The Library
SWITCH : A randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer
Tools
Tools
Tools
(2015) SWITCH : A randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. European Urology, 68 (5). pp. 837-848. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.017
|
PDF (Creative Commons : Attribution NC ND 4.0)
WRAP_1-s2.0-S030228381500319X-main.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (810Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.017
Abstract
Background
Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal
cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit.
Objectives
To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC.
Design, setting, and participants
The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate).
Intervention
Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So).
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety.
Results and limitations
In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n = 182; Su-So, n = 183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.27; p = 0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77–1.30; p = 0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib.
Conclusions
Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) | ||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Cancer Research Unit Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Renal cell carcinoma, Oncology | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | European Urology | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Elsevier BV | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 0302-2838 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | November 2015 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 68 | ||||||||
| Number: | 5 | ||||||||
| Number of Pages: | 11 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 837-848 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.017 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access | ||||||||
| Funder: | German Cancer Society (DKG), Bayer HealthCare |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
