Abstract
Historically, cancer medicine has avoided the problem of unequal dosing by comparing maximum-tolerated doses of intravenous regimens with proportionate dose reductions for toxicity. However, in recent years, with the development of numerous oral anticancer agents, dosing options are arbitrarily and increasingly limited by the size of pills. We contend that an underappreciated consequence of pill size is unequal dosing in comparative clinical trials and that this can have an impact on outcomes. We discuss how comparative effectiveness trials can be unbalanced and how the use of doses that are not sustainable might affect outcomes, especially marginal ones. We further argue that because of their poor tolerability and their limited dosing options, which often result in large dose adjustments in response to toxicity, the real-world clinical effectiveness of oral anticancer agents may be diminished and may not emulate results achieved in registration trials.
INTRODUCTION
The development of orally administered, targeted small molecules was grounded in the concept of “cancer as a chronic disease,” and it was hoped that they would be an improvement on intravenous agents. Aimed at genes important to cancer cells but less relevant to normal tissues, targeted therapies were expected to have few adverse effects, an attractive property for drugs envisioned to be administered daily. Unfortunately, the last decade has taught us that adverse effects of targeted therapies have not been fewer than those with cytotoxic agents, as evidenced by inordinately high rates of dose reductions and drug discontinuation.1,2
Here, we address the issue of oral anticancer drug dosing. After citing evidence that drug levels, adverse effects, and efficacy are correlated, we consider the impact that unequal dosing may have in comparative clinical trials. The proliferation of targeted therapies, many with similar properties and competing indications, has resulted in comparative clinical data, often with small yet statistically significant differences. In accordance with principles of fair comparative effectiveness research, comparison between active agents should use comparable doses.3 But in some trials, this has not been the case. We conclude by expressing concern that restricted dosing and frequent dose reductions may reduce the effectiveness of oral anticancer agents in the community.
DRUG LEVELS, ADVERSE EFFECTS, AND EFFICACY: THE IMPORTANCE OF DRUG DOSING
Evidence exists that correlates drug levels and adverse effects with the efficacy of oral targeted anticancer therapies as summarized in Table 1.4–13 Thus, it is not surprising that ingested drug doses are important. Phase I studies frequently provide evidence that ingested doses and serum concentrations have an impact on drug efficacy,4–14 and these observations are bolstered by data from late-phase studies. One such late-phase study is a retrospective analysis of phase III data with sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) that found a clear relationship between administered dose and tumor shrinkage. The authors concluded that their analysis “highlights the importance of maintaining patients on a 50-mg dose of sunitinib and striving to avoid unscheduled dosing interruptions or titration during treatment.”4 As a second example, a phase IV study of sorafenib in Japan found that relative dose intensity could predict progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with cytokine-treated mRCC.15 The extent to which this might be true in malignancies harboring key mutations essential to the phenotype remains unclear. Although one is tempted to think that with key mutations that lead to oncogenic addiction such a correlation might be less, even in these cases, there appears to be some relationship between dose and response. For example, with imatinib, an excellent targeted agent, only two of six patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia receiving a dose of 25 mg per day achieved a partial response, a response rate much lower than that achieved with higher doses.16 In melanomas harboring BRAF mutations, responses to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib were not observed below a dose of 240 mg orally twice a day.17
Table 1.
Reference | Drug | Disease | No. of Patients | Observation | Correlation |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome | PCC | P | HR | P | |||||
Association of Drug Levels and Efficacy | |||||||||
Houk et al4 | Sunitinib | mRCC | 146 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ TTP | .001 | |||
↑ OS | .010 | ||||||||
mRCC | 149 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ ORR | < .001 | |||||
mRCC | 149 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ SD | .002 | |||||
GIST | 278 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ TTP | .001 | |||||
↑ OS | .001 | ||||||||
GIST | 225 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ SD | < .001 | |||||
Rini et al5 | Axitinib | mRCC | 49 | Cycle 1/day 1, 2 hours post-dose drug concentrations, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL | ↑ ORR | ||||
mRCC | 49 | Cycle 1/day 1, 2 hours post-dose drug concentrations, 45.2-56.4 ng/mL | ↑ Median PFS and OS | ||||||
Rini et al6 | Axitinib | mRCC | 168 | AUC ≥ 300 h·ng/mL† | ↑ Median PFS and OS | ||||
mRCC | 168 | Every 100 h·ng/mL ↑ in AUC† | ↑ PFS | 0.871 | .001 | ||||
↑ OS | 0.810 | .001 | |||||||
mRCC | 168 | Every 100 h·ng/mL ↑ in AUC† | 1.5-fold ↑ probability of PR |
Association of Drug Levels and Adverse Effects | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Houk et al4 | Sunitinib | Solid tumors, mRCC, GIST | 69 of 443 | ↑ AUCss of sunitinib | ↑ Incidence fatigue, not severity | ||||
↑ CtroughTotal of sunitinib + SU12662* | ↑ dBP | 0.29 | |||||||
↑ AUCcum28Total of sunitinib | Greater reductions in ANC | −0.4 |
Association of Adverse Effects and Efficacy | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rini et al7 | Sunitinib | mRCC | 534 | Treatment induced hypertension defined by maximum sBP‡ | ↑ OS, 30.9 v 7.2 months | < .001 | 0.332 | < .001 | |
↑ ORR, 54.8% v 8.7% | < .001 | ||||||||
↑ PFS, 12.5 v 2.5 months | < .001 | 0.603 | < .001 | ||||||
Rini et al6 | Axitinib | mRCC | 168 | dBP ≥ 90 v < 90 mmHg† | ↑ PFS, 14.6 v 7.86 months | 0.590 | .006 | ||
Every 10 mmHg ↑ of dBP | ↑ PFS | 0.604 | < .001 | ||||||
dBP ≥ 90 v < 90 mmHg† | ↑ OS, 29.5 v 18.5 months | 0.622 | .024 | ||||||
Every 10 mmHg ↑ of dBP | ↑ OS | 0.652 | < .001 | ||||||
Rini8 | Axitinib | Melanoma, mRCC, thyroid cancer, NSCLC | 230§ | dBP ≥ 90 mmHg 8 weeks after starting axitinib | ↑ ORR, 43.9% v 12% | < .001 | |||
↑ PFS, 10.2 v 7.1 months | < .001 | 0.76 | .107 | ||||||
↑ OS, 25.8 v 14.9 months | < .001 | 0.55 | < .001 | ||||||
Jain9 | Sorafenib | CRC | 18 | HFS grade ≥ 2 v < 2 | ↑ PFS, 8.7 v 4.7 months | .0065 |
Abbreviations: ANC, absolute neutrophil count; AUC, area under the concentration-time curve; AUCcum28Total, 28-day cumulative AUC for total drug; AUCSS, steady state AUC; CRC: colorectal cancer; CtroughTotal, trough plasma concentration for total drug; dBP, diastolic blood pressure; GIST, GI stromal tumor; HFS, hand-foot syndrome; HR, hazard ratio; mRCC, metastatic renal cell carcinoma; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; ORR, overall response rate (complete response + partial response [PR]); OS, overall survival; PCC, Pearson correlation coefficient; PFS, progression-free survival; sBP, systolic blood pressure; SD, stable disease; TTP, time to progression.
Active sunitinib metabolite.
dBP association more significant than AUC.
Similar results when hypertension is defined by maximum dBP with the exception of PFS defined by dBP in a Cox proportional hazard model using hypertension as a time-dependent covariate.
Pooled analysis includes patients with melanoma, thyroid cancer, NSCLC, and sorafenib-refractory mRCC or cytokine-refractory mRCC.
The point is that there is surely a minimum effective dose for all targeted therapies below which measurable efficacy cannot be expected. Agents targeting cellular components such as BRAF, BCR-ABL, and EGFR that are critical to certain cancers may be effective in those cells at doses lower than those established as tolerable, although others such as mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors18 may require doses closer to those maximally tolerable. We would also note the underappreciated problem of drug-food interactions: studies have shown that drug levels achieved may vary five- to 10-fold depending on whether the oral dose is taken on an empty or full stomach.19,20
HOW DRUG DOSING MAY AFFECT CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS
Although dose adjustments and drug discontinuation are not new phenomena, the frequency and magnitude of these occurrences appear to be much higher with oral than with intravenous anticancer agents (Tables 2 and 3). When a large fraction of patients in a trial end up taking doses other than the starting dose, unequal escalations and reductions may assume an important role.
Table 2.
Drug | Dose (mg) | No. of Patients | Disease | % of Patients With Dose Reduction | % of Patients Who Discontinued Treatment | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sorafenib | 400 | 299 | NSCLC | N/R | 17.7 | Wakelee et al21 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 355 | RCC | 52.1 | 9.3 | Rini et al22 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 229 | HCC | 72.5 | 40.6 | Kudo et al23 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 129 | RCC | 34.9 | 22.5 | Naito et al24 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 62 | RCC | 30.6 | 6.5 | Procopio et al25 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 71 | OC/PPC | N/R | 12.7 | Matei et al26 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 82 | SCLC | N/R | 23.2 | Gitlitz et al27 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 55 | UC | 40 | 3.6 | Nimeiri et al28 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 64 | PC | N/R | 6.3 | Safarinejad29 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 51 | NSCLC | 27.5 | 11.8 | Blumenschein et al30 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 52 | RCC | 28.8 | N/R | Di Lorenzo et al31 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 452 | RCC | 13 | 10 | Escudier et al32 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 97 | RCC | 33 | 11.4 | Escudier et al33 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 51 | HCC | 33.3 | N/R | Yau et al34 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 150 | HCC | 30.7 | 14.7 | Cheng et al35 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 56 | WDTC | 52 | 33.9 | Kloos et al36 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 297 | HCC | 26 | 38 | Llovet et al(37 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 55 | PC | N/R | N/R | Steinbild et al38 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 137 | HCC | N/R | 19.7 | Abou-Alfa et al39 |
Sorafenib | 400 | 202 | RCC | N/R | 4.4 | Ratain et al40 |
Median, sorafenib | 33 | 12.7 | ||||
Mean, sorafenib | 36.5 | 16.8 | ||||
Sunitinib | 50 | 51 | Pleural mesothelioma | 41.2 | 9.8 | Nowak et al41 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 146 | RCC | 36.3 | 15.8 | Motzer et al42 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 143 | RCC | 42.7 | 17.5 | |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 56 | Biliary CA | 21.4 | 17.9 | Yi et al43 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 119 | RCC | 32.8 | 10.1 | Barrios et al44 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 84 | NSCLC | 17.9 | 19 | Gervais et al45 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 64 | NSCLC | 26.6 | 12.5 | Novello et al46 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 52 | Gastric CA | 9.6 | 3.8 | Moehler et al47 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 83 | PNET | 31.3 | 18.1 | Raymond et al48 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 74 | PACA | 28.4 | 9.4 | O'Reilly et al49 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 51 | RCC | 78.4 | 25.4 | Tomita et al50 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 78 | Gastric CA | 18 | 30.8 | Bang et al51 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 238 | Breast CA | 28.2 | 15.1 | Barrios et al52 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 107 | RCC | 43 | 15 | Escudier et al53 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 375 | RCC | 50 | 19 | Motzer et al54 |
Sunitinib | 37.5 | 60 | GIST | 23.3 | 6.7 | George et al55 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 61 | RCC | N/R | 11.5 | Rini et al56 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 107 | NET | 47.7 | 10.3 | Kulke et al57 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 64 | Breast CA | 39.1 | N/R | Burstein et al58 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 63 | NSCLC | 22.2 | 49.2 | Socinski et al59 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 84 | CRC | 31 | 8.3 | Saltz et al60 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 105 | RCC | N/R | 11.4 | Motzer et al61 |
Sunitinib | 50 | 63 | RCC | 35 | 3.17 | Motzer et al62 |
Median, sunitinib | 31.3 | 13.8 | ||||
Mean, sunitinib | 33.5 | 15.4 | ||||
Pazopanib | 800 | 290 | RCC | N/R | 16 | Sternberg et al63 |
Pazopanib | 800 | 240 | STS | 38.3 | 15.4 | van der Graaf et al64 |
Pazopanib | 800 | 74 | Cervical CA | N/R | 17.6 | Monk et al65 |
Pazopanib | 800 | 225 | RCC | 31.1 | 15.1 | Hutson et al66 |
Pazopanib | 800 | 142 | STS | 23.2 | 6.3 | Sleijfer et al67 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 617 | NSCLC | N/R | 12.1 | Lee et al68 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 72 | WDTC | 22.2 | 33.3 | Leboulleux et al69 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 231 | MTC | 35.1 | 12.1 | Wells et al2 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 623 | NSCLC | N/R | 14.4 | Natale et al70 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 83 | NSCLC | N/R | 26.5 | Natale et al71 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 73 | NSCLC | N/R | N/R | Heymach et al72 |
Vandetanib | 300 | 52 | SCLC | N/R | N/R | Arnold et al73 |
Axitinib | 5 | 359 | RCC | 34 | 7.5 | Motzer et al74 |
Axitinib | 5 | 64 | RCC | 65.6 | 20.3 | Tomita et al75 |
Axitinib | 5 | 62 | RCC | 45.2 | 35.5 | Rini et al76 |
Axitinib | 5 | 60 | Thyroid CA | 38.3 | 13.3 | Cohen et al77 |
Axitinib | 5 | 52 | RCC | 28.8 | 19.2 | Rixe et al78 |
Regorafenib | 160 | 133 | GIST | N/R | 7.5 | Demetri et al79 |
Regorafenib | 160 | 500 | CRC | 37.6 | 17 | Grothey et al80 |
Cabozantinib | 100 | 171 | PC | 62 | 24 | Smith et al1 |
Cabozantinib | 140 | 220 | MTC | 79 | 27 | Schoffski et al81 |
Tivozanib | 1.5 | 260 | RCC | 9 | 8 | Nosov et al82 |
Cediranib | 45 | 53 | RCC | N/R | 11.3 | Mulders et al83 |
Median, all | 33.2 | 14.9 | ||||
Mean, all | 36 | 16.4 |
NOTE. Values were obtained from publications listed, clinicaltrials.gov, information contained in package inserts, meeting abstract presentations, and US Food and Drug Administration announcements.
Abbreviations: CA, cancer; CRC, colorectal carcinoma; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MTC, medullary thyroid cancer; NET, neuroendocrine tumor; N/R, not reported; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; PACA, pancreatic adenocarcinoma; PC, prostate carcinoma; PNET, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor; PPC, primary peritoneal cancer; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; SCLC, small cell lung cancer; STS, soft tissue sarcoma; UC, uterine carcinoma/carcinosarcoma; WDTC, well-differentiated thyroid cancer.
Table 3.
Drug | Dose (mg/m2) | Schedule (day) | No. of Patients | Disease | % of Patients With Dose Reduction | % of Patients Who Discontinued Treatment | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pemetrexed | 500 | 1 | 1,725 | NSCLC | 1.5 | 1.2 | Scagliotti et al84 |
Cabazitaxel | 25 | 1 | 755 | Prostate | 12 | 5 | de Bono et al85 |
Nab-paclitaxel | 100 | 1, 8, 15 | 1,052 | NSCLC | 46 | 4 | Socinski et al86 |
Eribulin | 1.4 | 1, 8 | 762 | Breast | 29 | 10.2 | Cortes et al87 |
Nab-paclitaxel | 100 | 1, 8, 15 | 300 | Breast | N/R | 8 | Gradishar et al88 |
FOLFOX-4 or XELOX without bevacizumab | 701 | Colorectal | N/R | 20 | Saltz et al89 | ||
Paclitaxel | 80 | 1, 7, 14 | 1,231 | Breast | 29 | 12 | Sparano et al90 |
Paclitaxel | 175 | 1 | 1,253 | Breast | 22 | 5 | Sparano et al90 |
Gemcitabine (plus vinorelbine) | 1,200 (30) | 1, 8 | 125 | Breast | N/R | 3 | Martin et al91 |
Vinorelbine | 30 | 1, 8 | 127 | Breast | N/R | 5 | Martin et al91 |
Gemcitabine | 1,000 | Once per week × 7 weeks; then days 1, 8, 15 | 284 | Pancreatic | 5 | 6 | Moore et al92 |
Docetaxel | 75 | 1 | 335 | Prostate | 8-12* | 11 | Tannock et al93 |
Docetaxel | 30 | 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 | 334 | Prostate | 8-12* | 16 | Tannock et al93 |
Mitoxantrone | 12 | 1 | 337 | Prostate | 8-12* | 10 | Tannock et al93 |
Median, all | 8-12 | 7 | |||||
Mean, all | 17.5 | 8.3 |
Abbreviations: FOLFOX-4, infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with fluorouracil infused over 22 hours on days 1 and 2; N/R, not reported; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; XELOX, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin.
Value of 10 was used in calculations of mean.
Consider the Axis Trial (Axitinib [AG 013736] As Second Line Therapy For Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: Axis Trial), a comparative effectiveness study of axitinib and sorafenib in patients with mRCC whose disease had progressed on first-line therapy. We consider the Axis Trial to be an example of an unbalanced trial design.22,74 Patients were randomly assigned to either the approved dose of sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) or the experimental agent axitinib (5 mg orally twice a day). At first glance, the playing field seems level—a new drug is developed that challenges a commonly used alternative. However, several factors may have resulted in unequal doses being compared. The first was the size of protocol-mandated dose adjustments. Table 4, which shows dose levels in the Axis trial, reveals that at levels other than the starting dose, sorafenib was penalized. For patients experiencing toxicity, doses were reduced. The first step down reduced the sorafenib dose to 50% of the original dose and reduced axitinib to 60% of its starting dose. The second step down reduced sorafenib to 25% of the original dose but axitinib was reduced to only 40% of its starting dose. Importantly, the rules of dose reduction were also uneven. Regarding hypertension, a toxicity seen more frequently with axitinib (40% for all grades) than with sorafenib (29% for all grades), patients assigned to sorafenib had protocol-mandated reductions for hypertension if more than one drug or more intensive therapy than was previously required was used to control blood pressure (ie, grade 3 toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE], version 3.0).94 In the axitinib arm, doses were reduced only when patients achieved either a systolic pressure above 150 mmHg or a diastolic pressure above 100 mmHg on two separate readings and only after their antihypertensive treatment had been optimized. Thus, dose reductions for sorafenib were mandated at a lower threshold than those for axitinib, and therefore, it is not surprising that 54% of patients (192 of 355) taking sorafenib had dose reductions, but only 34% of patients (121 of 359) taking axitinib had dose reductions. Furthermore, patients taking axitinib whose blood pressure did not exceed 150/90 mmHg were permitted an initial dose escalation to a 40% higher dose, and if this was tolerated, a second escalation to a 100% higher dose was permitted; in 132 patients (37%), the axitinib dose was increased to more than 5 mg twice a day. However, sorafenib dose escalations were not allowed. All of these design features introduced the potential for unidirectional bias. Although one may argue that axitinib was better tolerated than sorafenib and less likely to undergo a dose reduction, this does not satisfy concerns regarding the magnitudes of and the different standards for dose reduction. It also does not satisfy concerns regarding differences in the ability to escalate doses. Some might argue that sorafenib doses were similar to those used in earlier trials32,37 and similar to those advised by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label, but smaller dose reductions could have been planned. In addition, dose escalations also created an imbalance, with axitinib allowed to have 40% to 100% dose increases. Although we recognize that the sorafenib dose usually has not been increased, a substantial fraction of patients can tolerate doses higher than 400 mg twice a day.95 Dose increases in oncology are important because they achieve two outcomes. The first is the administration of higher doses to patients whose tumors appear to be drug sensitive and may be even more responsive to higher doses. The second and most important outcome is administration of an adequate dose to patients who metabolize drug more rapidly. They often tolerate starting doses exceptionally well but might not achieve optimal serum levels. Indeed, updated data from the Axis Trial shows that patients who tolerated dose escalation above the starting dose required these higher doses to achieve outcomes comparable to those of patients who could not have their dose escalated, suggesting that patients who metabolized drug rapidly needed higher doses.96 Thus, although patients receiving axitinib who may have metabolized drug more quickly had an opportunity to achieve an optimal oral dose, the same cannot be said for those randomly assigned to sorafenib. This is bolstered by a recent randomized phase II study of axitinib among patients with treatment-naive mRCC that compared a strategy of stable dosing of axitinib at 5 mg twice a day against a titration strategy, allowing dose escalation similar to that in the Axis Trial. The objective response rate among patients in the titration group rose from 34% to 54%.97
Table 4.
Drug | Second Dose Reduction |
First Dose Reduction |
Starting Dose |
First Dose Escalation |
Second Dose Escalation |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dose (mg) | Schedule | % Starting Dose | Dose (mg) | Schedule | % Starting Dose | Dose (mg) | Schedule | Dose (mg) | Schedule | % Starting Dose | Dose (mg) | Schedule | % Starting Dose | |
Axitinib | 2 | Twice a day | 40 | 3 | Twice a day | 60 | 5 | Twice a day | 7 | Twice a day | 140 | 10 | Twice a day | 200 |
Sorafenib | 400 | Once every other day | 25 | 400 | Once a day | 50 | 400 | Twice a day | None allowed | None allowed |
A second example of trial design that introduced systematic bias is that of tivozanib, another VEGF inhibitor evaluated in mRCC. The TIVO-1 study (A Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled, Multi-Center, Open-Label Study to Compare Tivozanib [AV-951] to Sorafenib in Subjects With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma [TIVO-1]) randomly assigned patients with mRCC to either tivozanib at a starting dose of 1.5 mg a day or sorafenib 400 mg twice a day.39 Crossover (to tivozanib) was allowed on progression for patients starting on sorafenib but not for those starting with tivozanib. For the first 5 months of the study, PFS favored sorafenib. Then the curves crossed, yielding a median PFSs of 11.9 months for tivozanib and 9.1 months for sorafenib.98 What explains this peculiar reversal of fortune? Why would one drug, which takes the early lead, ultimately underperform on the metric of PFS when neither differences in postprotocol therapy nor crossover could have an impact? Unequal dose reductions might explain the paradoxical findings. The first dose reduction with tivozanib was from the starting dose of 1.5 mg to a dose of 1.0 mg, a reduction to 66% of the starting dose. Sorafenib was reduced from 400 mg twice a day to 400 mg once a day, a reduction to 50% of the starting dose and an adjustment downward of 50% greater than the adjustment for tivozanib. Rates of dose reduction were unequal, with 14% of patients receiving tivozanib and 43% of patients receiving sorafenib requiring dose reductions.98 Thus, many patients receiving sorafenib took a big step down, while fewer patients receiving tivozanib took a smaller step. Different rules for dose reduction in the setting of hypertension may have played a role; the TIVO-1 study, like the Axis Trial, permitted more antihypertensive therapy for tivozanib than for sorafenib before the dose was reduced. Finally, we note that the reversal in PFS occurs at approximately the same time that an effect resulting from the dose reductions might have begun.
A third example of potential bias occurred in the RECORD-3 study (Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma [RECORD-3]) that randomly assigned untreated patients with mRCC to either 10 mg of everolimus or 50 mg of sunitinib with crossover to the other drug on progression.99 The trial ultimately found superiority in both PFS (10.7 to 7.9 months) and overall survival (32.0 to 22.4 months) for patients who received sunitinib as initial treatment. RECORD-3 may have inadvertently penalized the sponsor's agent, everolimus, through unequal dose reductions. The dose of everolimus was initially reduced to 5 mg a day and then to 5 mg every other day (50% and 25% of the starting dose, respectively), while sunitinib was reduced first to 37.5 mg and then to 25 mg a day (75% and 50% of the starting dose, respectively; S. Gogov, personal communication, October 2013). Because doses of both agents are frequently reduced and because everolimus was penalized at all doses in addition to the starting dose, at least some portion of the difference in outcomes may be explained by imbalances in dosing.
By using a multifaceted strategy for searching MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, we identified eight head-to-head trials of oral anticancer agents with reported outcomes, including five in solid tumors that used unequal dose adjustment schemes, four of which concluded that the penalized drug was inferior.22,98–104 In addition, we identified two studies that were actively recruiting or were as yet unpublished in which unequal dose reduction schemes were confirmed with the sponsor: the first was an ongoing trial (A Study of Cabozantinib [XL184] vs Everolimus in Subjects With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma [METEOR]) comparing cabozantinib with everolimus in mRCC (ie, cabozantinib 60 mg→40 mg→20 mg and everolimus 10 mg→5 mg→2.5 mg; Exelixis corporate representative, personal communication, December 2013). The second was a trial (Cabozantinib-s-malate or Sunitinib Malate in Treating Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer) that likely uses unequal dosing in comparing cabozantinib with sunitinib in mRCC (cabozantinib, 60 mg→40 mg→20 mg and sunitinib 50 mg→37.5 mg→25 mg).
DOSE REDUCTIONS AND EFFICACY IN PATIENTS
Unfortunately, in the era of targeted therapies, concerns regarding dose reductions apply to many patients. For many oral agents, the percentage of patients undergoing dose reductions is substantial and could be clinically important. Discontinuation, often in the setting of grade 1 or 2 toxicities, has underscored the importance of the duration of toxicities. Low-grade toxicities occurring daily may be less tolerable than higher-grade toxicities that resolve rapidly.105 Table 2 summarizes the rates of dose reduction and drug discontinuation of oral agents with putative primary targets of VEGF and RET. This collection, encompassing 66 clinical trials that enrolled 50 or more patients, shows that about one third of patients had their administered doses reduced. Compare this with much lower rates of dose reduction and discontinuation with contemporaneously developed intravenous agents shown in Table 3. With oral targeted therapies, dose reductions are occurring frequently, and the magnitudes of those reductions are often large. Table 5 shows recommended dose reductions from FDA labeling for targeted and cytotoxic therapies developed contemporaneously. The first dose reduction with oral agents is often greater than the dose reduction advised for intravenous agents. As we have already discussed, the available data for oral targeted therapies indicate that the magnitudes of the reductions are such that there is likely to be an impact on effectiveness.
Table 5.
Drug | Disease | Initial Dose |
First Reduction |
Second Reduction |
Label Date | Source | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dose | Schedule | Route of Administration | Dose | Schedule | Route of Administration | % | Dose | Schedule | Route of Administration | % | ||||
Sorafenib | RCC, HCC | 400 mg | Twice a day | Oral | 400 mg | Once a day | Oral | −50 | 400 mg | Once every other day | Oral | −75 | 10/14/11 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/021923s012lbl.pdf |
Sunitinib | GIST, RCC | 50 mg | Once a day | Oral | 37.5 mg | Once a day | Oral | −25 | 25 mg | Once a day | Oral | −50 | 11/16/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021938s021s022s023lbl.pdf |
Pazopanib | RCC | 800 mg | Once a day | Oral | 400 mg | Once a day | Oral | −50 | 200 mg | Once a day | Oral | −75 | 11/15/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021938s021s022s023lbl.pdf |
Axitinib | RCC | 5 mg | Twice a day | Oral | 3 mg | Twice a day | Oral | −40 | 2 mg | Twice a day | Oral | −60 | 1/27/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202324lbl.pdf |
Vandetanib | MTC | 300 mg | Once a day | Oral | 200 mg | Once a day | Oral | −33 | 100 mg | Once a day | Oral | −66 | 10/9/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022405s003lbl.pdf |
Cabozantinib | MTC | 140 mg | Once a day | Oral | 100 mg | Once a day | Oral | −29 | 60 mg | Once a day | Oral | −57 | 11/29/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/203756lbl.pdf |
Everolimus | RCC, 4 others | 10 mg | Once a day | Oral | 5 mg | Once a day | Oral | −50 | 2.5 mg | Once a day | Oral | −75 | 8/29/12 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022334s018lbl.pdf |
Median | −40 | −71 | ||||||||||||
Mean | −45 | −65 | ||||||||||||
Pemetrexed | NSCLC | 500 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | 375 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | −25 | 250 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | −50 | 01/18/2013 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021462s042lbl.pdf |
Cabazitaxel | Prostate CA | 25 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | 20 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | −20 | N/R | — | 10/4/2012 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2013/201023Orig1s007ltr.pdf | ||
Nab-paclitaxel | NSCLC | 100 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8, 15; every 21 days | IV | 75 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8, 15; every 21 days | IV | −25 | 50 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8, 15; every 21 days | IV | −50 | 10/11/2012 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021660s031lbl.pdf |
Nab-paclitaxel | MBC | 260 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | 220 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | −15 | 180 mg/m2 | Once every 21 days | IV | −30 | ||
Eribulin | Breast CA | 1.4 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8; every 21 days | IV | 1.1 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8; every 21 days | IV | −21 | 0.7 mg/m2 | Days 1, 8; every 21 days | IV | −50 | 02/17/2012 | www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/201532s004lbl.pdf |
Median | −21 | −50 | ||||||||||||
Mean | −21 | −45 |
Abbreviations: CA, cancer; GIST, GI stromal tumor; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; IV, intravenous; MBC, metastatic breast cancer; MTC, medullary thyroid cancer; N/R, not reported; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; RCC, renal cell carcinoma.
Furthermore, data from real-world clinical practice suggest that reductions may occur at even higher rates when oral agents are administered to a population not as carefully selected as those enrolled onto a trial. It is well known that stringent eligibility criteria in cancer therapy trials can affect the external validity and generalizability of results. Consider an observational study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib at the recommended dose of 400 mg twice a day: 54% required dose reduction and 56% discontinued sorafenib for reasons other than progression.106 These rates are 50% to 100% higher than the rates of dose reduction and drug discontinuation of 26% and 38% in the original report.37 Also consider data from an expanded-access trial in Italy of sunitinib among patients with mRCC (who were ineligible for other sunitinib studies) in which 46% (238 of 521) required dose reductions.107 This exceeds the 32% of patients requiring dose reduction in the pivotal study.108
Finally consider the example of cabozantinib,109 a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets the rearranged during transfection (RET) proto-oncogene, among other kinases, that was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of medullary thyroid carcinoma. The starting oral dose in the clinical trial and the dose approved by the FDA was 140 mg a day. Twenty-seven percent of patients enrolled onto the registration trial discontinued cabozantinib and, as noted in the FDA approval, “the recommended dose and schedule for cabozantinib is 140 mg orally once daily . . . dose reduction was required in 79% of patients.” Furthermore, the manufacturer recommends dose reductions to 100 and 60 mg (28% and 57% of the starting dose of 140 mg). Can we be confident that these adjustments have no impact on efficacy? Can we be sure private practitioners and patients will persevere through toxicities as much as the clinicians and patients in a clinical trial? If the answers to either of those questions is no, then how can we be sure that outcomes reported in a trial with a dose that only one fifth of patients could tolerate will be emulated in the community? For most, it is not surprising to find that patients with good performance status enrolled onto experimental trials by enthusiastic investigators might tolerate higher doses for a longer period of time, and greater dose reductions by community physicians treating real-world patients have long been a concern.110 We must consider whether dose adjustments are a nearly ubiquitous unappreciated source of diminished effectiveness in the real world. As the authors that examined sunitinib cautioned: “in those patients for whom it may not be possible to maintain a full dose, use of alternative dosing schedules. . . may provide benefit in some patients; however, this supposition requires verification in further analysis of additional data.”4 Unfortunately, incentives to follow that advice are limited.
OBJECTIONS
There are objections and limitations to this analysis. One may contend that some instances of unequal dosing occur when sponsors adhere to the dose reduction schemes advised by the FDA drug label. However, we argue that the FDA label is not absolute, and trialists should base dosing schemes on the totality of available pharmacologic and phase I evidence, with the goal of most accurately and fairly conducting the trial. Alternatively, others may argue that the size of manufactured pills or capsules contributes to these problems and, to a certain degree, it does. In contrast to intravenous medications, in which any dose can be formulated by the pharmacy, pills and capsules can be dosed only in increments of their smallest size, or half that, for those that can be split. While acknowledging that this is a choice made by manufacturers, it can lead to bias in studies if not handled properly, and it places limits on future trialists. We argue that in a comparative trial, dose levels can and should be made more equitable. For instance, a recent study of sorafenib in well-differentiated thyroid cancer, which achieved its efficacy end point, used a smaller first dose reduction to 75% of the starting dose.111
Some limitations to our analysis must be acknowledged. The inability to access dosing information for all published and ongoing studies precludes a comprehensive appraisal of the extent of the concerns noted here. In addition, our analysis compared dose reduction primarily on the basis of percentage changes. However, it is possible that, for certain comparisons, percentages fail to capture biologic equivalence. For example, a 50% reduction of one drug may be equivalent to a 30% reduction of another. We are not aware of evidence to firmly support or refute these claims for any particular comparison; however, this is an assumption and should be acknowledged as such.
In summary, we have outlined what we perceive as an underappreciated but pressing problem in oncology—the dosing of oral anticancer medications and its effect in clinical trials and, more importantly, in the practice of oncology. We have outlined why a comparative effectiveness trial may not be balanced. Readers and editors should query whether dose reductions were of similar sizes, occurred frequently or infrequently, and were made on the basis of comparable rules. If the answers to any of these questions is no, caution is warranted in the interpretation of trial results. In general, we favor smaller step sizes that would allow for a range of titrated doses.
The issue of dosing is important in the conduct of comparative clinical trials since hardwired bias incorporated into a trial cannot be corrected after the fact. Rather, it can only be recognized. But these issues may be even more important in the everyday management of patients. The question one must ask is, Why should a patient with a terminal disease receive a drug at a dose that has never been proven effective and that in the context of accumulated knowledge is likely ineffective? Why should patients receive a 50% dose of a drug they cannot tolerate at full dose rather than seek an alternate treatment? How many oncologists would treat a curable intermediate-grade lymphoma with 50% doses of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)? The answer is obviously none. Knowing that full doses of most oral targeted agents are only marginally effective in most patients, and with the evidence suggesting that 50% doses are ineffective for the majority of such compounds, one can argue that this is an issue not only of efficacy but also of optimal patient care.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to Barry Kramer, MD, for his critical reading of the manuscript.
Footnotes
See accompanying editorial on page 1537
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception and design: Vinay Prasad, Tito Fojo
Collection and assembly of data: All authors
Data analysis and interpretation: All authors
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
REFERENCES
- 1.Smith DC, Smith MR, Sweeney C, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced prostate cancer: Results of a phase II randomized discontinuation trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:412–419. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.0494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wells SA, Jr, Robinson BG, Gagel RF, et al. Vandetanib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:134–141. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.5040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Roland M, Torgerson DJ. What are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316:285. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7127.285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Houk BE, Bello CL, Poland B, et al. Relationship between exposure to sunitinib and efficacy and tolerability endpoints in patients with cancer: Results of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic meta-analysis. Cancer Chemo Pharmacol. 2010;66:357–371. doi: 10.1007/s00280-009-1170-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rini BI, de La Motte Rouge T, Harzstark AL, et al. Five-year survival in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with axitinib. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013;11:107–114. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2012.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rini BI, Garrett M, Poland B, et al. Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53:491–504. doi: 10.1002/jcph.73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rini BI, Cohen DP, Lu DR, et al. Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:763–773. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rini BI, Schiller JH, Fruehauf JP, et al. Diastolic blood pressure as a biomarker of axitinib efficacy in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3841–3849. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jain L, Sissung TM, Danesi R, et al. Hypertension and hand-foot skin reactions related to VEGFR2 genotype and improved clinical outcome following bevacizumab and sorafenib. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29:95. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-29-95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Rugo HS, Herbst RS, Liu G, et al. Phase I trial of the oral antiangiogenesis agent AG-013736 in patients with advanced solid tumors: Pharmacokinetic and clinical results. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5474–5483. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.O'Connor OA, Stewart AK, Vallone M, et al. A phase 1 dose escalation study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of the novel proteasome inhibitor carfilzomib (PR-171) in patients with hematologic malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7085–7091. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Mross K, Frost A, Steinbild S, et al. A phase I dose-escalation study of regorafenib (BAY 73-4506), an inhibitor of oncogenic, angiogenic, and stromal kinases, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2658–2667. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Advani RH, Buggy JJ, Sharman JP, et al. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (PCI-32765) has significant activity in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:88–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.7906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hurwitz HI, Dowlati A, Saini S, et al. Phase I trial of pazopanib in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:4220–4227. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kawashima A, Takayama H, Arai Y, et al. One-month relative dose intensity of not less than 50% predicts favourable progression-free survival in sorafenib therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japanese patients. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1521–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1031–1037. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200104053441401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Flaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, et al. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:809–819. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1002011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tanaka C, O'Reilly T, Kovarik JM, et al. Identifying optimal biologic doses of everolimus (RAD001) in patients with cancer based on the modeling of preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1596–1602. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ratain MJ. Flushing oral oncology drugs down the toilet. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3958–3959. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.1617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sharma MR, Karrison TG, Kell B, et al. Evaluation of food effect on pharmacokinetics of vismodegib in advanced solid tumor patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:3059–3067. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wakelee HA, Lee JW, Hanna NH, et al. A double-blind randomized discontinuation phase-II study of sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer patients: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study E2501. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:1574–1582. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31826149ba. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rini BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): A randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1931–1939. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61613-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kudo M, Imanaka K, Chida N, et al. Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolisation in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2117–2127. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Naito S, Tsukamoto T, Murai M, et al. Overall survival and good tolerability of long-term use of sorafenib after cytokine treatment: Final results of a phase II trial of sorafenib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2011;108:1813–1819. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10281.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Procopio G, Verzoni E, Iacovelli R, et al. Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The ROSORC trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1256–1261. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Matei D, Sill MW, Lankes HA, et al. Activity of sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer and primary peritoneal carcinomatosis: A Gynecologic Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:69–75. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.7856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gitlitz BJ, Moon J, Glisson BS, et al. Sorafenib in platinum-treated patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG 0435) phase II trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1835–1840. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f0bd78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Nimeiri HS, Oza AM, Morgan RJ, et al. A phase II study of sorafenib in advanced uterine carcinoma/carcinosarcoma: A trial of the Chicago, PMH, and California Phase II Consortia. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117:37–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Safarinejad MR. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients with castrate resistant prostate cancer: A phase II study. Urol Oncol. 2010;28:21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Blumenschein GR, Jr, Gatzemeier U, Fossella F, et al. Phase II, multicenter, uncontrolled trial of single-agent sorafenib in patients with relapsed or refractory, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4274–4280. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.0541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Di Lorenzo G, Cartenì G, Autorino R, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4469–4474. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.6480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:125–134. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa060655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Escudier B, Szczylik C, Hutson TE, et al. Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib versus interferon Alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1280–1289. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.3342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Yau T, Chan P, Ng KK, et al. Phase 2 open-label study of single-agent sorafenib in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in a hepatitis B-endemic Asian population: Presence of lung metastasis predicts poor response. Cancer. 2009;115:428–436. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25–34. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70285-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kloos RT, Ringel MD, Knopp MV, et al. Phase II trial of sorafenib in metastatic thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1675–1684. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–390. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Steinbild S, Mross K, Frost A, et al. A clinical phase II study with sorafenib in patients with progressive hormone-refractory prostate cancer: A study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1480–1485. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Abou-Alfa GK, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4293–4300. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.3441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2505–2512. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.6723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Nowak AK, Millward MJ, Creaney J, et al. A phase II study of intermittent sunitinib malate as second-line therapy in progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:1449–1456. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31825f22ee. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Olsen MR, et al. Randomized phase II trial of sunitinib on an intermittent versus continuous dosing schedule as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1371–1377. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.4133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Yi JH, Thongprasert S, Lee J, et al. A phase II study of sunitinib as a second-line treatment in advanced biliary tract carcinoma: A multicentre, multinational study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:196–201. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Barrios CH, Hernandez-Barajas D, Brown MP, et al. Phase II trial of continuous once-daily dosing of sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2012;118:1252–1259. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Gervais R, Hainsworth JD, Blais N, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2011;74:474–480. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Novello S, Camps C, Grossi F, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and irradiated brain metastases. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1260–1266. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318219a973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Moehler M, Mueller A, Hartmann JT, et al. An open-label, multicentre biomarker-oriented AIO phase II trial of sunitinib for patients with chemo-refractory advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1511–1520. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Raymond E, Dahan L, Raoul JL, et al. Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:501–513. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1003825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.O'Reilly EM, Niedzwiecki D, Hall M, et al. A Cancer and Leukemia Group B phase II study of sunitinib malate in patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (CALGB 80603) Oncologist. 2010;15:1310–1319. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Tomita Y, Shinohara N, Yuasa T, et al. Overall survival and updated results from a phase II study of sunitinib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:1166–1172. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyq146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Bang YJ, Kang YK, Kang WK, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2011;29:1449–1458. doi: 10.1007/s10637-010-9438-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Barrios CH, Liu MC, Lee SC, et al. Phase III randomized trial of sunitinib versus capecitabine in patients with previously treated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121:121–131. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0788-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Escudier B, Roigas J, Gillessen S, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib administered in a continuous once-daily dosing regimen in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4068–4075. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.5476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Overall survival and updated results for sunitinib compared with interferon alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3584–3590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.1293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.George S, Blay JY, Casali PG, et al. Clinical evaluation of continuous daily dosing of sunitinib malate in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib failure. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1959–1968. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Rini BI, Michaelson MD, Rosenberg JE, et al. Antitumor activity and biomarker analysis of sunitinib in patients with bevacizumab-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3743–3748. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kulke MH, Lenz HJ, Meropol NJ, et al. Activity of sunitinib in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3403–3410. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.9020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Burstein HJ, Elias AD, Rugo HS, et al. Phase II study of sunitinib malate, an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1810–1816. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Socinski MA, Novello S, Brahmer JR, et al. Multicenter, phase II trial of sunitinib in previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:650–656. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Saltz LB, Rosen LS, Marshall JL, et al. Phase II trial of sunitinib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of standard therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4793–4799. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.8637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Motzer RJ, Rini BI, Bukowski RM, et al. Sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JAMA. 2006;295:2516–2524. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Motzer RJ, Michaelson MD, Redman BG, et al. Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:16–24. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.2574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Sternberg CN, Hawkins RE, Wagstaff J, et al. A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final overall survival results and safety update. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1287–1296. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.van der Graaf WT, Blay JY, Chawla SP, et al. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1879–1886. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60651-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Monk BJ, Mas Lopez L, Zarba JJ, et al. Phase II, open-label study of pazopanib or lapatinib monotherapy compared with pazopanib plus lapatinib combination therapy in patients with advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3562–3569. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.9571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Hutson TE, Davis ID, Machiels JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:475–480. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Sleijfer S, Ray-Coquard I, Papai Z, et al. Pazopanib, a multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory advanced soft tissue sarcoma: A phase II study from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group (EORTC study 62043) J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3126–3132. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.3223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Lee JS, Hirsh V, Park K, et al. Vandetanib versus placebo in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer after prior therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEPHYR) J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1114–1121. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.1709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Leboulleux S, Bastholt L, Krause T, et al. Vandetanib in locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer: A randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:897–905. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70335-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Natale RB, Thongprasert S, Greco FA, et al. Phase III trial of vandetanib compared with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1059–1066. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Natale RB, Bodkin D, Govindan R, et al. Vandetanib versus gefitinib in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: Results from a two-part, double-blind, randomized phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2523–2529. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.6015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Heymach JV, Paz-Ares L, De Braud F, et al. Randomized phase II study of vandetanib alone or with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5407–5415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.3138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Arnold AM, Seymour L, Smylie M, et al. Phase II study of vandetanib or placebo in small-cell lung cancer patients after complete or partial response to induction chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.20. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4278–4284. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:552–562. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70093-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Tomita Y, Uemura H, Fujimoto H, et al. Key predictive factors of axitinib (AG-013736)-induced proteinuria and efficacy: A phase II study in Japanese patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2592–2602. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Rini BI, Wilding G, Hudes G, et al. Phase II study of axitinib in sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4462–4468. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.7034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Cohen EE, Rosen LS, Vokes EE, et al. Axitinib is an active treatment for all histologic subtypes of advanced thyroid cancer: Results from a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4708–4713. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.9566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Rixe O, Bukowski RM, Michaelson MD, et al. Axitinib treatment in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer: A phase II study. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:975–984. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70285-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Demetri GD, Reichardt P, Kang YK, et al. Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:295–302. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61857-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:303–312. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61900-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Schoffski P, Elisei R, Müller S, et al. An international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial (EXAM) of cabozantinib (XL184) in medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) patients (pts) with documented RECIST progression at baseline. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl):358s. abstr 5508. [Google Scholar]
- 82.Nosov DA, Esteves B, Lipatov ON, et al. Antitumor activity and safety of tivozanib (AV-951) in a phase II randomized discontinuation trial in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1678–1685. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.3524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Mulders P, Hawkins R, Nathan P, et al. Cediranib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results of a randomised phase II study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:527–537. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3543–3551. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.de Bono JS, Oudard S, Ozguroglu M, et al. Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: A randomised open-label trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1147–1154. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61389-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Socinski MA, Bondarenko I, Karaseva NA, et al. Weekly nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus solvent-based paclitaxel plus carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: Final results of a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2055–2062. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Cortes J, O'Shaughnessy J, Loesch D, et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): A phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet. 2011;377:914–923. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60070-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Gradishar WJ, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S, et al. Significantly longer progression-free survival with nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3611–3619. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.5397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2013–2019. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1663–1671. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Martín M, Ruiz A, Muñoz M, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: Final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:219–225. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70041-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1960–1966. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.9525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Tannock IF, de Wit R, Berry WR, et al. Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. New Engl J Med. 2004;351:1502–1512. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Colevas AD, Setser A. The NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 3.0 is the new standard for oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(suppl):543s. abstr 6098. [Google Scholar]
- 95.Amato R, Zhai J, Willis J, et al. A phase II trial of intrapatient dose-escalated sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2012;10:153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2012.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Escudier B, Rini BI, Hutson TE, et al. Updated results of the phase 3 AXIS trial: Axitinib vs sorafenib as second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) Eur Uro Suppl. 2012;11:e81. [Google Scholar]
- 97.Rini BI, Melichar B, Ueda T, et al. Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: A randomised double-blind phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1233–1242. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70464-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Motzer RJ, Nosov D, Eisen T, et al. Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3791–3799. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.4940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Motzer RJ, Barrios CH, Kim TM, et al. Record-3: Phase II randomized trial comparing sequential first-line everolimus (EVE) and second-line sunitinib (SUN) versus first-line SUN and second-line EVE in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(suppl):285s. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.6911. abstr 4504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Cheng AL, Kang YK, Lin DY, et al. Sunitinib versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular cancer: Results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4067–4075. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.8372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:722–731. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1303989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Saglio G, Kim DW, Issaragrisil S, et al. Nilotinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2251–2259. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Kantarjian H, Shah NP, Hochhaus A, et al. Dasatinib versus imatinib in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2260–2270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1002315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Hutson TE, Lesovoy V, Al-Shukri S, et al. Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: A randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1287–1294. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70465-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Edgerly M, Fojo T. Is there room for improvement in adverse event reporting in the era of targeted therapies? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:240–242. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Iavarone M, Cabibbo G, Piscaglia F, et al. Field-practice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective multicenter study in Italy. Hepatology. 2011;54:2055–2063. doi: 10.1002/hep.24644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Sternberg C, Bracarda S, Carteni G, et al. Sunitinib expanded-access trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Final Italian results. European Cancer Conference 2013; September 27-October 1, 2013; Amsterdam, the Netherlands. abstr 2707. [Google Scholar]
- 108.Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:115–124. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa065044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Elisei R, Schlumberger MJ, Müller SP, et al. Cabozantinib in progressive medullary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3639–3646. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.4659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Chang J. Chemotherapy dose reduction and delay in clinical practice: Evaluating the risk to patient outcome in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:S11–S14. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00259-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Brose MS, Nutting C, Jarzab B, et al. Sorafenib in locally advanced or metastatic patients with radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: The phase III DECISION trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(suppl):6s. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2014.01.02. abstr 4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]