4.7 Article

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 110, Issue 12, Pages 2821-2828

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.244

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In 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. Methods: In 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. Results: Response 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. Conclusions: AXIS 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available