Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 1;11:23–36. doi: 10.2147/CE.S98687

Table 1.

Clinical trials of efficacy of everolimus in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Clinical trial Arms Design Population n Median PFS (months) ORR Median OS (months)
Motzer et al46 Everolimus vs placebo Phase III randomized Those with mRCC who progressed after one or more prior TKIs Overall: 416 Overall: 4.9 (everolimus) vs 1.9 (placebo) 2% (everolimus) vs 0% (placebo) Overall: 14.8 (everolimus) vs 14.4 (placebo)
RECORD-1 updated results One previous TKI: 308 (184 sunitinib, 124 sorafenib) After one TKI: 5.4 (everolimus) vs 1.9 (placebo) Survival corrected for crossover was 1.9-fold longer with everolimus
Two previous TKIs: 108 After two TKIs: 4.0 (everolimus) vs 1.8 (placebo)
Pure second line after sunitinib: 56 After sunitinib (as only previous therapy): 4.6 (everolimus) vs 1.8 (placebo)
Amato et al48 Everolimus Phase II Those with mRCC who received one or no prior therapy 41 11.2 (everolimus) 14% (everolimus) 22.1 (everolimus)
Hainsworth et al66 BEV/EVE in first line vs second line Phase II randomized Those with mRCC who had received no prior systemic therapy or had progressed to sunitinib, sorafenib, or both Overall: 80
Previously untreated: 50
Previously treated: 30
9.1 (BEV/EVE in first line)
7.1 (BEV/EVE in second line)
30% (BEV/EVE in first line)
23% (BEV/EVE in second line)
21.3 (BEV/EVE in first line)
15.5 (BEV/EVE in second line)
Motzer et al63 Everolimus → sunitinib vs Phase II randomized Those with mRCC who had received no prior systemic therapy Overall: 471 PFS 1: 7.9 (everolimus → sunitinib) vs 10.7 (sunitinib → everolimus) 8% (everolimus → sunitinib) vs 27% (sunitinib → everolimus) 22.4 (everolimus → sunitinib) vs 32.0 (sunitinib → everolimus)
RECORD-3 sunitinib → everolimus 53.7% and 51.6% of patients who progressed to everolimus and sunitinib, respectively, received second line within the clinical trial Combined PFS 1+2: 21.1 (everolimus → sunitinib) vs 25.8 (sunitinib → everolimus)
Ravaud et al67
RECORD-2
EVE/BEV vs IFN/BEV Phase II randomized Those with mRCC who had received no prior systemic therapy 365 9.3 (EVE/BEV) vs 10.0 (IFN/BEV) 27% (EVE/BEV) vs 28% (IFN/BEV) 27.1 (EVE/BEV) vs 27.1 (IFN/BEV)
Motzer et al69
RECORD-4
Everolimus Phase II Those with mRCC who progressed after one prior therapy Overall: 134 Overall: 7.8 (everolimus) 7% (everolimus) Overall: 23.8 (everolimus)
After sunitinib: 58 After sunitinib: 5.7 (everolimus) After sunitinib: 23.8 (everolimus)
After other VEGF therapy: 62 After other VEGF therapy: 7.8 (everolimus) After other VEGF therapy: 17.2 (everolimus)
After cytokines: 14 After cytokines: 12.9 (everolimus) After cytokines: NE
Choueiri et al54
METEOR
Cabozantinib vseverolimus Phase III Those with mRCC who progressed after one or more prior TKIs 658 7.4 (cabozantinib) vs 3.9 (everolimus) 17% (cabozantinib) vs 3% (everolimus) 21.4 (cabozantinib) vs 16.5 (everolimus)
Motzer et al69 Lenvatinib pluseverolimus vs lenvatinib vs everolimus Phase II Those with mRCC who progressed afterone prior TKI 151 Lenvatinib plus everolimus: 14.6 Lenvatinib plus everolimus: 43% Lenvatinib plus everolimus: 25.5
Lenvatinib alone: 7.4 Lenvatinib alone: 27% Lenvatinib alone: 18.4
Everolimus alone: 5.5 Everolimus alone: 6% Everolimus alone: 17.5
Motzer et al53
CheckMate
025
Nivolumab vs everolimus Phase III randomized Those with mRCC who progressed after one or two prior antiangiogenic therapies 821
One previous antiangiogenic therapy: 591
Two previous antiangiogenic therapies: 230
4.6 (nivolumab) vs 4.4 (everolimus) 25% (nivolumab) vs 5% (everolimus) 25.0 (nivolumab) vs 19.6 (everolimus)

Abbreviations: PFS, progression-free survival; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; mRCC, metastatic renal cell cancer; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; BEV/EVE, bevacizumab/everolimus; IFN/BEV, interferon-α/bevacizumab; NE, not estimable.