Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus and second-line sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib and second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively). CONCLUSION Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.

[1]  Michael Branson,et al.  A proof of concept phase II non‐inferiority criterion , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Roderick Little,et al.  Calibrated Bayes, for Statistics in General, and Missing Data in Particular , 2011, 1108.1917.

[3]  Norbert Hollaender,et al.  Phase 3 trial of everolimus for metastatic renal cell carcinoma , 2010, Cancer.

[4]  C. Porta,et al.  Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[5]  Xin Huang,et al.  Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  R. Figlin,et al.  Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  R. Little Calibrated Bayes , 2006 .

[8]  S. Pocock,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[9]  R. Motzer,et al.  Interferon-alfa as a comparative treatment for clinical trials of new therapies against advanced renal cell carcinoma. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.