Brad Rosbrook

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial

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.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

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.

Phase II Study of Axitinib in Sorafenib-Refractory Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE To investigate the efficacy and safety of axitinib, an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior therapies that included, but were not limited to, sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients with sorafenib-refractory mRCC received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily. A one-arm, single-stage design was used to estimate the primary end point of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS Of 62 patients recruited, 100% had received prior sorafenib, and 74.2% had received two or more prior systemic treatments. The axitinib dose was titrated to greater than 5 mg twice daily in 53.2% of patients, and 35.5% of patients had the dose modified to less than 5 mg twice daily. In 62 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 22.6%, and the median duration of response was 17.5 months. Median PFS and OS times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 11.0 months) and 13.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 18.8 months), respectively. All-causality grade 3 to 4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (16.1%), fatigue (16.1%), hypertension (16.1%), dyspnea (14.5%), diarrhea (14.5%), dehydration (8.1%), and hypotension (6.5%). CONCLUSION Axitinib has antitumor activity in patients with mRCC refractory to prior VEGF-targeted therapy, including sorafenib. Toxicities were mild to moderate and were manageable. A randomized, phase III trial to compare axitinib with sorafenib in patients who have mRCC refractory to one prior first-line therapy regimen is underway.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial

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.

Diastolic Blood Pressure as a Biomarker of Axitinib Efficacy in Solid Tumors

Purpose: To evaluate if diastolic blood pressure (dBP) ≥90 mm Hg during axitinib treatment is a marker of efficacy. Experimental Design: The relationship between dBP ≥90 mm Hg and efficacy was retrospectively explored across 5 phase II studies of single-agent axitinib for the treatment of 4 different tumor types. All patients had baseline BP ≤140/90 mm Hg and were stratified into 2 groups based on in-clinic BP measurements after initiating therapy: those with dBP <90 mm Hg throughout therapy and those with at least 1 dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events were evaluated by dBP group in individual and pooled analyses. Results: Two-hundred thirty patients were evaluated. Patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg had a significantly lower relative risk of death than those with dBP <90 mm Hg [adjusted HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.39, 0.77); P < 0.001]. The relative risk of progression was also lower in patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg [HR (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.54, 1.06), P = 0.107], and ORR was significantly higher (43.9% vs. 12.0%; P < 0.001). In an 8-week landmark analysis, mOS (25.8 vs. 14.9 months) and mPFS (10.2 vs. 7.1 months) were greater for patients in the ≥90 mm Hg group. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions: Axitinib efficacy correlated with dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Further investigation of dBP as a predictive biomarker of efficacy in patients receiving axitinib is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 17(11); 3841–9. ©2011 AACR.

Multicenter, Phase II Study of Axitinib, a Selective Second-Generation Inhibitor of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptors 1, 2, and 3, in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

Purpose: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study evaluated the safety and clinical activity of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)–1, 2, and 3, in patients with metastatic melanoma. Experimental Design: Thirty-two patients with a maximum of one prior systemic therapy received axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Results: Objective response rate was 18.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.2–36.4], comprising one complete and five partial responses with a median response duration of 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.0–17.0). Stable disease at 16 weeks was noted in six patients (18.8%), with an overall clinical benefit rate of 37.5%. Six-month progression-free survival rate was 33.9%, 1-year overall survival rate was 28.1%, and median overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.2–9.0). The most frequently (>15%) reported nonhematologic, treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, hoarseness, and diarrhea. Treatment-related fatal bowel perforation, a known class effect, occurred in one patient. Axitinib selectively decreased plasma concentrations of soluble VEGFR (sVEGFR)-2 and sVEGFR-3 compared with soluble stem cell factor receptor (sKIT). No significant association was noted between plasma levels of axitinib and response. However, post hoc analyses indicated potential relationships between efficacy endpoints and diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher as well as baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase levels. Conclusions: Axitinib was well tolerated, showed a selective VEGFR-inhibitory profile, and showed single-agent activity in metastatic melanoma. Further evaluations of axitinib, alone and combined with chemotherapy, are ongoing. Clin Cancer Res; 17(23); 7462–9. ©2011 AACR.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Axitinib Plus Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Plus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of axitinib plus docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with MBC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive docetaxel 80 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice per day (combination arm) or placebo (placebo arm), following a lead-in phase I trial. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). RESULTS In all, 168 patients were enrolled; 112 were randomly assigned to axitinib and 56 to placebo. Median TTP was numerically longer in the combination arm than in the placebo arm (8.1 v 7.1 months), but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156). The difference in median TTP was greatest among patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (9.2 v 7.0 months; P = .043, prespecified subgroup analysis). Objective response rate was higher in the combination arm (41.1% v 23.6%; P = .011). The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (combination/placebo) included diarrhea (10.8%/0%), fatigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertension (4.5%/0%). Three patients in the combination arm experienced serious thromboembolic events (one death). Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination arm (15.3% v 7.1%); rates of other hematologic toxicities were comparable. Increased toxicity with axitinib was generally managed by dose reduction and/or growth factor support. CONCLUSION The addition of axitinib to docetaxel did not improve TTP in first-line MBC treatment. Combination therapy may be more effective in patients previously exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial

Background:In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines.Methods:In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated.Results:Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy.Conclusions:AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Patient-reported outcomes for axitinib vs sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase III (AXIS) trial

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.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first‑line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

LBA348 Background: In the phase III AXIS trial, second-line therapy with axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib for mRCC. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial to compare PFS of axitinib vs sorafenib as first-line therapy. METHODS Patients with untreated, measurable (RECIST v1.0), clear‑cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomized 2:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Randomization was stratified by PS. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent radiology committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 78% PFS improvement from 5.5 mo with sorafenib to 9.8 mo with axitinib, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.561 (overall 1-sided α=0.025). RESULTS Patients (N=288) were mainly from Eastern Europe (51%), Asia (25%), North America (14%), or South America (10%).Patient baseline characteristics for axitinib (n=192) vs sorafenib (n=96) included: median age, 58y vs 58y; male, 70% vs 77%; white, 71% vs 69%; favorable risk, 49% vs 55%; PS 0, 57% vs 57%; nephrectomy, 85% vs 90%. Median (m) PFS was 10.1 vs 6.5 mo with axitinib vs sorafenib (HR adjusted for PS, 0.767; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.559-1.053; 1‑sided P=0.0377). In patients with PS 0 and 1, respectively, mPFS with axitinib vs sorafenib was 13.7 vs 6.6 mo (HR, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.419-0.991; 1‑sided P=0.022) and 6.5 vs 6.4 mo (HR, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.585-1.482; 1‑sided P=0.38). Objective response rates (ORRs) with axitinib vs sorafenib were 32.3% vs 14.6% (1‑sided P=0.0006 adjusted for PS). Overall survival data were not mature. All-grade all‑causality adverse events (≥20%) with axitinib vs sorafenib were diarrhea (50% vs 40%), hypertension (49% vs 29%), weight decreased (37% vs 24%), fatigue (33% vs 26%), decreased appetite (29% vs 19%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (26% vs 39%), dysphonia (23% vs 10%), asthenia (21% vs 16%), and hypothyroidism (21% vs 7%). CONCLUSIONS The study did not achieve its primary endpoint statistically, but axitinib demonstrated numerically longer mPFS and significantly higher ORR vs sorafenib, with an acceptable safety profile, as first-line therapy for mRCC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00920816.