Sorafenib Versus Observation Following Radical Metastasectomy for Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 2 Randomized Open-label RESORT Study.


Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2019
Historique:
received: 05 07 2019
revised: 21 08 2019
accepted: 30 08 2019
pubmed: 23 9 2019
medline: 21 7 2020
entrez: 23 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy. To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients. The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile. RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves. At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11-NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm. This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy. This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11-NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm.
CONCLUSIONS
This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy.
PATIENT SUMMARY
This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31542243
pii: S2588-9311(19)30137-3
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.011
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antineoplastic Agents 0
Sorafenib 9ZOQ3TZI87

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase II Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

699-707

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Giuseppe Procopio (G)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.procopio@istitutotumori.mi.it.

Giulia Apollonio (G)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Cognetti (F)

Medical Oncology Department, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena, Rome, Italy.

Rosalba Miceli (R)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Trial Organization, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Michele Milella (M)

Medical Oncology Department, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Regina Elena, Rome, Italy.

Alessandra Mosca (A)

Department of Oncology, Maggiore Della Carità University Hospital, Novara, Italy.

Vincenzo Emanuele Chiuri (VE)

Medical Oncology Department, Ospedale Vito Fazzi, Lecce, Italy.

Alessandra Bearz (A)

Medical Oncology Department, National Cancer Institute, Aviano, Italy.

Franco Morelli (F)

Medical Oncology Department, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.

Cinzia Ortega (C)

Medical Oncology Department, Istituto per la Ricerca e la Cura del Cancro di Candiolo, Torino, Italy.

Francesco Atzori (F)

Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Maddalena Donini (M)

Medical Oncology Department, Ospedale di Cremona, Cremona, Italy.

Raffaele Ratta (R)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Alessandra Raimondi (A)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Melanie Claps (M)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Antonia Martinetti (A)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Umberto Capitanio (U)

Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Filippo G de Braud (FG)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Vera Cappelletti (V)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Elena Verzoni (E)

Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH