Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma |
| |
Authors: | Robert J. Motzer MD Bernard Escudier MD Stephane Oudard MD PhD Thomas E. Hutson DO PharmD Camillo Porta MD Sergio Bracarda MD Viktor Grünwald MD John A. Thompson MD Robert A. Figlin MD Norbert Hollaender PhD Andrea Kay MD Alain Ravaud MD PhD for the RECORD‐ Study Group |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Medicine, Genitourinary Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New YorkFax: (212) 988‐0719;2. Immunotherapy Unit, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France;3. Oncology Translational Research Unit, Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France;4. Medical Oncology, US Oncology/Baylor‐Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas;5. Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Matteo University Hospital Foundation, Pavia, Italy;6. Medical Oncology, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy;7. Clinic for Hematology, Hemostaseology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany;8. Medical Oncology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington;9. Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California;10. Oncology, Novartis Oncology, Basel, Switzerland;11. Oncology, Novartis Oncology, Florham Park, New Jersey;12. Medical Oncology, Saint André CHU Hospital, Bordeaux, France |
| |
Abstract: | BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N = 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 277) or placebo (n = 139) plus best supportive care. Progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double‐blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank‐preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in ≥5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P = .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank‐preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9‐fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5‐8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society. |
| |
Keywords: | everolimus metastatic renal cell carcinoma phase 3 prognostic factors RAD001 |
|
|