Dataset Information

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS:In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by a masked independent review committee. RESULTS:A total of 204 Asian patients received axitinib (n=135) or sorafenib (n=69). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.5 (4.7-9.1) months with axitinib versus 4.8 (3.0-6.5) months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.506-1.058; one-sided P=0.0531). The objective response rate (95% CI) was 23.7% (16.8%-31.8%) with axitinib versus 10.1% (4.2%-19.8%) with sorafenib. Common, grade ?3, all-causality adverse events were hypertension (19.3%), weight decrease (5.2%), and proteinuria (5.2%) with axitinib and hypertension (8.7%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (7.2%) with sorafenib. In a time-to-deterioration composite end point of death, progression, and worsening of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score, patients treated with axitinib demonstrated a 17%-24% risk reduction compared with sorafenib-treated patients. CONCLUSION:Axitinib is clinically active and well tolerated in previously treated Asian patients with mRCC, consistent with the results from the global Phase III trial. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for Asian patients with mRCC.

SUBMITTER: Qin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4467642 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study.

Qin Shukui S Bi Feng F Jin Jie J Cheng Ying Y Guo Jun J Ren Xiubao X Huang Yiran Y Tarazi Jamal J Tang Jie J Chen Connie C Kim Sinil S Ye Dingwei D

OncoTargets and therapy 20150608

<h4>Background</h4>This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).<h4>Methods</h4>In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice d ...[more]

PMID: 26089686

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRECORD-4 assessed everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progressed after 1 prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or cytokine and reinforced the clinical benefit of second-line everolimus. Because of the high percentage of patients from China enrolled in RECORD-4 (41%) and some reported differences in responses to certain targeted agents between Chinese and Western patients, this subanalysis evaluated outcomes in Asian versus non-Asian patients.MethodsRECORD-4 enrolled patients with clear cell mRCC into 3 cohorts based on prior first-line therapy: sunitinib, other anti-VEGF (sorafenib, bevacizumab, pazopanib, other), or cytokines. Patients received everolimus 10 mg/d until progression of disease (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. Primary end point was progression-free survival per investigator review. Data cutoff was Sept 1, 2014.ResultsAmong Asian (n = 55) versus non-Asian (n = 79) patients, 98% versus 84% had good/intermediate MSKCC prognosis; 73% versus 65% were men, and 85% versus 73% were < 65 years of age. All (100%) Asian patients were of Chinese ethnicity. Median duration of exposure was 5.5 mo for Asian and 6.0 mo for non-Asian patients. Among Asian versus non-Asian patients, median progression-free survival (months) was 7.4 versus 7.8 overall, 7.4 versus 4.0 with prior sunitinib, and 5.7 versus 9.2 with prior other anti-VEGFs. Clinical benefit rate was similar between populations: 74.5% (95% CI 61.0-85.3) for Asian patients and 74.7% (95% CI 63.6-83.8) for non-Asian patients. Most patients achieved stable disease as best overall response (Asian, 63.6%; non-Asian, 69.6%). Overall rate of grade 3/4 adverse events appeared similar for Asian (58%) and non-Asian patients (54%).ConclusionsThis RECORD-4 subanalysis demonstrated comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles of second-line everolimus in Asian and non-Asian patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes by prior therapy should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers in some subpopulations.Trial registrationEverolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell. Carcinoma (RECORD-4); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01491672 . Registration date: December 14, 2011.

Project description:BackgroundRelative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment.Methodology & findingsSystematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year's treatment and then decreased over time to zero.ConclusionWith all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months.

Dataset Information

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study.

Publications

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure