Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase III Randomized IMmotion151 Trial: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab versus Sunitinib in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40-0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37-0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46-0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

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.

Angiogenic Factor and Cytokine Analysis among Patients Treated with Adjuvant VEGFR TKIs in Resected Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The use of VEGFR TKIs for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial. We investigated the effects of adjuvant VEGFR TKIs on circulating cytokines in the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) trial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with resected high-risk RCC were randomized to sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo. Plasma from 413 patients was analyzed from post-nephrectomy baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment initiation. Mixed effects and Cox proportional hazards models were used to test for changes in circulating cytokines and associations between disease-free survival (DFS) and cytokine levels. RESULTS: VEGF and PlGF increased after 4 weeks on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001 for both) and returned to baseline at 6 weeks on sunitinib (corresponding to the break in the sunitinib schedule) but not sorafenib (which was administered continuously). sFLT-1 decreased after 4 weeks on sunitinib and 6 weeks on sorafenib (P < 0.0001). sVEGFR-2 decreased after both 4 and 6 weeks of treatment on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001). Patients receiving placebo had no significant changes in cytokine levels. CXCL10 was elevated at 4 and 6 weeks on sunitinib and sorafenib but not on placebo. Higher baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS (HR 1.41 per log increase in CXCL10, Bonferroni-adjusted P = 0.003). This remained significant after adjustment for T-stage, Fuhrman grade, and ECOG performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with adjuvant VEGFR TKIs for RCC, drug-host interactions mediate changes in circulating cytokines. Elevated baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS. Studies to understand functional consequences of these changes are under way.

BEST: A Randomized Phase II Study of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, RAF Kinase, and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Combination Targeted Therapy With Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, and Temsirolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma--A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2804).

PURPOSE: On the basis of evidence that resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibition is caused by hypoxia-driven residual VEGF and other proangiogenic factors, combinations of agents from these classes were hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes relative to single-agent VEGF pathway blockade. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 361 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned equally to arm A (bevacizumab monotherapy 10 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 2 weeks), B (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks and temsirolimus 25 mg IV every week), C (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks and sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, 15 to 19, and 22 to 26), or D (sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly). Progression-free survival was the primary end point. RESULTS: Among 331 eligible treated patients, median PFS was 7.5 months for bevacizumab alone (90% CI, 5.8 to 10.8 months), 7.6 months for bevacizumab plus temsirolimus (90% CI, 6.7 to 9.2 months), 9.2 months for bevacizumab plus sorafenib (90% CI, 7.5 to 11.4 months), and 7.4 months for sorafenib plus temsirolimus (90% CI, 5.6 to 7.9 months). Hazard ratios from stratified Cox proportional hazards models were 1.01, 0.89, and 1.07 (with respective P values of .95, .49, and .68) for the three combinations, respectively, compared with bevacizumab alone. Adverse events did not differ significantly among treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The activity of sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab administered in doublet combinations did not significantly improve median progression-free survival in comparison with bevacizumab monotherapy.

Comparison of four early posttherapy imaging changes (EPTIC; RECIST 1.0, tumor shrinkage, computed tomography tumor density, Choi criteria) in assessing outcome to vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy has become standard treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Since these therapies can induce tumor necrosis and minimal tumor shrinkage, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcome. OBJECTIVE: To systematically determine the optimal early posttherapy imaging changes (EPTIC) to separate responders and nonresponders at the first posttreatment follow-up computed tomography (CT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy mRCC patients with 155 target lesions treated with first-line sunitinib, sorafenib, or bevacizumab at academic medical centers underwent contrast-enhanced thoracic and abdominal CT at baseline and first follow-up after therapy initiation (median: 78 d after therapy initiation; range: 31-223 d). MEASUREMENTS: Evaluations were performed according to (1) RECIST 1.0; (2) Choi criteria; (3) tumor shrinkage (TS) of ≥10% decrease in sum of the longest unidimensional diameter (SLD); and (4) 15% or 20% decrease in mean CT tumor density. Correlation with time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were compared and stratified by response to each of the radiologic criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Eleven patients were considered responders by RECIST 1.0; 49 based on Choi criteria; 31 patients had ≥10% decrease in the SLD; and 36 and 32 patients had ≥15% and ≥20% decrease, respectively, in mean tumor density on CT. Only the threshold of 10% decrease in the SLD was statistically significant in predicting TTF (10.4 vs 5.1 mo; p=0.02) and OS (32.5 vs 15.8 mo; p=0.002). Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded a 10% decrease in SLD as the optimal size change threshold for responders. The retrospective nature of the study and measurements by a single oncoradiologist are inherent limitations. CONCLUSIONS: In the retrospectively analyzed study population of mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted agents, a 10% reduction in the SLD on the first follow-up CT was an optimal early predictor of outcome.

The impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy is a standard of care in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of novel agents remains poorly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed baseline characteristics and outcomes of 314 patients with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy naïve, metastatic renal cell carcinoma from United States and Canadian cancer centers to study the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival. RESULTS: Patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy (201) were younger (p < 0.01), and more likely to have a better Karnofsky performance status (p < 0.01), more than 1 site of metastasis (p = 0.04) and lower corrected calcium levels (p < 0.01) compared to those who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (113). On univariable analysis cytoreductive nephrectomy was associated with a median overall survival of 19.8 months compared to 9.4 months for patients who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32, 0.59; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis and adjusting for established prognostic risk factors the overall survival difference persisted (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46, 0.99; p = 0.04) in favor of the cytoreductive nephrectomy group. In subgroup analyses stratified for favorable/intermediate/poor risk criteria, patients in the poor risk group had a marginal benefit (p = 0.06). Similarly patients with Karnofsky performance status less than 80% also had a marginal survival benefit (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study cytoreductive nephrectomy was independently associated with a prolonged overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor targeted agents, although the benefit is marginal in those patients with poor risk features.

Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in elderly patients treated in the North American advanced renal cell carcinoma sorafenib expanded access program.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective analysis of the Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS) program in North America, we compared the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients aged ≥70 with those aged <70 years. METHODS: Patients were treated with oral sorafenib twice daily until the occurrence of disease progression or treatment intolerance. The primary objective of the ARCCS program was making sorafenib available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the USA and Canada before marketing approval was obtained; the secondary objective was the evaluation of its safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Of the 2,504 patients enrolled in the ARCCS program who received at least 1 dose of sorafenib, 736 (29%) were aged ≥70 years. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events included rash/desquamation (5% in both groups), hand-foot skin reaction (8% in those aged ≥70 years vs. 10% in those <70 years of age), hypertension (5 vs. 4%) and fatigue (7 vs. 4%). Partial response was seen in 4% of the patients in both age groups. The median overall survival for the ≥70-year versus <70-year groups was also similar (46 vs. 50 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: There were no substantial differences in safety and efficacy between patients aged ≥70 and <70 years with advanced RCC treated with sorafenib.

Bevacizumab as a treatment option in advanced renal cell carcinoma: an analysis and interpretation of clinical trial data.

The availability of molecularly targeted agents has improved outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease long considered refractory to systemic therapy. The hypervascularity observed in RCC tumors, which is driven by the inactivation of the vonHippel-Lindau gene, provided a rationale for targeting angiogenesis, in particular vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Bevacizumab, a potent and specific anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated significant clinical benefits when used in combination with interferon-alfa (IFN-alpha) for the treatment of metastatic RCC in two randomized phase III trials. The use of bevacizumab with IFN-alpha received approval in Europe for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC, and more recently this combination was approved for use in patients with mRCC in the United States. Bevacizumab with IFN-alpha has also been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for first-line therapy of relapsed or metastatic unresectable RCC with predominantly clear cell histology. Two phase II studies suggest that bevacizumab has single-agent activity, which is characterized by encouraging progression-free survival rates and evidence of tumor regressions in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. Here we review these trials along with recent and ongoing studies that explore the combination of bevacizumab with other targeted agents, its optimal sequencing with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and its combination with low-dose IFN-alpha. Collectively, these studies allow the role of bevacizumab-based therapy to be defined in the context of a new and evolving algorithm for the treatment of patients with advanced RCC.

Safety and efficacy results of the advanced renal cell carcinoma sorafenib expanded access program in North America.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS) program made sorafenib available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) before regulatory approval. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, open-label expanded access program, 2504 patients from the United States and Canada were treated with oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Safety and efficacy were explored overall and in subgroups of patients including those with no prior therapy, nonclear cell (nonclear cell) RCC, brain metastases, prior bevacizumab treatment, and elderly patients. Sorafenib was approved for RCC 6 months after study initiation, at which time patients with no prior therapy or with nonclear cell RCC could enroll in an extension protocol for continued assessment for a period of 6 months. RESULTS: The most common grade > or =2 drug-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (18%), rash (14%), hypertension (12%), and fatigue (11%). In the 1891 patients evaluable for response, complete response was observed in 1 patient, partial response in 67 patients (4%), and stable disease for at least 8 weeks in 1511 patients (80%). Median progression-free survival in the extension population was 36 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 33-45 weeks; censorship rate, 56%); median overall survival in the entire population was 50 weeks (95% CI, 46-52 weeks; censorship rate, 63%). The efficacy and safety results were similar across the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib 400 mg twice daily demonstrated activity and a clinically acceptable toxicity profile in all patient subsets enrolled in the ARCCS expanded access program (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00111020).

Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study.

PURPOSE: There are no robust data on prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) -targeted therapy. METHODS: Baseline characteristics and outcomes on 645 patients with anti-VEGF therapy-naïve metastatic RCC were collected from three US and four Canadian cancer centers. Cox proportional hazards regression, followed by bootstrap validation, was used to identify independent prognostic factors for OS. RESULTS: The median OS for the whole cohort was 22 months (95% CI, 20.2 to 26.5 months), and the median follow-up was 24.5 months. Overall, 396, 200, and 49 patients were treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab, respectively. Four of the five adverse prognostic factors according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) were independent predictors of short survival: hemoglobin less than the lower limit of normal (P < .0001), corrected calcium greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN; P = .0006), Karnofsky performance status less than 80% (P < .0001), and time from diagnosis to treatment of less than 1 year (P = .01). In addition, neutrophils greater than the ULN (P < .0001) and platelets greater than the ULN (P = .01) were independent adverse prognostic factors. Patients were segregated into three risk categories: the favorable-risk group (no prognostic factors; n = 133), in which median OS (mOS) was not reached and 2-year OS (2y OS) was 75%; the intermediate-risk group (one or two prognostic factors; n = 301), in which mOS was 27 months and 2y OS was 53%; and the poor-risk group (three to six prognostic factors; n = 152), in which mOS was 8.8 months and 2y OS was 7% (log-rank P < .0001). The C-index was 0.73. CONCLUSION: This model validates components of the MSKCC model with the addition of platelet and neutrophil counts and can be incorporated into patient care and into clinical trials that use VEGF-targeted agents.

Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of interleukin-2 after prior VEGF-targeted therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling have been advocated as frontline therapy for advanced renal cancer. The role of interleukin 2 (IL-2) therapy after resistance to VEGF-targeted therapy remains unexplored. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the tolerability and efficacy of IL-2 therapy in patients who had previously received VEGF-targeted therapy. Twenty-three consecutive patients who received salvage IL-2 therapy were analyzed. Fifteen patients had received prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (sorafenib or sunitinib), whereas 8 patients had received bevacizumab alone. Six of 23 patients did not receive week 2 of cycle 1 of treatment. All 6 of these patients had received prior TKIs. The incidence of severe cardiac toxicities, including 1 sudden cardiac death, in patients receiving prior TKI was 40% (95% confidence interval, 16.3-67.7%), significantly higher than what is expected from historical experience. Only 1 of 23 patients proceeded to receive a second cycle of IL-2. No patients achieved a partial or complete response to therapy. This retrospective analysis highlights unexpected and severe cardiac toxicities in patients receiving IL-2 after VEGF-targeted TKI therapy. The assumption that IL-2 therapy can be safely administered after TKI therapy may not be valid. Further examination of the safety of this sequential approach is necessary and more cautious patient selection seems warranted.

Double-blind randomized phase II study of the combination of sorafenib and dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma: a report from the 11715 Study Group.

PURPOSE: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus dacarbazine in patients with advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled chemotherapy-naive patients with stage III (unresectable) or IV melanoma. A total of 101 patients received placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 50) or sorafenib plus dacarbazine (n = 51). On day 1 of a 21-day cycle, patients received intravenous dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m(2) for a maximum of 16 cycles. Oral sorafenib 400 mg or placebo was administered twice a day continuously. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent assessment. Secondary and tertiary end points included time to progression (TTP), response rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median PFS in the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm was 21.1 weeks versus 11.7 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.665; P = .068). There were statistically significant improvements in PFS rates at 6 and 9 months, and in TTP (median, 21.1 v 11.7 weeks; HR, 0.619) in favor of the sorafenib plus dacarbazine arm. No difference in OS was observed (median, 51.3 v 45.6 weeks in the placebo plus dacarbazine and sorafenib plus dacarbazine arms, respectively; HR, 1.022). The regimen was well tolerated and had a manageable toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib plus dacarbazine was well tolerated in patients with advanced melanoma and yielded an encouraging improvement in PFS. Based on these findings, additional studies with the combination are warranted in this patient population.