Open AccessAnlotinib Versus Sunitinib as First‐Line Treatment for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial
Author(s) -
Zhou AiPing,
Bai Yuxian,
Song Yan,
Luo Hong,
Ren XiuBao,
Wang Xiuwen,
Shi Benkang,
Fu Cheng,
Cheng Ying,
Liu Jiyan,
Qin Shukui,
Li Jun,
Li Hanzhong,
Bai Xianzhong,
Ye Dingwei,
Wang Jinwan,
Ma Jianhui
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the oncologist
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.176
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1549-490X
pISSN - 1083-7159
DOI - 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0839
Subject(s) - medicine , sunitinib , neutropenia , clinical endpoint , adverse effect , renal cell carcinoma , anemia , pazopanib , dysgeusia , phases of clinical research , gastroenterology , oncology , clinical trial , urology , toxicity
Background Anlotinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting angiogenesis. This multicenter, randomized phase II trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in comparison with sunitinib as first‐line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Materials and Methods Patients with mRCC from 13 clinical centers were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive anlotinib ( n = 90) or sunitinib ( n = 43). Anlotinib was given orally at a dose of 12 mg once daily (2 weeks on/1 week off), and sunitinib was given orally at 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results The median PFS was similar with anlotinib and sunitinib (17.5 vs. 16.6 months, p > .05). The median OS (30.9 vs. 30.5 months, p > .05), ORR (30.3% vs. 27.9%), and 6‐week DCR (97.8% vs. 93.0%) were similar in the two groups. Adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or 4 were significantly less frequent with anlotinib than with sunitinib (28.9% vs. 55.8%, p < .01), especially in terms of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. AEs occurring at a lower frequency with anlotinib were hand‐foot syndrome, eyelid edema, hair depigmentation, skin yellowing, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. The incidence of serious AEs was lower with anlotinib than with sunitinib. Conclusion The clinical efficacy of anlotinib was similar to that of sunitinib as the first‐line treatment for mRCC, but with a more favorable safety profile. Implications for Practice This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of anlotinib for the first‐line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Anlotinib, which was developed independently in China, is a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor inhibiting multiple kinases involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. Results indicated that the efficacy of anlotinib is comparable to and the safety is better than that of sunitinib.