Editorial Commentary: Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Westerman ME
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7475466 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Editorial Commentary: <i>Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study</i>.
Westerman Mary E ME Wood Christopher G CG
Annals of translational medicine 20200801 16
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:This multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II trial evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum-tolerated-dose (MTD) per dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). METHODS:Phase I: Patients were stratified into two groups per baseline aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase and Child-Pugh score; MTD was determined. Phase II: Patients were randomised 2:1 to nintedanib (MTD) or sorafenib (400-mg bid) in 28-day cycles until intolerance or disease progression. Time-to-progression (TTP, primary endpoint), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined. RESULTS:Phase-I: no DLTs observed; nintedanib MTD in both groups was 200 mg bid. Phase-II: patients (N = 93) were randomised to nintedanib (n = 62) or sorafenib (n = 31); TTP was 5.5 vs. 4.6 months (HR = 1.44 [95% CI, 0.81-2.57]), OS was 11.9 vs. 11.4 months (HR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52-1.47]), PFS was 5.3 vs. 3.9 months (HR = 1.35 [95% CI, 0.78-2.34]), respectively (all medians). Dose intensity and tolerability favoured nintedanib. Fewer patients on nintedanib (87.1%) vs. sorafenib (96.8%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) or grade ≥ 3 AEs (67.7% vs. 90.3%), but more patients on nintedanib (28 [45.2%]) had AEs leading to drug discontinuation than did those on sorafenib (7 [22.6%]). CONCLUSIONS:Nintedanib may have similar efficacy to sorafenib in aHCC.
| S-EPMC5943284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS:Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS:Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION:This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.
| S-EPMC6774240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrebananib, an investigational peptibody, binds to angiopoietin 1 and 2, thereby blocking their interaction with Tie2.Patients and methodsThis open-label phase I study examined trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg intravenous (I.V.) once weekly plus sorafenib 400 mg twice per day or sunitinib 50 mg once per day in advanced RCC. Primary end points were adverse event incidence and pharmacokinetics.ResultsThirty-seven patients were enrolled. During trebananib plus sorafenib administration (n = 17), the most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included rash (n = 12; 71%), diarrhea (n = 12; 71%), hypertension (n = 11; 65%), and fatigue (n = 11; 65%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 7; 41%); and 2 patients (12%) had peripheral edema. During trebananib plus sunitinib administration (n = 19), the most common TRAEs included diarrhea (n = 14; 74%), fatigue (n = 13; 68%), hypertension (n = 11; 58%), and decreased appetite (n = 11; 58%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (n = 13; 68%); and 8 (42%) patients had peripheral edema. Trebananib did not appear to alter the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib or sunitinib. No patient developed anti-trebananib antibodies. Objective response rates were 29% (trebananib plus sorafenib) and 53% (trebananib plus sunitinib).ConclusionThe toxicities of trebananib 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg I.V. plus sorafenib or sunitinib in RCC were similar to those of sorafenib or sunitinib monotherapy, with peripheral edema being likely specific to the combinations. Antitumor activity was observed.
| S-EPMC4754667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.MethodsIn this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027.Findings284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively).InterpretationDovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
| S-EPMC5719485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe use of sedation in intensive care units (ICUs) is necessary and ubiquitous. The impact of sedation strategy on outcome, particularly when delivered early after initiation of mechanical ventilation, is unknown. Evidence is increasing that volatile anaesthetic agents could be associated with better outcome. Their use in delirium prevention is unknown.Methods and analysisThis study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, two-arm, randomised, control, open-trial comparing inhaled sedation strategy versus intravenous sedation strategy in mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. Two hundred and fifty patients will be randomly assigned to the intravenous sedation group or inhaled sedation group, with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the sedation strategy. The primary outcome is the occurrence of delirium assessed using two times a day confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes include cognitive and functional outcomes at 3 and 12 months.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (CPP Ouest) and national authorities (ANSM). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04341350.
| S-EPMC7896597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsBetween 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).InterpretationIn 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.FundingNovartis and Pfizer.
| S-EPMC6863151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVentriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) remains the most widely used methods to treat communicating hydrocephalus. More recently, lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) has been suggested as a reasonable option in some studies. However, there is lack of high-quality studies comparing these two techniques in order to certain the benefits and harms to use one of these two methods. The purpose of the current study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of the LPS versus the VPS in patients with communicating hydrocephalus.Methods and analysisAll eligible patients aged 18-90 years with communicating hydrocephalus will be recruited and then randomly allocated into LPS or VPS group in a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be analysed before shunt insertion, at the time of discharge, 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure is the rate of shunt failure at a 2-year follow-up term. The secondary outcomes include Keifer's Hydrocephalus Scale, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, Evans index, safety endpoints and cost-effectiveness of hospital stay.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2002) of the World Medical Association. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board of West China Hospital. All patients will be fully informed the potential benefits, potential risks and responsibilities, those who will sign the informed consents once they are included. Preliminary and final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100043839.
| S-EPMC8395273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvanced melanoma treatments often rely on immunotherapy or targeting mutations, with few treatment options for wild-type BRAF (BRAF-wt) melanoma. However, the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway is activated in most melanoma, including BRAF-wt. We assessed whether inhibiting this pathway by adding kinase inhibitors trametinib or pazopanib to paclitaxel chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with advanced BRAF-wt melanoma in a phase II, randomised and open-label trial.Patients and methodsPatients were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel alone or with trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given for a maximum of six cycles, while 2 mg trametinib and 800 mg pazopanib were administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Participants and investigators were unblinded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR).ResultsParticipants were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n = 38), paclitaxel and trametinib (n = 36), or paclitaxel and pazopanib (n = 37). Adding trametinib significantly improved 6-month PFS [time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.01, P = 0.04] and ORR (42% versus 13%; P = 0.01) but had no effect on OS (P = 0.25). Adding pazopanib did not benefit 6-month PFS; (TR 1.36; 90% CI 0.96-1.93; P = 0.14), ORR, or OS. Toxicity increased in both combination arms.ConclusionIn this phase II trial, adding trametinib to paclitaxel chemotherapy for BRAF-wt melanoma improved PFS and substantially increased ORR but did not impact OS.This study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2011-002545-35, and with the ISRCTN registry, number 43327231.
| S-EPMC6386028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related death. It is a highly vascular tumour with multiple angiogenic factors, most importantly vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), involved in HCC progression. Tivozanib is an oral inhibitor of VEGFR-1/2/3 with promising activity against HCC in vivo.MethodsWe conducted a phase 1b/2 study of tivozanib in patients with advanced HCC. The safety, dosing, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antineoplastic efficacy of tivozanib were evaluated.ResultsTwenty-seven patients received at least one dose of tivozanib. Using a 3+3 design, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of tivozanib was determined to be 1 mg per os once daily, 21 days on-7 days off. The median progression-free and overall survival were 24 weeks and 9 months, respectively, for patients treated at RP2D. The overall response rate was 21%. Treatment was well tolerated. A significant decrease in soluble plasma VEGFR-2 was noted, assuring adequate target engagement.ConclusionsAlthough this study did not proceed to stage 2, there was an early efficacy signal with a very favourable toxicity profile. A phase 1/2 trial of tivozanib in combination with durvalumab is currently underway.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01835223, registered on 15 April 2013.
| S-EPMC7109127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMycophenolate mofetil is an immunosuppressant commonly used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis. It is a known teratogen associated with significant toxicities, including an increased risk of infections and malignancies. Mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal is desirable once disease quiescence is reached, but the timing of when to do so and whether it provides a benefit has not been well-studied. We aimed to determine the effects of mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal on the risk of clinically significant disease reactivation in patients with quiescent SLE on long-term mycophenolate mofetil therapy.MethodsThis multicenter, open-label, randomised trial was conducted in 19 centres in the USA. Eligible patients were aged between 18 and 70 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 SLE criteria, and had a clinical SLEDAI score of less than 4 at screening. Mycophenolate mofetil therapy was required to be stable or decreasing for 2 years or more if initiated for renal indications, or for 1 year or more for non-renal indications. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to a withdrawal group, who tapered off mycophenolate mofetil over 12 weeks, or a maintenance group who maintained their baseline dose (1-3g per day) for 60 weeks. Adaptive random allocation ensured groups were balanced for study site, renal versus non-renal disease, and baseline mycophenolate mofetil dose (≥2 g per day vs <2 g per day). Clinically significant disease reactivation by week 60 following random allocation, requiring increased doses or new immunosuppressive therapy was the primary endpoint, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly allocated participants who began study-provided mycophenolate mofetil). Non-inferiority was evaluated using an estimation-based approach. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01946880) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and April 27, 2018, 123 participants were screened, of whom 102 were randomly allocated to the maintenance group (n=50) or the withdrawal group (n=52). Of the 100 participants included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (49 maintenance, 51 withdrawal), 84 (84%) were women, 16 (16%) were men, 40 (40%) were White, 41 (41%) were Black, and 76 (76%) had a history of lupus nephritis. The average age was 42 (SD 12·7). By week 60, nine (18%) of 51 participants in the withdrawal group had clinically significant disease reactivation, compared to five (10%) of 49 participants in the maintenance group. The risk of clinically significant disease reactivation was 11% (95% CI 5-24) in the maintenance group and 18% (10-32) in the withdrawal group. The estimated increase in the risk of clinically significant disease reactivation with mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal was 7% (one-sided upper 85% confidence limit 15%). Similar rates of adverse events were observed in the maintenance group (45 [90%] of 50 participants) and the withdrawal group (46 [88%] of 52 participants). Infections were more frequent in the mycophenolate mofetil maintenance group (32 [64%]) compared with the withdrawal group (24 [46%]).InterpretationsMycophenolate mofetil withdrawal is not significantly inferior to mycophenolate mofetil maintenance. Estimates for the rates of disease reactivation and increases in risk with withdrawal can assist clinicians in making informed decisions on withdrawing mycophenolate mofetil in patients with stable SLE.FundingThe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.
| S-EPMC10922882 | biostudies-literature