No abstract

for the RECORD-1 Study Group BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N ¼ 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n ¼ 277) or placebo (n ¼ 139) plus best supportive care. Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double-blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank-preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in !5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P ¼ .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank-preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9-fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5-8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Cancer 2010;116:4256-65.

No abstract

Predetermined efficacy criteria were met in both strata. The combination of everolimus and imatinib after failure on imatinib and sunitinib merits further investigation in GIST.

The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) provides reliable risk assessment in patients with primary myelofibrosis (PMF). Recent clinical trials in PMF patients with intermediate-2 or high IPSS risk have shown a survival advantage of ruxolitinib over placebo (COMFORT-1) or best available therapy (COMFORT-2). Because crossover was allowed in these studies, we analyzed the cohort of ruxolitinib-naive patients used for developing the dynamic IPSS (DIPSS). By adopting ad hoc statistical analyses, we compared survival from diagnosis of 100 PMF patients receiving ruxolitinib within COMFORT-2 with that of 350 patients of the DIPSS study. Subjects were properly matched, and both left-truncation and right-censoring were accounted in order to compare higher IPSS risks exclusively. Patients receiving ruxolitinib had longer survival (5 years, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9-7.8 vs 3.5 years, 95% CI: 3.0-3.9) with a hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41-0.91; P = .0148). This observation suggests that ruxolitinib may modify the natural history of PMF