Piotr Tomczak

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS 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. RESULTS 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%). CONCLUSION 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.

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.

Phase III Study of Bevacizumab Plus Docetaxel Compared With Placebo Plus Docetaxel for the First-Line Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE The efficacy and safety of combining bevacizumab (7.5 and 15 mg/kg) with docetaxel as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) was investigated in a three-arm, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 736) were randomly assigned to docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) plus either placebo or bevacizumab 7.5 or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included best overall response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS Combination of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, but not 7.5 mg/kg, with docetaxel showed superior median PFS (mPFS) to placebo plus docetaxel in unstratified analysis (placebo mPFS, 8.2 months; 7.5 mg/kg mPFS, 9.0 months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; P = .12]; 15 mg/kg mPFS, 10.1 months [HR, 0.77; P = .006]) and stratified analysis (placebo mPFS, 8.1 months; 7.5 mg/kg mPFS, 9.0 months [HR, 0.80; P = .045]; 15 mg/kg mPFS, 10.0 months [HR, 0.67; P < .001]). Response rates in patients with measurable disease at baseline also increased with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (46% [placebo] v 55% [7.5 mg/kg; P = .07] and 64% [15 mg/kg; P < .001]). Combination with bevacizumab had limited impact on the known toxicity profile of docetaxel. CONCLUSION Combination of bevacizumab with docetaxel did not significantly impact on the safety profile of docetaxel. Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks significantly increased PFS when combined with docetaxel as first-line therapy for MBC compared with docetaxel plus placebo.

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.

Tivozanib Versus Sorafenib As Initial Targeted Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From a Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. RESULTS A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). CONCLUSION Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

Vaccination of Metastatic Renal Cancer Patients with MVA-5T4: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study

Purpose: The TroVax Renal Immunotherapy Survival Trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study that investigated whether modified vaccinia Ankara encoding the tumor antigen 5T4 (MVA-5T4) prolonged survival of patients receiving first-line standard-of-care (SOC) treatment for metastatic renal cell cancer. Experimental Design: Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer, prior nephrectomy, and good or intermediate prognosis were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 13 immunizations of MVA-5T4/placebo in combination with either sunitinib, interleukin-2 or interferon-α. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results: Seven hundred thirty-three patients were recruited (365 MVA-5T4 and 368 placebo). Treatment arms were well balanced for SOC and prognosis. No significant difference in the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events was observed. No significant difference in overall survival was evident in the two treatment arms (median 20.1 months MVA-5T4 versus 19.2 months placebo; P = 0.55). The magnitude of the 5T4-specific antibody response induced by vaccination with MVA-5T4 was associated with enhanced patient survival. Furthermore, exploratory analyses suggested a number of pretreatment hematologic factors that could identify patients who derive significant benefit from this vaccine. Conclusion: MVA-5T4 in combination with SOC was well tolerated, but no difference in survival was observed in the overall study population. Exploratory analyses indicate that there may be subsets of patients who could gain significant benefit from MVA-5T4, but such results would need to be confirmed in future randomized clinical studies. Clin Cancer Res; 16(22); 5539–47. ©2010 AACR.

Regorafenib for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma: a single-group phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Regorafenib inhibits VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 and PDGF receptors like other anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors approved for treatment of advanced renal-cell cancer. Regorafenib also inhibits other potentially important angiogenic kinases like TIE2, activation of which is thought to be important in tumour escape mechanisms. This phase 2, open-label, non-randomised study assessed the safety and efficacy of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib for treatment of renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS Patients were recruited from 18 academic oncology centres across Europe and USA. Patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma received oral regorafenib (160 mg per day) in repeating cycles of 3 weeks on, 1 week off until disease progression or until patients met the criteria for removal from study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective overall response, assessed in all patients who were evaluable for response. The trial has finished. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00664326. FINDINGS The study was done between April 30, 2008, and June 1, 2011. We screened 64 patients, of whom 49 received regorafenib. Median duration of treatment was 7·1 months (range 0·7-34·4, IQR 2·5-18·0) and at the time of data cutoff, six patients (12%) were still receiving treatment. 48 patients were assessable for tumour response. 19 patients (39·6%, 90% CI 27·7-52·5) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 48 patients (98%) and drug-related serious adverse events in 17 (35%). Grade 3 drug-related adverse events were common, most frequently hand and foot skin reaction (16 patients, 33%), diarrhoea (five patients, 10%), renal failure (five patients, 10%), fatigue (four patients, 8%), and hypertension (three patients, 6%). Two patients had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events: two cardiac ischaemia or infarction, one hypomagnesaemia, and one pain in the chest or thorax. Four patients died during study treatment or within 30 days of last dose, of which two were deemed likely to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION Regorafenib has antitumour activity as first-line treatment for metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma. The drugs safety profile requires close monitoring.

AMG 386 in Combination With Sorafenib in Patients With Metastatic Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Kidney: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study

This study evaluated the tolerability and antitumor activity of AMG 386, a peptibody (a peptide Fc fusion) that neutralizes the interaction of angiopoietin‐1 and angiopoietin‐2 with Tie2 (tyrosine kinase with immunoglobulin‐like and EGF‐like domains 2), plus sorafenib in patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a randomized controlled study.

Trebananib (AMG 386) in Combination With Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Study

PURPOSE Trebananib, an investigational recombinant peptide-Fc fusion protein, neutralizes the receptor-ligand interaction between Tie2 and angiopoietin-1/2. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate trebananib plus sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were enrolled sequentially onto two cohorts that received sunitinib 50 mg once per day for 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off and intravenous trebananib once per week at a dose of 10 mg/kg in cohort A or 15 mg/kg in cohort B. The primary end points were incidences of adverse events (AEs) and dose interruptions of sunitinib during the first 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included objective response rate and progression-free survival. RESULTS Eighty-five patients were enrolled: 43 in cohort A, and 42 in cohort B. During the first 12 weeks of treatment, 58% and 57% of patients in cohorts A and B, respectively, had sunitinib dose interruptions (dose decrease, withholding, or withdrawal). The most frequent AEs were diarrhea (cohort A, 74%; cohort B, 67%), mucosal inflammation (cohort A, 49%; cohort B, 60%), and hypertension (cohort A, 52%; cohort B, 45%). AEs of grade 3 or greater occurred in 58% of patients in cohort A and in 69% of patients in cohort B. The objective response rate was 58% and 63% in cohorts A and B, respectively. The median progression-free survival time was 13.9 months (95% CI, 10.4 to 19.2) and 16.3 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 21.4) in cohorts A and B, respectively. The median overall survival time was 36 months (95% CI, 25.2 to not estimable) in cohort A and was not estimable (median follow-up, 25 months) in cohort B. CONCLUSION Trebananib plus sunitinib seemed to increase toxicity at the tested doses. Efficacy results suggest a potential benefit for the addition of trebananib to sunitinib.

Adjuvant Sunitinib for High-risk Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy: Subgroup Analyses and Updated Overall Survival Results

BACKGROUND Adjuvant sunitinib significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) versus placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.98; p=0.03). OBJECTIVE To report the relationship between baseline factors and DFS, pattern of recurrence, and updated overall survival (OS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Data for 615 patients randomized to sunitinib (n=309) or placebo (n=306) in the S-TRAC trial. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Subgroup DFS analyses by baseline risk factors were conducted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline risk factors included: modified University of California Los Angeles integrated staging system criteria, age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), weight, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and Fuhrman grade. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 615 patients, 97 and 122 in the sunitinib and placebo arms developed metastatic disease, with the most common sites of distant recurrence being lung (40 and 49), lymph node (21 and 26), and liver (11 and 14), respectively. A benefit of adjuvant sunitinib over placebo was observed across subgroups, including: higher risk (T3, no or undetermined nodal involvement, Fuhrman grade ≥2, ECOG PS ≥1, T4 and/or nodal involvement; hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.99; p=0.04), NLR ≤3 (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; p=0.02), and Fuhrman grade 3/4 (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98; p=0.04). All subgroup analyses were exploratory, and no adjustments for multiplicity were made. Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66-1.28; p=0.6); 67 and 74 patients died in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS A benefit of adjuvant sunitinib over placebo was observed across subgroups. The results are consistent with the primary analysis, which showed a benefit for adjuvant sunitinib in patients at high risk of recurrent RCC after nephrectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY Most subgroups of patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy experienced a clinical benefit with adjuvant sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00375674.