Efficacy and safety of vorolanib plus everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A three-arm, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase III study (CONCEPT)

Vorolanib is a highly potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor. This three-arm, randomised, registered study aimed to assess the combination of vorolanib and everolimus or vorolanib alone versus a control arm of everolimus as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who had received one prior VEGFR-TKI were randomised (1:1:1) to receive the combination of vorolanib and everolimus or either monotherapy. Patients with brain metastases were excluded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.1.Between 10th March 2017 and 30th May 2019, 399 patients (133 in each group) were enrolled. By the cutoff date (30th April 2020), a significant improvement in PFS was detected in the combination group compared with the everolimus group (10.0 versus 6.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; P = 0.0171). PFS was similar between the vorolanib group and the everolimus group (median: 6.4 versus 6.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.94; P = 0.6856). A significantly higher objective response rate was observed in the combination group than in the everolimus group (24.8% versus 8.3%; P = 0.0003), whereas there was no significant difference between the vorolanib group and the everolimus group (10.5% versus 8.3%; P = 0.5278). The overall survival data were immature. A total of 96 (72.2%), 52 (39.1%) and 71 (53.4%) grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in the combination group, vorolanib group and everolimus group, respectively.The addition of vorolanib to everolimus as 2nd-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who have experienced cancer progression after VEGFR-TKI therapy provided a better objective response rate and PFS than everolimus alone with a manageable safety profile.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03095040; Chinadrugtrials, CTR20160987.