Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT600mg), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT800mg) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.
5015 Background: Erdafitinib (JNJ-42756493; ERDA) is the only pan-FGFR kinase inhibitor with US FDA approval for treatment of adults with mUC with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (alt) and who progressed on ≥ 1 line of prior platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo). Approval was based on data from the primary analysis of the pivotal BLC2001 trial1. Here we report long-term efficacy and safety data from the 8 mg/d continuous dose regimen in BLC2001. Methods: BLC2001 (NCT02365597) is a global, open-label, phase 2 trial of pts with measurable mUC with prespecified FGFR alt, ECOG 0-2, and progression during/following ≥ 1 line of prior chemo or ≤ 12 mos of (neo)adjuvant chemo, or were cisplatin ineligible, chemo naïve. The optimal schedule of ERDA determined in the initial part of the study was 8 mg/d continuous ERDA in 28-d cycles with uptitration to 9 mg/d (ERD 8 mg UpT) if a protocol-defined target serum phosphate level was not reached and if no significant treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred. Primary end point was the confirmed objective response rate (ORR=% complete response + % partial response). Key secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Median follow-up for 101 patients treated with ERDA 8 mg UpT was ~24 months. Confirmed ORR was 40%. Median DOR was 5.98 mos; 31% of responders had DOR ≥ 1 yr. Median PFS was 5.52 mos, median OS was 11.3 mos. 12-mos and 24-mos survival rates were 49% and 31%, respectively. Median treatment duration was 5.4 mos. The ERDA safety profile was consistent with the primary analysis. No new TRAEs were seen with longer follow-up. Central serous retinopathy (CSR) events occurred in 27% (27/101) of patients; 85% (23/27) were Grade 1 or 2; dosage was reduced in 13 pts, interrupted for 8, and discontinued for 3. On the data cut-off date, 63% (17/27) had resolved; 60% (6/10) of ongoing CSR events were Grade 1. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 2 yrs, ERDA in mUC + FGFR alt showed a manageable safety profile and consistent efficacy, with median OS of 11.3 mos. 31% had a DOR ≥12 mos and 31% were alive at 24 mos. ERDA monotherapy vs. immune checkpoint inhibitor (PD-1) or chemo is being further analyzed in a randomized control study (THOR; NCT03390504).Reference: Loriot Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:338-48. Clinical trial information: NCT02365597 .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.