Perioperative dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (VESPER): survival endpoints at 5 years in an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer is not defined. The VESPER (French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group and French Association of Urology V05) trial reported improved 3-year progression-free survival with dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, but not in the overall perioperative setting. In this Article, we report on the secondary endpoints of overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: VESPER was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 28 university hospitals or comprehensive cancer centres in France, in which adults (age ≤18 years and ≤80 years) with primary bladder cancer and histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were randomly allocated (1:1; block size four) to treatment with dd-MVAC (every 2 weeks for a total of six cycles) or GC (every 3 weeks for a total of four cycles). Overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer (presented as 5-year cumulative incidence of death due to bladder cancer) was analysed by intention to treat (ITT) in all randomly assigned patients. Overall survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method with the treatment groups compared with log-rank test stratified for mode of administration of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and lymph node involvement. Time to death due to bladder cancer was analysed with an Aalen model for competing risks and a Fine and Gray regression model stratified for the same two covariates. Results were presented for the total perioperative population and for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant subgroups. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01812369, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Feb 25, 2013, to March 1, 2018, 500 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 493 were included in the final ITT population (245 [50%] in the GC group and 248 [50%] in the dd-MVAC group; 408 [83%] male and 85 [17%] female). 437 (89%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·3 years (IQR 5·1-5·4); 190 deaths at the 5-year cutoff were reported. In the perioperative setting (total ITT population), we found no evidence of association of overall survival at 5 years with dd-MVAC treatment versus GC treatment (64% [95% CI 58-70] vs 56% [50-63], stratified hazard ratio [HRstrat] 0·79 [95% CI 0·59-1·05]). Time to death due to bladder cancer was increased in the dd-MVAC group compared with in the GC group (5-year cumulative incidence of death: 27% [95% CI 21-32] vs 40% [34-46], HRstrat 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·84]). In the neoadjuvant subgroup, overall survival at 5 years was improved in the dd-MVAC group versus the GC group (66% [95% CI 60-73] vs 57% [50-64], HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·97]), as was time to death due to bladder cancer (5-year cumulative incidence: 24% [18-30] vs 38% [32-45], HR 0·55 [0·39-0·78]). In the adjuvant subgroup, the results were not conclusive due to the small sample size. Bladder cancer progression was the cause of death for 157 (83%) of the 190 deaths; other causes of death included cardiovascular events (eight [4%] deaths), deaths related to chemotherapy toxicity (four [2%]), and secondary cancers (four [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results on overall survival at 5 years were in accordance with the primary endpoint analysis (3-year progression-free survival). We found no evidence of improved overall survival with dd-MVAC over GC in the perioperative setting, but the data support the use of six cycles of dd-MVAC over four cycles of GC in the neoadjuvant setting. These results should impact practice and future trials of immunotherapy in bladder cancer. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.

Consolidative Radiotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer Patients with No Progression and with No More than Five Residual Metastatic Lesions Following First-Line Systemic Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis.

Local consolidative radiotherapy in the treatment of metastatic malignancies has shown promising results in several types of tumors. The objective of this study was to assess consolidative radiotherapy to the bladder and to residual metastases in metastatic urothelial bladder cancer with no progression following first-line systemic therapy. MATERIALS/METHODS: Patients who received first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (mUBC) and who were progression-free following treatment with no more than five residual metastases were retrospectively identified through the database of four Comprehensive Cancer Centers, between January 2005 and December 2018. Among them, patients who received subsequent definitive radiotherapy (of EQD2Gy > 45Gy) to the bladder and residual metastases were included in the consolidative group (irradiated (IR) group), and the other patients were included in the observation group (NIR group). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined from the start of the first-line chemotherapy using the Kaplan-Meier method. To prevent immortal time bias, a Cox model with time-dependent covariates and 6-month landmark analyses were performed to examine OS and PFS. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients with at least stable disease following first-line therapy and with no more than five residual metastases were analyzed: 51 in the IR group and 40 in the NIR group. Metachronous metastatic disease was more frequent in the NIR group (19% vs. 5%, p = 0.02); the median number of metastases in the IR group vs. in the NIR group was 2 (1-9) vs. 3 (1-5) (p = 0.04) at metastatic presentation, and 1 (0-5) vs. 2 (0-5) (p = 0.18) after completion of chemotherapy (residual lesions), respectively. Two grade 3 toxicities (3.9%) and no grade 4 toxicity were reported in the IR group related to radiotherapy. With a median follow up of 85.9 months (95% IC (36.7; 101.6)), median OS and PFS were 21.7 months (95% IC (17.1; 29.7)) and 11.1 months (95% IC (9.9; 14.1)) for the whole cohort, respectively. In multivariable analysis, consolidative radiotherapy conferred a benefit in both PFS (HR = 0.49, p = 0.007) and OS (HR = 0.47, p = 0.015) in the whole population; in the landmark analysis at 6 months, radiotherapy was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.48, p = 0.026), with a trend for PFS (HR = 0.57, p = 0.082). CONCLUSION: Consolidative radiotherapy for mUBC patients who have not progressed after first-line therapy and with limited residual disease seems to confer both OS and PFS benefits. The role of consolidative radiotherapy in the context of avelumab maintenance should be addressed prospectively.

Medium levels of transcription and replication related chromosomal instability are associated with poor clinical outcome.

Genomic instability (GI) influences treatment efficacy and resistance, and an accurate measure of it is lacking. Current measures of GI are based on counts of specific structural variation (SV) and mutational signatures. Here, we present a holistic approach to measuring GI based on the quantification of the steady-state equilibrium between DNA damage and repair as assessed by the residual breakpoints (BP) remaining after repair, irrespective of SV type. We use the notion of Hscore, a BP "hotspotness" magnitude scale, to measure the propensity of genomic structural or functional DNA elements to break more than expected by chance. We then derived new measures of transcription- and replication-associated GI that we call iTRAC (transcription-associated chromosomal instability index) and iRACIN (replication-associated chromosomal instability index). We show that iTRAC and iRACIN are predictive of metastatic relapse in Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and that they may be combined to form a new classifier called MAGIC (mixed transcription- and replication-associated genomic instability classifier). MAGIC outperforms the gold standards FNCLCC and CINSARC in stratifying metastatic risk in LMS. Furthermore, iTRAC stratifies chemotherapeutic response in LMS. We finally show that this approach is applicable to other cancers.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in adult patients with metastatic osteosarcoma: a non-comparative, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has proven activity in patients with pretreated gastrointestinal stromal tumours and colorectal and hepatocellular carcinoma. We designed REGOBONE to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib for patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. This trial comprised four parallel independent cohorts: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma. In this Article, we report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. METHODS: In this non-comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, patients aged 10 years or older with histologically confirmed osteosarcoma whose disease had progressed after treatment with one to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral regorafenib (160 mg/day, for 21 of 28 days) or matching placebo. Patients in both groups also received best supportive care. Randomisation was done using a web-based system and was stratified (permuted block) by age at inclusion (<18 vs ≥18 years old). Investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Patients in the placebo group, after centrally confirmed progressive disease, could cross over to receive regorafenib. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without disease progression at 8 weeks. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat (ie, patients without any major entry criteria violation who initiated masked study drug treatment were included). All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389244, and the results presented here are the final analysis of the osteosarcoma cohort (others cohorts are ongoing). FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and April 4, 2017, 43 adult patients were enrolled from 13 French comprehensive cancer centres. All patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and were evaluable for safety; five patients were excluded for major protocol violations (two in the placebo group and three in the regorafenib group), leaving 38 patients who were evaluable for efficacy (12 in the placebo group and 26 in the regorafenib group). 17 of 26 patients (65%; one-sided 95% CI 47%) in the regorafenib group were non-progressive at 8 weeks compared with no patients in the placebo group. Ten patients in the placebo group crossed over to receive open-label regorafenib after centrally confirmed disease progression. 13 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (24%) of 29 patients in the regorafenib group versus none of 14 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events during the double-blind period of treatment included hypertension (in seven [24%] of 29 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (three [10%] vs none), fatigue (three [10%] vs one [3%]), hypophosphataemia (three [10%] vs none), and chest pain (three [10%] vs none). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity in adult patients with recurrent, progressive, metastatic osteosarcoma after failure of conventional chemotherapy, with a positive effect on delaying disease progression. Regorafenib should be further evaluated in the setting of advanced disease as well as potentially earlier in the disease course for patients at high risk of relapse. Regorafenib might have an important therapeutic role as an agent complementary to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy in the therapeutic armamentarium against osteosarcoma. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare.

Advanced chordoma treated by first-line molecular targeted therapies: Outcomes and prognostic factors. A retrospective study of the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO) and the Association des Neuro-Oncologues d'Expression Française (ANOCEF).

BACKGROUND: To assess the role of first-line Molecular Targeted Therapies (MTTs) in Advanced chordoma (AC) patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 80 patients treated between January 2004 and December 2015 at 15 major French Sarcoma or Neurooncology Centres. RESULTS: The sex ratio M/F was 46/34. The median age was 59 (6-86) years. The primary sites were the sacrum (50, 62.5%), mobile spine (12, 15.0%), and skull base (18, 22.5%). Metastases were present in 28 patients (36.0%). The first line of MTTs consisted of imatinib (62, 77.5%), sorafenib (11, 13.7%), erlotinib (5, 6.3%), sunitinib (1, 1.2%) and temsirolimus (1, 1.2%). The reported responses were: partial response (5, 6.3%), stable disease (58, 72.5%), or progressive disease (10, 12.5%). Symptomatic improvement was seen in 28/66 assessable patients (42.4%) and was associated with an objective response occurrence (p = 0.005), imatinib (p = 0.020) or erlotinib use (p = 0.028). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4°months (95% CI, [6.8-16.1]). Two independent factors of poor prognosis for PFS were identified: a skull-based primary location (HR = 2.5, p = 0.019), and the interval between diagnosis and MTT of <52months (HR = 2.8, p < 0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was 4.4°years (95% CI, [3.8-5.6]). Four independent factors of poor prognosis for OS were identified: the presence of liver metastases (HR = 13.2, p < 0.001), pain requiring opioids (HR = 2.9, p = 0.012), skull-based primary location (HR = 19.7, p < 0.001), and prior radiotherapy (photon alone) (HR = 2.5, p = 0.024). The PFS and OS did not significantly differ between the MTT. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic factors identified require validation in an independent database but are potently useful to guide treatment decisions and design further clinical trials.

The off-label use of targeted therapies in sarcomas: the OUTC'S program.

BACKGROUND: Few targeted therapies (TTs) are registered for sarcoma treatment despite numerous phase II studies and yet there are potential treatment options for patients after standard treatment escape. The French Sarcoma Group - Bone Tumor Study Group (GSF-GETO) created a national registry to evaluate the outcome of patients treated with off-label TTs. METHODS: Every consecutive sarcoma-patient receiving an off-label TT outside a clinical trial was included. The objective was to describe this patient efficacy and safety data in routine practice. RESULTS: From October 2008 to October 2011, 249 patients in 24 centers received 278 treatment lines with TTs. Twenty-five histological subtypes were included: most frequent were leiomyosarcoma (n=48, receiving sorafenib in 63%, and sunitinib in 27%), GIST (n=39, receiving sorafenib in 79%), and angiosarcoma (n=18, receiving sorafenib in 78%). The overall response rate to TTs was 15% (95% CI [10,6-20,2]), the disease control rate at 2 months was 59%. The median progression-free survival was 4,1 months (IC 95% [3,2-4,8]). Three complete responses were observed. No toxic death occurred, grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported in 74 (27%) and 14 patients (5%) respectively. CONCLUSION: Off-label TTs can be used for sarcoma patients in routine practice with an acceptable toxicity profile and efficacy similar to that reported in non-randomized clinical trials.

Low level of baseline circulating VEGF-A is associated with better outcome in patients with vascular sarcomas receiving sorafenib: an ancillary study from a phase II trial.

We have carried out a stratified phase II study of sorafenib (So) in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (n = 32) and epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (n = 13). This report concerns the correlative analysis of the predictive values of circulating pro/anti-angiogenetic biomarkers. Using the ELISA method (R&D Systems), circulating biomarkers (VEGF-A, in picograms per milliliter), thrombospondin-1 (TSP1, in micrograms per milliliter), stem cell factor (SCF, in picograms per milliliter), placental growth factor (PlGF, in picograms per milliliter), VEGF-C (in picograms per milliliter), and E-selectin (in nanograms per milliliter) were measured before So treatment and after 7 days. VEGF-A (mean value 475 vs. 541, p = 0.002), TSP1 (16 vs. 24, p = 0.0002), and PlGF (20.9 vs. 40.7, p = 0.0001) significantly increased during the treatment. Treatment did not affect the levels of SCF, VEGF-C, and E-selectin. Only two biomarkers were associated with better outcome as follows: VEGF-A and PlGF. Best objective response and non-progression at 180 days were associated with low level of VEGF-A at baseline (p = 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). There was a correlation between the circulating level of VEGF-A and time to progression (TTP) (r = -0.47, p = 0.001). Best objective response and non-progression at 180 days were not associated with baseline level of PIGF, but there was a correlation between the circulating level of PIGF at baseline and TTP. Low level of VEGF-A at baseline (<500) was significantly associated with better outcome.

The ß5/focal adhesion kinase/glycogen synthase kinase 3ß integrin pathway in high-grade osteosarcoma: a protein expression profile predictive of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

To date, chemosensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of patients with high-grade osteosarcoma is evaluated on surgical resection by evaluation of the percentage of necrotic cells. As yet, no predictive profile of response to chemotherapy has been used in clinical practice. Because we have previously shown that the integrin pathway controls genotoxic-induced cell death and hypoxia, we hypothesized that in primary biopsies, expression of proteins involved in this pathway could be associated with sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade osteosarcoma. We studied ß1, ß3, and ß5 integrin expression and integrin-linked kinase, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), glycogen synthase kinase 3ß (GSK3ß), Rho B, angiopoietin-2, ß-catenin, and ezrin expression by immunohistochemistry in 36 biopsies of osteosarcomas obtained before treatment. All patients received a chemotherapy regimen in the neoadjuvant setting. An immunoreactive score was assessed, combining the percentage of positive tumor cells and staining intensity. We evaluated the correlation of the biomarkers with response to chemotherapy, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. A combination of 3 biomarkers (ß5 integrin, FAK, and GSK3ß) discriminated good and poor responders to chemotherapy, with the highest area under the curve (89.9%; 95% confidence interval, 77.4-1.00) and a diagnostic accuracy of 90.3%. Moreover, high expression of ezrin was associated with an increased risk of metastasis (hazard ratio, 3.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-12.9; P = .024). We report a protein expression profile in high-grade osteosarcoma associating ß5 integrin, FAK, and GSK3ß that significantly correlates with poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This biomarker profile could help select patients for whom an alternative protocol using inhibitors of this pathway can be proposed.

Sorafenib in patients with progressive epithelioid hemangioendothelioma: a phase 2 study by the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO).

BACKGROUND: There is no standard treatment for progressive epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE). To investigate the significant vascularization of EHE, the activity/toxicity of sorafenib in patients with progressive EHE was explored. METHODS: In this multicenter, 1-stage, phase 2 trial of sorafenib (800 mg daily), the primary endpoint, which was chosen by default, was the 9-month progression-free rate. All patients had documented progressive disease at the time of study entry. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled between June 2009 and February 2011. The median age was 57 years (range, 31-76 years), and the ratio of men to women was 9:6. The performance status was zero in 10 patients and 1 in 5 patients. Twelve patients had metastases, mainly in the lung (12 patients), liver (5 patients), and bone (3 patients). Five patients had received prior chemotherapy (doxorubicin in 5 patients and taxane in 3 patients). The median sorafenib treatment duration was 124 days (range, from 27 to >271 days). Seven patients required dose reductions or transient treatment discontinuation. The 9-month progression-free rate was 30.7% (4 of 13 patients). The 2-month, 4-month, and 6-month progression-free rate was 84.6% (11 of 13 patients), 46.4% (6 of 13 patients), and 38.4% (5 of 13 patients), respectively. Two partial responses were observed that lasted 2 months and 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical trials exploring sorafenib as treatment of progressive EHE are needed.

Are tyrosine kinase inhibitors still active in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and everolimus? Experience of 36 patients treated in France in the RECORD-1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Because the response to treatment is limited, patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) typically receive multiple treatments. Guidelines recommend everolimus for patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or sorafenib. This study evaluated the efficacy of TKI re-treatment in patients with disease progression after a TKI-everolimus sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were reviewed for patients enrolled in RECORD-1 (Renal Cell Cancer Treatment With Oral RAD001 Given Daily) at French sites. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were evaluated in patients treated with a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received a TKI after everolimus: sunitinib in 17 patients, sorafenib in 15, and dovitinib (TKI258) in 4. The response rate with TKI re-treatment was 8%, and the disease-control rate (response plus stable disease) was 75%. The median PFS with each component of the TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence was 10.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-28.5 months), 8.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-34.6 months), and 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2-11.9 months), respectively. The median overall survival from the start of everolimus was 29.1 months (95% CI 21.1 to not reached months), which suggests a benefit in using TKI in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence may be associated with clinical benefit and should be prospectively investigated.

Sorafenib for patients with advanced angiosarcoma: a phase II Trial from the French Sarcoma Group (GSF/GETO).

BACKGROUND: Angiosarcomas account for <2% of all soft tissue sarcomas. This subtype is one of the most aggressive forms of soft tissue sarcoma. The prognosis for angiosarcoma patients in the advanced phase remains poor with current cytotoxic agents (progression-free survival [PFS] time of ∼4 months and overall survival [OS] time of ∼8 months). We investigated the antitumor activity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic or advanced angiosarcomas in a phase II trial. METHODS: We conducted a stratified phase II trial. The primary endpoint was the progression-free rate (PFR) at 9 months according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. A two-stage design (optimal Simon design) was used. Patients received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) for 9 months until unacceptable toxicity or tumor progression. Central pathological and radiological reviews were performed. Data on stratum A (superficial angiosarcoma) and stratum B (visceral angiosarcoma) are currently available. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT00874874). FINDINGS: Strata A and B recruited 26 and 15 patients, respectively. The median age was 63 years (range, 31-82 years), with 17 male and 24 female patients. Fourteen cases arose in irradiated fields. Thirty patients (73.0%) had been pretreated with conventional chemotherapy. No unexpected toxicity occurred. The PFR at 9 months was 3.8% in stratum A and 0.0% in stratum B. The median PFS times were 1.8 months and 3.8 months, respectively, whereas the median OS times were 12.0 months and 9.0 months, respectively. No responses were observed in chemotherapy-naïve patients, whereas a 40% tumor control rate and 23% response rate were observed in the pretreated population. In this cohort, no activating mutation of the KDR gene (exons 15, 16, 24) was detected. INTERPRETATION: Sorafenib showed limited antitumor activity in pretreated patients only, for both visceral and superficial angiosarcoma, but tumor control was of short duration.

[Dermatologic side effects induced by new angiogenesis inhibitors]. / Effets indésirables dermatologiques des thérapies ciblées antiangiogéniques.

While new anticancer angiogenesis inhibitors present a well-tolerated safety profile, they are not without adverse events. The signaling pathways and/or receptors inhibited by these new drugs are often physiologically expressed in the skin and/or hair follicle and cutaneous toxicity is on the forefront. This article reviews the main dermatologic adverse events induced by these targeted anticancer therapies with a partial or exclusive antiangiogenic activity: sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, vandetanib, everolimus, temsirolimus or bevacizumab.

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.

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].).