123686-142

SWITCH: A randomized sequential open-label study to evaluate efficacy and safety of sorafenib (SO)/sunitinib (SU) versus SU/SO in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC).

Subcategory: 
Category: 
Genitourinary Cancer
Session Type and Session Title: 
Oral Abstract Session C: Renal Cancer (eQ&A)
General Poster Session C: Renal Cancer
Abstract Number: 

393

Citation: 

J Clin Oncol 32, 2014 (suppl 4; abstr 393)

Author(s): 

Maurice Stephan Michel, Walter Vervenne, Maria de Santis, Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal, Peter J. Goebell, Juergen Lerchenmueller, Uwe Zimmermann, Monique M.E.M. Bos, Werner Freier, Silke Schirrmacher-Memmel, Michael D. Staehler, Sascha Pahernik, Maartje Los, Marcus Schenck, Anne Flörcken, Cornelis Van Arkel, Kirsten Hauswald, Martin Indorf, Dana Gottstein, Christian Eichelberg; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany; Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, Netherlands; Franz Josef - Spital and ACR-ITR, Vienna, Austria; Health Center St. Marien GmbH, Amberg, Germany; University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany; Gemeinschaftspraxis fuer Haematologie und Onkologie, Muenster, Germany; University Hospital Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany; Department of Internal Medicine. Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, Netherlands; Onkologische Praxis, Hildesheim, Germany; MVZ Osthessen GmbH, Fulda, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany; Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Netherlands; Department of Urology, University Hospitaly Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Campus Virchow Klinikum, Berlin, Germany; Slingeland Ziekenhuis, Doetinchem, Netherlands; iOMEDICO AG, Freiburg, Germany; ICRC-Weyer GmbH, Berlin, Germany; Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany


Abstracts that were granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^).

Abstract Disclosures

Abstract: 

Background: The sequential use of SO and SU has been investigated retrospectively in patients with mRCC. We report here results from the first randomized study to prospectively compare SO/SU versus SU/SO. Methods: Pts with mRCC unsuitable for cytokines without prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS 0/1, MSKCC score low or intermediate, and ≥1 measurable lesion were randomized to receive open-label SO/SU (arm A) or SU/SO (arm B) in standard dosage. Primary endpoint: total PFS (T-PFS) from randomization to event during 2nd line therapy. Therapy continued until progression or intolerability. The study was powered to detect a 47% increase in T-PFS with SO/SU compared to SU/SO using log-rank testing and Cox proportional hazard regression model. (NCT00732914). Results: A total of 365 pts were enrolled: 182 arm A, 183 arm B.The two arms were well balanced: median age (A/B): 64/65 yrs; prior nephrectomy: 74/65%; MSKCC intermediate: 59/51%, low: 39/45%; clear cell histology: 90/84%. At time of final T-PFS analysis 220 events had occurred (A, n=117 [64%]; B, n=103 [56%]). There was no statistically significant difference in T-PFS across arms: HR 1.01, p=0.54, arm A and arm B, respectively. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in OS: HR 0.997, p=0.49, nor in the first PFS across arms: HR 1.19, p=0.92. Fewer pts crossed over to receive SO in arm B (n=76) than to receive SU in arm A (n=103). Overall DCR was 72/67%. There was a marked difference in AEs leading to permanent discontinuation between the two groups (18.6/29.5%). Most frequent (>20%) side effects under 1st-line treatment SO vs SU were alopecia (29/4%), diarrhea (43/29%), dysgeusia (8/21%), fatigue (21/34%), HFSR (37/20%), hypertension (24/24%), nausea (18/24%) and rash (22/3%). AEs were generally lower during 2nd-line therapy. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in T-PFS, OS, DCR and 1st-line PFS between the two sequential treatments. Both drugs provided overall benefit regardless of sequence. Side effect profiles differ, but were generally less frequent during 2nd-line therapy. More patients reached 2nd-line in the SO/SU arm. Clinical trial information: NCT00732914.