Tivozanib vs sorafenib targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Final results of a phase III trial (901) and efficacy results of a 2nd line tivozanib extension study (902).

Authors

Thomas Hutson

Thomas Hutson

Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX

Thomas Hutson , Dimitry Nosov , Piotr Tomczak , Igor Bondarenko , Cora N. Sternberg , Michael N. Needle , Tim Eisen , Oleg N. Lipatov

Organizations

Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, N.N. Blokhin Cancer Research Center, Department of Clinical Pharmacology & Chemotherapy, Moscow, Russia, Clinical Hospital No. 1 of the Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland, Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, Rome, Italy, AVEO Oncology, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Health Partners, Cambridge, England, Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary, Ufa, Russia

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: An extension and open access study allowed follow up of patients (pts) from TIVO-1 (301), an open label, phase III multinational trial in which pts with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) were randomized to either tivozanib or sorafenib (both VEGF TKIs). TIVO-1 met its primary endpoint of improved median progression free survival (PFS) over sorafenib, but overall survival (OS) was shorter (J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31:3791). Follow up analysis of all pts from that trial is presented. Methods: Pts were treated until documented progression or unacceptable tolerability on both treatments. These pts were followed for OS, investigator assessed PFS, and long term safety. The majority of pts who received first line tivozanib had no subsequent therapy; the majority of pts initially treated with sorafenib were crossed over to tivozanib per protocol. Results: Few second line therapy options were available to pts who discontinued initial tivozanib. Of the 259 tivozanib pts, 69.3% received no subsequent therapy, 11.7% VEGF therapy (not tivozanib), 9.7% mTOR inhibitor therapy, and 10.0% non-targeted therapy. All 257 pts discontinued initial sorafenib therapy and 168 (65.4%) went on to subsequent VEGF therapy (163 treated with tivozanib), 1.2% to mTOR, 2.0% to non targeted therapy, and 31.5% to no additional therapy. Follow up PFS and OS from initial randomization for the 260 pts originally receiving tivozanib was 14.6 and 29.0 mos, and for the 257 pts originally receiving sorafenib was 9.7 and 34.1 mos, respectively (PFS HR = 0.77, OS HR = 1.18). Long term safety assessment of pts who continued tivozanib indicated that incidence of the most common on target AEs (hypertension and dysphonia) decreased over time. For the 163 pts who crossed over from sorafenib to second line tivozanib, median PFS was 11 mos and median OS was 21.6 mos from the start of second line tivozanib. Conclusions: This long term analysis of PFS and OS underscores the positive impact of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib failure in mRCC. Lack of access to second line therapies in pts in the tivozanib arm due to geographical reasons most likely affected trial results. Clinical trial information: NCT01030783, NCT01076010, NCT01369433

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2015 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Genitourinary (Nonprostate) Cancer

Track

Genitourinary Cancer

Sub Track

Kidney Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT01030783, NCT01076010, NCT01369433

Citation

J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr 4557)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.4557

Abstract #

4557

Poster Bd #

231

Abstract Disclosures