Dataset Information

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS:We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS:Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION:In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING:Novartis and Pfizer.

SUBMITTER: Armstrong AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6863151 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

Armstrong Andrew J AJ Halabi Susan S Eisen Tim T Broderick Samuel S Stadler Walter M WM Jones Robert J RJ Garcia Jorge A JA Vaishampayan Ulka N UN Picus Joel J Hawkins Robert E RE Hainsworth John D JD Kollmannsberger Christian K CK Logan Theodore F TF Puzanov Igor I Pickering Lisa M LM Ryan Christopher W CW Protheroe Andrew A Lusk Christine M CM Oberg Sadie S George Daniel J DJ

The Lancet. Oncology 20160113 3

<h4>Background</h4>Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.<h4>Methods</h4>We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic tr ...[more]

PMID: 26794930

Similar Datasets

Project description:Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC).Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression.Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus.Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p=0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p=0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p=0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n=49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p=0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation.In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC.This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.

Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active.FindingsBetween June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction).InterpretationThe dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data.FundingBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Project description:[18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3?years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3?months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk?=?1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P?=?0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P?=?0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P?=?0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18?192?±?27?679 € versus 11?131?±?13? €, P?<?0.033).18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.NCT00624260.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Genetic intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) hinders biomarker development in metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mccRCC). Epigenetic relative to genetic ITH or the presence of consistent epigenetic changes following targeted therapy in mccRCC have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine methylome/genetic ITH and to evaluate specific epigenetic and genetic changes associated with sunitinib therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Multi-region DNA sampling performed on sequential frozen pairs of primary tumor tissue from 14 metastatic ccRCC patients, in the Upfront Sunitinib (SU011248) Therapy Followed by Surgery in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cancer: a Pilot Phase II Study (SuMR; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01024205), at presentation (biopsy) and after 3-cycles of 50mg sunitinib (nephrectomy). Untreated biopsy and nephrectomy samples before and after renal artery ligation were controls. Ion Proton sequencing of 48 key ccRCC genes, and MethylCap-seq DNA methylation analysis was performed, data was analysed using the statistical computing environment R. RESULTS:Unsupervised hierarchical clustering revealed complete methylome clustering of biopsy and three nephrectomy samples for each patient (14/14 patients). For mutational status, untreated biopsy and all treated nephrectomy samples clustered together in 8/13 (61.5%) patients. The only methylation target significantly altered following sunitinib therapy was VHL promoter region 7896829 which was hypermethylated with treatment (FDR=0.077, P<0.001) and consistent for all patients (pre-treatment 50% patients had VHL mutations, 14% patients VHL hypermethylation). Renal artery ligation did not affect this result. No significant differences in driver or private mutation count was found with sunitinib treatment. CONCLUSIONS:Demonstration of relative methylome homogeneity and consistent VHL hypermethylation, after sunitinib, may overcome the hurdle of ITH present at other molecular levels for biomarker research.

Dataset Information

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

Publications

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets