Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39912344›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2025

Updated overall survival in patients with prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the phase III TIVO-3 study.

Miguel Zugman, David F McDermott, Bernard J Escudier, Thomas E Hutson, Camillo Porta, Elena Verzoni, Michael B Atkins, Brian Rini, Sumanta K Pal

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Miguel ZugmanDepartment of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, 91010, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2181-8405
David F McDermottDivision of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.
Bernard J EscudierDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, 94 805, France.
Thomas E HutsonHematology and Medical Oncology, UMC Cancer Center, Texas Tech University Health Science Center School of Medicine, Lubbock, Texas, 79430, United States.
Camillo PortaInterdisciplinary Department of Medicine, University of Bari Aldo Moro and Division of Medical Oncology, A.O.U. Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, 70124, Italy.
Elena VerzoniGenitourinary Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, 20133, Italy.
Michael B AtkinsDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, 20007, United States.
Brian RiniDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, United States.
Sumanta K PalDepartment of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, 91010, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe phase III TIVO-3 study demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with tivozanib compared with sorafenib in patients with 2-3 prior systemic regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

methodsThe TIVO-3 trial enrolled patients with measurable mRCC who had received 2 or more prior systemic therapies, including a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF-TKI). Patients were stratified by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk score and type of prior treatment and were randomized 1:1 to receive tivozanib or sorafenib. Efficacy was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, with PFS as the primary endpoint. Safety was evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version v4.03, and statistical analyses included Cox regression for overall survival (OS) and descriptive statistics for duration of response (DOR). The current post-hoc long-term follow-up analysis consists of an assessment of OS in the previously stratified subpopulation of patients with prior CPI exposure.

resultsBetween May 2016, and August 2017, 350 patients were randomized, of which 26% had prior CPI exposure, with final analysis data cut off on June 21, 2021. In patients previously treated with CPIs (n = 91), the median PFS of tivozanib was 7.3 months versus 5.1 months with sorafenib and hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32-0.94). The OS HR in the CPI-treated subset was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.11, P =.0992) favoring tivozanib, although with a median OS of 18.1 and 20.9 months, for tivozanib and sorafenib, respectively. Tivozanib demonstrated a longer median DOR of 20.3 versus 5.7 months for sorafenib in the subset previously treated with CPIs. The safety profile favored tivozanib, with lower rates of VEGF-TKI class-related grade ≥3 adverse events compared with sorafenib. However, in the subset of patients previously treated with CPIs, the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was higher, at 58% for tivozanib and 67% for sorafenib, compared with the ITT population, at 46% and 55%, respectively.

conclusionsIn this long-term post-hoc update of the TIVO-3 trial, we show that in CPI-resistant mRCC, the PFS benefit of tivozanib over sorafenib is accompanied with improved OS data, although not statistically significant, and durable responses.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsKidney NeoplasmsPhenylurea CompoundsQuinolinesSorafenibAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPhenylurea CompoundsQuinolinesSorafenibtivozanibimmunotherapymetastatic renal cell carcinomasorafenibtivozanibvascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID39912344
PMCPMC11799859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.