Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Fosfomycin for Injection (ZTI-01) Versus Piperacillin-tazobactam for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Including Acute Pyelonephritis: ZEUS, A Phase 2/3 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: ZTI-01 (fosfomycin for injection) is an epoxide antibiotic with a differentiated mechanism of action (MOA) inhibiting an early step in bacterial cell wall synthesis. ZTI-01 has broad in vitro spectrum of activity, including multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens, and is being developed for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) and acute pyelonephritis (AP) in the United States. METHODS: Hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed cUTI/AP were randomized 1:1 to 6 g ZTI-01 q8h or 4.5 g intravenous (IV) piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) q8h for a fixed 7-day course (no oral switch); patients with concomitant bacteremia could receive up to 14 days. RESULTS: Of 465 randomized patients, 233 and 231 were treated with ZTI-01 and PIP-TAZ, respectively. In the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (m-MITT) population, ZTI-01 met the primary objective of noninferiority compared with PIP-TAZ with overall success rates of 64.7% (119/184 patients) vs 54.5% (97/178 patients), respectively; treatment difference was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.4, 20.8). Clinical cure rates at test of cure (TOC, day 19-21) were high and similar between treatments (90.8% [167/184] vs 91.6% [163/178], respectively). In post hoc analysis using unique pathogens typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, overall success rates at TOC in m-MITT were 69.0% (127/184) for ZTI-01 versus 57.3% (102/178) for PIP-TAZ (difference 11.7% 95% CI: 1.3, 22.1). ZTI-01 was well tolerated. Most treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: ZTI-01 was effective for treatment of cUTI including AP and offers a new IV therapeutic option with a differentiated MOA for patients with serious Gram-negative infections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02753946.

Effect of Meropenem-Vaborbactam vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Clinical Cure or Improvement and Microbial Eradication in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: The TANGO I Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Meropenem-vaborbactam is a combination carbapenem/beta-lactamase inhibitor and a potential treatment for severe drug-resistant gram-negative infections. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and adverse events of meropenem-vaborbactam in complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, multicenter, multinational, randomized clinical trial (TANGO I) conducted November 2014 to April 2016 and enrolling patients (≥18 years) with complicated UTI, stratified by infection type and geographic region. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive meropenem-vaborbactam (2g/2g over 3 hours; n = 274) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4g/0.5g over 30 minutes; n = 276) every 8 hours. After 15 or more doses, patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin if they met prespecified criteria for improvement, to complete 10 days of total treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point for FDA criteria was overall success (clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication composite) at end of intravenous treatment in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Primary end point for European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria was microbial eradication at test-of-cure visit in the microbiologic modified ITT and microbiologic evaluable populations. Prespecified noninferiority margin was -15%. Because the protocol prespecified superiority testing in the event of noninferiority, 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Among 550 patients randomized, 545 received study drug (mean age, 52.8 years; 361 [66.2%] women; 374 [68.6%] in the microbiologic modified ITT population; 347 [63.7%] in the microbiologic evaluable population; 508 [93.2%] completed the trial). For the FDA primary end point, overall success occurred in 189 of 192 (98.4%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 171 of 182 (94.0%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 4.5% [95% CI, 0.7% to 9.1%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the EMA primary end point, microbial eradication in the microbiologic modified ITT population occurred in 128 of 192 (66.7%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 105 of 182 (57.7%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 9.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 18.7%]; P < .001 for noninferiority); microbial eradication in the microbiologic evaluable population occurred in 118 of 178 (66.3%) vs 102 of 169 (60.4%) (difference, 5.9% [95% CI, -4.2% to 16.0%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Adverse events were reported in 106 of 272 (39.0%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 97 of 273 (35.5%) with piperacillin-tazobactam. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with complicated UTI, including acute pyelonephritis and growth of a baseline pathogen, meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam resulted in a composite outcome of complete resolution or improvement of symptoms along with microbial eradication that met the noninferiority criterion. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients in whom meropenem-vaborbactam offers a clinical advantage. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166476.

The role of lead in the etiopathogenesis of male fertility reduction.

OBJECTIVE: Introduction: The problem of preserving and strengthening of the reproductive health of the population in conditions of the industrial regions is becoming one of the key. The aim: Тo determine whether blood and semen concentration of lead in fertile and infertile men without occupational exposure to lead is associated with semen quality and reproductive outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: Clinical and hygienic assessment of the reproductive health was carried out in 192 men of the Dnipropetrovsk region, living in the industrial and control, conditionally «clean¼ city. RESULTS: Results: In the pathogenesis of male fertility, an important role belongs to the level of lead in biosubstrates, which is 1,2-2,1 times higher in industrial cities as compared to the normative level. Therewith, fertilizing properties of the ejaculate of the fertile men living in the industrial region comply with WHO standards, while in the infertile group various forms of pathology was revealed. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Violations of spermatogenesis can serve as a rapidly-responding and reliable criterion for assessing the adaptation and maladaptation processes of men underthe influence of xenobiotics of the environment, in particular lead. In this case, the markers of influence are the total number of sperm in the ejaculate, their concentration, mobility and the number of pathological forms, semen viscosity.

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.

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (-0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0-14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2-17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82-1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87-1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95-1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups.

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

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.