Is there a "Trial Effect" on Outcome of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Sunitinib?
ABSTRACT: Studies suggested the existence of a 'trial effect', in which for a given treatment, participation in a clinical trial is associated with a better outcome. Sunitinib is a standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to study the effect of clinical trial participation on the outcome of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib, which at present, is poorly defined.The records of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib between 2004-2013 in 7 centers across 2 countries were reviewed. We compared the response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), between clinical trial participants (n=49) and a matched cohort of non-participants (n=49) who received standard therapy. Each clinical trial participant was individually matched with a non-participant by clinicopathologic factors. PFS and OS were determined by Cox regression.The groups were matched by age (median 64), gender (male 67%), Heng risk (favorable 25%, intermediate 59%, poor 16%), prior nephrectomy (92%), RCC histology (clear cell 86%), pre-treatment NLR (>3 in 55%, n=27), sunitinib induced hypertension (45%), and sunitinib dose reduction/treatment interruption (41%). In clinical trial participants versus non-participants, RR was partial response/stable disease 80% (n=39) versus 74% (n=36), and progressive disease 20% (n=10) versus 26% (n=13) (p=0.63, OR 1.2). The median PFS was 10 versus 11 months (HR=0.96, p=0.84), and the median OS 23 versus 24 months (HR=0.97, p=0.89).In mRCC patients treated with sunitinib, the outcome of clinical trial participants was similar to that of non-participants who received standard therapy.
Project description:BACKGROUND:We performed a pooled analysis of the COMPARZ study assessing efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve Chinese patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC). METHODS:In the COMPARZ study, patients were randomized (1:1) to receive pazopanib 800?mg once daily (QD) continuously or sunitinib 50?mg QD in 6-week?cycles (4?weeks on, 2?weeks off). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. PFS and ORR were assessed by independent review committee (IRC) and local investigators. RESULTS:Of the 209 Chinese patients (pazopanib, [n?=?109] and sunitinib, [n?=?100]), 155 (74%) were males and median age was 57?years (range, 18-79). Median PFS was 13.9?months for pazopanib versus 14.3?months for sunitinib per investigator assessment and 8.3?months in both arms per IRC assessment; PFS hazard ratio was 1.17 (investigator) and 0.99 (IRC). Median OS was not reached in pazopanib arm and was 29.5?months in sunitinib arm. ORR was significantly higher in pazopanib arm versus sunitinib arm (investigator: 41% versus 23% [P?=?0.0052]; IRC: 35% versus 20% [P?=?0.0203]). Pazopanib was generally well tolerated in Chinese patients with a/mRCC. Most frequent AEs in the pazopanib arm were diarrhea and hair color changes whereas the most frequent AEs in the sunitinib arm were decreased platelets, decreased neutrophil count, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION:The results of the pooled analysis were consistent with the overall population in the COMPARZ study, and confirmed similar PFS and OS of pazopanib and sunitinib in the Chinese patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinical trials.gov, NCT00720941 (August 14, 2008) and NCT01147822 (May 19, 2010).
Project description:BACKGROUND:We characterized clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib who were long-term responders (LTRs), defined as patients having progression-free survival (PFS) > 18 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS:A retrospective analysis of data from 5714 patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib in 8 phase II/III clinical trials and the expanded access program. Duration on-study and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between LTRs and patients with PFS ? 18 months ("others"). PFS and overall survival (OS) were summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS:Overall, 898 (15.7%) patients achieved a long-term response and 4816 (84.3%) patients did not achieve long-term response. The median (range) duration on-study was 28.6 (16.8-70.7) months in LTRs and 5.5 (0-68.8) months in others. ORR was 51% in LTRs versus 14% in others (P < .0001). Median PFS in LTRs was 32.11 months and median OS was not reached. LTRs had higher percentage of early tumor shrinkage ? 10% at the first scan (67.1% vs. 51.2%; P = .0018) and greater median maximum on-study tumor shrinkage from baseline (-56.9 vs. -27.1; P < .0001) versus others. White race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, time from diagnosis to treatment ? 1 year, clear cell histology, no liver metastasis, lactate dehydrogenase ? 1.5 upper limit of normal (ULN), corrected calcium ? 10 mg/dL, hemoglobin greater than the lower limit of normal, platelets less than or equal to ULN, body mass index ? 25 kg/m2, and low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were associated with LTR. CONCLUSION:A subset of patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib achieved long-term response. LTRs had improved ORR, PFS, and OS.
Project description:VEGFR1 rs9582036 and rs9554320 were previously reported the association with sunitinib progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Hereafter, the association of both single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with PFS/OS was confirmed in two independent mRCC cohorts. The aim of the current study was to validate the associations of both SNPs with sunitinib outcome in three independent well-characterized cohorts (SUTOX, CCF and SOGUG) including 286 sunitinib-treated mRCC patients, as well as to perform a meta-analysis of current and published data combined. We found that rs9582036 and rs9554320 showed a significant association with sunitinib PFS in the CCF cohort (HR: 0.254, 95%CI: 0.092-0.703; P=0.008 and HR: 0.430, 95%CI: 0.200-0.927; P=0.031, respectively). Patients with the variant genotype of rs9582036 and rs9554320 had a shorter median PFS. No significant association of both SNPs with sunitinib PFS or OS was detected in either the SUTOX or SOGUG cohort. After the combination of all available data into a meta-analysis, the association of both SNPs with sunitinib PFS or OS did not achieve the threshold for statistical significance. Our findings suggest that, although VEGFR1 rs9582036 and rs9554320 are involved in sunitinib therapy outcome, its clinical use as biomarkers for prediction of sunitinib outcome in mRCC patients is limited, due to inconsistent findings when analyzing all existing studies together.
Project description:Currently, sunitinib represents one of the therapeutic strongholds for renal cell carcinoma, but the criteria for treatment selection are lacking. We assessed the role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) polymorphisms in the prediction of the clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients.A total of 84 tumour samples from mRCC patients receiving first-line sunitinib were tested for VEGF and VEGFR single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The SNP results were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Median PFS was 8.22 months, although whereas median OS was 32.13 months. The VEGF A rs833061 resulted significant in PFS (17 vs 4 months; P<0.0001) and OS (38 vs 10 months; P<0.0001). The VEGF A rs699947 was significant for PFS (18 vs 4 months; P=0.0001) and OS (37 vs 16 months; P<0.0001). The VEGF A rs2010963 was significant in PFS (18 vs 8 vs 2 months; P=0.0001) and OS (31 vs 36 vs 9 months; P=0.0045). The VEGR3 rs6877011 was significant in PFS (12 vs 4 months; P=0.0075) and OS (36 vs 17 months; P=0.0001). At multivariate analysis, rs833061, rs2010963 and rs68877011 were significant in PFS, and rs833061 and rs68877011 were independent factors in OS.In our analysis, patients with TT polymorphism of rs833061, CC polymorphism of rs699947, CC polymorphism of rs2010963 and CG polymorphism of rs6877011 seem to have a worse PFS and OS when receiving first-line sunitinib.
Project description:To summarize and clarify the association between vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) polymorphisms and the outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib. A total of 8 studies including 900 patients were analyzed in this systematic review after screening the database of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the strength of the association. VEGFR1 rs9582036 AA/AC carriers and rs9554320 CC/AC carriers had more favorable overall survival (OS) in patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib (n = 3), but not in progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, VEGFA rs2010963 was associated with poorer PFS of mRCC (n = 1). VEGFA rs699947 was significant in predicting PFS by univariate analysis, but showed no statistical significance in OS (n = 1). VEGFR2 rs1870377 was verified to be associated with sunitinib OS (n = 1). Furthermore, patients with VEGFR3 rs307826 and rs307821 had shorter PFS and OS during sunitinib therapy (n = 2, respectively). Our results suggested that VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms were associated with outcomes in sunitinib treated mRCC patients, especially VEGFR1 polymorphisms. However, considering the limited study numbers, its clinical application in sunitinib treated mRCC still needs further confirmation.
Project description:We report final results with extended follow-up from a global, expanded-access trial that pre-regulatory approval provided sunitinib to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, ineligible for registration-directed trials.Patients ?18 years received oral sunitinib 50?mg per day on a 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule. Safety was assessed regularly. Tumour measurements were scheduled per local practice.A total of 4543 patients received sunitinib. Median treatment duration and follow-up were 7.5 and 13.6 months. Objective response rate was 16% (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-17). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-10.0) and 18.7 months (95% CI: 17.5-19.5). Median PFS in subgroups of interest: aged ?65 years (33%), 10.1 months; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ?2 (14%), 3.5 months; non-clear cell histology (12%), 6.0 months; and brain metastases (7%), 5.3 months. OS was strongly associated with the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model (n=4065). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (10%), fatigue (9%), and asthenia, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome (each 7%).Final analysis of the sunitinib expanded-access trial provided a good opportunity to evaluate the long-term side effects of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor used worldwide in mRCC. Efficacy and safety findings were consistent with previous results.
Project description: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 <?.01), especially in terms of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. AEs occurring at a lower frequency with anlotinib were hand-foot syndrome, eyelid edema, hair depigmentation, skin yellowing, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The incidence of serious AEs was lower with anlotinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSION:The clinical efficacy of anlotinib was similar to that of sunitinib as the first-line treatment for mRCC, but with a more favorable safety profile. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anlotinib for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Anlotinib, which was developed independently in China, is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting multiple kinases involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. Results indicated that the efficacy of anlotinib is comparable to and the safety is better than that of sunitinib.
Project description:Background:RECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points. Patients and methods:Patients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n?=?238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n?=?233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored. Results:At final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1-26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0-29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9-1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6-33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8-33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9-1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences. Conclusions:Results of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals. Clinical Trials number:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175.
Project description:This international phase III trial (Investigating Torisel As Second-Line Therapy [INTORSECT]) compared the efficacy of temsirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) and sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after disease progression on sunitinib.In total, 512 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly (n = 259) or oral sorafenib 400 mg twice per day (n = 253), with stratification according to duration of prior sunitinib therapy (? or > 180 days), prognostic risk, histology (clear cell or non-clear cell), and nephrectomy status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee assessment. Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points.Primary analysis revealed no significant difference between treatment arms for PFS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07; two-sided P = .19) or ORR. Median PFS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms were 4.3 and 3.9 months, respectively. There was a significant OS difference in favor of sorafenib (stratified HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.63; two-sided P = .01). Median OS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms was 12.3 and 16.6 months, respectively. Safety profiles of both agents were consistent with previous studies.In patients with mRCC and progression on sunitinib, second-line temsirolimus did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with sorafenib. The longer OS observed with sorafenib suggests sequenced VEGFR inhibition may benefit patients with mRCC.
Project description:BACKGROUND:RECORD-1 demonstrated clinical benefit of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, or both; prior treatment with cytokines, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy was also permitted. RECORD-4 prospectively assessed everolimus in a purely second-line setting. METHODS:Patients with clear-cell mRCC were enrolled into one of three cohorts based on first-line therapy with sunitinib, other anti-VEGF agents, or cytokines. Patients were treated with everolimus 10 mg/day until progression (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator review. Data cutoff was 1 September 2014, for the primary analysis and 26 June 2015, for the final overall survival (OS) analysis. RESULTS:Enrolled patients (N = 134) previously received sunitinib (n = 58), other anti-VEGF therapy (n = 62; sorafenib, 23; bevacizumab, 16; pazopanib, 13; tivozanib, 5; and axitinib, 3), or cytokines (n = 14). Overall median age was 59 years, and most patients were men (68%) and of favorable/intermediate MSKCC risk (52/37%). Overall median PFS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-11.0]; in the cohorts, it was 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7-11.3) with previous sunitinib, 7.8 months (95% CI 5.7-11.0) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and 12.9 months [95% CI 2.6-not estimable (NE)] with previous cytokines. Overall, 67% of patients achieved stable disease as their best objective response. At final OS analysis, total median OS was 23.8 months (95% CI 17.0-NE) and, in the cohorts, it was 23.8 months (95% CI 13.7-NE) with previous sunitinib, 17.2 months (95% CI 11.9-NE) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and NE (95% CI 15.9-NE) with previous cytokine-based therapy. Overall, 56% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (regardless of relationship to study drug). CONCLUSIONS:These results confirm the PFS benefit of second-line everolimus after first-line sunitinib or other anti-VEGF therapies. The safety profile of everolimus was consistent with previous experience. CLINICAL TRIAL NAME AND IDENTIFIER:Everolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RECORD-4), ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01491672.