TY - JOUR
T1 - Everolimus Versus Sunitinib Prospective Evaluation in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESPN)
T2 - A Randomized Multicenter Phase 2 Trial
AU - Tannir, Nizar M.
AU - Jonasch, Eric
AU - Albiges, Laurence
AU - Altinmakas, Emre
AU - Ng, Chaan S.
AU - Matin, Surena F.
AU - Wang, Xuemei
AU - Qiao, Wei
AU - Dubauskas Lim, Zita
AU - Tamboli, Pheroze
AU - Rao, Priya
AU - Sircar, Kanishka
AU - Karam, Jose A.
AU - McDermott, David F.
AU - Wood, Christopher G.
AU - Choueiri, Toni K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
N2 - Background Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Objective To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). Design, setting, and participants Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression. Outcome measurement and statistical analysis Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus. Results and limitations Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p = 0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p = 0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p = 0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n = 49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p = 0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation. Conclusions In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC. Patient summary This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.
AB - Background Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Objective To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). Design, setting, and participants Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression. Outcome measurement and statistical analysis Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus. Results and limitations Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p = 0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p = 0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p = 0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n = 49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p = 0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation. Conclusions In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC. Patient summary This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.
KW - Everolimus
KW - Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma
KW - Renal cell carcinoma
KW - Sunitinib
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84949494071&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.049
DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.049
M3 - Article
C2 - 26626617
AN - SCOPUS:84949494071
SN - 0302-2838
VL - 69
SP - 866
EP - 874
JO - European Urology
JF - European Urology
IS - 5
ER -