Summary Background Combining targeted treatments for renal cell carcinoma has been suggested as a possible method to improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess the potential synergistic or ...additive effect of the combination of bevacizumab, directed against the VEGF receptor, and temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods TORAVA was an open-label, multicentre randomised phase 2 study undertaken in 24 centres in France. Patients aged 18 years or older who had untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to receive the combination of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and temsirolimus (25 mg weekly; group A), or one of the standard treatments: sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off; group B), or the combination of interferon alfa (9 mIU three times per week) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; group C). Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of four and eight patients stratified by participating centre and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 48 weeks (four follow-up CT scans), which was expected to be above 50% in group A. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is ongoing for long-term overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00619268. Findings Between March 3, 2008 and May 6, 2009, 171 patients were randomly assigned: 88 to the experimental group (group A), 42 to group B, and 41 to group C. PFS at 48 weeks was 29·5% (26 of 88 patients, 95% CI 20·0–39·1) in group A, 35·7% (15 of 42, 21·2–50·2) in group B, and 61·0% (25 of 41, 46·0–75·9) in group C. Median PFS was 8·2 months (95% CI 7·0–9·6) in group A, 8·2 months (5·5–11·7) in group B, and 16·8 months (6·0–26·0) in group C. 45 (51%) of 88 patients in group A stopped treatment for reasons other than progression compared with five (12%) of 42 in group B and 15 (38%) of 40 in group C. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 68 (77%) of 88 patients in group A versus 25 (60%) of 42 in group B and 28 (70%) of 40 in group C. Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (44%) of 88, 13 (31%) of 42, and 18 (45%) of 40 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. Interpretation The toxicity of the temsirolimus and bevacizumab combination was much higher than anticipated and limited treatment continuation over time. Clinical activity was low compared with the benefit expected from sequential use of each targeted therapy. This combination cannot be recommended for first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding French Ministry of Health and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
Summary 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.
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<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 17%), diarrhoea (40 11%), and fatigue (37 10%) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand–foot syndrome (61 17%), hypertension (43 12%), and diarrhoea (27 8%) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4–24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1–20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1–32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0–17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). 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.
Summary Background Ipilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and has shown promising activity in advanced melanoma. We aimed to ascertain the antitumour ...efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods We undertook a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial in 66 centres from 12 countries. 217 patients with previously treated stage III (unresectable) or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned a fixed dose of ipilimumab of either 10 mg/kg (n=73), 3 mg/kg (n=72), or 0·3 mg/kg (n=72) every 3 weeks for four cycles (induction) followed by maintenance therapy every 3 months. Randomisation was done with a permuted block procedure, stratified on the basis of type of previous treatment. The primary endpoint was best overall response rate (the proportion of patients with a complete or partial response, according to modified WHO criteria). Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, whereas safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of ipilimumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00289640. Findings The best overall response rate was 11·1% (95% CI 4·9–20·7) for 10 mg/kg, 4·2% (0·9–11·7) for 3 mg/kg, and 0% (0·0–4·9) for 0·3 mg/kg (p=0·0015; trend test). Immune-related adverse events of any grade arose in 50 of 71, 46 of 71, and 19 of 72 patients at doses of 10 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 0·3 mg/kg, respectively; the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were gastrointestinal immune-related events (11 in the 10 mg/kg group, two in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0·3 mg/kg group) and diarrhoea (ten in the 10 mg/kg group, one in the 3 mg/kg group, none in the 0·3 mg/kg group). Interpretation Ipilimumab elicited a dose-dependent effect on efficacy and safety measures in pretreated patients with advanced melanoma, lending support to further studies at a dose of 10 mg/kg. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
