Efficacy and Safety of Vorolanib Plus Everolimus in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Three-Arm, Randomised, Double-Blind, Multicentre Phase III Study (CONCEPT)
Xinan Sheng,DingWei Ye,Aiping Zhou,Xin Yao,Hong Luo,Zhisong He,Zengjun Wang,Yingchao Zhao,Zhigang Ji,Qing Zou,Chaohong He,Jianming Guo,Xinhua Tu,Ziling Liu,Benkang Shi,Ben Liu,Peng Chen,Qiang Wei,Zhiquan Hu,Yanqiao Zhang,Kui Jiang,Fangjian Zhou,Dapeng Wu,Cheng Fu,Xingya Li,Bin Wu,Lijie Wang,Shukui Qin,Gang Li,Yunpeng Liu,Hongqian Guo,Kehe Chen,Dahong Zhang,Gongxian Wang,Lieming Ding,Yang Wang,Xiaobin Yuan,Jun Guo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.10.025
IF: 10.002
2023-01-01
European Journal of Cancer
Abstract:Background: Vorolanib is a highly potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor re-ceptor. This three-arm, randomised, registered study aimed to assess the combination of vor-olanib and everolimus or vorolanib alone versus a control arm of everolimus as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Patients and methods: Patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who had received one prior VEGFR-TKI were randomised (1:1:1) to receive the combination of vorolanib and everolimus or either monotherapy. Patients with brain metastases were excluded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.1.Results: Between 10th March 2017 and 30th May 2019, 399 patients (133 in each group) were enrolled. By the cutoff date (30th April 2020), a significant improvement in PFS was detected in the combination group compared with the everolimus group (10.0 versus 6.4 months; haz-ard ratio, 0.70; P = 0.0171). PFS was similar between the vorolanib group and the everolimus group (median: 6.4 versus 6.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.94; P = 0.6856). A significantly higher objective response rate was observed in the combination group than in the everolimus group (24.8% versus 8.3%; P = 0.0003), whereas there was no significant difference between the vor-olanib group and the everolimus group (10.5% versus 8.3%; P = 0.5278). The overall survival data were immature. A total of 96 (72.2%), 52 (39.1%) and 71 (53.4%) grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in the combination group, vorolanib group and everolimus group, respectively.Conclusions: The addition of vorolanib to everolimus as 2nd-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who have experienced cancer progression after VEGFR-TKI therapy provided a better objective response rate and PFS than everolimus alone with a manageable safety profile.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03095040; Chinadrugtrials, CTR20160987. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).