Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib: The CheckMate 9ER trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Author(s):  
David Cella ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Steven I. Blum ◽  
Flavia Ejzykowicz ◽  
Melissa Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Patient Reported

285 Background: In the phase III, open-label CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177), patients with aRCC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk score, tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, geographic region) to nivolumab 240 mg IV Q2W + cabozantinib 40 mg PO QD (N+C; n = 323) or sunitinib (S) 50 mg PO (4 weeks of 6-week cycles; n = 328) for first-line treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (max N treatment, 2 years). N+C met primary and secondary efficacy endpoints by significantly improving progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate versus S in aRCC patients with a clear cell component. Here, we present in-depth health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) results, including overall between-group comparisons of treatment groups and time to confirmed deterioration (TCD). Methods: PROs in all randomized patients were an exploratory endpoint assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) and EQ-5D-3L instruments. PRO assessments at baseline, common on-treatment scheduled visits, and common follow-up visits for both arms were analyzed. Changes from baseline were assessed using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), adjusting for baseline scores and stratification factors. TCD was calculated from Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Median follow-up for overall survival was 18.1 months. PRO completion rates were > 90% at baseline, and ≥ 80% at all on-treatment assessments (≥ 10 patients) through week 91 in both arms. The overall least squares mean difference in change from baseline favored N+C over S in FKSI-19 (all domains) and in EQ-5D-3L. Patients treated with N+C experienced less treatment burden, with decreased risk of confirmed deterioration across most measurements versus S, including FKSI-19 total, disease-related symptoms (DRS), DRS-physical (DRS-P), DRS-emotional (DRS-E), functional well-being (FWB), and EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale (VAS) scores (Table). Conclusions: Patients reported statistically significant HRQoL benefits with N+C versus S. Treatment with N+C significantly reduced the risk of deterioration in HRQoL scores, including in disease-related symptoms of kidney cancer. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of N+C over S comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e001079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Albiges ◽  
Nizar M Tannir ◽  
Mauricio Burotto ◽  
David McDermott ◽  
Elizabeth R Plimack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
First Line

PurposeTo report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).MethodsPatients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).ResultsOverall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.ConclusionAfter long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.

Overall survival results from a phase III study of tivozanib hydrochloride versus sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 350-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert John Motzer ◽  
Timothy Eisen ◽  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Cezary Szczylik ◽  
Mizue Krygowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Extension Study ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference

350 Background: Tivozanib hydrochloride (tivozanib) is a potent, selective, tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting all three vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, with a long half-life. Tivozanib has shown tolerability and superior progression-free survival and overall response rate versus sorafenib in a phase III trial (TIVO-1) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Final overall survival (OS) data (August 27, 2012) from TIVO-1 and its open-label, multicenter extension study are reported. Methods: A total of 517 patients were randomized 1:1 to tivozanib 1.5 mg/d (3 weeks on, 1 week off) or sorafenib 400 mg/d (twice a day, continuously) (J Clin Oncol2012;30[suppl]:Abstract 4501). In the extension study, patients who progressed (PD) on sorafenib based on investigator assessment were eligible to receive tivozanib, and patients with PD on tivozanib received subsequent treatment according to regional standards of care. Final OS analysis was planned to be conducted after all patients had died or were lost to follow-up, or when all patients in follow-up had been on study for at least 2 years, whichever occurred first. OS was compared using the stratified log-rank test. OS distribution was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Results: At the time of final OS analysis (2 years after last patient was enrolled), 219 deaths had occurred (tivozanib, n=118 [45.4%]; sorafenib, n=101 [39.3%]) (stratified HR=1.245; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.954–1.624; p=0.105), trending in favor of the sorafenib arm. Median OS (95% CI) was 28.8 months (22.5–NA) for tivozanib and 29.3 months (29.3–NA) for sorafenib. Of the 257 patients on sorafenib, 155 (60.3%) had started next-line tivozanib at the time of the analysis. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in OS between the two treatment arms. The high rate of utilization of second-line tivozanib in patients following PD on sorafenib may have affected the OS outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT01030783.

A phase 2 single-arm study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced or unresectable renal cell carcinoma pretreated with one immune checkpoint inhibitor: The BREAKPOINT trial (MeetUro trial 03-NCT03463681).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4569-4569
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Procopio ◽  
Melanie Claps ◽  
Chiara Pircher ◽  
Luca Porcu ◽  
Pierangela Sepe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Immune Escape ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line

4569 Background: For many years, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy (tp) has been a milestone for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Recently, first line tp based on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (IO-TKI) and anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 combos (IO-IO) significantly improved survival of mRCC patients (pts). Prospective data are lacking to determine the efficacy of anti-VEGF tp after IO-IO or IO-TKI. Cabozantinib (Cabo) showed to prolong survival in mRCC pts pre-treated with TKIs and to target kinases involved in immune-escape. So, it may represent an ideal agent to be used sequentially after ICIs. Methods: This is an open label, single arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of Cabo in mRCC pts who received an anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based adjuvant (adj) or first line tp. Cabo 60 mg/daily was administered until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) by Brookmeyer-Crowley test, secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Exploratory endopoints were to investigate tissue PD-L1 expression, to assess the modulating activity of Cabo on local and systemic tumor immunity and to explore bone formation and reabsorption markers. Results: From July 2018, 49 pts were enrolled and 48 were included in the analysis. Median age was 62.5 years (range: 30-78), 63% of pts were male. At baseline, 26% of pts had a good Heng risk score, 47% intermediate and 28% a poor risk, while in 2% of pts the class of risk was undetermined. 74% of pts received an IO-IO combo as first line tp, 17% IO-TKI, 9% pts an adj IO monotherapy. Pts received a median of 10 cycles of Cabo (range 5-17 cycles). 25 pts (53%) are still on tp, 1 patient discontinued Cabo for AEs, 13 pts for radiological PD, 6 pts discontinued for clinical PD or death, while 2 pts for reasons other than AEs or PD. Among evaluable cases, 17 pts (43%) achieved a partial response and 15 pts (37%) stable disease. Complete responses were not observed. At a median (m) follow-up of 8.0 months (mo) (4.4-13.5 mo), 71% of pts were alive and mPFS was 9.3 mo (95% CI 7.1-29.0 mo). Grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 34% of pts, including more frequently serum bilirubin increase, hypertension, calcium and sodium serum levels alterations and oral mucositis. G1-2 were observed in 61% of pts, including in most of cases diarrhoea, nausea, oral mucositis, disgeusia, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue and hypothyroidism. Due to AEs, transitory withholding of Cabo was observed in 53.5% of pts and for 23 pts (48%) dose reductions were needed. Conclusions: So far, Cabo tp after IO-IO or IO-TKI showed promising results and was well tolerated. Longer follow-up is needed for final OS and exploratory endpoints results. Clinical trial information: NCT03463681.

scholarly journals A prospective, open-label, interventional study protocol to evaluate treatment efficacy of nivolumab based on serum-soluble PD-L1 concentration for patients with metastatic and unresectable renal cell carcinoma

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e030522
Author(s):  
Yukari Bando ◽  
Nobuyuki Hinata ◽  
Takashi Omori ◽  
Masato Fujisawa
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

IntroductionNivolumab has been proven to prolong overall survival as a second-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a phase III clinical trial. However, versatile biomarkers have not been established to predict the efficacy of nivolumab against target disease.Methods and analysisAfter registration, screening test and serum-soluble programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 (sPD-L1) measurement will be performed by using the ELISA; patients will be grouped into high sPD-L1 or low sPD-L1 groups. Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks by intravenous drip infusion) will be administered to each participant. For this prospective study, statistical power calculation indicated that 48 participants with metastatic or unresectable RCC are needed to assess the efficacy of this method. The participants must be at the age of at least 20 years at the time of informed consent and require second-line therapy after failure of first-line therapy or discontinuation due to adverse effects. All data will be collected in our institution. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints are overall survival and objective response rate. In this protocol, we will examine sPD-L1 as a promising predictive marker.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Kobe University Clinical Research Ethical Committee (C180067). Findings of this study will be widely disseminated through conference presentations, reports, factsheets and academic publications; further generalisation will also be discussed.Trial registration numberUMIN000027873.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of First-Line Immune-Based Combination Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Elaidi ◽  
Letuan Phan ◽  
Delphine Borchiellini ◽  
Philippe Barthelemy ◽  
Alain Ravaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line

Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-naïve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.

Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa-2a in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (AVOREN): Final Analysis of Overall Survival

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (13) ◽  
pp. 2144-2150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Joaquim Bellmunt ◽  
Sylvie Négrier ◽  
Emilio Bajetta ◽  
Bohuslav Melichar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

PurposeA phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with interferon alfa-2a (IFN) showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here, we report overall survival (OS) data.Patients and MethodsSix hundred forty-nine patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously three times a week; n = 327) or IFN plus placebo (n = 322) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. The primary end point was OS. Final analysis of the secondary end point (PFS) was reported earlier.ResultsMedian OS was 23.3 months with bevacizumab plus IFN and 21.3 months with IFN plus placebo (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = .3360; stratified HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = .1291). Patients (> 55%) in both arms received at least one postprotocol antineoplastic therapy, possibly confounding the OS analysis. Patients receiving postprotocol therapy including a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had longer median OS (bevacizumab plus IFN arm: 38.6 months; IFN plus placebo arm: 33.6 months; HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13). Tolerability was similar to that reported previously.ConclusionBevacizumab plus IFN is active as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Most patients with mRCC receive multiple lines of therapy, so considering the overall sequence of therapy when selecting first-line therapy may optimize patient benefit.

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor P. Stus ◽  
Oleg N. Lipatov ◽  
Yaroslav Shparyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

Bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha versus interferon-alpha monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of overall survival for CALGB 90206

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA5019-LBA5019 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. I. Rini ◽  
S. Halabi ◽  
J. Rosenberg ◽  
W. M. Stadler ◽  
D. A. Vaena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Interferon Alpha ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I

LBA5019 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) plus interferon alpha (IFN) demonstrated a superior objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) versus IFN monotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in 2 phase III trials. The primary objective of CALGB 90206 was to compare overall survival (OS) for advanced RCC patients receiving BEV plus IFN or IFN alone. Methods: Patients with previously-untreated, metastatic RCC with a clear cell component and Karnofsky performance status of ≥ 70% were eligible. Patients were prospectively randomized to receive BEV (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN as monotherapy. Randomization was stratified by nephrectomy status and number of MSKCC adverse features. The primary endpoint was OS, defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. The trial was designed with 86% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76, assuming a two-sided type I error of 0.05. The primary analysis was an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic, and the present analysis was based on the target number of 588 deaths. Results: Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled; 369 pts to BEV plus IFN and 363 pts to IFN monotherapy. The median duration of follow up among censored patients was 46.2 months (IQR=45.2–48.2). The median OS was 18.3 months (95% CI; 16.5–22.5) for BEV plus IFN and 17.4 months (95% CI; 14.4–20.0, unstratified log rank p = 0.097) for IFN monotherapy. The stratified HR was 0.86 (95% CI; 0.73–1.01) for BEV plus IFN compared to IFN (stratified log-rank p = 0.069). The median OS for BEV plus IFN versus IFN was 32.5 vs. 33.5 months (p = 0.524) for MSKCC good risk, 17.7 vs. 16.1 months (p = 0.174) for intermediate risk and 6.6 vs. 5.7 months (p = 0.245) for poor risk patients. The median PFS was 8.4 months vs. 4.9 months (p<0.0001). Fifty-three percent of patients received subsequent systemic therapy. Conclusions: The addition of BEV to IFN significantly improves the objective response rate and PFS versus IFN monotherapy. Overall survival favored the BEV plus IFN arm, not meeting pre-defined criteria for significance. [Table: see text]

Sunitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with favorable or intermediate MSKCC risk factors: A multicenter randomized trial, CROSS-J-RCC.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 502-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Sei Naito ◽  
Naoto Sassa ◽  
Atsushi Takahashi ◽  
Tsunenori Kondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Brain Metastasis ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Primary Tumors

502 Background: Sorafenib (SO), an earlier introduced kinase inhibitor, and sunitinib (SU), a standard first-line treatment drug for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), were associated with progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.7 and 11 months (M) in independent clinical trials, respectively. We compared PFS of first-line SU and SO in a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Methods: Patients with untreated, measurable (by RECIST v1.1) clear-cell mRCC stratified according to MSKCC risk criteria, nephrectomy, and institution were randomized in 1:1 to receive SU (50 mg qd 4 wks on-2 wks off) or SO (400 mg bid). The calculated sample size was 59/group for α = 0.05, β = 0.10, and a censoring rate of 15%. Results: Of 124 enrolled patients, from Feb. 2010 to Jul. 2012, from 39 institutions, 120 were evaluable (SU, 57 and SO, 63). Patient baseline characteristics in the SU vs SO groups were as follows: favorable risk, 21% vs 22%; presence of stable brain metastasis, 8.8% vs 1.6% and with nephrectomy, 88% vs 89%. Median PFS (mPFS) was 8.7 and 7.0 M in the SU and SO groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–1.08; p= 0.095). mPFS was 31.2 and 6.2 M (HR 0.27, 95%CI 0.08–0.90; p = 0.023) in the favorable risk group, 11.9 and 6.5 M (HR 0.31, 95%CI 0.14–0.69; p = 0.035) in patients with T1 or T2 primary tumors, and 11.6 and 7.0 M (HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.36–0.98; p = 0.038) in those without brain metastasis, in the SU and SO groups, respectively. Objective response rates for SU group was 35.3%; SO was 27.8% (p = 0.407). Overall survival was not reached. The most common adverse events (all grade, all cause) were hand-foot syndrome (SU vs SO, 71% vs 86%), hypothyroidism (70% vs 33%), fatigue (57% vs 40%), hypertension (55% vs 44%) and diarrhea (23% vs 38%). Conclusions: The primary endpoint was not achieved, but SU tended to be associated with longer mPFS in all cases. In patients with favorable risk, T1 or T2 primary tumors or in those without brain metastasis, significantly longer mPFS were noticed. Brain metastasis was associated with poorer prognosis even if it was stable at baseline. Clinical trial number: NCT01481870. Clinical trial information: 01481870.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document