Hand-Foot Syndrome (hfs) and Asthenia/Fatigue (A/F) As Biomarkers of Sunitinib Efficacy in Chinese Patients (pts) with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (Mrcc).

Shukui Qin,Jie Jin,Jun Guo,Jin-Wan Wang,Fang-Jian Zhou,Yi-Ran Huang,Xiu-Bao Ren,Ding-Wei Ye,Sharon Pan,Peter Sajben,Qiao Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.6_suppl.426
IF: 45.3
2013-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e15622 Background: In an open-label phase IV study of sunitinib as 1st-line treatment (Tx) in Chinese pts with mRCC, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 61.7 and 133.4 wk, respectively; objective response rate (ORR) was 31.1% (Ann Oncol 2012;23:851P). We retrospectively investigated correlations between on-Tx HFS or A/F and efficacy endpoints in pts from this trial. Methods: AEs were recorded and graded using NCI CTCAE v3. Median PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan−Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare PFS and OS between groups with and without HFS or A/F. Fisher’s exact test was used for ORR. Multivariate and time-dependent covariate analyses were conducted to assess the influence of various prognostic factors on the association between AEs and efficacy and to address potential bias from longer drug exposure, respectively. Landmark analyses were used to compare outcomes in pts with and without HFS or A/F after 6 and 12 wk of Tx. Results: Of 103 pts included in the analyses, 67 (65%) and 54 (52%) had on-Tx HFS and A/F, respectively. Pts with HFS had greater ORR and significantly longer PFS and OS than pts without HFS (Table). Pts with A/F had greater ORR and longer PFS and OS than pts without A/F. By multivariate analysis, HFS was a significant predictor for both PFS and OS, and A/F was a significant predictor for PFS (Table). However, no findings were significant in the time-dependent covariate (Table) or landmark analyses (not shown). Conclusions: The development of HFS or A/F at any time during Tx with sunitinib was significantly associated with better outcome; however, time-dependent covariate and landmark analyses suggest that these AEs may not be reliable predictors of efficacy at early time points. Clinical trial information: NCT00706706. [Table: see text]
What problem does this paper attempt to address?