Dataset Information

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods

In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability.

Results

After a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33 weeks with sorafenib plus IL-2, and 30 weeks with sorafenib alone (P=0.109). For patients receiving the initial higher dose of IL-2, median PFS was 43 weeks vs 31 weeks for those receiving the lower dose. The most common adverse events were asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhoea. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported for 38 and 25% of patients receiving combination and single-agent treatment, respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of sorafenib and IL-2 did not demonstrate improved efficacy vs sorafenib alone. Improvements in PFS appeared greater in patients receiving higher-dose IL-2.

SUBMITTER: Procopio G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3078589 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial.

Procopio G G Verzoni E E Bracarda S S Ricci S S Sacco C C Ridolfi L L Porta C C Miceli R R Zilembo N N Bajetta E E

British journal of cancer 20110329 8

<h4>Background</h4>Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).<h4>Methods</h4>In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability.< ...[more]

PMID: 21448165

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePrevious communication has reported significant improvement in overall survival (OS) when using doxorubicin plus sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC).ObjectiveTo determine if doxorubicin added to sorafenib therapy improves OS, with stratification for locally advanced and metastatic disease.Design, setting, and participantsThis unblinded randomized phase 3 clinical trial was led by Alliance in collaboration with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. It was launched in February 2010 and completed in May 2015; data were also analyzed during this time frame. Patients with histologically proven advanced HCC, no prior systemic therapy, Child-Pugh grade A score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 (later amended to 0-1), and adequate hematologic, hepatic, renal, and cardiac function were eligible. The OS primary end point had a final analysis planned with 364 events observed among 480 total patients with 90% power to detect a 37% increase in median OS.Interventions or exposuresPatients received either 60 mg/m2 of doxorubicin every 21 days plus 400 mg of sorafenib orally twice daily or the sorafenib alone, adjusted to half doses for patients with bilirubin levels of 1.3 to 3.0 mg/dL.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was OS, and progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary end point.ResultsOf 356 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 62 (10.1) years, and 306 (86.0%) were men. Although it was planned to include 480 patients, the study was halted after accrual of 356 patients (180 patients treated with doxorubicin plus sorafenib and 176 with sorafenib alone) with a futility boundary crossed at a planned interim analysis. Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.3-10.8 months) in the doxorubicin plus sorafenib arm and 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.3-12.9 months) in the sorafenib alone arm (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83-1.31). The median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.4-4.9 months) in the doxorubicin plus sorafenib arm and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.5 months) in the sorafenib alone arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.16). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia adverse events occurred in 61 (36.8%) and 29 (17.5%) patients, respectively, being treated with doxorubicin plus sorafenib vs 1 (0.6%) and 4 (2.4%) patients treated with sorafenib.Conclusions and relevanceThis multigroup study of the addition of doxorubicin to sorafenib therapy did not show improvement of OS or PFS in patients with HCC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01015833.

Project description:ImportanceSorafenib is the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion; however, it has shown unsatisfactory survival benefit. Sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) has shown promising results for these patients in a previous phase 2 study.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus HAIC compared with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized, open-label clinical trial enrolled 818 screened patients. Of the 818 participants, 247 with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to receive sorafenib plus HAIC or sorafenib. This trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China and enrolled patients from April 1, 2016, to October 10, 2017, with a follow-up period of 10 months.InterventionsRandomization to receive 400 mg sorafenib twice daily (sorafenib group) or 400 mg sorafenib twice daily plus HAIC (SoraHAIC group) (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m2 for 46 hours, every 3 weeks).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary endpoint was overall survival by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment.ResultsFor 247 patients (median age, 49 years; range, 18-75 years; 223 men and 24 women), median overall survival was 13.37 months (95% CI, 10.27-16.46) in the SoraHAIC group vs 7.13 months (95% CI, 6.28-7.98) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.48; P < .001). The SoraHAIC group showed a higher response rate than the sorafenib group (51 [40.8%] vs 3 [2.46%]; P < .001), and a longer median progression-free survival (7.03 [95% CI, 6.05-8.02] vs 2.6 [95% CI, 2.15-3.05] months; P < .001). Grade 3/4 adverse events that were more frequent in the SoraHAIC group than in the sorafenib group included neutropenia (12 [9.68%] vs 3 [2.48%]), thrombocytopenia (16 [12.9%] vs 6 [4.96%]), and vomiting (8 [6.45%] vs 1 [0.83%]).Conclusions and relevanceSorafenib plus HAIC of FOLFOX improved overall survival and had acceptable toxic effects compared with sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02774187.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is clinical evidence to suggest that tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) may be a therapeutic target in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Multi-targeted kinase inhibitors, such as sorafenib and sunitinib, have become standard of care in advanced RCC. The anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibody infliximab and sorafenib have differing cellular mechanisms of action. We conducted a phase I/II trial to determine the safety and efficacy of infliximab in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced RCC. METHODS: Eligible patients were systemic treatment-naive or had received previous cytokine therapy only. Sorafenib and infliximab were administered according to standard schedules. The study had two phases: in phase I, the safety and toxicity of the combination of full-dose sorafenib and two dose levels of infliximab were evaluated in three and three patients, respectively, and in phase II, further safety, toxicity and efficacy data were collected in an expanded patient population. RESULTS: Acceptable safety was reported for the first three patients (infliximab 5 mg kg⁻¹) in phase 1. Sorafenib 400 mg twice daily and infliximab 10 mg kg⁻¹ were administered to a total of 13 patients (three in phase 1 and 10 in phase 2). Adverse events included grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (31%), rash (25%), fatigue (19%) and infection (19%). Although manageable, toxicity resulted in 75% of the patients requiring at least one dose reduction and 81% requiring at least one dose delay of sorafenib. Four patients were progression-free at 6 months (PFS₆ 31%); median PFS and overall survival were 6 and 14 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib and infliximab can be administered in combination, but a significant increase in the numbers of adverse events requiring dose adjustments of sorafenib was observed. There was no evidence of increased efficacy compared with sorafenib alone in advanced RCC. The combination of sorafenib and infliximab does not warrant further evaluation in patients with advanced RCC.

Project description:BackgroundAngiogenesis plays a role in tumor growth and is partly mediated by factors in both the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways. Durable clinical responses with VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be limited by intrinsic tumor resistance. We hypothesized that FGF signaling may impact clinical responses to sorafenib.MethodsNephrectomy material was available from 40 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of sorafenib ± interferon (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00126594). Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) and fibroblast growth factor receptor substrate 2 alpha (FRS2α) expression was assessed by in situ hybridization and immunofluorescence, respectively. The relationship between fibroblast growth factor pathway marker levels and progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression methods.ResultsUnivariate analysis indicated that more intense FGFR1 staining was associated with shorter PFS (log-rank P = 0.0452), but FRS2α staining was not significantly associated with PFS (log-rank P = 0.2610). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed for FGFR1 and FRS2α individually, adjusting for baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, treatment arm and anemia status. When adjusted for each of these variables, the highest intensity level of FGFR1 (level 3 or 4) had increased progression risk relative to the lowest intensity level of FGFR1 (level 1) (P = 0.0115). The highest intensity level of FRS2α (level 3 or 4) had increased progression risk relative to the lowest intensity level of FRS2α (level 1) (P = 0.0126).ConclusionsIncreased expression of FGFR1 and FRS2α was associated with decreased PFS among patients with metastatic RCC treated with sorafenib. The results suggest that FGF pathway activation may impact intrinsic resistance to VEGF receptor inhibition.

Project description:Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients. Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib. Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Dataset Information

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets