首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


A randomized,double-blind phase II study evaluating cediranib versus cediranib and saracatinib in patients with relapsed metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (COSAK)
Affiliation:1. Department of Medical Oncology, The Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London;2. Barts Cancer Institute, CRUK Experiment Cancer Medicine Centre, London;3. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield;4. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, West Yorkshire;5. Department of Medical Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London;6. The Beatson Cancer Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow;7. Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie Hospital, Manchester;8. Department of Medical Oncology, Guys and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London;9. Department of Oncology, University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation trust, Bristol;10. Addenbrooke''s Cancer Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge;11. Department of Medical Oncology, West Sussex Cancer Centre, Brighton;12. Cancer Sciences Unit, Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton;13. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth;14. Scottish Clinical Trials Research Unit (SCTRU), Partners in CaCTUS, Edinburgh;15. Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh;16. Department of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
Abstract:BackgroundPreclinical work suggests SRC proteins have a role in the development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (mRCC). This hypothesis was tested in this trial using the SRC inhibitor saracatinib and the VEGF inhibitor cediranib.Patients and methodsPatients with disease progression after ≥1 VEGF-targeted therapy were eligible to participate in this double-blind, randomized (1:1) phase II study. The study compared the combination cediranib 30 mg once daily (o.d.) and saracatinib 175 mg o.d. (CS) (n = 69) or cediranib 45 mg o.d. and placebo o.d. (C) (n = 69). Archived tissue was used for biomarker analysis [SRC, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), von Hippel–Lindau, protein tyrosine phosphatase 1b and hypoxia-inducible factor 2α: n = 86]. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2012, 138 patients were randomized across 16 UK sites. The characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. Partial responses were seen in 13.0% for C and 14.5% for CS (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in PFS [5.4 months (3.6–7.3 months) for C and 3.9 (2.4–5.3 months) for CS; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 (0.94–1.48)] or overall survival (OS) [14.2 months (11.2–16.8 months) for C and 10.0 (6.7–13.2 months) for CS; HR 1.28 (1.00–1.63)]. There was no significant difference in the frequency of key adverse events, dose reductions or drug discontinuations. None of the biomarkers were prognostic for PFS or OS. FAK overexpression correlated with an OS benefit [HR 2.29 (1.09–4.82), P > 0.05], but not PFS, for CS.ConclusionsSaracatinib did not increase the efficacy of a VEGF-targeted therapy (cediranib) in this setting. Biomarker analysis did not identify consistent predictive biomarkers.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00942877.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号