Axitinib versus sorafenib as second‑line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from a registrational study.

Abstract

LBA4537 Notice of Retraction: "Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from a registrational study." Abstract LBA4537, published in the 2012 Annual Meeting Proceedings Part II, a supplement to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, has been retracted by Shukui Qin, MD, on behalf of all authors of the abstract. The adjudication portion of the Independent Review Committee (IRC) tumor assessments were incomplete for some of the ongoing patients in the study reported in the abstract and the adjudication could not be completed in time for presentation at the 2012 ASCO Annual Meeting. Background: An earlier phase III trial in 723 patients with previously treated mRCC demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, compared with sorafenib. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial to estimate PFS for axitinib and sorafenib in 204 Asian patients with previously treated mRCC. Methods: Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1 and measurable, clear-cell, mRCC that had progressed after 1 prior first-line systemic regimen (sunitinib or cytokines) were randomly assigned (2:1) to 28-day cycles of axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Axitinib dose reductions and stepwise dose titrations to 7 mg BID and then 10 mg BID, as tolerated, were allowed; sorafenib dose reductions to 400 mg daily or every other day were also allowed. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee. Results: Patients were stratified by ECOG PS and prior first-line systemic therapy: 135 received axitinib and 69 received sorafenib.Baseline patient characteristics included median age 56 years, 70% male, 99% Asian, and 63% ECOG PS 0. Prior therapy included sunitinib (45%) or cytokines (53%). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval: 4.6, 8.3) with axitinib and 4.8 months (2.8, 6.5) with sorafenib. Objective response rates were 23.7% with axitinib and 10.1% with sorafenib. All-grade adverse events in ≥15% of patients (axitinib, sorafenib) included hypertension (50%, 36%), weight decreased (37%, 33%), diarrhea (34%, 30%), hand-foot syndrome (32%, 57%), decreased appetite (30%, 20%), hypothyroidism (28%, 23%), fatigue (27%, 23%), proteinuria (21%, 20%), dysphonia (19%, 9%), cough (16%, 16%), rash (15%, 28%), pyrexia (7%, 16%), alopecia (3%, 22%). Conclusions: Asian patients receiving axitinib as second-line therapy for mRCC had a similar PFS and objective response rate as in a previous global phase III trial, with an acceptable safety profile.