3 443

Cited 305 times in

Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential First-Line Everolimus and Second-Line Sunitinib Versus First-Line Sunitinib and Second-Line Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Authors
 Robert J. Motzer  ;  Carlos H. Barrios  ;  Tae Min Kim  ;  Silvia Falcon  ;  Thomas Cosgriff  ;  W. Graydon Harker  ;  Vichien Srimuninnimit  ;  Ken Pittman  ;  Roberto Sabbatini  ;  Sun Young Rha  ;  Thomas W. Flaig  ;  Ray Page  ;  Sevil Bavbek  ;  J. Thaddeus Beck  ;  Poulam Patel  ;  Foon-yiu Cheung  ;  Sunil Yadav  ;  Edward M. Schiff  ;  Xufang Wang  ;  Julie Niolat  ;  Dalila Sellami  ;  Oezlem Anak  ;  Jennifer J. Knox 
Citation
 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, Vol.32(25) : 2765-2772, 2014 
Journal Title
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
ISSN
 0732-183X 
Issue Date
2014
MeSH
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage* ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy* ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell/pathology ; Cross-Over Studies ; Disease-Free Survival ; Drug Administration Schedule ; Everolimus ; Female ; Humans ; Indoles/administration & dosage ; Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Kidney Neoplasms/pathology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Pyrroles/administration & dosage ; Sirolimus/administration & dosage ; Sirolimus/analogs & derivatives ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult
Abstract
PURPOSE:
A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS:
Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively).
CONCLUSION:
Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.
Full Text
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/32/25/2765.long
DOI
10.1200/JCO.2013.54.6911
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Rha, Sun Young(라선영) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2512-4531
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/100368
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links