Michael Szarek, PhD, on the Outcomes of a Q-TWiST Analysis From the Phase 3 TIVO-3 Study

Video

An analysis revealed that as a third- or fourth-line treatment for RCC, tivozanib significantly increased Q-TWiST compared with sorafenib, primarily through an increase in TWiST.

Results of an analysis of tivozanib (Fotivda) versus sorafenib (Nexavar) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) included in the phase 3 TIVO-3 study (NCT02627963), which were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, suggest Q-TWiST may be considered an alternative patient-centered measure of benefit in these settings.

The analysis revealed that as a third- or fourth-line treatment for RCC, tivozanib significantly increased Q-TWiST compared with sorafenib, primarily through an increase in TWiST.

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, Michael Szarek, PhD, of the SUNY Downstate Medical Center, explained this observed outcome and why it is so significant for patients with advanced RCC.

Transcript:

You take a patient’s survival time, and you divide it into 3 mutually exclusive states. [Toxicity] time, which is the time that patients experience toxicity prior to progression; in our case, we defined that as grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Then there’s TWiST time, which is the time prior to progression where the patient is not experiencing that toxicity. Then there’s time after progression [or relapse], which is called REL time. And what we found is that by splitting every patient’s survival into those 3 states, tivozanib increased TWiST time; there was really no difference in [toxicity] time. And because of the similar survival between the 2 treatment groups, REL time was longer for sorafenib than for tivozanib. However, part of the Q-TWiST analysis is that you apply weight to each state, and the idea is that TWiST time is more valuable to a patient than REL time or [toxicity] time, which makes sense because that’s the ideal situation where prior to progression, you’re not experiencing any toxicity. And so, when you apply weight to those 3 states, we found a significant benefit of tivozanib relative to sorafenib on Q-TWiST. It’s, in a sense, confirmed the progression-free survival results of the trial in extending it by showing that if you weigh the patient survival by different quality states you also see a benefit.

References:

Szarek M, Needle MN, Rini BI, et al. Q-TWiST analysis of tivozanib (T) versus sorafenib (S) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the TIVO-3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(suppl 6):298. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.6_suppl.298

Recent Videos
According to Maurie Markman, MD, patient-reported outcomes pertain to more relevant questions surrounding the impact of therapy for patients.
Future findings from a translational analysis of the OVATION-2 trial may corroborate prior clinical data with IMNN-001 in advanced ovarian cancer.
The dual high-affinity binding observed with ISB 2001 may avoid resistance mechanisms reported with other BCMA-targeted therapies.
The use of chemotherapy trended towards improved recurrence-free intervals in older patients with high-risk tumors as determined via the MammaPrint assay.
Use of a pharmacist-directed resource appears to improve provider confidence and adverse effect monitoring for patients undergoing infusion therapy.
Reshma L. Mahtani, DO, describes how updates from the DESTINY-Breast09, ASCENT-04, and VERITAC-2 trials may shift practices in the breast cancer field.
Co-hosts Kristie L. Kahl and Andrew Svonavec highlight what to look forward to at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, from hot topics and emerging trends to travel recommendations.
Prior studies, like the phase 3 VISION trial, may support the notion of combining radiopharmaceuticals with best supportive care.
Related Content