Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display

3457 - Sunitinib (2 weeks on/1 week off schedule) in metastatic renal cell cancer patients. Progression free and overall survival


09 Oct 2016


Poster display


Fruzsina Gyergyay


Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 266-295. 10.1093/annonc/mdw373


F. Gyergyay1, B. Budai2, K. Nagyivanyi3, K. Biro3, L. Géczi1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Dept.of Medical Oncology Pharmacology C, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 - Budapest/HU
  • 2 Department Of Molecular Immunology And Toxicology, National Institute of Oncology, 1122 - Budapest/HU
  • 3 Dept.of Medical Oncology Pharmacology C, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest/HU


Abstract 3457


The recommended schedule of sunitinib (SU) for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) pts is 50 mg/day p.o. for 4 weeks and 2 weeks rest. The half-life of SU and its active metabolite is very slow: 40-60 and 80-110 hours, respectively. Given on several consecutive days the accumulation is 3-4-fold and 7-10-fold, respectively. The steady state concentration is achieved on days 7-10 and 10-14. 50 mg daily is enough to achieve the target concentration of ≥ 50 ng/mL. During the 14 days rest the concentration will decrease to the starting level. The correlation between the SU AUC and the time to progression is well known.


Based on the above in case of short term adverse events (AEs) we have applied the 2 weeks on/1 week off schedule instead of dose reduction.


Altogether 130 mRCC pts (median age: 61 yrs, M/F: 91/39) were enrolled in the study. 121 (93%) pts were nephrectomized, 95% (123pts) had RCC histology. 67 (30%); 49 (38%) and 42 (32%) pts belongs to the good, intermediate and poor MSKCC prognostic groups, respectively. SU was the first-line treatment in 75 cases (58%), 34 (26%) had IFN and 21 (16%) patients had IL-2 treatment before. Patients received altogether 1617 cycles of SU (median 8, range: 1-68); 344 (range1-56) cycles were given according to 4/2, and 1273 (1-18) according to 2/1 schedule, respectively. Upon progression on SU the following therapies were given: sorafenib (n = 10), axitinib (7), pazopanib (1), cabozantinib (1), everolimus (16). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was: 13.5 (95%CI 12-16.5) mos and the median overall survival (mOS) was 30 (24-36) mos. If the 2/1 schedule was given in more than 2/3 of the total cycles (n = 83) the mPFS was 18 (13.5-28.5) mos and mOS was 38 (30-44) mos compared to those who had 2/1 schedule in less than 2/3 of the total cycles (n = 47) with mPFS 6 (4.5-9; P = .0002) mos and mOS 11 (7-21); P = .0001) mos. Short-term AEs were as follows: fatigue 41%; anorexia 25%; mucositis 35%, diarrhea 37%; hand-foot syndrome 35%; hypertension: 30%. Although the AEs were quite frequent they lasted shorter and dose reduction had to be performed only in 12% (n = 16) during the 2/1 schedule.


Changing the SU 4/2 to 2/1 schedule instead of reducing the dose, was safe and resulted in a longer median progression-free and overall survival.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study





All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings