Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Final Overall Survival Results from a Phase 3 Study to Compare Tivozanib to Sorafenib as Third- or Fourth-line Therapy in Subjects with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Tivozanib is a potent and selective inhibitor of the VEGF receptor. In an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial, we compared tivozanib to sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who had received two or three prior therapies. We have previously reported that the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival with tivozanib versus sorafenib (5.6 mo vs 3.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.94; p=0.016). The current report reflects the final assessment of overall survival, showing no difference between treatment with tivozanib and sorafenib (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.24). Given its activity and distinct tolerability profile, tivozanib represents a treatment option for patients with previously treated mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that tivozanib, a targeted therapy, can delay tumor growth relative to an already approved targeted therapy (sorafenib) in patients with kidney cancer who have received two or three prior treatments. No difference in survival was observed.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS: Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: patient characteristics and treatment patterns in US community oncology centers.

AIM: To study patient characteristics and treatment patterns in real-world axitinib use for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS & METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of second- or third-line axitinib use between 1 January 2012 and 31 October 2014 in 135 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using the US Oncology Network database. RESULTS: Overall, 86.7% had clear cell histology, 57.8% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis and 55.6% were poor risk by Heng criteria. Median treatment duration was 4.6 months (range: 0.03-35.49); 80.7% initiated axitinib at 5 mg/day twice daily, and 67.4% maintained this dose. Overall, 77.8% discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression (50.5%) and toxicity (21.9%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib usage patterns were consistent with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines®. Ease of use among community oncologists and patient tolerance are key features of axitinib.

Sequential targeted therapy after pazopanib therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: efficacy and toxicity.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in whom first-line therapies have failed might derive clinical benefit with sequential targeted agents. Limited data are available on the efficacy and toxicity of subsequent therapies after disease progression during pazopanib therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mRCC who received subsequent systemic treatment after pazopanib treatment failure were identified across 7 institutions. Pazopanib was given as first-line therapy in 28 patients and after cytokines therapy in 7 patients. Clinical outcome and toxicity analyses of 2 sequential treatment options (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi]) is presented. RESULTS: Subsequent therapy was anti-VEGF in 22 patients and mTORi in 13. One patient who received bevacizumab and temsirolimus combination was excluded. VEGF-targeted therapies included sorafenib (n = 10), sunitinib (n = 3), bevacizumab (n = 2), cediranib (n = 4) and cabozantinib (n = 3). Patients treated with mTORi received everolimus. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months from the start of subsequent therapy with anti-VEGF and 2.4 months with mTORi (P = .009). Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different (P = .68). Clinical benefit (including partial response and stable disease) on subsequent therapy was observed in 15 patients (64%) and 4 patients (31%) of anti-VEGF- and everolimus-treated patients, respectively (P = .021). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, targeting VEGF was an effective strategy after disease progression during pazopanib treatment, although OS was not different among patients treated with VEGF or mTORi.

Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: This international phase III trial (Investigating Torisel As Second-Line Therapy [INTORSECT]) compared the efficacy of temsirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) and sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after disease progression on sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 512 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly (n = 259) or oral sorafenib 400 mg twice per day (n = 253), with stratification according to duration of prior sunitinib therapy (≤ or > 180 days), prognostic risk, histology (clear cell or non-clear cell), and nephrectomy status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee assessment. Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. RESULTS: Primary analysis revealed no significant difference between treatment arms for PFS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07; two-sided P = .19) or ORR. Median PFS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms were 4.3 and 3.9 months, respectively. There was a significant OS difference in favor of sorafenib (stratified HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.63; two-sided P = .01). Median OS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms was 12.3 and 16.6 months, respectively. Safety profiles of both agents were consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSION: In patients with mRCC and progression on sunitinib, second-line temsirolimus did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with sorafenib. The longer OS observed with sorafenib suggests sequenced VEGFR inhibition may benefit patients with mRCC.

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.

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.

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.

Everolimus vs. temsirolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma: use and use of resources in the US Oncology Network.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest the use of inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as temsirolimus and everolimus, as first- and second-line therapy, respectively, for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, adherence to this recommendation in clinical practice and the use of these 2 agents in mRCC is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We determined the prescribing patterns of temsirolimus and everolimus in a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients with mRCC receiving clinical care within The US Oncology Network. Outpatient health care use in patients with mRCC was derived for the categories of laboratory visits, acute care visits, minor procedures, radiation therapy, drug/medication use, and other services. RESULTS: Among 462 patients with mRCC, 144 (31%) were treated with everolimus and 318 (69%) were treated with temsirolimus. The use of temsirolimus vs. everolimus as first-, second-, and third-line therapy was 50.7% vs. 16.7%, 30.1% vs. 42.1%, and 19.3% vs. 83.2%, respectively. Despite similarities in disease stage and demographic features, compared with temsirolimus, everolimus use was independently associated with lower use of outpatient health care resources, regardless of the line of therapy. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the potential limitation that this was an observational retrospective study, our results indicate that everolimus results in substantial savings in the use of resources relative to temsirolimus. In a large geographically dispersed network of community-based oncology practices, both of these agents are used frequently outside of NCCN guidelines. A direct comparison of the efficacy and costs of everolimus vs. temsirolimus for mRCC is warranted.

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.

Targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical evidence.

Although systemic therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was once limited to the cytokines interleukin-2 and interferon (IFN)-α, in recent years several targeted therapies have become available for first- and second-line use. These include sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab (plus IFN-α), temsirolimus, everolimus, and, most recently, pazopanib. This expanded list of treatment options arose from molecular biological research that revealed aberrant signal transduction activities in RCC, enabling the identification of specific molecular targets for therapy. Molecular-targeted therapies have better efficacy and tolerability than cytokine therapy, and many are administered orally. The superior outcomes achieved with molecular-targeted agents are prompting investigators to reconsider overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials, given the inherent complications of a required long duration of follow-up, a required large population, and confounding caused by crossover trial designs or effects of subsequent therapy after progression on the agent of interest. In mRCC trials, progression-free survival has become a popular primary endpoint and has served as the basis of approval for several targeted therapies. In addition to the identification of new agents, current research is focused on the evaluation of combination therapy with targeted agents. As more information regarding mechanisms of disease and drug resistance becomes available, new targets, new targeted agents, and new combinations will be studied with the goal of providing maximal efficacy with minimal toxicity. This article reviews the clinical evidence supporting the benefits of targeted agents in mRCC treatment, discusses survival endpoints used in their pivotal clinical trials, and outlines future research directions.

Sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma refractory to either sunitinib or bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab and sunitinib are standard initial therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Despite common use, the safety and activity of sorafenib in bevacizumab- or sunitinib-refractory mRCC have not been prospectively investigated. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined disease progression (PD) after treatment with either bevacizumab or sunitinib received twice daily 400 mg of sorafenib in a multicenter, prospective phase 2 study. Dose escalation was permitted in the absence of significant toxicity. The primary endpoint was tumor burden reduction rate, defined as the proportion of patients with ≥5% reduction in the sum of RECIST-defined target lesions without other PD. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival, and safety. A 2-stage accrual design was used to test the alternative hypothesis that the tumor burden reduction rate was >20% versus <5%. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The tumor burden reduction rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-45%). One unconfirmed objective partial response was observed. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.9). There was no association of PFS and tumor shrinkage with response to prior therapy. Most treatment-related adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity, and included fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE). Patients previously treated with bevacizumab tended to develop more PPE (P=.03) and mucositis (P=.06), whereas sunitinib-treated patients tended to develop more skin rash (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of sorafenib is safe and feasible in patients with mRCC refractory to either bevacizumab or sunitinib. Modest clinical activity was observed supporting current practice patterns of sequential vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in mRCC.

Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial.

PURPOSE: Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.

Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib versus interferon Alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: An open-label, phase II study to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall best response, adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes with sorafenib versus interferon alfa-2a (IFN-alpha-2a) in patients with untreated, advanced renal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to subcutaneous IFN-alpha-2a 9 million U three times weekly (period 1). Sorafenib patients who progressed were dose-escalated to 600 mg twice daily; IFN-alpha-2a patients who progressed were switched to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (period 2). RESULTS: In period 1 PFS was similar for sorafenib-treated (n = 97; 5.7 months) and IFN-alpha-2a-treated patients (n = 92; 5.6 months); more sorafenib-treated patients had tumor shrinkage (68.2% v 39.0%). Common drug-related AEs (Grades > or = 3) for sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (11.3%), diarrhea (6.2%), and rash/desquamation (6.2%); for IFN-alpha-2a, these were fatigue (10.0%), nausea (3.3%), flu-like syndrome (2.2%), and anorexia (2.2%). Sorafenib-treated patients reported fewer symptoms, better quality of life (QOL), and greater treatment satisfaction. In period 2, 41.9% of patients who received sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 43) experienced tumor reduction (median PFS, 3.6 months). After the switch to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, tumors were reduced in 76.2% of 50 patients (median PFS, 5.3 months). AEs were mostly grade 1 to 2; no increase in AEs of grades > or = 3 occurred after sorafenib dose escalation. CONCLUSION: In this study, sorafenib resulted in similar PFS as IFN-alpha-2a in patients with untreated RCC. However, sorafenib-treated patients experienced greater rates of tumor size reduction, better QOL, and improved tolerability. Both dose escalation of sorafenib after progression and a switch to sorafenib after progression on IFN-alpha-2a resulted in clinical benefit.

Experimental therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed dramatically over the past few years. Sunitinib malate, sorafenib tosylate, bevacizumab +/- interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, and everolimus have improved clinical outcomes in randomized Phase III trials by inhibiting the VEGF and related pathways. Combinations and sequences of these agents are being evaluated. Other novel agents are in clinical development, some of which target novel pathways not yet exploited as therapy for RCC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review on experimental agents is to provide a comprehensive overview of evolving novel therapies in development for advanced RCC. METHODS: Experimental therapies were identified through review of abstracts submitted to recent meetings, and manuscripts published and indexed in Medline/PubMed databases. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Several experimental agents have shown significant antitumor activity in early studies, with potential application as therapy for advanced RCC. Recently reported and ongoing clinical trials will help further define the role of these agents as therapy for metastatic RCC.

Targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an overview of toxicity and dosing strategies.

The targeted therapies sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab (when used in combination with interferon-alpha2a) have dramatically improved outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Clinical application of these novel agents outside the trial setting, however, may present some challenges for treating individual patients with unique needs. In some patients, dose modifications may be considered for potential drug interactions and for management of severe cases of hematologic or nonhematologic toxicities. The more common grade 3 or 4 side effects with sunitinib and sorafenib include hypertension, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, elevated lipase, lymphopenia, and neutropenia. Congestive heart failure is a less common but serious side effect that warrants treatment discontinuation. Temsirolimus exhibits a different side-effect profile, with the more common grade 3 or 4 side effects being metabolic in nature (i.e., elevated triglycerides, elevated glucose, hypophosphatemia) as a result of its inhibitory effects on the mammalian target of rapamycin-regulated lipid and glucose pathways. Asthenia, rash, and dyspnea also occur in patients receiving temsirolimus. Virtually all of the side effects associated with these agents can be managed effectively in the majority of patients with medical treatment or supportive interventions. Recognition and prompt management of side effects are important to avoid unnecessary dose reductions that may result in suboptimal efficacy.

Safety and tolerability of sorafenib in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a Phase III overview.

This review summarizes the safety of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, focusing on the randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) in renal cell carcinoma, which formed the basis of the approval of sorafenib. Similar to other targeted agents, sorafenib acts primarily to induce disease stabilization, rather than tumor regression, suggesting that long-term administration is necessary. The tolerability of an agent is important in long-term treatment, and a predictable and manageable side-effect profile is advantageous. Although IL-2 and interferon have been standard care treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma for over a decade, they are poorly tolerated. Targeted agents offer an alternative for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, as initial therapy or after failure of cytokine treatment.

Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: From November 2003 to March 2005, we randomly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo; 451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo. Consequently, crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib, beginning in May 2005. RESULTS: At the January 2005 cutoff, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.55; P<0.01). The first interim analysis of overall survival in May 2005 showed that sorafenib reduced the risk of death, as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94; P=0.02), although this benefit was not statistically significant according to the O'Brien-Fleming threshold. Partial responses were reported as the best response in 10% of patients receiving sorafenib and in 2% of those receiving placebo (P<0.001). Diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reactions were the most common adverse events associated with sorafenib. Hypertension and cardiac ischemia were rare serious adverse events that were more common in patients receiving sorafenib than in those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo, treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed; however, treatment is associated with increased toxic effects. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00073307 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).