• B Escudier, M D Michaelson, R J Motzer, T E Hutson, J I Clark, H Y Lim, E Porfiri, P Zalewski, G Kannourakis, M Staehler, J Tarazi, B Rosbrook, L Cisar, S Hariharan, S Kim, and B I Rini.
• Institut Gustave Roussy/Medical Oncology Department, Villejuif 94805, France.
• Br. J. Cancer. 2014 Jun 10; 110 (12): 2821-8.

BackgroundIn the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines.MethodsIn post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated.ResultsResponse to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy.ConclusionsAXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

41 keywords...

hide…