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.
Summary Background In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than ...those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00920816. Findings Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months 95% CI 7·2–12·1 vs 6·5 months 4·7–8·3, respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56–1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 50% of 189 patients vs 38 40% of 96 patients), hypertension (92 49% vs 28 29%), weight decrease (69 37% vs 23 24%), decreased appetite (54 29% vs 18 19%), dysphonia (44 23% vs ten 10%), hypothyroidism (39 21% vs seven 7%), and upper abdominal pain (31 16% vs six 6%); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 39% of 96 patients vs 50 26% of 189), rash (19 20% vs 18 10%), alopecia (18 19% vs eight 4%), and erythema (18 19% vs five 3%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 14% of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 9%), asthenia (16 8%), weight decrease (16 8%), and PPE (14 7%); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 16% of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five 5%), and asthenia (five 5%). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. Interpretation Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Summary Background Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and ...improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00835978. Findings Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40–67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22–48) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49–70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten 18% of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five 9% of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 49% of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven 13% vs two 4% vs eight 9%), and decreased weight (four 7% vs three 5% vs six 7%). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each 4%), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each 2%). Interpretation The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Summary Background Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in ...advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00471146. Findings Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9–9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9–10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786–1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 7% and 5 2% events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 7% and 17 6%), fatigue (27 9% and 21 7%), and anorexia (19 6% and 11 4%). Interpretation The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease. Funding Pfizer.
Summary Background Axitinib (AG-013736) is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of axitinib ...in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who had failed on previous cytokine-based treatment. Methods Between Oct 3, 2003, and April 7, 2004, 52 patients were enrolled. All patients who had at least one measurable target lesion received axitinib orally (starting dose 5 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint was objective response (ie, percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or partial response by use of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, time to progression, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported health-related quality of life. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076011. Findings In an intention-to-treat analysis, two complete and 21 partial responses were noted, for an objective response rate of 44·2% (95% CI 30·5–58·7). Median response duration was 23·0 months (20·9–not estimable; range 4·2–29·8). However, 12 of 23 initial responders progressed with response duration ranging from 4·2 months to 26·5 months. Additionally, 22 patients showed stable disease for longer than 8 weeks, including 13 patients with stable disease for 24 weeks or longer. Four patients had early disease progression. Three patients had missing response data. Median time to progression was 15·7 months (8·4–23·4, range 0·03–31·5) and median overall survival was 29·9 months (20·3–not estimable; range 2·4–35·8). Treatment-related adverse events included diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, and hoarseness. Treatment-related hypertension occurred in 30 patients and resolved with antihypertensive treatment in all but eight patients, of whom seven patients had a history of hypertension at baseline. Interpretation Axitinib shows clinical activity in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer. Although 28 patients had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, these adverse events were generally manageable and controlled by dose modification or supportive care, or both. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Summary Background Axitinib (AG-013736) is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, which have an important role in pancreatic cancer. The ...aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus axitinib versus gemcitabine alone. Methods Between January and August, 2006, 103 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 ) plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily (n=69) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 ) alone (n=34) by a centralised registration system. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00219557. Findings All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Median overall survival was longer with gemcitabine plus axitinib than with gemcitabine alone (6·9 95% CI 5·3–10·1 months vs 5·6 3·9–8·8 months). The hazard ratio for survival with gemcitabine plus axitinib versus with gemcitabine alone, adjusted for stratification factors, was 0·71 (95% CI 0·44–1·13). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (15 22% patients in the gemcitabine plus axitinib group vs one 3% in the gemcitabine alone group), abdominal pain (eight 12% vs five 16%), and asthenia (eight 12% vs one 3%). Interpretation Gemcitabine plus axitinib showed a similar safety profile to gemcitabine alone; the small, non-statistically significant gain in overall survival needs to be assessed in a randomised phase III trial. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Effective thermal performance of oscillating heat pipe (OHP) is driven by inside pressure distribution. Heat transfer phenomena were reported in terms of pressure and frequency of pressure ...fluctuation in multi loop OHP charged with aqueous Al
2
O
3
and MWCNTs/Al
2
O
3
nanoparticles. The influences on thermal resistance of aqueous Al
2
O
3
, MWCNTs as well as the hybrid of them in OHP having 3 mm in inner diameter were investigated at 60% filling ratio. Experimental results show that thermal characteristics are significantly inter-related with pressure distribution and strongly depend upon the number of pressure fluctuations with time. Frequency of pressure depends upon the power input in evaporative section. A little inclusion of MWCNTs into aqueous Al
2
O
3
at 60% filling ratio achieves the highest fluctuation frequency and the lowest thermal resistance at any evaporator power input though different nanofluids cause different thermal performances of OHPs.
PDF
