Tivozanib Versus Sorafenib As Initial Targeted Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From a Phase III Trial

Robert J. Motzer(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Dmitry Nosov(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Timothy Eisen(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Igor Bondarenko(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Vladimir Lesovoy(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Oleg Lipatov(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Piotr Tomczak(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Oleksiy Lyulko(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Anna Alyasova(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Mihai Hârza(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), М. И. Коган(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), B. Yа. Alekseev(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Cora N. Sternberg(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Cezary Szczylik(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), David Cella(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Cristina Ivanescu(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Andrew Krivoshik(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Andrew Strahs(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Brooke Esteves(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Anna Berkenblit(Privolzhsky Research Medical University), Thomas E. Hutson(Privolzhsky Research Medical University)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
September 10, 2013
Cited by 443Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). CONCLUSION: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis