the discretion of the investigator. RESULTS In TARGET, 169 patients received treatment with sorafenib for >1 year. The median PFS of patients in this subpopulation was 10.9 months from the date of randomisation, with a DCR of 92%. The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events of any grade were diarrhoea (74%), rash/desquamation (51%), hand-foot skin reaction (49%), alopecia (39%), and fatigue (38%). Adverse events were mild to moderate, and presented early in the course of the treatment; there were no unexpected toxicities associated with the long-term administration of sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS Results of this subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in TARGET who received treatment for >1 year indicate that long-term treatment with sorafenib is associated with continued efficacy and a well-tolerated safety profile.
-
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.