Barts Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Thomas Powles , Laurence Albiges , Katriina Johanna Jalkanen , Guillermo De Velasco , Mauricio Burotto , Pooja Ghatalia , Cristina Suárez , Elaine T. Lam , Roberto Iacovelli , Mahmut Gumus , Elena Verzoni , Christian K. Kollmannsberger , Walter Michael Stadler , Balaji Venugopal , Reshma Shinde , Todd L. Saretsky , Li He , Donna Vickery , Toni K. Choueiri , Brian I. Rini
Background: In the randomized, open-label, phase 3 LITESPARK-005 (NCT04195750) study, belzutifan treatment showed superior PFS (primary endpoint; HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.63–0.90]; P<.001) and ORR (key secondary endpoint; estimated percentage-point difference 18.4 [95% CI 14.0–23.2]; P<.00001) vs everolimus in pts with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC that progressed after prior immune checkpoint and anti-angiogenic therapies. We present PRO findings for belzutifan vs everolimus in LITESPARK-005. Methods: PROs were evaluated by FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires in all randomized pts with ≥1 dose study treatment and ≥1 completed PROs assessment, administered electronically on d 1 of wk 1, 3, 5, and 9, Q4W thereafter, at treatment discontinuation, and d 30 after last dose. Time to deterioration (TTD) and least square (LS) mean change from baseline as measured by FKSI-DRS and QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and physical functioning (PF) scales were prespecified as secondary endpoints. PROs were not formally statistically tested and 95% CI and P-values were nominal and descriptive. Results: As of June 13, 2023 (data cutoff date at second prespecified interim analysis), median (range) follow-up was 25.7 mo (16.8–39.1). Median (range) duration of treatment was 7.6 mo (0.1–35.8) with belzutifan vs 3.9 mo (0.0–33.2) with everolimus; 84 (22.6%) vs 18 (5.0%) pts remained on treatment. 366 of 374 pts randomized to belzutifan and 354 of 372 pts randomized to everolimus were included in the PRO analysis population. Completion rates for FKSI-DRS and QLQ-C30 were >90% at baseline and >55% at wk 17 (~4 mo) in each arm. Meaningfully longer TTD in FKSI-DRS and QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores were observed for belzutifan vs everolimus (Table). LS mean changes in FKSI-DRS and QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores suggested stability from baseline to wk 17 with belzutifan vs worsening with everolimus, and a potential greater worsening in PF scores with everolimus vs belzutifan. Conclusions: Belzutifan was associated with prolonged TTD in FKSI-DRS and EORTC QLQ-C30. Score changes from baseline to wk 17 also favored belzutifan over everolimus. Overall, PRO results indicate better disease-specific symptoms and quality of life among pts treated with belzutifan compared with everolimus. Clinical trial information: NCT04195750.
FKSI-DRS | QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL | QLQ-C30 PF | |
---|---|---|---|
Belzutifan median TTD, mo | Not reached | 19.35 | 19.32 |
Everolimus median TTD, mo | 11.99 | 10.19 | 13.83 |
TTD HR (95% CI) | 0.53 (0.41-0.69) | 0.75 (0.58-0.96) | 0.93 (0.72-1.20) |
Nominal P-value for TTD | <.0001 | .019 | .55 |
Belzutifan LS mean change (95% CI) | −0.17 (−0.70-0.36) | 0.28 (−1.98-2.53) | −4.75 (−6.87-−2.63) |
Everolimus LS mean change (95% CI) | −1.62 (−2.17-−1.06) | −6.11 (−8.51-−3.70) | −7.22 (−9.47-−4.98) |
Difference in LS means (95% CI) | 1.45 (0.70-2.19) | 6.38 (3.21-9.55) | 2.47 (−0.59-5.54) |
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 Disclosures
2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program
First Author: Toni K. Choueiri
2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Toni K. Choueiri
2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Robert J. Motzer
2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Saby George