Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 24, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2006: 4523
© 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bukowski, R. M. Articles by McDermott, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bukowski, R. M. Articles by McDermott, D.

Abstract

Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC)

Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH; University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA; Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO; Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Bronx, NY; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA

4523

Background: Bevacizumab (B) has clinical efficacy in metastatic RCC following cytokine treatment. A single-arm Phase II trial suggested potential clinical benefit of adding erlotinib (E) to B. To further assess this combination in RCC, we conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind Phase 2 trial comparing B+E vs B + placebo. Methods: Eligibility criteria included: previously untreated metastatic RCC with >50% clear cell histology; previous nephrectomy; ECOG PS 0 or 1; measurable disease; serum Ca++ 10 mg/dL; LDH 1.5 ULN; Hgb 9 g/dL; and standard exclusion criteria for B. All pts received B 10 mg/kg IV q 2 wk with either E 150 mg po daily or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumors were assessed using RECIST every 8 wks. A landmark analysis was performed 9 mo after accrual of the last pt. Objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were co-primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included response duration, overall survival, and safety. Results: 104 pts (53 B, 51 B+E) were enrolled at 20 sites from Mar 2004–Oct 2004. 65 pts have discontinued therapy. 55 have progressed (PFS HR = 0.86, CI 0.5, 1.49). Median follow-up was 9.8 mo. Median survival duration was not reached. Only 1 treatment-related death due to GI perforation occurred (on B+E). Updated safety and survival data will be presented. Conclusions: B+E and B were well tolerated. Adding E does not appear to improve efficacy from B. PFS of 8.5 months with B compares favorably with the historical PFS of 4.7 mo with interferon alpha (IFN). Results of phase III trials comparing IFN ± B are pending.

Abstract presentation from the 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting