First-Line Axitinib Versus Sorafenib In Asian Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (Mrcc): Subgroup Analysis Of Data From A Phase Iii Trial

X. Sheng,F. Bi,X. Ren,Y. Cheng,J. Wang,B. Rosbrook,M. Jiang,J. Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx661.004
IF: 51.769
2017-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: Axitinib has demonstrated clinical activity in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC but there was no significant improvement in progress-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib. We evaluated efficacy and safety in a subgroup of Asian patients from this trial. Methods: The analyses included 48 and 24 mRCC patients randomized to first-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and then randomly assigned (2:1) to receive twice daily 5 mg axitinib or 400 mg sorafenib. Independently-assessed PFS was the primary endpoint. Results: PFS, OS and ORR data are presented in the Table. Median OS was longer with axitinib vs sorafenib (31.5 vs 23.3 months). Median (range) months on treatment was 12.3 (0.4-24.4) on axitinib and 5.8 (0.2-20.2) on sorafenib. Most common adverse events (AEs) on axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 57.4%), diarrhoea (55.3%) and hypertension (51.1%), and on sorafenib, PPE (50.0%), cough (33.3%) and diarrhoea (29.2%). The mean values on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI)-15, FKSI- Disease-Related Symptoms, and the EuroQoL utility score were similar for the two treatment arms throughout the study. At the end of treatment, the observed change from baseline was not significantly different between the two groups.Table: 276P Efficacy outcomesAll patientsECOG PS 0ECOG PS 1Axitinib (n = 48)Sorafenib (n = 24)Axitinib (n = 20)Sorafenib (n = 10)Axitinib (n = 28)Sorafenib (n = 14)Progression-free survivalNo. of events271486198Median (95% CI), months10.1 (6.5-17.5)6.5 (4.1-14.1)NR (12.0-NR)8.3 (4.1-NR)6.6 (2.9-8.7)5.5 (1.6-14.1)HR (95% CI)0.652 (0.340-1.252)0.360 (0.123-1.053)0.864 (0.374-1.995)P-value0.09890.02510.3689Overall survivalNo. of events271677209Median (95% CI), months31.5 (18.9-NR)23.3 (17.2-41.4)NR (29.9-NR)23.8 (9.7-NR)20.3 (12.7-34.7)23.3 (7.1-NR)HR0.739 (0.397-1.375)0.411 (0.144-1.179)1.038 (0.469-2.298)P-value0.16830.04390.5370ORR, %35.416.755.020.021.414.3P-value0.04950.03410.2892CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; NR=not reached; ORR=objective response rate. Open table in a new tab CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; NR=not reached; ORR=objective response rate. Conclusions: First-line axitinib improved PFS, OS and ORR in Asian patients with mRCC who had ECOG PS 0 at baseline, consistent with the overall study. AEs in Asian patients were in line with AEs previously reported for axitinib and sorafenib. Clinical trial indentification: NCT00920816 Legal entity responsible for the study: Pfizer Funding: Pfizer Disclosure: B. Rosbrook: Employee of and owns stock in Pfizer, M. Jiang: Employee of Pfizer All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?