TIVO-3: A phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label study to compare tivozanib to sorafenib in subjects with refractory advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Authors

Brian Rini

Brian I. Rini

Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH

Brian I. Rini , Sumanta K. Pal , Bernard Escudier , Michael B. Atkins , Thomas E. Hutson , Camillo Porta , Elena Verzoni , Michael N. Needle , David F. McDermott

Organizations

Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, U1015 INSERM, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris Saclay University, Villejuif, France, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, Baylor Sammons Cancer Center-Texas Oncology, Dallas, TX, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy, Aveo Oncology, Cambridge, MA, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Tivozanib (T) is a biochemically potent and highly selective VEGF tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor in clinical development in RCC. The TIVO-1 trial in treatment naïve or prior cytokine-treated subjects with metastatic (m) RCC showed a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 11.9 months (mos) for T compared to 9.1 mos for sorafenib (S) (p = 0.042, HR = 0.797). However, overall survival (OS) favored sorafenib, likely due to imbalanced crossover to active treatments. TIVO-3 was conducted to confirm the PFS results from TIVO-1. Methods: Subjects with mRCC who failed 2 or 3 prior systemic regimens, one of which included a VEGFR TKI other than S or T, were stratified by IMDC risk category and type of prior therapy (two TKIs; TKI plus checkpoint; TKI + other) then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to T or S. The primary objective was to compare PFS by blinded independent radiological review. 350 subjects were enrolled to yield 244 events with ~88% power to detect a difference of 6 mos vs. 4 mos with a two-sided p-value of 0.05 by the log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were OS, safety, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response. Results: The two arms were well balanced for demographics and prior cancer history.60% of subjects had 2 prior lines of therapy and 40% had 3 prior lines. 28% had prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor. T demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in mPFS compared to S, 5.6 (95% CI 7.3-5.3) v. 3.9 mos (95% CI 5.6-3.7; HR 0.73; p=0.02). PFS rate at 2 years was 18% for T compared to 5% for S. ORR was 18% for T compared to 8% for S. 44% of T treated subjects experienced a grade 3 treatment-related adverse event compared to 55% for S. Subjects on T were less likely to require a dose reduction (24% v. 38%), interruption (48% v. 63%), or discontinuation (21% v. 29%) due to an adverse event than subjects on S. Conclusions: T is superior to S as measured by PFS; 2-year PFS, and ORR in this pre-treated population and is better tolerated than S. OS data will be updated prior to presentation. Clinical trial information: NCT02627963

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

2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

General Session

Session Title

General Session 8: Evolving Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Track

Renal Cell Cancer

Sub Track

Renal Cell Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02627963

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl 7S; abstr 541)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.7_suppl.541

Abstract #

541

Abstract Disclosures