Table 3.
Second-line targeted drug | n | Median OS (95% CI) | Median PFS (95% CI) | Overall response rate, n (%) a | Disease control rate n (%)a |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Everolimus | 520 | 17.0 months (14.5–19.5) | 6.3 months (5.6–6.9) | 30 (6.7) | 201 (45.1) |
Sorafenib | 240 | 17.1 months (14.5–19.8) | 5.8 months (4.7–6.8) | 23 (9.9) | 113 (48.7) |
Sunitinib | 228 | 15.4 months (11.0–19.7) | 5.7 months (4.4–7.0) | 25 (12.1) | 73 (35.3) |
Sunitinib → everolimus | 390 | 37.2 months (31.5–42.9) | 22.7 months (19.5–26.0)b | 32 (8.2) | 176 (45.1) |
Sunitinib → sorafenib | 232 | 32.7 months (27.1–38.2) | 19.0 months (15.8–22.3 b | 24 (10.3) | 119 (51.3) |
Sorafenib → sunitinib | 139 | 31.8 months (25.8–37.7) | 18.5 months (16.2–20.7)b | 19 (13.7) | 54 (38.8) |
Sorafenib → everolimus | 93 | 32.2 months (26.0–38.3) | 21.4 months (18.0–24.9)b | 3 (3.2) | 52 (55.9) |
95%CI 95% confidence intervals, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival
aData for best response assessment were available for 446, 232, and 207 patients treated with everolimus, sorafenib, and sunitinib, respectively
bPFS for sequences was the time from first-line treatment initiation to the date of documented progression on the second-line therapy