Abstract
Background
In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal
cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free
survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results.
Patients and Methods
Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according
to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were
randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib
400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96).
Results
Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib
versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356;
1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with
axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib
than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous
reports.
Conclusion
OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic
RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary CancerAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Nonclinical antiangiogenesis and antitumor activities of axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases 1, 2, 3.Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 7272-7283
- Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 1287-1294
- Prognostic factors for survival in 1059 patients treated with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Br J Cancer. 2013; 108: 2470-2477
- Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 3584-3590
- Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 722-731
- Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial.J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3791-3799
- A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final overall survival results and safety update.Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49: 1287-1296
- Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AVOREN): final analysis of overall survival.J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2144-2150
- Phase III trial of bevacizumab plus interferon alfa versus interferon alfa monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final results of CALGB 90206.J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2137-2143
- Overall survival analysis from a randomized phase II study of axitinib with or without dose titration in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma.Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016; ([e-pub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.04.005
- Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 552-562
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: May 27, 2016
Accepted:
May 18,
2016
Received in revised form:
April 27,
2016
Received:
February 17,
2016
Footnotes
Identification
Copyright
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
