SWITCH : A randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer

Article English OPEN
Eichelberg, Christian ; Vervenne, Walter L. ; De Santis, Maria ; Fischer von Weikersthal, Ludwig ; Goebell, Peter J. ; Lerchenmüller, Christian ; Zimmermann, Uwe ; Bos, Monique M.E.M. ; Freier, Werner ; Schirrmacher-Memmel, Silke ; Staehler, Michael ; Pahernik, Sascha ; Los, Maartje ; Schenck, Marcus ; Flörcken, Anne ; van Arkel, Cornelis ; Hauswald, Kirsten ; Indorf, Martin ; Gottstein, Dana ; Michel, Maurice S. (2015)

Background\ud Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal\ud cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit.\ud \ud Objectives\ud To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC.\ud \ud Design, setting, and participants\ud The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate).\ud \ud Intervention\ud Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So).\ud \ud Outcome measurements and statistical analysis\ud The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety.\ud \ud Results and limitations\ud In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n = 182; Su-So, n = 183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.27; p = 0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77–1.30; p = 0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC.
  • References (44)
    44 references, page 1 of 5

    [1] Singer EA, Gupta GN, Marchalik D, Srinivasan R. Evolving therapeutic targets in renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2013;25: 273-80.

    [2] Motzer RJ, Porta C, Vogelzang NJ, et al. Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:286-96.

    [3] Porta C, Tortora G, Linassier C, et al. Maximising the duration of disease control in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with targeted agents: an expert agreement. Med Oncol 2012;29:1896-907.

    [4] Oudard S, Elaidi RT. Sequential therapy with targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: optimizing patient benefit. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:981-7.

    [5] Mendel DB, Laird AD, Xin X, et al. In vivo antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors: determination of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:327-37.

    [6] Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, et al. BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2004;64:7099-109.

    [7] Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3312-8.

    [8] Hutson TE, Escudier B, Esteban E, et al. Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:760-7.

    [9] Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A, et al. Guidelines on renal cell carcinoma. European Association of Urology 2014.

    [10] Motzer RJ, Nosov D, Eisen T, et al. Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2013;31: 3791-9.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark