Axitinib versus placebo as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase III, randomized ATLAS trial

M Gross-Goupil, T G Kwon, M Eto, D Ye, H Miyake, S I Seo, S-S Byun, J L Lee, V Master, J Jin, R DeBenedetto, R Linke, M Casey, B Rosbrook, M Lechuga, O Valota, E Grande, D I Quinn, M Gross-Goupil, T G Kwon, M Eto, D Ye, H Miyake, S I Seo, S-S Byun, J L Lee, V Master, J Jin, R DeBenedetto, R Linke, M Casey, B Rosbrook, M Lechuga, O Valota, E Grande, D I Quinn

Abstract

Background: The ATLAS trial compared axitinib versus placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at risk of recurrence after nephrectomy.

Patients and methods: In a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial, patients had >50% clear-cell RCC, had undergone nephrectomy, and had no evidence of macroscopic residual or metastatic disease [independent review committee (IRC) confirmed]. The intent-to-treat population included all randomized patients [≥pT2 and/or N+, any Fuhrman grade (FG), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0/1]. Patients (stratified by risk group/country) received (1 : 1) oral twice-daily axitinib 5 mg or placebo for ≤3 years, with a 1-year minimum unless recurrence, occurrence of second primary malignancy, significant toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) per IRC. A prespecified DFS analysis in the highest-risk subpopulation (pT3, FG ≥ 3 or pT4 and/or N+, any T, any FG) was conducted.

Results: A total of 724 patients (363 versus 361, axitinib versus placebo) were randomized from 8 May 2012, to 1 July 2016. The trial was stopped due to futility at a preplanned interim analysis at 203 DFS events. There was no significant difference in DFS per IRC [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.870; 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.660-1.147; P = 0.3211). In the highest-risk subpopulation, a 36% and 27% reduction in risk of a DFS event (HR; 95% CI) was observed per investigator (0.641; 0.468-0.879; P = 0.0051), and by IRC (0.735; 0.525-1.028; P = 0.0704), respectively. Overall survival data were not mature. Similar adverse events (AEs; 99% versus 92%) and serious AEs (19% versus 14%), but more grade 3/4 AEs (61% versus 30%) were reported for axitinib versus placebo.

Conclusions: ATLAS did not meet its primary end point; however, improvement in DFS per investigator was seen in the highest-risk subpopulation. No new safety signals were reported.

Trial registration number: NCT01599754.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier plot of disease-free survival (DFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population according to independent review committee (IRC) assessment. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; ITT population, intent-to-treat population includes all patients who were randomized, regardless of whether they received study drug.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier plot of DFS in the lower-risk subpopulation according to (A) IRC assessment and (B) investigator assessment. The subpopulation with lower risk of RCC recurrence had pT2 or pT3 with Fuhrman grade (FG) ≤2. RCC, renal cell carcinoma.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Kaplan–Meier plot of DFS in the higher-risk subpopulation according to (A) IRC assessment and (B) investigator assessment. The subpopulation at highest risk of RCC recurrence had pT3 with FG ≥3 or pT4 and/or N+, any T, any FG.

References

    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: kidney cancer. 2018. (19 June 2018, date last accessed).
    1. American Cancer Society. Survival rates for kidney cancer by stage. 2018. (23 April 2018, date last accessed).
    1. Janzen NK, Kim HL, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS.. Surveillance after radical or partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinoma and management of recurrent disease. Urol Clin North Am 2003; 30(4): 843–852.
    1. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT. et al. Postoperative surveillance protocol for patients with localized and locally advanced renal cell carcinoma based on a validated prognostic nomogram and risk group stratification system. J Urol 2005; 174(2): 466–472; discussion 472; quiz 801.
    1. Haas NB, Manola J, Uzzo RG. et al. Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016; 387(10032): 2008–2016.
    1. Motzer RJ, Haas NB, Donskov F. et al. Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant pazopanib versus placebo after nephrectomy in patients with localized or locally advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(35): 3916–3923.
    1. Ravaud A, Motzer RJ, Pandha HS. et al. Adjuvant sunitinib in high-risk renal-cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(23): 2246–2254.
    1. Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P. et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 378(9807): 1931–1939.
    1. Hutson TE, Lesovoy V, Al-Shukri S. et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(13): 1287–1294.
    1. Rini BI, Melichar B, Ueda T. et al. Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(12): 1233–1242.
    1. Atkins MB, Plimack ER, Puzanov I. et al. Axitinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding, and dose-expansion phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19(3): 405–415.
    1. Joensuu H, Eriksson M, Sundby Hall K. et al. One vs three years of adjuvant imatinib for operable gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 307(12): 1265–1272.
    1. Janowitz T, Welsh SJ, Zaki K. et al. Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma-past, present, and future. Semin Oncol 2013; 40(4): 482–491.
    1. Rini B, Goddard A, Knezevic D. et al. A 16-gene assay to predict recurrence after surgery in localised renal cell carcinoma: development and validation studies. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16(6): 676–685.
    1. Brooks SA, Brannon AR, Parker JS. et al. ClearCode34: a prognostic risk predictor for localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2014; 66(1): 77–84.
    1. Sternberg C, Donskov F, Haas NB. et al. Pazopanib exposure relationship with clinical efficacy and safety in the adjuvant treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24(13): 3005–3013.
    1. Suttle AB, Ball HA, Molimard M. et al. Relationships between pazopanib exposure and clinical safety and efficacy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2014; 111(10): 1909–1916.
    1. Houk BE, Bello CL, Poland B. et al. Relationship between exposure to sunitinib and efficacy and tolerability endpoints in patients with cancer: results of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic meta-analysis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2010; 66(2): 357–371.
    1. Sheng X, Bi F, Ren X. et al. First-line axitinib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: exploratory subgroup analyses of Phase III data. Future Oncol 2018. Jul 30 [epub ahead of print], doi:10.2217/fon-2018-0442.
    1. Tomita Y, Fukasawa S, Oya M. et al. Key predictive factors for efficacy of axitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis in Japanese patients from a randomized, double-blind phase II study. Japanese J Clin Oncol 2016; 46(11): 1031–1041.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다