Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Jul 1. pii: S2588-9311(19)30079-3. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.004. [Epub ahead of print]

Temsirolimus versus Pazopanib (TemPa) in Patients with Advanced Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Poor-risk Features: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

Author information

1
Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: ntannir@mdanderson.org.
2
Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
3
Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
4
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
5
Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Temsirolimus has level 1 evidence for initial treatment of poor-risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its efficacy has not been directly compared with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKi]) in this setting.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate temsirolimus versus pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC, predominant clear-cell features, and clinical characteristics of a poor prognosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

A randomized (1:1) phase II trial in 69 treatment-naïve mRCC patients and with three or more predictors of short survival for temsirolimus was conducted during 2012-2017 in a single academic cancer center. Crossover to the alternative treatment upon discontinuation of the first-line agent was permitted.

INTERVENTION:

Mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor temsirolimus and VEGFR TKi pazopanib.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Radiographic response was assessed by blinded radiologists. Efficacy outcomes were adjusted by prior nephrectomy status, prior interleukin-2 treatment, and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:

Thirty-five patients received temsirolimus and 34 received pazopanib upfront; 72% overall had poor risk by IMDC. Median PFS in the first line was 2.7mo with temsirolimus and 5.2mo with pazopanib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.22; p=0.210). Median OS was 7.1mo with temsirolimus and 11.9mo with pazopanib (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.93; p=0.558), and ORRs were 5.9% and 21.2%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 0.9-29.3; p=0.062). PRO measures favored pazopanib. Five patients discontinued first-line therapy due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS:

Temsirolimus and pazopanib had modest activity in patients with poor-risk clear-cell mRCC, and therefore their use should be discouraged in this setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY:

We evaluated outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients presenting with aggressive features when treated with temsirolimus or pazopanib as first-line therapy. Survival was <1yr for most, suggesting that more efficacious alternative treatments should be favored for these patients.

KEYWORDS:

Cytokines and angiogenic factors; First line; International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups; Pazopanib; Poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma; Temsirolimus

PMID:
31272939
PMCID:
PMC6938577
[Available on 2021-01-01]
DOI:
10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.004

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center