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 untreated patients ...with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib.
We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety.
A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups.
Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck Darmstadt, Germany; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).
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 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.
Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choice in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly between approved targeted therapies with similar efficacy. This double-blind ...cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety factors on their stated preference.
Patients with metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib 800 mg per day for 10 weeks, a 2-week washout, and then sunitinib 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks, or the reverse sequence. The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assessed by questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other end points and analyses included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL.
Of 169 randomly assigned patients, 114 met the following prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis: exposure to both treatments, no disease progression before cross over, and completion of the preference questionnaire. Significantly more patients preferred pazopanib (70%) over sunitinib (22%); 8% expressed no preference (P < .001). All preplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopanib. Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the main reasons for preferring pazopanib, with less diarrhea being the most cited reason for preferring sunitinib. Physicians also preferred pazopanib (61%) over sunitinib (22%); 17% expressed no preference. Adverse events were consistent with each drug's known profile. Pazopanib was superior to sunitinib in HRQoL measures evaluating fatigue, hand/foot soreness, and mouth/throat soreness.
This innovative cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HRQoL and safety as key influencing factors.
Abstract
Background
There remains a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) combinations ± vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy (TT) in ...translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC).
Methods
This is a retrospective study of patients with advanced tRCC treated with ICT combinations at 11 centers in the US, France, and Belgium. Only cases with confirmed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were included. Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed by RECIST, and overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods.
Results
There were 29 patients identified with median age of 38 (21-70) years, and F:M ratio 0.9:1. FISH revealed TFE3 and TFEB translocations in 22 and 7 patients, respectively. Dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT were used in 18 and 11 patients, respectively. Seventeen (59%) patients received ICT combinations as first-line therapy. ORR was 1/18 (5.5%) for dual ICT and 4/11 (36%) for ICT + VEGF TT. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, median PFS was 2.8 and 5.4 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively. Median OS from metastatic disease was 17.8 and 30.7 months in the dual ICT and ICT + VEGF TT groups, respectively.
Conclusion
In this retrospective study of advanced tRCC, limited response and survival were seen after frontline dual ICT combination therapy, while ICT + VEGF TT therapy offered some efficacy. Due to the heterogeneity of tRCC, insights into the biological underpinnings are necessary to develop more effective therapies.
This article evaluates the clinical activity of immune checkpoint therapy combinations with or without VEGF targeted therapy in patients with translocation renal cell carcinoma.
Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in ...patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported.
Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated.
The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio HR = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib.
Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.
A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell ...carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported.
Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-alpha 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up.
Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-alpha group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio HR = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-alpha group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-alpha (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-alpha (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%).
Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-alpha plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.
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.
An open-label, phase II study to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall best response, adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes with sorafenib versus interferon alfa-2a ...(IFN-alpha-2a) in patients with untreated, advanced renal cancer.
A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to subcutaneous IFN-alpha-2a 9 million U three times weekly (period 1). Sorafenib patients who progressed were dose-escalated to 600 mg twice daily; IFN-alpha-2a patients who progressed were switched to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (period 2).
In period 1 PFS was similar for sorafenib-treated (n = 97; 5.7 months) and IFN-alpha-2a-treated patients (n = 92; 5.6 months); more sorafenib-treated patients had tumor shrinkage (68.2% v 39.0%). Common drug-related AEs (Grades > or = 3) for sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (11.3%), diarrhea (6.2%), and rash/desquamation (6.2%); for IFN-alpha-2a, these were fatigue (10.0%), nausea (3.3%), flu-like syndrome (2.2%), and anorexia (2.2%). Sorafenib-treated patients reported fewer symptoms, better quality of life (QOL), and greater treatment satisfaction. In period 2, 41.9% of patients who received sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 43) experienced tumor reduction (median PFS, 3.6 months). After the switch to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, tumors were reduced in 76.2% of 50 patients (median PFS, 5.3 months). AEs were mostly grade 1 to 2; no increase in AEs of grades > or = 3 occurred after sorafenib dose escalation.
In this study, sorafenib resulted in similar PFS as IFN-alpha-2a in patients with untreated RCC. However, sorafenib-treated patients experienced greater rates of tumor size reduction, better QOL, and improved tolerability. Both dose escalation of sorafenib after progression and a switch to sorafenib after progression on IFN-alpha-2a resulted in clinical benefit.
PDF
