Ripretinib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor After Treatment With Imatinib (INTRIGUE): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

Author(s): Sebastian Bauer, MD1,2;Robin L. Jones, MD, MBBS3;Jean-Yves Blay, MD, PhD4;Hans Gelderblom, MD, PhD5;Suzanne George, MD6;Patrick Schöffski, MD7;Margaret von Mehren, MD8;John R. Zalcberg, MD, PhD9;Yoon-Koo Kang, MD, PhD10;Albiruni Abdul Razak, MRCP, MBBCh11;Jonathan Trent, MD, PhD12;Steven Attia, DO13;Axel Le Cesne, MD14;Ying Su, MD, PhD15;Julie Meade, MD15;Tao Wang, PhD15;Matthew L. Sherman, MD15;Rodrigo Ruiz-Soto, MD15;and Michael C. Heinrich, MD16,17
Source: DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00294 Journal of Clinical Oncology 40, no. 34 (December 01, 2022) 3918-3928.
Original Article
Maem Hussein MD

Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts

Second line GIST, no difference in OS or PFS between sunitinib and ripretinib, but ripretinib is more tolerable.

PURPOSE

Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib (KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.

Author Affiliations

1Department of Medical Oncology and Sarcoma Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany 2German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen, Germany 3Sarcoma Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom 4Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France 5Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands 6Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 7Department of General Medical Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 8Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 9Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 10Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea 11Toronto Sarcoma Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada 12Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL 13Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 14Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France 15Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Waltham, MA 16Portland VA Health Care System, Portland, OR 17OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Menu

View Our Privacy Policy

About This Site

FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.

FCS logo
Facebook Linkedin Youtube Instagram Flickr