Dataset Information

Anlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib (n =?90) or sunitinib (n =?43). Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12?mg once daily (2?weeks on/1?week off), and sunitinib was given orally at 50?mg once daily (4?weeks on/2?weeks off). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS:The median PFS was similar with anlotinib and sunitinib (17.5 vs. 16.6?months, p >?.05). The median OS (30.9 vs. 30.5?months, p >?.05), ORR (30.3% vs. 27.9%), and 6-week DCR (97.8% vs. 93.0%) were similar in the two groups. Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or 4 were significantly less frequent with anlotinib than with sunitinib (28.9% vs. 55.8%, p

SUBMITTER: Zhou AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6693716 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Anlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

Zhou Ai-Ping AP Bai Yuxian Y Song Yan Y Luo Hong H Ren Xiu-Bao XB Wang Xiuwen X Shi Benkang B Fu Cheng C Cheng Ying Y Liu Jiyan J Qin Shukui S Li Jun J Li Hanzhong H Bai Xianzhong X Ye Dingwei D Wang Jinwan J Ma Jianhui J

The oncologist 20190322 8

<h4>Background</h4>Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Patients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib (<i>n</i> = 90) or sunitinib (<i>n</i> = 43). Anlotinib was given oral ...[more]

PMID: 30902918

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRecently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsNivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Project description:BackgroundImmunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC.MethodsKEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1.ResultsOne-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects.ConclusionsORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .

Dataset Information

Anlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

Publications

Anlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets