mRCC: sorafenib-pazopanib sequence fails SWITCH II

  • Retz M & al.
  • Eur J Cancer
  • 6 Dec 2018

  • curated by Deepa Koli
  • Univadis Clinical Summaries
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • Sorafenib followed by pazopanib (sorafenib-pazopanib) failed to demonstrate noninferiority vs the reverse (pazopanib-sorafenib) as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
  • The pazopanib-sorafenib sequence was associated with longer PFS.

Why this matters

  • Multiple trials are exploring optimal treatment combinations and sequences for advanced renal cancer.

Study design

  • Multicenter, randomized phase 3 SWITCH II study.
  • 377 patients without prior systemic therapy for mRCC were randomly assigned to sorafenib-pazopanib or pazopanib-sorafenib; treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
  • Funding: Technical University of Munich, Germany; Bayer HealthCare GmbH.

Key results

  • Noninferiority not met for total PFS of sequence sorafenib-pazopanib vs pazopanib-sorafenib (median, 8.6 vs 12.9 months; HR, 1.36 [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI was greater than predefined HR
  • Median OS for pazopanib-sorafenib was 28.0 vs 22.7 months for sorafenib-pazopanib (HR, 1.22; P=.2842).
  • With sorafenib-pazopanib vs pazopanib-sorafenib:
    • Median PFS after first-line therapy was 5.6 vs 9.3 months.
    • Median PFS after second-line therapy was 2.9 vs 2.1 months.
  • Most frequent TEAEs were gastrointestinal disorders:
    • First-line sorafenib vs pazopanib (80.3% vs 79.8%).
    • Second-line pazopanib vs sorafenib (55.7% vs 57.5%).

Limitations

  • Slow patient accrual.

Please confirm your acceptance

To gain full access to GPnotebook please confirm:

By submitting here you confirm that you have accepted Terms of Use and Privacy Policy of GPnotebook.

Submit