Robert J. Motzer

Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. METHODS Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00410124. FINDINGS All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 [37%] events in the everolimus group, 90 [65%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, p<0.0001; median progression-free survival 4.0 [95% CI 3.7-5.5] vs 1.9 [1.8-1.9] months). Stomatitis (107 [40%] patients in the everolimus group vs 11 [8%] in the placebo group), rash (66 [25%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (53 [20%] vs 22 [16%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity. INTERPRETATION Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies.

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.

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Activity of SU11248, a Multitargeted Inhibitor of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor and Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptor, in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is characterized by loss of von Hippel Lindau tumor suppressor gene activity, resulting in high expression of pro-angiogenic growth factors: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF). SU11248 (sunitinib malate), a small molecule inhibitor with high binding affinity for VEGF and PDGF receptors, was tested for clinical activity in patients with metastatic RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC and progression on first-line cytokine therapy were enrolled onto a multicenter phase II trial. SU11248 monotherapy was administered in repeated 6-week cycles of daily oral therapy for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off. Overall response rate was the primary end point, and time to progression and safety were secondary end points. Results Twenty-five (40%) of 63 patients treated with SU11248 achieved partial responses; 17 additional patients (27%) demonstrated stable disease lasting > or = 3 months. Median time to progression in the 63 patients was 8.7 months. Dosing was generally tolerated with manageable toxicities. CONCLUSION SU11248, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF and PDGF receptors, demonstrates antitumor activity in metastatic RCC as second-line therapy, a setting where no effective systemic therapy is presently recognized. The genetics of RCC and these promising clinical results support the hypothesis that VEGF and PDGF receptor-mediated signaling is an effective therapeutic target in RCC.

Interferon-Alfa as a Comparative Treatment for Clinical Trials of New Therapies Against Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE To define outcome data and prognostic criteria for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with interferon-alfa as initial systemic therapy. The data can be applied to design and interpretation of clinical trials of new agents and treatment programs against this refractory malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred sixty-three patients with advanced RCC administered interferon-alpha as first-line systemic therapy on six prospective clinical trials were the subjects of this retrospective analysis. Three risk categories for predicting survival were identified on the basis of five pretreatment clinical features by a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS The median overall survival time was 13 months. The median time to progression was 4.7 months. Five variables were used as risk factors for short survival: low Karnofsky performance status, high lactate dehydrogenase, low serum hemoglobin, high corrected serum calcium, and time from initial RCC diagnosis to start of interferon-alpha therapy of less than one year. Each patient was assigned to one of three risk groups: those with zero risk factors (favorable risk), those with one or two (intermediate risk), and those with three or more (poor risk). The median time to death of patients deemed favorable risk was 30 months. Median survival time in the intermediate-risk group was 14 months. In contrast, the poor-risk group had a median survival time of 5 months. CONCLUSION Progression-free and overall survival with interferon-alpha treatment can be compared with new therapies in phase II and III clinical investigations. The prognostic model is suitable for risk stratification of phase III trials using interferon-alpha as the comparative treatment arm.

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 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma : final results and analysis of prognostic factors.

A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported.

Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Previously Treated Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE To describe survival in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who are candidates for clinical trials of new agents as second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The relationship between pretreatment clinical features and survival was studied in 251 patients with advanced RCC treated during 29 consecutive clinical trials between 1975 and 2002. Clinical features were first examined in univariate analyses, and then a stepwise modeling approach based on Cox regression was used to form a multivariate model. RESULTS Median survival for the 251 patients was 10.2 months and differed according to year of treatment, with patients treated after 1990 showing longer survival. In this group, the median overall survival time was 12.7 months. Because the purpose of this analysis was to establish prognostic factors for present-day clinical trial design, prognostic factor analysis was performed on these patients. Pretreatment features associated with a shorter survival in the multivariate analysis were low Karnofsky performance status, low hemoglobin level, and high corrected serum calcium. These were used as risk factors to categorize patients into three different groups. The median time to death in patients with zero risk factors was 22 months. The median survival in patients with one of these prognostic factors was 11.9 months. Patients with two or three risk factors had a median survival of 5.4 months. CONCLUSION Treatment with novel agents during a clinical trial is indicated for patients with metastatic RCC after progression to cytokine treatment. Three prognostic factors for predicting survival were used to categorize patients into risk groups. These risk categories can be used in clinical trial design and interpretation.

A POSTOPERATIVE PROGNOSTIC NOMOGRAM FOR RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

PURPOSE Few published studies have combined prognostic factors to predict the likelihood of recurrence after surgery for renal cell carcinoma. We developed a nomogram for this purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS With Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, we modeled pathological data and disease followup for 601 patients with renal cell carcinoma who were treated with nephrectomy. Predictor variables were patient symptoms, including incidental, local or systemic, histology, including chromophobe, papillary or conventional, tumor size, and pathological stage. Treatment failure was recorded when there was either clinical evidence of disease recurrence or death from disease. Validation was performed with a statistical (bootstrapping) technique. RESULTS Disease recurrence was noted in 66 of the 601 patients, and those in whom treatment was successful had a median and maximum followup of 40 and 123 months, respectively. The 5-year probability of freedom from failure for the patient cohort was 86% (95% confidence interval 82 to 89). With statistical validation, predictions by the nomogram appeared accurate and discriminating with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, that is a comparison of the predicted probability with the actual outcome of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS A nomogram has been developed that can be used to predict the 5-year probability of treatment failure among patients with newly diagnosed renal cell carcinoma. The nomogram may be useful for patient counseling, clinical trial design and patient followup planning.