Thomas E Hutson, Salman Al-Shukri, Viktor P Stus, Oleg N Lipatov, Yaroslav Shparyk, Angel H Bair, Brad Rosbrook, Glen I Andrews, Nicholas J Vogelzang
Journal: Clinical genitourinary cancer 2017;15(1):72-76
PMID: 27498023
BACKGROUND
In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96).
RESULTS
Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports.
CONCLUSION
OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.