Novel dose-finding designs and considerations on practical implementations in oncology clinical trials.

One of the main objectives in phase I oncology trials is to evaluate safety and tolerability of an experimental treatment by estimating the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on the rate of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). To meet emerging challenges in dose-finding studies, over the past two decades, extensive research has been conducted by statistical and medical researchers to create innovative dose finding designs that perform better than the standard 3 + 3 design, which often exhibits undesirable statistical and operational properties. However, clinical implementation and practical usage of these new designs have been limited. This article begins with a review of the most recent literature and then provides some perspectives on implementing novel adaptive dose finding designs in oncology phase I trials from a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Statistical planning and logistical considerations on how to effectively execute such designs in multi-center clinical trials are discussed using two recent case studies.

Phase II study of axitinib with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2-10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. RESULTS: Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: subgroup analyses by region, including Japan, from the global randomized Phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1-3. This analysis compared efficacy and safety of axitinib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from Japan, North America and the European Union, enrolled in a randomized Phase III study. METHODS: Patients (n = 632), stratified by disease extent, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive axitinib/gemcitabine or placebo/gemcitabine. Axitinib was administered at a starting dose of 5 mg orally twice daily and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2) once weekly for 3 weeks in 4 week cycles. Primary endpoint was overall survival. RESULTS: Among Japanese patients, median overall survival was not estimable (95% confidence interval, 7.4 months-not estimable) with axitinib/gemcitabine (n = 58) and 9.9 months (95% confidence interval, 7.4-10.5) with placebo/gemcitabine (n = 56) (hazard ratio 1.093 [95% confidence interval, 0.525-2.274]). Median survival follow-up (range) was 5.1 months (0.02-12.3) with axitinib/gemcitabine vs. 5.4 months (1.8-10.5) with placebo/gemcitabine. Similarly, no difference was detected in overall survival between axitinib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine in patients from North America or the European Union. Common adverse events with axitinib/gemcitabine in Japanese patients were fatigue, anorexia, dysphonia, nausea and decreased platelet count. Axitinib safety profile was generally similar in patients from the three regions, although there were differences in incidence of some adverse events. An exploratory analysis did not show any correlation between axitinib/gemcitabine-related hypertension and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib/gemcitabine, while tolerated, did not provide survival benefit over gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from Japan or other regions.

Treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with axitinib: Phase 2 study with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and quality-of-life assessments.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 2 trial, axitinib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced thyroid cancer. In this second phase 2 trial, the efficacy and safety of axitinib were evaluated further in this population, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Patients (N = 52) with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced medullary or differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory or not amenable to iodine-131 received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall ORR was 35% (18 partial responses), and 18 patients had stable disease for ≥16 weeks. The median PFS was 16.1 months, and the median OS was 27.2 months. All-causality, grade ≥3 adverse events (>5%) were fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, decreased weight, pain in extremity, hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypocalcemia, and myalgia. Patients who had greater axitinib exposure had a longer median PFS. Quality of life was maintained during treatment with axitinib, and no significant deterioration in symptoms or interference in daily life caused by symptoms, assessed on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory subscales, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib has activity and a manageable safety profile while maintaining quality of life, and it represents an additional treatment option for patients with advanced thyroid cancer.

Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed/cisplatin with or without axitinib for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).

Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471146. FINDINGS: Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9-9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9-10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786-1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 [7%] and 5 [2%] events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 [7%] and 17 [6%]), fatigue (27 [9%] and 21 [7%]), and anorexia (19 [6%] and 11 [4%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Current usage and challenges of master protocols-based on survey results by ASA BIOP oncology methodology working group master protocol sub-team.

Background: Master protocol trials, such as basket trials, umbrella trials or platform trials, have the potential of increasing efficiency in modern drug development. Meanwhile, though the concept of master protocol is getting more and more accepted, many challenges exist from design to implementation of these trials. To understand current usage and challenges of master protocol trials in action, American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section (BIOP) Oncology Methods Scientific Working Group Master Protocol Sub-team conducted a survey with the goal of providing valuable information for the community to understand the current usage of master protocol, with the goal to identify the challenges. Methods: A total of 19 questions were included in an online survey that was distributed between April and May 2021. To avoid over-reporting within an organization, a pre-determined list of contacts from 37 organizations were reached out with the shared online link of the survey. Literature research and experience from the working group on challenges of master protocols are also summarized and discussed extensively. Results: A total of 39 responses were received from 37 organizations. Thirty-one (79%) respondents indicated that they had trials with master protocol(s) in planning or implementation in their organization with most applications (54%) in oncology. Self-reported challenges on trial design, regulatory engagement and trial implementations were further summarized in the report. Conclusions: The survey results were consistent with previous literatures and expectations of members from the Scientific Working Group Sub-team. Multiple stakeholders are called to work collaboratively to remove roadblocks for future usage of master protocol trials.

Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Master Protocol Framework: Basket, Umbrella and Platform Trials.

Master protocol, categorized as basket trial, umbrella trial or platform trial, is an innovative clinical trial framework that aims to expedite clinical drug development, enhance trial efficiency, and eventually bring medicines to patients faster. Despite a clear uptake on the advantages in the concepts and designs, master protocols are still yet to be widely used. Part of that may be due to the fact that the master protocol framework comes with the need for new statistical designs and considerations for analyses and operational challenges. In this article, we provide an overview of the master protocol framework, unify the definitions with some examples, review the statistical methods for the designs and analyses, and focus our discussions on some practical considerations and recommendations of master protocols to help practitioners better design and implement such studies.

Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Since sunitinib malate has shown activity in two uncontrolled studies in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, a comparison of the drug with interferon alfa in a phase 3 trial is warranted. METHODS: We enrolled 750 patients with previously untreated, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial to receive either repeated 6-week cycles of sunitinib (at a dose of 50 mg given orally once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment) or interferon alfa (at a dose of 9 MU given subcutaneously three times weekly). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group (11 months) than in the interferon alfa group (5 months), corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.54; P<0.001). Sunitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate than was interferon alfa (31% vs. 6%, P<0.001). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related fatigue was significantly higher in the group treated with interferon alfa, whereas diarrhea was more frequent in the sunitinib group (P<0.05). Patients in the sunitinib group reported a significantly better quality of life than did patients in the interferon alfa group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer and response rates were higher in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who received sunitinib than in those receiving interferon alfa (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098657 and NCT00083889 [ClinicalTrials.gov]).

Efficacy of gemcitabine plus axitinib compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: an open-label randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib (AG-013736) is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, which have an important role in pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus axitinib versus gemcitabine alone. METHODS: Between January and August, 2006, 103 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily (n=69) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) alone (n=34) by a centralised registration system. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00219557. FINDINGS: All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Median overall survival was longer with gemcitabine plus axitinib than with gemcitabine alone (6.9 [95% CI 5.3-10.1] months vs 5.6 [3.9-8.8] months). The hazard ratio for survival with gemcitabine plus axitinib versus with gemcitabine alone, adjusted for stratification factors, was 0.71 (95% CI 0.44-1.13). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (15 [22%] patients in the gemcitabine plus axitinib group vs one [3%] in the gemcitabine alone group), abdominal pain (eight [12%] vs five [16%]), and asthenia (eight [12%] vs one [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Gemcitabine plus axitinib showed a similar safety profile to gemcitabine alone; the small, non-statistically significant gain in overall survival needs to be assessed in a randomised phase III trial.

Health-related quality of life during treatment for renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase II study of axitinib.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are often treated with cytokine therapy, although the effect is modest and second-line therapy is often warranted. Relatively little is known regarding the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cytokine-refractory patients. This study examined the HRQOL of patients with metastatic RCC treated with axitinib, a new targeted therapy that affects the vessels supplying blood to the tumor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC and progression following first-line cytokine therapy were enrolled into a single-arm, open-label multicenter phase II trial. Axitinib was administered orally twice daily until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was objective response rate, with secondary endpoints being time to progression, overall survival, safety and HRQOL. The longitudinal analyses of the HRQOL data through 144 weeks of treatment, as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, are presented here. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients completed baseline HRQOL assessments. Statistically significant baseline-post-treatment changes were observed on the role, cognitive and social functioning scales as well as on the nausea and vomiting, pain and diarrhea symptoms. All of the changes were less than one-quarter of the category, with diarrhea being the exception at less than half a category, suggesting that the changes as reported by patients were not meaningful. DISCUSSION: Treatment of metastatic RCC with axitinib demonstrated acceptable disruption in HRQOL functioning and symptoms when compared to baseline levels. From a patient-reported perspective, treatment with axitinib appears to be well tolerated.

Axitinib treatment in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer: a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib (AG-013736) is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who had failed on previous cytokine-based treatment. METHODS: Between Oct 3, 2003, and April 7, 2004, 52 patients were enrolled. All patients who had at least one measurable target lesion received axitinib orally (starting dose 5 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint was objective response (ie, percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or partial response by use of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] criteria. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, time to progression, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported health-related quality of life. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076011. FINDINGS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, two complete and 21 partial responses were noted, for an objective response rate of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5-58.7). Median response duration was 23.0 months (20.9-not estimable; range 4.2-29.8). However, 12 of 23 initial responders progressed with response duration ranging from 4.2 months to 26.5 months. Additionally, 22 patients showed stable disease for longer than 8 weeks, including 13 patients with stable disease for 24 weeks or longer. Four patients had early disease progression. Three patients had missing response data. Median time to progression was 15.7 months (8.4-23.4, range 0.03-31.5) and median overall survival was 29.9 months (20.3-not estimable; range 2.4-35.8). Treatment-related adverse events included diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, and hoarseness. Treatment-related hypertension occurred in 30 patients and resolved with antihypertensive treatment in all but eight patients, of whom seven patients had a history of hypertension at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib shows clinical activity in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer. Although 28 patients had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, these adverse events were generally manageable and controlled by dose modification or supportive care, or both. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The anti-angiogenesis agent, AG-013736, has minimal activity in elderly patients with poor prognosis acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

AG-013736 is an oral anti-angiogenesis agent with activity against a variety of receptor tyrosine kinases, including VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, c-kit, and PDGFR-beta. A phase 2 study was conducted in patients with poor prognosis AML or MDS. Twelve patients (six AML; six MDS) were treated with AG-013736 at a dose of 10mg orally daily for a median of 56 days (range, 1-248 days). Median age was 80 years (range, 58-88 years). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicities included hypertension (42%), mucositis (8%) and deep venous thrombosis (8%). No objective responses occurred; two patients with MDS had stable disease for 8.3 and 6.2 months, respectively. Bone marrow expression of VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 was observed in 11% and 0% of patients, respectively. Sustained decreases in soluble VEGFR-2 plasma levels with concomitant elevation in plasma VEGF and placental growth factor levels were obtained during the course of therapy with AG-013736. AG-01736 had minimal biologic or clinical activity in this elderly patient population.

Phase 1 clinical and pharmacokinetics evaluation of oral CI-1033 in patients with refractory cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral CI-1033, a pan-erbB tyrosine kinase inhibitor, administered over 14 consecutive days of a 21-day cycle. DESIGN: Phase 1, multicenter trial involving patients with solid tumors that are refractory to standard therapy. CI-1033 was administered initially at 300 mg/day to a minimum cohort of three patients. Dose escalation proceeded at

Phase II trial of intravenous CI-1042 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antitumor activity, safety, immune response, and replication of CI-1042 (ONYX-015), an E1B 55-kd gene-deleted replication-selective adenovirus, administered intravenously to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for whom prior chemotherapy failed were enrolled onto an open-label, multicenter, phase II study. CI-1042 was administered intravenously at a dose of 2 x 1012 viral particles every 2 weeks. Patients were evaluated for tumor response and toxicity; in addition, blood samples were taken for adenovirus DNA and neutralizing antibody analysis. RESULTS: Common toxicities included flu-like symptoms, nausea, and emesis. All 18 patients eventually were removed from study because of progressive disease. Seven patients were assessed as having stable disease after 2 months of treatment, whereas two patients were considered to have stable disease after 4 months. Detectable circulating CI-1042 DNA was identified in 36% of patients 72 hours after last infusion, which is suggestive of ongoing viral replication. CONCLUSION: In this phase II study, intravenous CI-1042 was administered safely to patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Toxicity was manageable, consisting primarily of flu-like symptoms. Stable disease was experienced by seven patients for 11 to 18 weeks.

Interpreting overall survival results when progression-free survival benefits exist in today's oncology landscape: a metastatic renal cell carcinoma case study.

BACKGROUND: The debate surrounding the acceptance of progression-free survival (PFS) as an intermediate endpoint to overall survival (OS) has grown in recent years, due to the challenges in demonstrating an OS benefit within clinical trials today. PFS is generally a good predictor of OS for cases where survival post-progression (SPP) is short, and less so when SPP is long. SPP depends on multiple factors, including residual effect from experimental treatment and effect from crossover or other subsequent therapies, posing unique challenges into the translation of PFS benefit into OS. METHODS: The objective of this analysis was to conduct simulations investigating how increasing SPP impacts PFS translation to OS, utilizing data from the AXIS (axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma) trial. The underlying assumption was a treatment benefit in PFS (the PFS distribution parameters were chosen to be equal to median PFS in the AXIS trial) but no treatment effect on SPP, implying that PFS improvement is directly reflected in OS improvement. RESULTS: The probability of a statistically significant difference between arms for OS decreased from 54.7% to 6.1% when median SPP was increased from one to 20 months. The probability of the hazard ratio of OS being ≥0.9 was similarly increased from 24.3% to 72.6%, even though the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.69. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that when simulated SPP is added to trial PFS data, the existing PFS benefit is diluted. Knowing that the AXIS treatment arms are well balanced with respect to post-trial treatments, we conclude that the PFS to OS benefit translation is primarily obscured by random variability largely unrelated to the true outcomes. The implications for drug development are not insignificant, as there would be a need to include more patients in studies or utilize a longer follow-up time to overcome the SPP variability issue.

Five-year survival in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with axitinib.

BACKGROUND: In a phase II study of axitinib for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma, median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95% CI, 20.3 to not estimable months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Long-term survival data were collected retrospectively from 52 patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received axitinib in a completed phase II study (protocol 1), 11 of whom enrolled in a continuing access protocol (protocol 2), for the current observational study (protocol 3). In a post hoc analysis, the patients were grouped into quartiles based on cycle 1 day 1, 1- to 2-hour post-dose axitinib plasma levels to explore the impact of drug exposure on efficacy. RESULTS: The 5-year survival rate was 20.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-32.4%), with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. Frequent all-grade adverse events were fatigue (n = 38; 73.1%), diarrhea (n = 34; 65.4%), hypertension (n = 33; 63.5%), and nausea (n = 33; 63.5%). Quartile 3 patients (axitinib level, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL; n = 12) had the best clinical outcome: objective response rate 82%, median progression-free survival (PFS) 28.3 months, and median OS that was not reached after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib was well tolerated and provided an estimated 5-year survival rate of 20.6% for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Exploratory analyses showed numerically higher objective response rate and longer OS and PFS in patients who achieved post-first-dose axitinib plasma concentrations within a specific range.

Baseline patient-reported kidney cancer-specific symptoms as an indicator for median survival in sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of the study was to determine the relationship of baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Cancer Symptom Index (FKSI) scores with median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) after treatment with axitinib in patients with sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: As part of a multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients (N = 62) reported symptoms at baseline using the FKSI, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms. A Weibull (fully parametric) model was fit to time-to-event data to establish the relationship of baseline FKSI score with mPFS and mOS. Kaplan-Meier curves were obtained as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Longer progression-free and overall survivals were associated with higher (more favorable) baseline FKSI-15 and FKSI disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale specific to kidney cancer scores. For example, for FKSI-15 scores of 0 (most symptoms), 30, and 60 (no symptoms), the mPFS were 0.72, 3.83, and 20.43 months, respectively, and the mOS were 1.05, 6.27, and 37.53 months. Similar patterns and interpretations were observed for the FKSI-DRS scores. The results from the Kaplan-Meier analyses supported the parametric model. DISCUSSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient-reported kidney cancer symptoms are linked to mPFS and mOS in a clear and interpretable way. These results support the evaluation of patient-reported symptoms at baseline in clinical trials and in clinical practice to measure symptom severity and potentially predict progression-free and overall survival outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The results provide a heightened opportunity to use patient data not only to assist in medical treatment planning but also to prepare patients, who have advanced disease and an already reduced expected lifespan, with an opportunity to deal with the psychosocial aspects of the dying process.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II study of axitinib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of axitinib plus docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with MBC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive docetaxel 80 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice per day (combination arm) or placebo (placebo arm), following a lead-in phase I trial. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). RESULTS: In all, 168 patients were enrolled; 112 were randomly assigned to axitinib and 56 to placebo. Median TTP was numerically longer in the combination arm than in the placebo arm (8.1 v 7.1 months), but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156). The difference in median TTP was greatest among patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (9.2 v 7.0 months; P = .043, prespecified subgroup analysis). Objective response rate was higher in the combination arm (41.1% v 23.6%; P = .011). The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (combination/placebo) included diarrhea (10.8%/0%), fatigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertension (4.5%/0%). Three patients in the combination arm experienced serious thromboembolic events (one death). Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination arm (15.3% v 7.1%); rates of other hematologic toxicities were comparable. Increased toxicity with axitinib was generally managed by dose reduction and/or growth factor support. CONCLUSION: The addition of axitinib to docetaxel did not improve TTP in first-line MBC treatment. Combination therapy may be more effective in patients previously exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a phase II study.

PURPOSE: This phase II study evaluated efficacy and safety of single-agent axitinib, an oral, potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) -1, -2, and -3, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II study with a Simon two-stage minimax design. Patients received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg orally BID. The primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -defined objective response rate. Secondary end points included safety and tolerability, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were enrolled, with a median age of 66.5 years. The majority of patients (75%) had adenocarcinoma. Nine patients (28%) had received no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and 23 (72%) had received > or = one regimen. Three patients (9%) had a RECIST investigator-assessed, confirmed partial response (PR); disease control rate (PR + stable disease) was 41%. Median PFS was 4.9 months overall (95% CI, 3.6 to 7.0 months). Median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI, 10.7 months to not estimable) overall and 14.8 months (95% CI, 12.5 months to not estimable) in patients receiving first-line axitinib. One-year survival rates for patients with or without prior therapy for metastatic disease were 57% and 78%, respectively. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events in > or = 5% of patients comprised fatigue (22%), hypertension (9%), and hyponatremia (9%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with advanced NSCLC. Therapy was well tolerated with manageable toxicities. Further investigation of this VEGFR inhibitor in NSCLC is of interest.