ESMO: Pazopanib Effective Against Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
“The trial showed that pazopanib had similar efficacy (ie, noninferiority) compared to sunitinib in first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma,” reported Robert Motzer, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. “The quality-of-life questionnaires were in favor of pazopanib over sunitinib, and suggested improved tolerability for pazopanib over sunitinib.”
The primary endpoint of the 1,100-patient study was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety and patient quality of life. For both drugs, the median progression-free survival was slightly more than 10 months (pazopanib [n=557], 10.5 months vs sunitinib [n=553], 10.2 months; HR 0.998 [95% CI: 0.863-1.154]; n.s.).
Objective response rates (ORR) were higher for pazopanib (31% vs 25%; P=0.03), but median overall survival (OS) was similar between the two drugs: OS for pazopanib was 28.4 months, versus 29.3 months for sunitinib (HR 0.91 [95% CI: 0.76-1.08]; n.s.).
Toxicities were similar overall between the two drugs, but hand-foot syndrome and fatigue were less frequent among patients administered pazopanib (fatigue: 55% vs 63%; HR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.79-0.96]; hand-foot syndrome: 29% vs 50%; HR 0.59 [95% CI: 0.50-0.68]). Dyspepsia, hypothyroidism, mucositis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anemia were all less frequent among patients administered pazopanib, as well.
Hypertension was modestly more frequent among patients receiving pazopanib (46% vs 41%; HR 1.14 [95% CI: 1.00-1.31]).
The COMPARZ trial “allows us to define a standard option in the front-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma, because it was proven that pazopanib is non-inferior to sunitinib, commented Maria De Santis, MD, of the Kaiser Franz Josef Hospital in Vienna, who was not a coauthor of the study. “In addition, being treated with pazopanib, patients experienced fewer troublesome side-effects and an increased quality of life.”
ESMO Abstract (#LBA8_PR)