Skip to content

A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)

A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab (Anti-PD-L1 Antibody) in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02420821
Acronym
IMmotion151
Enrollment
915
Registered
2015-04-20
Start date
2015-05-20
Completion date
2021-12-13
Last updated
2023-01-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Renal Cell Carcinoma

Brief summary

This multi-center, randomized, open-label study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in participants with inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic RCC who have not received prior systemic active or experimental therapy, either in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Interventions

Atezolizumab will be administered at a fixed dose of 1200 milligrams (mg) via intravenous (IV) infusion on Days 1 and 22 of each 42-day cycle.

DRUGBevacizumab

Bevacizumab will be administered at a dose of 15 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) via IV infusion on Days 1 and 22 of each 42-day cycle.

DRUGSunitinib

Sunitinib will be administered at a dose of 50 mg once daily, orally via capsule, on Day 1 through Day 28 of each 42-day cycle.

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Definitive diagnosis of unresectable locally advanced or metastatic RCC with clear-cell histology and/or a component of sarcomatoid carcinoma, with no prior treatment in the metastatic setting * Evaluable Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score * Measurable disease, as defined by RECIST v1.1 * Karnofsky performance status greater than or equal to 70% * Adequate hematologic and end-organ function prior to randomization

Exclusion criteria

Disease-Specific Exclusions: * Radiotherapy for RCC within 14 days prior to treatment * Active central nervous system disease * Uncontrolled pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, or ascites * Uncontrolled hypercalcemia * Any other malignancies within 5 years except for low-risk prostate cancer or those with negligible risk of metastasis or death General Medical Exclusions: * Life expectancy less than 12 weeks * Participation in another experimental drug study within 4 weeks prior to treatment * Pregnant or lactating women * Known hypersensitivity to any component of atezolizumab or other study medication * History of autoimmune disease except controlled, treated hypothyroidism or type I diabetes mellitus * History of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, organizing pneumonia, drug-induced pneumonitis, or idiopathic pneumonitis * Positive human immunodeficiency virus test * Active or chronic hepatitis B or C * Severe infections within 4 weeks prior to treatment * Exposure to oral or IV antibiotics within 2 weeks prior to treatment * Live attenuated vaccines within 4 weeks prior to treatment (for influenza vaccination participants must agree not to receive live, attenuated influenza vaccine within 4 weeks prior to treatment, during treatment or within 5 months following the last dose) * Significant cardiovascular disease * Prior allogeneic stem cell or solid organ transplantation

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression as Determined by the Investigator According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or Death From Any Cause in Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-Selected PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. Disease Progression (PD) was defined as greater than or equal to (\>/=) 20 percent (%) relative increase in the sum of diameters (SoD) of all target lesions (TLs), taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 millimeters (mm); \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs.
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Participants with a PFS event who missed \>/=2 scheduled assessments immediately prior to the PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment prior to the missed visits. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% confidence interval (CI) was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in ITT PopulationBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)Percentage of participants who died of any cause was reported.
Overall Survival (OS) in ITT PopulationBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.
PFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Objective Response Rate (ORR)-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs and (if applicable) normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to less than (\<) 10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or (if applicable) maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.
Duration of Response (DOR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs and normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ORR-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs and (if applicable) normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or (if applicable) maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.
DOR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs and normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST or Death From Any Cause in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to immune-modified RECIST. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm.
PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per immune-modified RECIST or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ORR-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to immune-modified RECIST. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs and all new measurable lesions (taking as reference the baseline SoD), in the absence of CR. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.
DOR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in DOR-Evaluable PopulationBaseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by the investigator per immune-modified RECIST or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs and all new measurable lesions (taking as reference the baseline SoD), in the absence of CR. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.
PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1 or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Participants with a PFS event who missed \>/=2 scheduled assessments immediately prior to the PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment prior to the missed visits. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid HistologyBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.
Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected PopulationBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)Percentage of participants who died of any cause was reported.
Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid HistologyBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)Percentage of participants with sarcomatoid histology who died of any cause was reported.
OS in Participants With Sarcomatoid HistologyBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Change From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreBaseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); Day 22 Cycle 1; Day 1 and 22 of every cycle from Cycle 2 up to Cycle 19; Cycle length = 42 daysThe MDASI is a cancer-related, multi-symptom, valid, and reliable self-report questionnaire that comprises of 23 items and two subscales: symptom severity (17 items) and symptom interference (6 items). In Part II, participants were asked to rate how much the symptoms have interfered with 6 areas of function (general activity, walking, work, mood, relations with other people, and enjoyment of life) in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (interfered completely) and total Part II score was calculated as an average of 6-item scores. Repeated measures model-estimated least-squares (LS) mean score for changes from baseline is reported at each timepoint, where a negative value indicates improvement. Here, 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.
Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreBaseline; End of Treatment (EoT) visit (up to approximately 27 months)The MDASI is a cancer-related, multi-symptom, valid, and reliable self-report questionnaire that comprises of 23 items and two subscales: symptom severity (17 items) and symptom interference (6 items). In Part I, participants were asked to rate how severe the symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, disturbed sleep, feeling of being distressed, shortness of breath, remembering things, lack of appetite, drowsy, dry mouth, feeling sad, vomiting, numbness or tingling, rash/skin changes, headache, mouth/throat sores, and diarrhea) were when at their worst in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (not present) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Mixed-effects model-estimated LS mean score for change from baseline at the end-of treatment is reported for each item, where a negative value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreBaseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); every week for first 12 weeks, Days 1 and 22 of each cycle (Cycle 3 up to 19), within 30 days of PD (up to 27 months), at EoT (up to 27 months) and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks after EoT (overall up to 27 months); 1 cycle=42 daysThe BFI is a valid and reliable self-report questionnaire used to assess the severity and impact of cancer-related fatigue. BFI interference subscale (6 items) assessed the impact of fatigue on global domains (general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, and enjoyment of life) in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (interfered completely). Change from baseline in the mean score of all 6 items at each timepoint is reported, where a negative value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemBaseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); every week for first 12 weeks, Days 1 and 22 of each cycle (Cycle 3 up to 19), within 30 days of PD (up to 27 months), at EoT (up to 27 months) and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks after EoT (overall up to 27 months); 1 cycle=42 daysThe BFI is a valid and reliable self-report questionnaire used to assess the severity and impact of cancer-related fatigue. BFI worst fatigue item assessed the severity of fatigue at its worst in the last 24 hours. The item was rated on a scale of 0 (not present) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Change from baseline in the score at each time point is reported, where a negative value indicates improvement.
Change From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreDay 1 and 22 of every cycle (Baseline = Day 1 Cycle 1) up to Cycle 19; Cycle length = 42 daysThe FKSI-19 is a 19-item tool designed to assess the most important symptoms and concerns related to treatment effectiveness in advanced kidney cancer. The FKSI-19 GP5 item (bothered by the side effect of treatment) assessed side effects burden in the past 7 days on a 5-point scale (0=not at all, 1=a little bit, 2=somewhat, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much). Repeated measures model-estimated LS mean score for changes from baseline is reported at each timepoint, where a negative value indicates improvement.
Number of Participants With Anti-Therapeutic Antibodies (ATAs) Against AtezolizumabBaseline (Predose [Hour 0] at Day 1 Cycle 1); Post-Baseline (Predose at Cycles 2, 4, and 8, and every eight cycles thereafter up to EoT [up to approximately 27 months] and 120 days after EoT [up to approximately 27 months]) (Cycle length=42 days)The number of participants with Treatment-induced ATAs and Treatment-enhanced ATA against atezolizumab at any time during or after treatment was reported. Treatment-induced ATA = a participant with negative or missing Baseline ATA result(s) and at least one positive post-Baseline ATA result. Treatment-enhanced ATA = a participant with positive ATA result at Baseline who has one or more post Baseline titer results that are at least 0.60 titer unit greater than the Baseline titer result. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing baseline ATA sample; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing ATA sample at indicated timepoint.
Number of Participants With ATAs Against BevacizumabBaseline (Predose [Hour 0] at Day 1 Cycle 1); Post-Baseline (Predose at Cycle 3, at EoT [up to approximately 27 months] and at 120 days after EoT [up to approximately 27 months]) (Cycle length=42 days)The number of participants with Treatment-induced ATAs and Treatment-enhanced ATA against bevacizumab at any time during or after treatment was reported. Treatment-induced ATA = a participant with negative or missing Baseline ATA result(s) and at least one positive post-Baseline ATA result. Treatment-enhanced ATA = a participant with positive ATA result at Baseline who has one or more post Baseline titer results that are at least 0.60 titer unit greater than the Baseline titer result.
Maximum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmax) for Atezolizumab30 minutes after the end of bevacizumab infusion (atezolizumab infusion duration: 30-60 min; bevacizumab infusion duration: 30-90 minutes) on Day 1 of Cycle 1 (Cycle length = 42 days)Cmax for atezolizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.
Minimum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmin) for AtezolizumabPredose (Hour 0) on Day 22 of Cycle 1; predose (Hour 0) on Day 1 of Cycles 2; Cycle length = 42 daysCmin for atezolizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.
Cmax for Bevacizumab30 minutes after the end of bevacizumab infusion (atezolizumab infusion duration: 30-60 min; bevacizumab infusion duration: 30-90 minutes) on Day 1 of Cycle 1 (Cycle length = 42 days)Cmax for bevacizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.
Cmin for BevacizumabPre-dose (Hour 0) on Day 1 of Cycle 3 (Cycle length = 42 days)Cmin for bevacizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.
PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Participants With Sarcomatoid HistologyBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1 or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
OS in PD-L1-Selected PopulationBaseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.
Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.
PFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT PopulationBaseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Countries

Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey (Türkiye), United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

A total of 1228 participants were screened, out of which, 915 participants were enrolled into the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Sunitinib
Participants received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg administered orally via capsules once daily on Days 1 to 28 of each 42-day cycle until loss of clinical benefit in the opinion of the investigator, unacceptable toxicity or symptomatic deterioration attributed to PD as determined by the investigator, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first.
461
Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab
Participants received atezolizumab at a dose of 1200 mg and bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg/kg administered via IV infusions on Day 1 and Day 22 of each 42-day cycle until loss of clinical benefit in the opinion of the investigator, unacceptable toxicity or symptomatic deterioration attributed to PD as determined by the investigator, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first.
454
Total915

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event01
Overall StudyDeath270263
Overall StudyDisease Progression01
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up66
Overall StudyNon-compliance02
Overall StudyPatient missing record of discontinuation from Atezo.01
Overall StudyPatient refused end of treatment visit due to Covid-1901
Overall StudyPhysician Decision62
Overall StudyProgressive Disease11
Overall StudyProtinuria01
Overall StudyStudy Terminated By Sponsor145149
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject3225

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAtezolizumab + BevacizumabTotalSunitinib
Age, Continuous61.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4
60.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.2
59.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.9
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
25 Participants57 Participants32 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
391 Participants777 Participants386 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
38 Participants81 Participants43 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
2 Participants3 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
94 Participants171 Participants77 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants5 Participants4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
30 Participants75 Participants45 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
326 Participants660 Participants334 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
137 Participants246 Participants109 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
317 Participants669 Participants352 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
270 / 461263 / 454
other
Total, other adverse events
435 / 446437 / 451
serious
Total, serious adverse events
169 / 446191 / 451

Outcome results

Primary

Overall Survival (OS) in ITT Population

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibOverall Survival (OS) in ITT Population35.3 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabOverall Survival (OS) in ITT Population36.1 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.267595% CI: [0.76, 1.08]Log Rank
Primary

Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in ITT Population

Percentage of participants who died of any cause was reported.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in ITT Population55.3 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in ITT Population54.8 percentage of participants
Primary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Progression as Determined by the Investigator According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or Death From Any Cause in Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-Selected Population

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. Disease Progression (PD) was defined as greater than or equal to (\>/=) 20 percent (%) relative increase in the sum of diameters (SoD) of all target lesions (TLs), taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 millimeters (mm); \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population, which included all participants in the ITT population whose PD-L1 status was immune cell (IC)1/2/3 at the time of randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression as Determined by the Investigator According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or Death From Any Cause in Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-Selected Population69.6 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With Disease Progression as Determined by the Investigator According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or Death From Any Cause in Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-Selected Population58.4 percentage of participants
Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Participants with a PFS event who missed \>/=2 scheduled assessments immediately prior to the PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment prior to the missed visits. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% confidence interval (CI) was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibProgression-Free Survival (PFS) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population7.5 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabProgression-Free Survival (PFS) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population11.2 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.020595% CI: [0.57, 0.95]Log Rank
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II Score

The MDASI is a cancer-related, multi-symptom, valid, and reliable self-report questionnaire that comprises of 23 items and two subscales: symptom severity (17 items) and symptom interference (6 items). In Part II, participants were asked to rate how much the symptoms have interfered with 6 areas of function (general activity, walking, work, mood, relations with other people, and enjoyment of life) in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (interfered completely) and total Part II score was calculated as an average of 6-item scores. Repeated measures model-estimated least-squares (LS) mean score for changes from baseline is reported at each timepoint, where a negative value indicates improvement. Here, 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.

Time frame: Baseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); Day 22 Cycle 1; Day 1 and 22 of every cycle from Cycle 2 up to Cycle 19; Cycle length = 42 days

Population: Analysis was performed on the patient-reported outcome (PRO)-Evaluable Population, which included all participants with a non-missing baseline PRO assessment and \>/=1 post-baseline PRO assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 221.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 221.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 11.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 11.03 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 221.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 221.63 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 11.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 221.44 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 221.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 221.58 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.79 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 11.15 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 221.09 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 11.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.86 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 221.43 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 221.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.76 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 11.06 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 221.67 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.37
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 10.90 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 221.34 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 221.30 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 221.55 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 10.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 11.05 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 220.92 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.53
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 11.05 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 10.75 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.64
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 221.46 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 220.65 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.86
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 11.18 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 10.29 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.58
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 11.24 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle1 Day 221.28 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle1 Day 220.54 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 220.88 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.03
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 220.78 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 10.76 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 220.88 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 220.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 10.53 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 220.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 10.59 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 220.57 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 10.72 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 10.82 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 220.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 10.72 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 220.66 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 220.69 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 10.67 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 220.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 10.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 220.60 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 10.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 220.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 10.53 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 220.69 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 220.73 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.73 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 220.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.78 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 10.98 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 221.32 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 11.18 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 220.95 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.47
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 10.75 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.53
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 220.87 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.63
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Interference as Determined by M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) Part II ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 10.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.73
Comparison: Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.06, -0.43]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.208595% CI: [-0.51, 0.11]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.33, -0.71]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.001395% CI: [-0.82, -0.2]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.34, -0.7]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.009895% CI: [-0.76, -0.1]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.32, -0.65]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.00895% CI: [-0.8, -0.12]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.13, -0.44]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.251295% CI: [-0.56, 0.15]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [-1.01, -0.28]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.024795% CI: [-0.8, -0.05]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.15, -0.39]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.141195% CI: [-0.68, 0.1]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.001495% CI: [-1.05, -0.25]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.072895% CI: [-0.78, 0.03]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.32, -0.49]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.004195% CI: [-1.05, -0.2]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.46, -0.55]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.035395% CI: [-0.96, -0.03]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.001195% CI: [-1.35, -0.34]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.058295% CI: [-1.01, 0.02]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.008995% CI: [-1.32, -0.19]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.957595% CI: [-0.57, 0.61]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.274595% CI: [-1.01, 0.29]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.708895% CI: [-0.81, 0.55]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.307795% CI: [-1.13, 0.36]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.711295% CI: [-0.93, 0.63]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.083795% CI: [-1.69, 0.11]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.865595% CI: [-0.88, 1.04]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.972595% CI: [-1.07, 1.11]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.528595% CI: [-0.8, 1.55]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.966395% CI: [-1.34, 1.4]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.991495% CI: [-1.61, 1.63]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.834595% CI: [-1.85, 2.3]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.772595% CI: [-2.9, 3.91]Repeated measures model
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue Item

The BFI is a valid and reliable self-report questionnaire used to assess the severity and impact of cancer-related fatigue. BFI worst fatigue item assessed the severity of fatigue at its worst in the last 24 hours. The item was rated on a scale of 0 (not present) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Change from baseline in the score at each time point is reported, where a negative value indicates improvement.

Time frame: Baseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); every week for first 12 weeks, Days 1 and 22 of each cycle (Cycle 3 up to 19), within 30 days of PD (up to 27 months), at EoT (up to 27 months) and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks after EoT (overall up to 27 months); 1 cycle=42 days

Population: Analysis was performed on the PRO-Evaluable Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 291.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.99
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 221.42 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.01
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 4 Day 221.46 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 5 Day 10.81 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.75
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 12 Day 221.32 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.89
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 14 Day 220.37 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.01
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 16 Day 220.77 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.7
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at EoT1.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange Within 30 Days of PD1.81 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 6 Day 221.35 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.79
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 7 Day 10.79 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.78
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 7 Day 221.22 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.85
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 8 Day 10.79 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.69
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 8 Day 221.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.64
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 9 Day 10.97 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.54
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 9 Day 221.54 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.92
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 10 Day 10.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.73
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 10 Day 221.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.09
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 11 Day 10.73 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 11 Day 221.15 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.18
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 12 Day 10.78 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.79
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.35 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.54
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 13 Day 220.72 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.48
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.56 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.84
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 15 Day 220.59 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 16 Day 1-0.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.61
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 17 Day 1-0.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.75
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 17 Day 221.44 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.91
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 18 Day 10.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 18 Day 221.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.73
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 19 Day 1-4.00 units on a scale
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 6 weeks after EoT2.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.25
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 12 weeks after EoT1.56 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.41
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 24 weeks after EoT1.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.82
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 36 weeks after EoT1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.37
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemBaseline3.08 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.66
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 80.34 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.35
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 151.32 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.82
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 221.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.86
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 360.77 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.82
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 80.56 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.68
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 151.09 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.82
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 291.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 361.09 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.01
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 3 Day 10.42 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.68
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 3 Day 221.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.98
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 4 Day 10.64 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.76
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 5 Day 221.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.87
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 6 Day 10.90 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.78
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 290.88 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.62
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 17 Day 11.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.97
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 3 Day 10.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.57
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 360.48 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.76
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 360.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.5
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 18 Day 11.33 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.58
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 6 Day 220.53 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.66
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 11 Day 10.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.69
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 6 Day 10.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.73
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 18 Day 221.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 14 Day 221.04 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.4
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.45 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.52
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 17 Day 221.18 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.99
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 36 weeks after EoT0.78 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.86
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 19 Day 10.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.34
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 19 Day 220.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 3 Day 220.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.64
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 6 weeks after EoT2.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.89
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 7 Day 10.79 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.7
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 5 Day 220.69 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.83
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 7 Day 220.65 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.56
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 12 weeks after EoT2.06 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 8 Day 10.75 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.84
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 150.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.78
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 8 Day 220.78 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.67
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at 24 weeks after EoT1.92 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.46
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 9 Day 10.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.62
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 220.31 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.53
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 9 Day 220.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.55
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at EoT1.72 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.84
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 10 Day 10.69 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.46
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange Within 30 Days of PD0.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.58
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 10 Day 220.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.48
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 4 Day 10.54 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.49
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemBaseline2.98 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.69
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 11 Day 220.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.52
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 290.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.66
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 12 Day 10.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 12 Day 220.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.69
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 80.50 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.49 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.46
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 4 Day 220.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.74
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 13 Day 220.65 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.7
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 151.26 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.92
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.81 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.6
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 5 Day 10.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.79
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.93 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.25
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 1 Day 220.49 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.3
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 15 Day 220.97 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.84
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 2 Day 80.87 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.82
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 16 Day 11.33 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.92
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by BFI Worst Fatigue ItemChange at Cycle 16 Day 221.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.1
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale Score

The BFI is a valid and reliable self-report questionnaire used to assess the severity and impact of cancer-related fatigue. BFI interference subscale (6 items) assessed the impact of fatigue on global domains (general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, and enjoyment of life) in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (interfered completely). Change from baseline in the mean score of all 6 items at each timepoint is reported, where a negative value indicates improvement.

Time frame: Baseline (Day 1 Cycle 1); every week for first 12 weeks, Days 1 and 22 of each cycle (Cycle 3 up to 19), within 30 days of PD (up to 27 months), at EoT (up to 27 months) and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks after EoT (overall up to 27 months); 1 cycle=42 days

Population: Analysis was performed on the PRO-Evaluable Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 221.24 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.65
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 151.26 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.49
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 221.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.41
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 221.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.31
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 10.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreBaseline2.11 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.23
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 80.30 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.88
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 221.34 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.44
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 291.48 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.63
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 360.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.03
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 80.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.17
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 151.10 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.35
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 291.45 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.61
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 361.11 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.46
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 10.76 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.27
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 10.76 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.27
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 221.47 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.6
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 11.01 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.46
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 221.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.22
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 10.88 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.24
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 221.25 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.42
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 10.82 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.35
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 10.87 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.21
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 221.22 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.21
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 10.93 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.25
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 221.35 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.37
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 11.09 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.53
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 221.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.75
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 220.88 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.57
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 10.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.45
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 220.97 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.46
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.84 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 220.76 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.7
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.80 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.33
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 220.69 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.73
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.42
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 221.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.22
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 10.13 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.49
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 221.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.83
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 10.53 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.41
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 221.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 10.79 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.34
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 221.28 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.21
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 10.00 units on a scale
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 6 weeks after EoT2.31 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.52
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 12 weeks after EoT1.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.66
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 24 weeks after EoT2.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.11
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 36 weeks after EoT2.40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.32
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at EoT1.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.8
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange Within 30 Days of PD1.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.64
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at EoT1.62 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.98
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 220.37 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 221.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.96
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 220.26 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 10.21 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.12
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 10.56 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.96
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 6 weeks after EoT1.83 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.52
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 220.47 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 220.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.95
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 10.60 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.92
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreBaseline2.08 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.38
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 11.25 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.97
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 151.06 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.42
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 220.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.78
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 220.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.04
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 36 weeks after EoT1.15 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.72
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 290.66 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.28
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 10.35 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.75
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 360.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 220.41 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.48
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 10.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.09
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 220.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.96
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 80.68 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.33
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 12 weeks after EoT1.97 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.63
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 150.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.29
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 1 Day 80.37 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.76
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 10.36 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.88
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 290.51 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 10.35 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.46
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 360.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.17
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 220.56 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 220.36 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.2
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange Within 30 Days of PD0.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.35
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 10.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 10.73 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.8
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 220.44 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.33
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 220.17 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 10.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.31
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 220.94 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.96
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 220.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.27
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at 24 weeks after EoT2.15 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 10.59 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 10.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.41
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 220.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.22
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 1-0.80 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.84
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 10.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.17
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 220.91 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.28
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 10.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.36
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 22-0.25 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.82
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 220.52 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.05
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 11.02 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.69
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) Interference Scale ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 10.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.27
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I Score

The MDASI is a cancer-related, multi-symptom, valid, and reliable self-report questionnaire that comprises of 23 items and two subscales: symptom severity (17 items) and symptom interference (6 items). In Part I, participants were asked to rate how severe the symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, disturbed sleep, feeling of being distressed, shortness of breath, remembering things, lack of appetite, drowsy, dry mouth, feeling sad, vomiting, numbness or tingling, rash/skin changes, headache, mouth/throat sores, and diarrhea) were when at their worst in the last 24 hours. Each item was rated on a scale of 0 (not present) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Mixed-effects model-estimated LS mean score for change from baseline at the end-of treatment is reported for each item, where a negative value indicates improvement.

Time frame: Baseline; End of Treatment (EoT) visit (up to approximately 27 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PRO-Evaluable Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDrowsy: Change at EoT1.32 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDisturbed sleep: Change at EoT0.71 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDry mouth: Change at EoT1.67 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFatigue: Change at EoT1.83 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFeeling sad: Change at EoT0.88 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFeelings of being distressed: Change at EoT0.82 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScorePain: Change at EoT1.41 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreNumbness or tingling: Change at EoT1.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreShortness of breath: Change at EoT1.15 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreRash/skin changes: Change at EoT2.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreRemembering things: Change at EoT0.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreHeadache: Change at EoT0.70 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreNausea: Change at EoT1.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreMouth/throat sores: Change at EoT1.76 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreLack of appetite: Change at EoT1.59 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDiarrhea: Change at EoT1.37 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreVomiting: Change at EoT0.66 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDiarrhea: Change at EoT0.29 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScorePain: Change at EoT0.92 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFatigue: Change at EoT1.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreNausea: Change at EoT0.29 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDisturbed sleep: Change at EoT0.19 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFeelings of being distressed: Change at EoT0.25 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreRemembering things: Change at EoT0.60 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreLack of appetite: Change at EoT0.40 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDrowsy: Change at EoT0.79 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreDry mouth: Change at EoT0.67 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreFeeling sad: Change at EoT0.28 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreVomiting: Change at EoT0.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreNumbness or tingling: Change at EoT0.67 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreRash/skin changes: Change at EoT1.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreHeadache: Change at EoT0.66 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreMouth/throat sores: Change at EoT0.74 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Symptom Severity as Determined by MDASI Part I ScoreShortness of breath: Change at EoT0.58 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Comparison: Pain: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [-0.77, -0.2]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Fatigue: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.91, -0.34]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Nausea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.13, -0.69]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Disturbed sleep: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [-0.79, -0.25]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Feelings of being distressed: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.84, -0.29]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Shortness of breath: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.81, -0.32]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Remembering things: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.003695% CI: [-0.56, -0.11]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Lack of appetite: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.46, -0.91]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Drowsy: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [-0.81, -0.27]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Dry mouth: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.28, -0.71]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Feeling sad: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.87, -0.33]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Vomiting: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.75, -0.41]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Numbness or tingling: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.005195% CI: [-0.58, -0.1]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Rash/Skin Changes: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.33, -0.83]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Headache: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: 0.654195% CI: [-0.26, 0.16]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Mouth/Throat Sores: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.28, -0.76]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Diarrhea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.27, -0.88]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item Score

The FKSI-19 is a 19-item tool designed to assess the most important symptoms and concerns related to treatment effectiveness in advanced kidney cancer. The FKSI-19 GP5 item (bothered by the side effect of treatment) assessed side effects burden in the past 7 days on a 5-point scale (0=not at all, 1=a little bit, 2=somewhat, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much). Repeated measures model-estimated LS mean score for changes from baseline is reported at each timepoint, where a negative value indicates improvement.

Time frame: Day 1 and 22 of every cycle (Baseline = Day 1 Cycle 1) up to Cycle 19; Cycle length = 42 days

Population: Analysis was performed on the PRO-Evaluable Population. Here, 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 1-0.87 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 1-1.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 1-1.06 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 22-1.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 1-1.07 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 1-1.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 22-1.30 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 22-1.23 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 22-1.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 1-1.06 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 1-1.10 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 1-1.07 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 22-1.28 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 22-1.13 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 22-1.31 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 1-1.17 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 1-1.15 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 1-1.01 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 22-1.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 22-1.38 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 1-0.94 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 1-1.16 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 22-1.32 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 1-1.14 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 1-0.91 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 1-1.05 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 22-1.16 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 22-1.27 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 22-1.34 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle1 Day 22-1.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 1-1.09 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 22-1.02 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 22-0.81 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 22-1.17 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 1-1.27 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.84
SunitinibChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 22-1.25 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 1-0.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 22-0.93 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.55
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 22-0.49 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 22-0.57 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 1-0.58 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 22-0.44 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 1-0.38 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 19 Day 1-0.75 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle1 Day 22-0.36 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 2 Day 22-0.43 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 1-0.49 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 3 Day 22-0.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 4 Day 1-0.45 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 1-0.52 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 5 Day 22-0.55 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 1-0.51 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 6 Day 22-0.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 1-0.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 7 Day 22-0.58 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 1-0.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 8 Day 22-0.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 1-0.60 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 9 Day 22-0.52 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 10 Day 1-0.53 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 1-0.52 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 11 Day 22-0.54 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 1-0.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 12 Day 22-0.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 1-0.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 13 Day 22-0.64 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 1-0.61 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 14 Day 22-0.65 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 1-0.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 15 Day 22-0.72 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 16 Day 22-0.41 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 17 Day 1-0.56 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabChange From Baseline in Treatment Side Effects Burden as Determined by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) General Population 5 (GP5) Item ScoreChange at Cycle 18 Day 22-0.48 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
Comparison: Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.58, 0.87]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.28, 0.57]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.55, 0.84]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.44, 0.73]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.62, 0.92]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.46, 0.78]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.66, 0.97]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.49, 0.81]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.66, 0.99]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.46, 0.8]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.54, 0.89]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.3, 0.65]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.49, 0.86]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.29, 0.66]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.41, 0.79]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.29, 0.68]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.52, 0.91]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.33, 0.73]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.51, 0.96]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.41, 0.86]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.49, 0.99]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [0.17, 0.68]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.32, 0.89]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [0.23, 0.82]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.000895% CI: [0.23, 0.88]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.059195% CI: [-0.01, 0.67]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [0.29, 1.05]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.137895% CI: [-0.09, 0.68]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.06595% CI: [-0.03, 0.89]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.053195% CI: [-0.01, 0.96]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.001195% CI: [0.37, 1.49]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.070895% CI: [-0.05, 1.14]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.107895% CI: [-0.13, 1.29]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.148795% CI: [-0.22, 1.47]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.553795% CI: [-0.77, 1.43]Repeated measures model
Comparison: Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.p-value: 0.574395% CI: [-1.29, 2.33]Repeated measures model
Secondary

Cmax for Bevacizumab

Cmax for bevacizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.

Time frame: 30 minutes after the end of bevacizumab infusion (atezolizumab infusion duration: 30-60 min; bevacizumab infusion duration: 30-90 minutes) on Day 1 of Cycle 1 (Cycle length = 42 days)

Population: Analysis was performed on the Bevacizumab PK Population, which included all participants who received bevacizumab treatment and had evaluable PK samples. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibCmax for Bevacizumab339 mcg/mLStandard Deviation 104
Secondary

Cmin for Bevacizumab

Cmin for bevacizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.

Time frame: Pre-dose (Hour 0) on Day 1 of Cycle 3 (Cycle length = 42 days)

Population: Analysis was performed on the Bevacizumab PK Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibCmin for Bevacizumab135 mcg/mLStandard Deviation 56.1
Secondary

DOR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable Population

DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs and normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the DOR-Evaluable Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibDOR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable Population18.6 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabDOR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable PopulationNA months
Secondary

DOR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in DOR-Evaluable Population

DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by the investigator per immune-modified RECIST or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs and all new measurable lesions (taking as reference the baseline SoD), in the absence of CR. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on DOR-Evaluable Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibDOR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in DOR-Evaluable Population19.4 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabDOR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in DOR-Evaluable Population19.4 months
Secondary

Duration of Response (DOR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable Population

DOR was defined as the time from the first occurrence of CR/PR to PD as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR: disappearance of TLs/non-TLs and normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR: \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PD or death after a CR/PR were censored at last tumor assessment. Participants without tumor assessments after a CR/PR were censored at first CR/PR + 1 day. Median DOR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI by the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on DOR-Evaluable Population, which included all participants with a CR/PR in the ORR-Evaluable Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibDuration of Response (DOR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable Population14.2 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabDuration of Response (DOR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in DOR-Evaluable Population16.6 months
Secondary

Maximum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmax) for Atezolizumab

Cmax for atezolizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.

Time frame: 30 minutes after the end of bevacizumab infusion (atezolizumab infusion duration: 30-60 min; bevacizumab infusion duration: 30-90 minutes) on Day 1 of Cycle 1 (Cycle length = 42 days)

Population: Analysis was performed on the Atezolizumab Pharmacokinetic (PK) Population, which included all participants who received atezolizumab treatment and had evaluable PK samples. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibMaximum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmax) for Atezolizumab376 micrograms per milliliter (mcg/mL)Standard Deviation 90.2
Secondary

Minimum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmin) for Atezolizumab

Cmin for atezolizumab was estimated from plasma concentration versus time data.

Time frame: Predose (Hour 0) on Day 22 of Cycle 1; predose (Hour 0) on Day 1 of Cycles 2; Cycle length = 42 days

Population: Analysis was performed on the Atezolizumab PK Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants evaluable at specified time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
SunitinibMinimum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmin) for AtezolizumabCycle 1 Day 2285.6 mcg/mLStandard Deviation 35.3
SunitinibMinimum Observed Serum Concentration (Cmin) for AtezolizumabCycle 2 Day 1127 mcg/mLStandard Deviation 49.6
Secondary

Number of Participants With Anti-Therapeutic Antibodies (ATAs) Against Atezolizumab

The number of participants with Treatment-induced ATAs and Treatment-enhanced ATA against atezolizumab at any time during or after treatment was reported. Treatment-induced ATA = a participant with negative or missing Baseline ATA result(s) and at least one positive post-Baseline ATA result. Treatment-enhanced ATA = a participant with positive ATA result at Baseline who has one or more post Baseline titer results that are at least 0.60 titer unit greater than the Baseline titer result. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing baseline ATA sample; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing ATA sample at indicated timepoint.

Time frame: Baseline (Predose [Hour 0] at Day 1 Cycle 1); Post-Baseline (Predose at Cycles 2, 4, and 8, and every eight cycles thereafter up to EoT [up to approximately 27 months] and 120 days after EoT [up to approximately 27 months]) (Cycle length=42 days)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ATA-Evaluable Population, which included all participants in the Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab arm with a non-missing baseline ATA sample and \>/=1 post-baseline ATA sample.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibNumber of Participants With Anti-Therapeutic Antibodies (ATAs) Against AtezolizumabPost-Baseline: Treatment-Induced ATA95 participants
SunitinibNumber of Participants With Anti-Therapeutic Antibodies (ATAs) Against AtezolizumabBaseline: ATA Positive Participants16 participants
SunitinibNumber of Participants With Anti-Therapeutic Antibodies (ATAs) Against AtezolizumabPost-Baseline: Treatment-Enhanced ATA1 participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With ATAs Against Bevacizumab

The number of participants with Treatment-induced ATAs and Treatment-enhanced ATA against bevacizumab at any time during or after treatment was reported. Treatment-induced ATA = a participant with negative or missing Baseline ATA result(s) and at least one positive post-Baseline ATA result. Treatment-enhanced ATA = a participant with positive ATA result at Baseline who has one or more post Baseline titer results that are at least 0.60 titer unit greater than the Baseline titer result.

Time frame: Baseline (Predose [Hour 0] at Day 1 Cycle 1); Post-Baseline (Predose at Cycle 3, at EoT [up to approximately 27 months] and at 120 days after EoT [up to approximately 27 months]) (Cycle length=42 days)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ATA-Evaluable Population. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing baseline ATA sample; 'Number Analyzed' = number of participants with a non-missing ATA sample at indicated timepoint.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibNumber of Participants With ATAs Against BevacizumabPost-Baseline: Treatment-Enhanced ATA0 participants
SunitinibNumber of Participants With ATAs Against BevacizumabBaseline: ATA Positive Participants24 participants
SunitinibNumber of Participants With ATAs Against BevacizumabPost-Baseline: Treatment-Induced ATA4 participants
Secondary

OS in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population participants with sarcomatoid histology.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibOS in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology15.4 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabOS in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology21.7 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.049795% CI: [0.43, 1]Log Rank
Secondary

OS in PD-L1-Selected Population

OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Participants who were not reported as having died at the date of analysis were censored at the date when they were last known to be alive. Participants who did not have post-baseline information were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. Median OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibOS in PD-L1-Selected Population31.6 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabOS in PD-L1-Selected Population38.7 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.26395% CI: [0.64, 1.13]Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology

Percentage of participants with sarcomatoid histology who died of any cause was reported.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population participants with sarcomatoid histology.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology77.0 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology64.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population

Percentage of participants who died of any cause was reported.

Time frame: Baseline until death from any cause (until data cut-off date 14 February 2020, up to approximately 57 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population56.5 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants Who Died of Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population53.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Objective Response Rate (ORR)-Evaluable Population

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs and (if applicable) normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to less than (\<) 10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or (if applicable) maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ORR-Evaluable Population, which included all participants in the ITT population with measurable disease at baseline, as determined by the investigator.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Objective Response Rate (ORR)-Evaluable Population33.3 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Objective Response Rate (ORR)-Evaluable Population36.6 percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.273395% CI: [-3.09, 9.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ORR-Evaluable Population

Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs and (if applicable) normalization of tumor marker level or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs (taking as reference the baseline SoD) or persistence of \>/=1 non-TL(s) and/or (if applicable) maintenance of tumor marker level above the normal limits. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ORR-Evaluable Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ORR-Evaluable Population31.3 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ORR-Evaluable Population33.3 percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.512195% CI: [-4.32, 8.24]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ORR-Evaluable Population

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to immune-modified RECIST. Objective response was defined as percentage of participants with a documented CR or PR. CR was defined as disappearance of all TLs/non-TLs or reduction in short axis of any pathological lymph nodes to \<10 mm. PR was defined as \>/=30% decrease in the SoD of TLs and all new measurable lesions (taking as reference the baseline SoD), in the absence of CR. The 95% CI was computed using Clopper-Pearson approach. Participants without any post-baseline tumor assessments were considered non-responders.

Time frame: Baseline until documented CR/PR, PD, or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ORR-Evaluable Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ORR-Evaluable Population35.0 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With an Objective Response of CR or PR as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ORR-Evaluable Population40.1 percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.101195% CI: [-1.4, 11.58]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population

Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population63.6 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC) According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population60.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population

Tumor response was assessed by an IRC according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population64.7 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in PD-L1-Selected Population62.9 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to immune-modified RECIST. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population58.1 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population55.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population63.8 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in ITT Population60.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology

Tumor response was assessed by the investigator according to RECIST v1.1. PD was defined as \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population participants with sarcomatoid histology (defined by investigator-assessed conventional histopathology).

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
SunitinibPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology85.1 percentage of participants
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPercentage of Participants With PD as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 or Death From Any Cause in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology67.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

PFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibPFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population8.3 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population9.6 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.121895% CI: [0.74, 1.04]Log Rank
Secondary

PFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by an IRC per RECIST v1.1, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the PD-L1-Selected Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibPFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population7.2 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPFS as Determined by an IRC According to RECIST v1.1 in PD-L1-Selected Population8.9 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.613895% CI: [0.72, 1.21]Log Rank
Secondary

PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ITT Population

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per immune-modified RECIST or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs and all new measurable lesions, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ITT Population12.3 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to Immune-Modified RECIST in ITT Population13.9 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.060695% CI: [0.71, 1.01]Log Rank
Secondary

PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1 or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Participants with a PFS event who missed \>/=2 scheduled assessments immediately prior to the PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment prior to the missed visits. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population8.4 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in ITT Population11.2 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.025495% CI: [0.7, 0.98]Log Rank
Secondary

PFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology

PFS was defined as the time from randomization to PD, as determined by the investigator per RECIST v1.1 or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. PD: \>/=20% relative increase in the SoD of all TLs, taking as reference the smallest SoD on study, including baseline, and an absolute increase of \>/=5 mm; \>/=1 new lesion(s); and/or unequivocal progression of non-TLs. Participants without PFS event were censored at the last tumor assessment date. Participants with no post-baseline tumor assessments were censored at the randomization date + 1 day. Median PFS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and 95% CI was assessed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.

Time frame: Baseline until documented PD or death, whichever occurred first (until data cut-off date 29 September 2017, up to approximately 24 months)

Population: Analysis was performed on the ITT Population participants with sarcomatoid histology.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
SunitinibPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology5.3 months
Atezolizumab + BevacizumabPFS as Determined by the Investigator According to RECIST v1.1 in Participants With Sarcomatoid Histology8.3 months
Comparison: Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).p-value: 0.00295% CI: [0.34, 0.79]Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 3, 2026