Armstrong Andrew J, Halabi Susan, Eisen Tim, Broderick Samuel, Stadler Walter M, Jones Robert J, Garcia Jorge A, Vaishampayan Ulka N, Picus Joel, Hawkins Robert E, Hainsworth John D, Kollmannsberger Christian K, Logan Theodore F, Puzanov Igor, Pickering Lisa M, Ryan Christopher W, Protheroe Andrew, Lusk Christine M, Oberg Sadie, George Daniel J
Duke University and the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University and the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar;17(3):378-388. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00515-X. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445.
Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none).
In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors.
Novartis and Pfizer.
非透明细胞肾细胞癌是组织学和遗传学上具有多样性的肾癌,预后各异,其最佳初始治疗方案尚不清楚。我们旨在比较mTOR抑制剂依维莫司和VEGF受体抑制剂舒尼替尼在非透明细胞肾细胞癌患者中的疗效。
我们纳入了既往无全身治疗史的转移性乳头状、嫌色细胞或未分类非透明细胞肾细胞癌患者。患者被随机分配(1:1)接受依维莫司(10mg/天)或舒尼替尼(50mg/天;6周为一个周期,4周治疗,随后2周停药)口服给药,直至疾病进展或出现不可接受的毒性反应。随机分组按纪念斯隆凯特琳癌症中心风险组和乳头状组织学进行分层。主要终点是意向性治疗人群中采用RECIST 1.1标准的无进展生存期。对所有随机分配接受治疗的患者进行安全性评估。本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,编号为NCT01108445。
在2010年9月23日至2013年10月28日期间,108例患者被随机分配接受舒尼替尼(n = 51)或依维莫司(n = 57)治疗。截至2014年12月,发生了87例无进展生存事件,还有2例患者仍在接受治疗,该试验因主要分析而结束。与依维莫司相比,舒尼替尼显著提高了无进展生存期(8.3个月[80%CI 5.8 - 11.4]对5.6个月[5.5 - 6.0];风险比1.41[80%CI 1.03 - 1.92];p = 0.16),尽管根据组织学亚型和预后风险组观察到治疗效果存在异质性。未报告意外的毒性反应,最常见的3 - 4级不良事件为高血压(舒尼替尼组51例患者中有12例[24%],依维莫司组57例患者中有1例[2%])、感染(6例[12%]对4例[7%])、腹泻(5例[10%]对1例[2%])、肺炎(舒尼替尼组无,依维莫司组5例[9%])、口腔炎(舒尼替尼组无,依维莫司组5例[9%])和手足综合征(舒尼替尼组4例[8%],依维莫司组无)。
在转移性非透明细胞肾细胞癌患者中,与依维莫司相比,舒尼替尼改善了无进展生存期。未来新型药物的试验应考虑基于基因、组织学和预后因素的疾病结局异质性。
诺华公司和辉瑞公司。