Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the treatment of patients with immunotherapy‐resistant advanced renal cell carcinoma Detecting an overall survival benefit that is derived from progression-free survival. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update.
BACKGROUND The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis . So far , no phase 3 r and omised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported . We did a r and omised phase 3 study comparing axitinib , a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) receptors , with sorafenib , an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor , as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer . METHODS We included patients coming from 175 sites ( hospitals and outpatient clinics ) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib , bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa , temsirolimus , or cytokines .  Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then r and omly assigned ( 1:1 ) to either axitinib ( 5 mg twice daily ) or sorafenib ( 400 mg twice daily ) . Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg , twice daily , were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2 . Participants were not masked to study treatment . The primary endpoint was progression-free survival ( PFS ) and was assessed by a masked , independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat . This trial was registered on Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00678392 . FINDINGS A total of 723 patients were enrolled and r and omly assigned to receive axitinib ( n=361 ) or sorafenib ( n=362 ) . The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib ( hazard ratio 0·665 ; 95 % CI 0·544 - 0·812 ; one-sided p<0·0001 ) . Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 ( 4 % ) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 ( 8 % ) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib . The most common adverse events were diarrhoea , hypertension , and fatigue in the axitinib arm , and diarrhoea , palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia , and alopecia in the sorafenib arm . INTERPRETATION Axitinib result ed in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib . Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma . FUNDING Pfizer PURPOSE Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial ( TARGET ) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) are reported . PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine hundred three previously treated patients were r and omly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo . On demonstration of progression-free survival ( PFS ) benefit with sorafenib , patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib .  Overall survival ( OS ) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis , with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib . The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated . RESULTS The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo ( 17.8 v 15.2 months , respectively ; hazard ratio [ HR ] = 0.88 ; P = .146 ) ; however , when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored , the difference became significant ( 17.8 v 14.3 months , respectively ; HR = 0.78 ; P = .029 ) . Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported . Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ( P < .0001 ) , Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score ( P < .0001 ) , and PFS and OS in univariate ( PFS , P = .0013 ; OS , P = .0009 ) and multivariate ( PFS , P = .0231 ; OS , P = .0416 ) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib ( P = .0145 ) . Both high-VEGF ( P < .01 ) and low-VEGF ( P < .01 ) groups benefited from sorafenib . CONCLUSION Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis , results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib , suggesting an important cross-over effect . VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC . The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC BACKGROUND We conducted a phase 3 , r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib , a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis , in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma . METHODS From November 2003 to March 2005 , we r and omly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to st and ard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib ( at a dose of 400 mg twice daily ) or placebo ;  451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo .  The primary end point was overall survival . A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo . Consequently , crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib , beginning in May 2005 . RESULTS At the January 2005 cutoff , the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group ( hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group , 0.44 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.35 to 0.55 ; P<0.01 ) . The first interim analysis of overall survival in May 2005 showed that sorafenib reduced the risk of death , as compared with placebo ( hazard ratio , 0.72 ; 95 % CI , 0.54 to 0.94 ; P=0.02 ) , although this benefit was not statistically significant according to the O'Brien-Fleming threshold . Partial responses were reported as the best response in 10 % of patients receiving sorafenib and in 2 % of those receiving placebo ( P<0.001 ) . Diarrhea , rash , fatigue , and h and -foot skin reactions were the most common adverse events associated with sorafenib . Hypertension and cardiac ischemia were rare serious adverse events that were more common in patients receiving sorafenib than in those receiving placebo . CONCLUSIONS As compared with placebo , treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed ; however , treatment is associated with increased toxic effects . ( Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00073307 [ Clinical Trials.gov ] . ) BACKGROUND Everolimus ( RAD001 ) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin ( mTOR ) , a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma . We did a phase III , r and omised , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy . METHODS Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib , sorafenib , or both , were r and omly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily ( n=272 )  or placebo  ( n=138 ) , in conjunction with best supportive care . R and omisation was done central ly via an interactive voice response system using a vali date d computer system , and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy , with a permuted block size of six . The primary endpoint was progression-free survival , assessed via a blinded , independent central review . The study was design ed to be terminated after 290 events of progression . Analysis was by intention to treat . This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov , number NCT00410124 . FINDINGS All r and omised patients were included in efficacy analyses . The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed ( 101 [ 37 % ] events in the everolimus group , 90 [ 65 % ] in the placebo group ; hazard ratio 0.30 , 95 % CI 0.22 - 0.40 , p<0.0001 ; median progression-free survival 4.0 [ 95 % CI 3.7 - 5.5 ] vs 1.9 [ 1.8 - 1.9 ] months ) . Stomatitis ( 107 [ 40 % ] patients in the everolimus group vs 11 [ 8 % ] in the placebo group ) , rash ( 66 [ 25 % ] vs six [ 4 % ] ) , and fatigue ( 53 [ 20 % ] vs 22 [ 16 % ] ) were the most commonly reported adverse events , but were mostly mild or moderate in severity . Pneumonitis ( any grade ) was detected in 22 ( 8 % ) patients in the everolimus group , of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity . INTERPRETATION Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies Currently , there is no st and ard treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) who do not experience a response to first‐line immunotherapy . In the current Phase II study , the authors explored the antitumor activity of a combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin ( L‐OHP ) in this setting BACKGROUND Whether progression-free survival ( PFS ) or overall survival ( OS ) is the more appropriate endpoint in clinical trials of metastatic cancer is controversial . In some disease and treatment setting s , an improvement in PFS does not result in an improved OS . METHODS We partitioned OS into two parts and expressed it as the sum of PFS and survival postprogression ( SPP ) . We simulated r and omized clinical trials with two arms that had respective medians for PFS of 6 and 9 months . We assumed no treatment difference in median SPP . We found the probability of a statistically significant benefit in OS for various median SPP and observed P values for PFS . We compared the sample sizes required for PFS vs OS for various median SPP . We compare our results with the literature regarding surrogacy of PFS for OS by use of the correlation between hazard ratios for PFS and OS . All statistical tests were two-sided . RESULTS For a trial with observed P value for improvement in PFS of .001 , there was a greater than 90 % probability for statistical significance in OS if median SPP was 2 months but less than 20 % if median SPP was 24 months . For a trial requiring 280 patients to detect a 3-month difference in PFS  , 350 and 2440 patients , respectively , were required to have the same power for detecting a real difference in OS that is carried over from the 3-month benefit in PFS when the median SPP was 2 and 24 months . CONCLUSIONS Addressing SPP is important in underst and ing treatment effects . For clinical trials with a PFS benefit , lack of statistical significance in OS does not imply lack of improvement in OS , especially for diseases with long median SPP . Although there may be no treatment effect on SPP , its variability so dilutes the OS comparison that statistical significance is likely lost . OS is a reasonable primary endpoint when median SPP is short but is too high a bar when median SPP is long , such as longer than 12 months CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES The European Association of Urology Guideline Group for renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) has prepared these guidelines to help clinicians assess the current evidence -based management of RCC and to incorporate the present recommendations into daily clinical practice . EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The recommendations provided in the current up date d guidelines are based on a thorough review of available RCC guidelines and review articles combined with a systematic literature search using Medline and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials . EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A number of recent prospect i ve r and omised studies concerning RCC are now available with a high level of evidence , whereas earlier publications were based on retrospective analyses , including some larger multicentre validation studies , meta-analyses , and well- design ed controlled studies . CONCLUSIONS These guidelines contain information for the treatment of an individual patient according to a current st and ardised general approach . Up date d recommendations concerning diagnosis , treatment , and follow-up can improve the clinical h and ling of patients with RCC
OBJECTIVES A systematic review /meta- analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma ( RCC ) , which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib .