RECORD-4 multicenter phase 2 trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian population subanalysis

Abstract Background RECORD-4 assessed everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progressed after 1 prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or cytokine and reinforced the clinical benefit of second-line everolimus. Because of the high percentage of patients from China enrolled in RECORD-4 (41%) and some reported differences in responses to certain targeted agents between Chinese and Western patients, this subanalysis evaluated outcomes in Asian versus non-Asian patients. Methods RECORD-4 enrolled patients with clear cell mRCC into 3 cohorts based on prior first-line therapy: sunitinib, other anti-VEGF (sorafenib, bevacizumab, pazopanib, other), or cytokines. Patients received everolimus 10 mg/d until progression of disease (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. Primary end point was progression-free survival per investigator review. Data cutoff was Sept 1, 2014. Results Among Asian (n = 55) versus non-Asian (n = 79) patients, 98% versus 84% had good/intermediate MSKCC prognosis; 73% versus 65% were men, and 85% versus 73% were < 65 years of age. All (100%) Asian patients were of Chinese ethnicity. Median duration of exposure was 5.5 mo for Asian and 6.0 mo for non-Asian patients. Among Asian versus non-Asian patients, median progression-free survival (months) was 7.4 versus 7.8 overall, 7.4 versus 4.0 with prior sunitinib, and 5.7 versus 9.2 with prior other anti-VEGFs. Clinical benefit rate was similar between populations: 74.5% (95% CI 61.0–85.3) for Asian patients and 74.7% (95% CI 63.6–83.8) for non-Asian patients. Most patients achieved stable disease as best overall response (Asian, 63.6%; non-Asian, 69.6%). Overall rate of grade 3/4 adverse events appeared similar for Asian (58%) and non-Asian patients (54%). Conclusions This RECORD-4 subanalysis demonstrated comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles of second-line everolimus in Asian and non-Asian patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes by prior therapy should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers in some subpopulations. Trial registration Everolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell. Carcinoma (RECORD-4); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01491672. Registration date: December 14, 2011

Additional files 3: of RECORD-4 multicenter phase 2 trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian population subanalysis

Table S3 Grade 3 and 4 adverse events reported by Asian and non-Asian patients in the overall population and in the first-line therapy cohorts. (DOCX 13 kb

Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a phase III trial

© 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology. Purpose: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. Results: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). Conclusion: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC

Post hoc analysis of the CLEAR study in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Effect of subsequent therapy on survival outcomes in the lenvatinib (LEN) + everolimus (EVE) versus sunitinib (SUN) treatment arms

4562 Background: The multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 CLEAR study showed that LEN + EVE had a significant PFS benefit (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.80, P<0.001) and improved objective response rate (relative risk 1.48, 95% CI 1.26-1.74) vs SUN in the first-line treatment of patients (pts) with advanced RCC. The difference in overall survival (OS) for LEN + EVE vs SUN was not statistically significant (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88-1.50) (Motzer R et al. NEJM. 2021). Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed to assess the impact of subsequent therapy on OS. Methods: Pts in the CLEAR study were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatment arms, including LEN 18 mg + EVE 5 mg once daily (QD) and SUN 50 mg QD (4 weeks on then 2 weeks off). These post hoc analyses examined OS by subsequent systemic anticancer medication in the LEN + EVE and SUN arms. Hazard ratios (HR; LEN + EVE vs SUN) were based on stratified (geographic region and MSKCC prognostic risk groups) Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among 1069 pts with advanced RCC randomized in the CLEAR study, 714 pts were randomly assigned to the LEN + EVE and SUN arms (N=357/each). The median duration of survival follow-up was 27 months in the LEN + EVE arm and 26 months in the SUN arm. Given the shorter median duration of study treatment with SUN (7.8 months) vs LEN + EVE (11.0 months), more pts in the SUN arm received subsequent anticancer therapy during survival follow-up (LEN + EVE, n=167; SUN, n=206). Among pts who received subsequent therapy, pts in the LEN + EVE arm had a longer median time from randomization to initiation of subsequent therapy vs those in the SUN arm (8.0 vs 6.6 months, respectively). OS for the overall population, for pts with no subsequent anticancer therapy, and for pts with no subsequent immunotherapy is shown in the table. In the US population subgroup (LEN + EVE, n=62; SUN, n=61) of the CLEAR study, in which a similar number of pts received subsequent systemic anticancer therapies in the LEN + EVE vs SUN arms (62.9% vs 65.6%, respectively), OS was comparable among the 2 arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51-1.76). Overall, the safety profile was consistent with the known safety profiles of LEN + EVE and SUN. In both arms, most treatment-emergent deaths were due to progressive disease; there were few treatment-related deaths (<1%, per arm) and no clustering of events. Conclusions: In the CLEAR study, LEN + EVE met the primary endpoint of a significant benefit in PFS vs SUN. The results of these exploratory analyses suggest that subsequent systemic anticancer therapy affected the OS outcome results for LEN + EVE vs SUN in the CLEAR study. Clinical trial information: NCT02811861. [Table: see text

Tivozanib Versus Sorafenib As Initial Targeted Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From a Phase III Trial

© 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology. Purpose: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. Results: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). Conclusion: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study

JCO We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.)