[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).
In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by a masked independent review committee.
A total of 204 Asian patients received axitinib (n=135) or sorafenib (n=69). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.5 (4.7-9.1) months with axitinib versus 4.8 (3.0-6.5) months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.506-1.058; one-sided P=0.0531). The objective response rate (95% CI) was 23.7% (16.8%-31.8%) with axitinib versus 10.1% (4.2%-19.8%) with sorafenib. Common, grade ≥3, all-causality adverse events were hypertension (19.3%), weight decrease (5.2%), and proteinuria (5.2%) with axitinib and hypertension (8.7%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (7.2%) with sorafenib. In a time-to-deterioration composite end point of death, progression, and worsening of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score, patients treated with axitinib demonstrated a 17%-24% risk reduction compared with sorafenib-treated patients.
Axitinib is clinically active and well tolerated in previously treated Asian patients with mRCC, consistent with the results from the global Phase III trial. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for Asian patients with mRCC.
OncoTargets and Therapy 06/2015; 8:1363-73. DOI:10.2147/OTT.S83302 · 2.31 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2-10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours.
Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal.
Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.
BMC Cancer 05/2015; 15(1):339. DOI:10.1186/s12885-015-1350-6 · 3.32 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose
Axitinib, a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, showed antitumor activity as a single agent against several solid tumor types in Phase II and III trials. This study was conducted to evaluate axitinib pharmacokinetics across a variety of solid tumors.
The current study analyzed the pharmacokinetics of axitinib in 110 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, or melanoma from three Phase II trials plus 127 healthy volunteers, using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Boxplots of maximum observed plasma concentration (C
max) and area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) of data from these tumor populations was compared to C
max and AUC from the final population pharmacokinetic model developed for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to compare axitinib pharmacokinetics across different tumor types.
Axitinib disposition based on data from 237 subjects was best described using a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and lag time. Population estimates for systemic clearance, central volume of distribution, absorption rate constant, absolute bioavailability, and lag time were 20.1 L/h, 56.2 L, 1.26/h−1, 0.663, and 0.448 h, respectively. Statistically significant covariates included gender on clearance, and body weight on central volume of distribution. However, predicted changes due to gender and body weight were found not clinically meaningful. The final analysis indicated that the pharmacokinetic model for mRCC was able to successfully describe axitinib pharmacokinetics in patients with NSCLC, thyroid cancer, and melanoma.
The pharmacokinetics of axitinib appears to be similar across a variety of tumor types.
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 10/2014; 74(6). DOI:10.1007/s00280-014-2606-6 · 2.57 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a previous phase 2 trial, axitinib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced thyroid cancer. In this second phase 2 trial, the efficacy and safety of axitinib were evaluated further in this population, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. METHODS: Patients (N = 52) with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced medullary or differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory or not amenable to iodine-131 received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and patient-reported outcomes assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall ORR was 35% (18 partial responses), and 18 patients had stable disease for >= 16 weeks. The median PFS was 16.1 months, and the median OS was 27.2 months. All-causality, grade >= 3 adverse events (>5%) were fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, decreased weight, pain in extremity, hypertension, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypocalcemia, and myalgia. Patients who had greater axitinib exposure had a longer median PFS. Quality of life was maintained during treatment with axitinib, and no significant deterioration in symptoms or interference in daily life caused by symptoms, assessed on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory subscales, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib has activity and a manageable safety profile while maintaining quality of life, and it represents an additional treatment option for patients with advanced thyroid cancer. (C) 2014 American Cancer Society.
Cancer 09/2014; 120(17). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28766 · 4.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3 in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin was evaluated in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Overall, 170 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib at a starting dose of 5-mg twice daily continuously plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of up to six 21-day cycles (arm I); axitinib on days 2 through 19 of each cycle plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (arm II); or pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).
Median PFS was 8.0, 7.9, and 7.1 months in arms I, II, and III, respectively (hazard ratio: arms I vs. III, 0.89 [P = 0.36] and arms II vs. III, 1.02 [P = 0.54]). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (arm I), 14.7 months (arm II), and 15.9 months (arm III). Objective response rates (ORRs) for axitinib-containing arms were 45.5% (arm I) and 39.7% (arm II) compared with 26.3% for pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (arm III). Gastrointestinal disorders and fatigue were frequently reported across all treatment arms. The most common all-causality grade >=3 adverse events were hypertension in axitinib-containing arms (20% and 17%, arms I and II, respectively) and fatigue with pemetrexed/cisplatin alone (16%).
Axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin was generally well tolerated. Axitinib combinations resulted in non-significant differences in PFS and numerically higher ORR compared with chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768755 (October 7, 2008).
BMC Cancer 04/2014; 14(1):290. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-290 · 3.32 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway frequently induce hypertension when used to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis characterizes hypertension and hypertension-related events in patients treated with the VEGF pathway inhibitors axitinib or sorafenib in the AXIS trial. AXIS was a randomized phase III study of axitinib versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic RCC following failure of one prior systemic regimen. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were excluded, but patients with hypertension controlled with antihypertensive medication were allowed to participate. Guidelines for hypertension management included adjustment or addition of antihypertensive medications and/or axitinib or sorafenib dose reductions, interruptions, or discontinuations. Treatment-emergent all-causality hypertension occurred in 145 (40.4 %) axitinib-treated patients (N = 359) and 103 (29.0 %) sorafenib-treated patients (N = 355), with grade 3 hypertension reported in 55 (15.3 %) and 38 (10.7 %) patients, respectively, and grade 4 hypertension reported in one (0.3 %) patient in each arm. Hypertension-related events led to axitinib dose interruptions (n = 46; 12.8 %), dose reductions (n = 16; 4.5 %), or discontinuations (n = 1; 0.3 %). Approximately 50 % of axitinib-treated patients with grade 3 or 4 hypertension continued treatment for ≥ 9 months. Hypertension-related sequelae occurred in <1 % of axitinib-treated patients. Hypertension was more frequently observed during treatment with axitinib than sorafenib in patients with RCC, but axitinib-induced hypertension rarely led to treatment discontinuation or cardiovascular sequelae. Recommendations for monitoring blood pressure and managing hypertension during axitinib therapy are presented.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, shows activity in multiple tumor types, including those refractory to previous antiangiogenic therapy. This randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label phase II trial compared axitinib with bevacizumab each in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus modified FOLFOX-6 (if previously treated with irinotecan) or FOLFIRI (if previously treated with oxaliplatin) and were stratified by performance status and prior bevacizumab therapy. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival.
In 171 patients, progression-free survival was 7.6 months with axitinib/FOLFOX vs. 6.4 months with bevacizumab/FOLFOX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.96; 1-sided P = .55) and 5.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI vs. 6.9 months with bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.77-2.11; 1-sided P = .83). Overall survival was 17.1 vs. 14.1 months with axitinib/FOLFOX and bevacizumab/FOLFOX (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37-1.27; 1-sided P = .12) and 12.9 vs. 15.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI and bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.82-2.24; 1-sided P = .88). More grade ≥ 3 adverse events (eg, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite) and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events occurred with axitinib.
Compared with bevacizumab, axitinib did not improve outcomes when added to second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. With current dosing regimens, axitinib plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI seems to be less well tolerated than bevacizumab-based regimens.
Clinical Colorectal Cancer 12/2013; 12(4):239-47. DOI:10.1016/j.clcc.2013.09.001 · 2.91 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.
In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816.
Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib.
Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile.
The Lancet Oncology 10/2013; 14(13). DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70465-0 · 24.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.
In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00835978.
Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40-67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49-70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten [18%] of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five [9%] of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 [49%] of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven [13%] vs two [4%] vs eight [9%]), and decreased weight (four [7%] vs three [5%] vs six [7%]). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each [4%]), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each [2%]).
The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease.
The Lancet Oncology 10/2013; 14(12). DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70464-9 · 24.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, approved for second-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Axitinib population pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships were evaluated. Using nonlinear mixed effects modeling with pooled data from 383 healthy volunteers, 181 patients with metastatic RCC, and 26 patients with other solid tumors in 17 trials, the disposition of axitinib was best described by a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and a lag time, with estimated mean systemic clearance (CL) of 14.6 L/h and central volume of distribution (Vc ) of 47.3 L. Of 12 covariates tested, age over 60 years and Japanese ethnicity were associated with decreased CL, whereas Vc increased with body weight. However, the magnitude of predicted changes in exposure based on these covariates does not warrant dose adjustments. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression and logistic regression analyses showed that higher exposure and diastolic blood pressure were independently associated with longer progression-free and overall survivals and higher probability of partial response in metastatic RCC patients. These findings support axitinib dose titration to increase plasma exposure in patients who tolerate axitinib, and also demonstrate diastolic blood pressure as a potential marker of efficacy.
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 05/2013; 53(5). DOI:10.1002/jcph.73 · 2.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective
Axitinib is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. The efficacy and safety of axitinib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were evaluated.
A subgroup analysis was conducted in Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized Phase III trial of axitinib versus sorafenib after failure of one prior systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Twenty-five (of 361) and 29 (of 362) patients randomized to the axitinib and sorafenib arms, respectively, were Japanese and included in this analysis. Median progression-free survival in Japanese patients was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval 8.6 to not estimable) for axitinib and 4.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.8–6.6) for sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.390; 95% confidence interval 0.130–1.173; stratified one-sided P = 0.0401). The objective response rate was 52.0% for axitinib and 3.4% for sorafenib (P = 0.0001). The common all-causality adverse events (all grades) in Japanese patients were dysphonia (68%), hypertension (64%), hand–foot syndrome (64%) and diarrhea (56%) for axitinib, and hand–foot syndrome (86%), hypertension (62%) and diarrhea (52%) for sorafenib. The safety profiles of axitinib and sorafenib in Japanese patients were generally similar to those observed in the overall population, with the exceptions of higher incidences of hypertension, dysphonia, hand–foot syndrome, hypothyroidism and stomatitis.
Axitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, consistent with the results in the overall population, providing a new targeted therapy for these Japanese patients.
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2013; 43(6). DOI:10.1093/jjco/hyt054 · 1.75 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7-23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5-22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800-1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7-9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7-6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552-0·779; one-sided p<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4-24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1-20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1-32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0-17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.
The Lancet Oncology 04/2013; 14(6). DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70093-7 · 24.73 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a phase II study of axitinib for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma, median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95% CI, 20.3 to not estimable months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Long-term survival data were collected retrospectively from 52 patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received axitinib in a completed phase II study (protocol 1), 11 of whom enrolled in a continuing access protocol (protocol 2), for the current observational study (protocol 3). In a post hoc analysis, the patients were grouped into quartiles based on cycle 1 day 1, 1- to 2-hour post-dose axitinib plasma levels to explore the impact of drug exposure on efficacy. RESULTS: The 5-year survival rate was 20.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-32.4%), with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. Frequent all-grade adverse events were fatigue (n = 38; 73.1%), diarrhea (n = 34; 65.4%), hypertension (n = 33; 63.5%), and nausea (n = 33; 63.5%). Quartile 3 patients (axitinib level, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL; n = 12) had the best clinical outcome: objective response rate 82%, median progression-free survival (PFS) 28.3 months, and median OS that was not reached after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib was well tolerated and provided an estimated 5-year survival rate of 20.6% for cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Exploratory analyses showed numerically higher objective response rate and longer OS and PFS in patients who achieved post-first-dose axitinib plasma concentrations within a specific range.
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer 02/2013; 11(2). DOI:10.1016/j.clgc.2012.12.004 · 1.69 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study evaluated the safety and clinical activity of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)-1, 2, and 3, in patients with metastatic melanoma.
Thirty-two patients with a maximum of one prior systemic therapy received axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was objective response rate.
Objective response rate was 18.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.2-36.4], comprising one complete and five partial responses with a median response duration of 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-17.0). Stable disease at 16 weeks was noted in six patients (18.8%), with an overall clinical benefit rate of 37.5%. Six-month progression-free survival rate was 33.9%, 1-year overall survival rate was 28.1%, and median overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.0). The most frequently (>15%) reported nonhematologic, treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, hoarseness, and diarrhea. Treatment-related fatal bowel perforation, a known class effect, occurred in one patient. Axitinib selectively decreased plasma concentrations of soluble VEGFR (sVEGFR)-2 and sVEGFR-3 compared with soluble stem cell factor receptor (sKIT). No significant association was noted between plasma levels of axitinib and response. However, post hoc analyses indicated potential relationships between efficacy endpoints and diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher as well as baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase levels.
Axitinib was well tolerated, showed a selective VEGFR-inhibitory profile, and showed single-agent activity in metastatic melanoma. Further evaluations of axitinib, alone and combined with chemotherapy, are ongoing.
Clinical Cancer Research 12/2011; 17(23):7462-9. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0534 · 8.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.
The Lancet 11/2011; 378(9807):1931-9. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61613-9 · 45.22 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of axitinib plus docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
Women with MBC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive docetaxel 80 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice per day (combination arm) or placebo (placebo arm), following a lead-in phase I trial. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).
In all, 168 patients were enrolled; 112 were randomly assigned to axitinib and 56 to placebo. Median TTP was numerically longer in the combination arm than in the placebo arm (8.1 v 7.1 months), but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156). The difference in median TTP was greatest among patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (9.2 v 7.0 months; P = .043, prespecified subgroup analysis). Objective response rate was higher in the combination arm (41.1% v 23.6%; P = .011). The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (combination/placebo) included diarrhea (10.8%/0%), fatigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertension (4.5%/0%). Three patients in the combination arm experienced serious thromboembolic events (one death). Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination arm (15.3% v 7.1%); rates of other hematologic toxicities were comparable. Increased toxicity with axitinib was generally managed by dose reduction and/or growth factor support.
The addition of axitinib to docetaxel did not improve TTP in first-line MBC treatment. Combination therapy may be more effective in patients previously exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3, is under investigation for treatment of various solid tumors. The safety and pharmacokinetics of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was evaluated in the phase I portion of this trial. The randomized phase II portion was reported separately.
Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Pharmacokinetic profiles of the drugs were obtained on cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 (gemcitabine alone 1,000 mg/m(2)), C1D14 (steady state, axitinib alone 5 mg twice daily [BID]), and C1D15 (gemcitabine plus steady-state axitinib). Adverse events were monitored weekly at the clinic.
Eight patients participated in the phase IB portion of the trial. Patients received gemcitabine on D1, D8, and D15 and continuous axitinib in a 28 day-cycle beginning C1D3. There was no dose-limiting toxicity. Common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, dysphonia, and hypertension. Myelosuppression was similar to gemcitabine monotherapy. No apparent major pharmacokinetic interactions between gemcitabine and axitinib were observed. Of six patients evaluable for efficacy, three had confirmed partial responses.
Axitinib (5 mg BID) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) were well tolerated when administered together, without any pharmacokinetic interactions, and showed encouraging antitumor activity.
Investigational New Drugs 06/2011; 30(4):1531-9. DOI:10.1007/s10637-011-9697-2 · 2.93 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate if diastolic blood pressure (dBP) ≥90 mm Hg during axitinib treatment is a marker of efficacy.
The relationship between dBP ≥90 mm Hg and efficacy was retrospectively explored across 5 phase II studies of single-agent axitinib for the treatment of 4 different tumor types. All patients had baseline BP ≤140/90 mm Hg and were stratified into 2 groups based on in-clinic BP measurements after initiating therapy: those with dBP <90 mm Hg throughout therapy and those with at least 1 dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events were evaluated by dBP group in individual and pooled analyses.
Two-hundred thirty patients were evaluated. Patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg had a significantly lower relative risk of death than those with dBP <90 mm Hg [adjusted HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.39, 0.77); P < 0.001]. The relative risk of progression was also lower in patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg [HR (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.54, 1.06), P = 0.107], and ORR was significantly higher (43.9% vs. 12.0%; P < 0.001). In an 8-week landmark analysis, mOS (25.8 vs. 14.9 months) and mPFS (10.2 vs. 7.1 months) were greater for patients in the ≥90 mm Hg group. Adverse events were similar between groups.
Axitinib efficacy correlated with dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Further investigation of dBP as a predictive biomarker of efficacy in patients receiving axitinib is warranted.
Clinical Cancer Research 06/2011; 17(11):3841-9. DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2806 · 8.19 Impact Factor