Page 48 - Read Online
P. 48

Page 4 of 9                                                  Sawhney et al. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 2021;7:48  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2021.64

               Table 1. Key features of adjuvant VEGFR TKI trials
                                  ASSURE (n = 1943)                   S-TRAC (n = 615)  PROTECT (n = 1538)  ATLAS (n = 724)   SORCE (n = 1711)
                Comparator Arms   Sunitinib: Sorafenib: Placebo       Sunitinib: Placebo  Pazopanib: Placebo  Axitinib: Placebo  Sorafenib: Placebo
                Histology         ccRCC or non-ccRCC                  preponderant ccRCC  ccRCC or predominant ccRCC  Preponderant, defined as >  ccRCC or non-ccRCC
                                                                                                            50%, ccRCC
                Key inclusion criteria  AJCC 6th ed.:                 High risk per modified   AJCC TNM staging v. 2010,   AJCC TNM staging v.   Intermediate- or high-risk disease,
                                  - pT1b, G3-4, N0 (or pNX, clinical N0);   UISS criteria:   and Fuhrman nuclear grading:   2010:   i.e., Leibovich score 3 to 11
                                  - pT2, G any, N0 (or pNX, clinical N0);   - pT2, N0 (grades 3-4);   - pT2, G3 or G4, N0;   - pT2, pN0 or pNx;
                                  - pT3, G any, N0 (or pNX, clinical N0);   - pT3-4, N0;   - pT3, G any, N0;   - pT3, pN0 or pNx;
                                  - pT4, G any, N0 (or pNX, clinical N0);   - pTx, N1   - pT4, G any, N0;   - pT4, pN0 or pNx;
                                  - T any, G any, N+ (fully resected)                   - pT any, G any, N1  - Any pT, pN1
                                                                      No macroscopic residual
                                  RV microvascular invasion any grade/stage (provided   or metastatic disease   No macroscopic residual
                                  M0)                                                                       or metastatic disease
                                                                      Microscopic disease (R1)
                                  Removal of all positive LNs;        are acceptable

                                  Negative margins, but positive RV margins eligible unless
                                  invasion of RV wall at the margin (provided no other
                                  margins +)
                Treatment duration  54 weeks                          1 year            1 year              1-3 years         1 year or 3 years
                Treatment discontinuation  44 (sunitinib) vs. 45 (sorafenib) vs. 11 (placebo)  28.1 (sunitinib) vs. 5.6   35 (pazopanib 600mg) vs. 5   23 (axitinib) vs. 11   30 (1-year sorafenib) vs. 34 (3-year
                due to TRAEs (%)                                      (placebo)         (placebo 600mg);    (placebo)         sorafenib) vs. 4 (placebo)
                                                                                        39 (pazopanib 800mg) vs. 6
                                                                                        (placebo 800mg)
                Grade 3-4 TRAEs (%)  63 (sunitinib) vs. 72% (sorafenib) vs. 25% (placebo)  60.5 (sunitinib) vs. 19.4   66 (pazopanib) vs. 21   61 (axitinib) vs. 30   58.6 (1-year sorafenib) vs. 63.9 (3-
                                                                      (placebo)         (placebo)           (placebo)         year sorafenib) vs. 29.2 (placebo)
               TRAEs: Treatment-related adverse events; LNs: lymph nodes; RV: renal vein.


               A significant problem encountered in the recent VEGFR TKI trials is the toxicity of treatment, which has led to both dose reductions and discontinuation of
               treatment (often despite dose reductions). This brought to the fore that in the adjuvant setting what a patient will tolerate as an adverse effect on their quality
               of life resulting from treatment is often less than what a patient will accept in the metastatic setting where the perceived benefit of treatment is much greater.
               Moreover, the harm to benefit ratio in the adjuvant setting might favor stopping treatment or dose reducing on clinical grounds at a lower toxicity threshold
               than in the metastatic setting. It is also worth noting that, when sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib were evaluated in metastatic trials, the overall and Grade 3
               or above adverse event (AE) rates were much lower than when the same drugs were used in adjuvant trials, which partly explains the significantly lower
               treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs in these metastatic trials [13-16] .
   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53