Dataset Information

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This exploratory study evaluated the safety/efficacy of nintedanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS:Ninety-six patients were randomised (2:1) to either nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or sunitinib (50 mg kg(-1) once daily (4 weeks on treatment; 2 weeks off)). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. P-values reported are descriptive only; the study was not powered for such comparisons. RESULTS:Progression-free survival at 9 months was comparable between nintedanib and sunitinib (43.1% vs 45.2%, respectively; P=0.85). Median PFS was 8.4 months in each group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.80; P=0.64). Median overall survival was 20.4 and 21.2 months for nintedanib and sunitinib, respectively (HR, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.56; P=0.76). Overall incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was comparable (90.6% vs 93.8%); AEs grade ? 3 were lower with nintedanib than sunitinib (48.4% vs 59.4%). Nintedanib was associated with lower incidences of some AEs typical of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, cardiac disorders and haematological abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with advanced RCC, nintedanib has promising efficacy and similar tolerability to sunitinib, and a manageable safety profile with fewer TKI-associated AEs.

SUBMITTER: Eisen T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4647871 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

Eisen T T Loembé A-B AB Shparyk Y Y MacLeod N N Jones R J RJ Mazurkiewicz M M Temple G G Dressler H H Bondarenko I I

British journal of cancer 20151008 8

<h4>Background</h4>This exploratory study evaluated the safety/efficacy of nintedanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-six patients were randomised (2:1) to either nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or sunitinib (50 mg kg(-1) once daily (4 weeks on treatment; 2 weeks off)). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. P-values reported are descriptive only; the study was not powered for such compariso ...[more]

PMID: 26448178

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib.ResultsCompletion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions.ConclusionPROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Project description:Background and objectivesNovel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC.MethodsIndividual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms.ResultsOverall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs.ConclusionsNivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Project description:Background:In the past few years, new drugs made their appearance in the first-line setting of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and cabozantinib is one among them. The present systematic review aims to point out any evidence published to date about first-line treatment with cabozantinib for mRCC patients, describing their outcome in all end points explored by the literature. Methods:PRISMA guidelines were followed. A systematic assessment of literature and peer- reviewed presentations was performed by searching PubMed and major oncology meeting resources, from the database inception until June 25, 2018. The following keywords were used: "cabozantinib or cabozantinib-s-malate or XL184" and "renal cell carcinoma or kidney cancer or clear cell renal carcinoma or renal cancer" and "first-line or untreated or treatment-naïve or primary treatment". All types of original clinical studies were included, evaluating either cabozantinib monotherapy or any systemic drug combination containing cabozantinib for previously untreated patients with mRCC. Results:From potential 75 titles and abstracts, seven publications were selected. One was the main report of a randomized clinical trial (the CABOSUN study); four papers reported updated results, secondary or subgroup analyses from the same study population; and further two reports consisted of network meta-analyses. From the additional search for ongoing clinical trials, six studies currently in progress were reported. Conclusion:According to the reported evidence, cabozantinib may be a viable first-line option in mRCC patients with intermediate or poor risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model. It offers an undoubtful advantage in terms of progression-free survival, despite quite high rates of G3-4 toxicity, modest objective response rate, and no survival advantage. Nevertheless, given the availability of an immunotherapy combination that significantly improved overall survival for the same population in a Phase III trial and the indisputable efficacy of cabozantinib as second-line treatment, this drug may be devoted as a rescue option in patients progressive to primary therapy.

Project description:EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785.Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ? 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]).Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:ImportanceThis analysis provides long-term follow-up in patients with BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma receiving first-line therapy based on anti-programmed cell death 1 receptor inhibitors.ObjectiveTo compare the 3-year survival with nivolumab vs that with dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis follow-up of a randomized phase 3 trial analyzed 3-year overall survival data from the randomized, controlled, double-blind CheckMate 066 phase 3 clinical trial. For this ongoing, multicenter academic institution trial, patients were enrolled from January 2013 through February 2014. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with confirmed unresectable previously untreated stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 but without a BRAF mutation.InterventionsPatients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxic events with nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks plus nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks).Main outcome and measureOverall survival.ResultsAt minimum follow-ups of 38.4 months among 210 participants in the nivolumab group (median age, 64 years [range, 18-86 years]; 57.6% male) and 38.5 months among 208 participants in the dacarbazine group (median age, 66 years [range, 25-87 years]; 60.1% male), 3-year overall survival rates were 51.2% (95% CI, 44.1%-57.9%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 16.1%-27.6%), respectively. The median overall survival was 37.5 months (95% CI, 25.5 months-not reached) in the nivolumab group and 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6-13.0 months) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .001). Complete and partial responses, respectively, were reported for 19.0% (40 of 210) and 23.8% (50 of 210) of patients in the nivolumab group compared with 1.4% (3 of 208) and 13.0% (27 of 208) of patients in the dacarbazine group. Additional analyses were performed on outcomes with subsequent therapies. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15.0% (31 of 206) of nivolumab-treated patients and in 17.6% (36 of 205) of dacarbazine-treated patients. There were no deaths due to study drug toxic effects.Conclusions and relevanceNivolumab led to improved 3-year overall survival vs dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721772.

Project description:BACKGROUND:For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS:The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (?18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. FINDINGS:Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. INTERPRETATION:Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING:Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

Dataset Information

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

Publications

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure