AXIS Trial: Second-Line Axitinib Versus Sorafenib

Panelists: Robert A. Figlin, MD, Cedars-Sinai; Daniel J. George, MD, Duke; Thomas E. Hutson, DO, PharmD,
Texas Oncology; Eric Jonasch, MD, MD Anderson; Brian I. Rini, MD, Cleveland Clinic
Published Online: Thursday, August 15, 2013
For High-Definition, Click
The majority of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are treated with a VEGF-targeted TKI in the first-line setting, believes moderator Daniel J. George, MD. Following progression on one of these agents, several treatments remain available as a second-line option, including the potent angiogenesis inhibitor axitinib.

The rationale to examine axitinib in the second-line setting stemmed from evidence suggesting that continued VEGF inhibition remains effective in later lines of treatment, explains Brian I. Rini, MD. As a result, the phase III AXIS trial evenly randomized 723 patients with clear-cell mRCC to receive second-line axitinib or sorafenib. Patient selection was carefully restricted to only one prior therapy; however, this treatment could have been a variety of agents, including cytokines, high-dose IL-2, temsirolimus, and a VEGF inhibitor.

This trial demonstrated a clinical advantage for axitinib with a hazard ratio of 0.67, notes Rini. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.7 months in the axitinib arm compared to 4.7 months with sorafenib (P < .0001). Based on these findings, the FDA approved axitinib in early 2012.

A high-level of evidence exists for administering either everolimus or axitinib in the second-line setting, suggests Robert A. Figlin, MD. The challenge facing physicians is determining which treatment should be administered. In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, Rini recommends looking to the patient populations enrolled into each trial that examined these agents.

In the RECORD-1 trial exploring everolimus, approximately 21% of patients were truly in the second-line, points outs Rini. As a result, the trial was largely performed in the third- and fourth-lines of treatment. Inversely, the AXIS trial was conducted in a purely second-line setting. As a result, Rini believes the level of evidence for second-line use is in favor of axitinib over everolimus. However, Rini does not believe a characteristic is currently known that predicts a better response to a distinct second-line therapy. The one thing that does seems clear, notes George, is that the level of response to a VEGF TKI in the first-line seems to predict the overall prognosis.

If patients do not response well initially to a TKI, their prognosis is generally very poor. As a result, these patients should be treated aggressively or referred to a clinical trial. However, each of the VEGF inhibitors has unique characteristics, points out Thomas E. Hutson, DO, PharmD. As a result, a patient may not respond to one TKI in the frontline but have a long response to another in the second-line setting. Additionally, Rini notes, it is important to ensure that a patient is not responding to an agent, before moving on to a new treatment.

View More From This Discussion
Episode 1 Introduction and Review of the COMPARZ Trial in RCC
Episode 2 COMPARZ Trial and Alternate Sunitinib Dosing Schedule
Episode 3 PISCES Trial and Patient Treatment Preference in mRCC
Episode 4 AGILE Trial: Frontline Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in mRCC
Episode 5 Utilizing Frontline Bevacizumab in mRCC
Episode 6 Frontline Sunitinib Compared to Everolimus in mRCC
Episode 7 AXIS Trial: Second-Line Axitinib Versus Sorafenib
Episode 8 Determining Progression in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Episode 9 INTORSECT Trial: Second-Line Temsirolimus Versus Sorafenib
Episode 10 Novel Agents in Development for Renal Cell Carcinoma
Episode 11 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Episode 12 Unmet Needs in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Episode 13 Conclusion: Key Take-Away Points and Cardiac Safety
Expert Panelists
Dr Daniel George

Daniel J. George, MD

Director of Genitourinary Oncology
Duke Cancer Institute
Durham, North Carolina

Robert A. Figlin, MD

Professor of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences; Chief, Division of Hematology/Oncology
Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center
Los Angeles, California

Thomas E. Hutson, DO, PharmD

Director of Genitourinary Oncology, Texas Oncology; Professor Medicine, Texas A&M
Health Science Center, Dallas, Texas

Eric Jonasch, MD

Associate Professor of Medicine
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Brian I. Rini, MD

Professor of Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Online CME Activities
Free CME from PER
PARP Inhibitors: Current and Future Options for Breast and Ovarian Cancer
Rapid Summaries and Commentaries: Update from Chicago - Advances in the Treatment of Lung Cancer
Medical Crossfire®: The JAK-STAT Pathway as a Mediator of Onco-Inflammation
2nd Annual Miami Lung Cancer Conference™ Medical Crossfire® Case Discussion
The content contained in this video is for general information purposes only. The viewer is encouraged to confirm the information presented with other sources. OncLiveTV Peer Exchange makes no representations or warranties of any kind about the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, reliability, or suitability of any of the information, including content or advertisements, contained in this video and expressly disclaims liability for any errors and omissions that may be presented in this video. OncLiveTV Peer Exchange reserves the right to alter or correct any error or omission in the information it provides in this video, without any obligations. OncLiveTV Peer Exchange further disclaims any and all liability for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising from the use or misuse of any material or information presented in this video. The views expressed in this video are those of the panelists and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of OncLiveTV Peer Exchange.
More Reading