Annalisa Guida1, Laurence Albiges2, Lisa Derosa2, Yohann Loriot2, Christophe Massard2, Karim Fizazi2, Bernard Escudier2. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. Electronic address: guida.annalisa@hotmail.it. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Everolimus (E) and axitinib (A) have been standard treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line therapy (1L) with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. This study aims to compare both drugs in a large comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcome data from all patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received E or A as second-line therapy at Gustave Roussy from April 2007 to May 2015 have been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were treated with E and 45 patients with A. There were no major differences between the 2 groups. The most common 1L was sunitinib (79% in the E group and 82.2% in the A group). The median follow-up was 29 months; 26 months for A and 33 months for E (P = .046). The median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months for E and 14.9 months for A (P = .23). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 and 7.7 months for E and A, respectively (P = .39). Partial response was achieved in 4% and in 24% of patients (P = .002) in the E and A cohort, respectively. In the A group, the median PFS and OS were statistically different according to response, tumor burden, and 1L duration. No differences were found in the E arm. CONCLUSION: In this series, there are no significant differences for PFS and OS with E and A. A appears to provide more objective response. A appears to be more effective in patients with small tumor burden, responders to 1L, and 1L therapy > 12 months.
BACKGROUND:Everolimus (E) and axitinib (A) have been standard treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line therapy (1L) with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. This study aims to compare both drugs in a large comprehensive cancer center. METHODS:Patient characteristics and outcome data from all patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received E or A as second-line therapy at Gustave Roussy from April 2007 to May 2015 have been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were treated with E and 45 patients with A. There were no major differences between the 2 groups. The most common 1L was sunitinib (79% in the E group and 82.2% in the A group). The median follow-up was 29 months; 26 months for A and 33 months for E (P = .046). The median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months for E and 14.9 months for A (P = .23). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 and 7.7 months for E and A, respectively (P = .39). Partial response was achieved in 4% and in 24% of patients (P = .002) in the E and A cohort, respectively. In the A group, the median PFS and OS were statistically different according to response, tumor burden, and 1L duration. No differences were found in the E arm. CONCLUSION: In this series, there are no significant differences for PFS and OS with E and A. A appears to provide more objective response. A appears to be more effective in patients with small tumor burden, responders to 1L, and 1L therapy > 12 months.