Summary Background In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer ...progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Methods Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00678392. Findings Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio HR 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 17%), diarrhoea (40 11%), and fatigue (37 10%) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand–foot syndrome (61 17%), hypertension (43 12%), and diarrhoea (27 8%) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4–24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1–20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1–32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0–17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). Interpretation Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Summary Background The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the ...effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Methods We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00678392. Findings A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544–0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. Interpretation Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Summary Background Results from clinical trials have established sunitinib as a standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients, ...particularly those with a poorer prognosis, do not meet inclusion criteria and little is known about the activity of sunitinib in these subgroups. The primary objective of this trial was to provide sunitinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regulatory approval had not been granted. Methods Previously treated and treatment-naive patients at least 18 years of age with metastatic RCC were eligible. All patients received open-label sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on schedule 4-2 (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Safety was assessed regularly, tumour measurements done per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of sunitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00130897. Findings As of December, 2007, 4564 patients were enrolled in 52 countries. 4371 patients were included in the modified ITT population. This population included 321 (7%) patients with brain metastases, 582 (13%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, 588 (13%) non-clear-cell RCC, and 1418 (32%) aged 65 years or more. Patients received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1–25). Reasons for discontinuation included lack of efficacy (n=1168 27%) and adverse events (n=362 8%). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (n=1936 44%) and fatigue (n=1606 37%). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were fatigue (n=344 8%) and thrombocytopenia (n=338 8%) with incidences of grade 3–4 adverse events similar across subgroups. In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subgroup ORR as follows: brain metastases (26 of 213 12%), ECOG performance status 2 or higher (29 of 319 9%), non-clear-cell RCC (48 of 437 11%) and age 65 years or more (176 of 1056 17%). Median progression-free survival was 10·9 months (95% CI 10·3–11·2) and overall survival was 18·4 months (17·4–19·2). Interpretation In a broad population of patients with metastatic RCC, the safety profile of sunitinib 50 mg once-daily (initial dose) on schedule 4-2 was manageable and efficacy results were encouraging, particularly in subgroups associated with poor prognosis who are not usually entered into clinical trials. Funding Pfizer Inc.
We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive ...metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82-1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63-1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.
Clear cell renal carcinomas (ccRCCs) can display intratumor heterogeneity (ITH). We applied multiregion exome sequencing (M-seq) to resolve the genetic architecture and evolutionary histories of ten ...ccRCCs. Ultra-deep sequencing identified ITH in all cases. We found that 73-75% of identified ccRCC driver aberrations were subclonal, confounding estimates of driver mutation prevalence. ITH increased with the number of biopsies analyzed, without evidence of saturation in most tumors. Chromosome 3p loss and VHL aberrations were the only ubiquitous events. The proportion of C>T transitions at CpG sites increased during tumor progression. M-seq permits the temporal resolution of ccRCC evolution and refines mutational signatures occurring during tumor development.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
In recent years, targeted agents have changed the treatment landscape for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), greatly improving treatment outcomes. Several targeted agents are now ...licensed for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), and a number of new agents are under investigation. Axitinib, a small molecule indazole derivative is an oral, potent multitargeted tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor, which selectively inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 at subnanomolar concentrations,
in vitro
. In various nonclinical models, axitinib has demonstrated
in vivo
target modulation and antiangiogenesis. In pharmacokinetic studies, axitinib administered orally with food at the proposed regimen of 5mg twice daily continuous daily dosing, is rapidly absorbed, reaching peak concentrations within 2–6 hours. Axitinib is metabolized primarily in the liver via the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system with less than 1% of the administered drug passing unchanged in the urine. The pharmacokinetics of axitinib do not appear to be altered by coadministered chemotherapies, and antacids do not have a clinically significant effect. However, coadministration with CYP3A4 and 1A2 inducers is contraindicated. In addition, proton pump inhibitors reduce the rate of axitinib absorption. Increased axitinib exposure is associated with higher efficacy indicated by decreased tumor perfusion and volume. In three phase II clinical trials in patients with advancedRCCpreviously treated with cytokines, chemotherapy or targeted agents, axitinib has demonstrated antitumor activity with a favorable noncumulative toxicity profile. In one study of Western patients with cytokine-refractory mRCC, an objective response rate (ORR) of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5, 58.7) was achieved. The median time to progression was 15.7 months (95%CI 8.4, 23.4) and the median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95%CI 20.3, not estimable). In the second study of patients with sorafenib-refractory mRCC, ORR was 22.6% (95% CI 12.9, 35.0). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.7, 11.0) and a median OS of 13.6 months (95% CI 8.4, 18.8) was achieved. Results from the third study in Japanese patients with cytokine-refractory mRCC reported an ORR of 55% and median PFS of 12.9 months (95% CI 9.8, 15.6).
In the three studies, themost common adverse events reported were fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and gastrointestinal toxicity, which were generally manageable with standard medical intervention. Of note, the incidence of HFS and proteinuria in the Japanese study was higher than that reported in the Western study in cytokine-refractory mRCC patients.
An observed association between diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg and increased efficacy suggests potential use as a prognostic biomarker. However, this requires further investigation. Two randomized phase III clinical trials are ongoing to determine the efficacy of axitinib in patients with mRCC in the first- and second-line setting. These results will help to determine the place of axitinib in the mRCC treatment algorithm.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
We evaluated the clinical impact of germ-line BRCA1/2 mutations in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) on responses to first and subsequent lines of chemotherapy, treatment-free interval ...(TFI) between each line of therapy, and overall survival (OS).
Twenty-two EOC patients with germ-line BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (BRCA-positive) were selected from our database and matched (1:2) with 44 nonhereditary EOC controls (defined by no associated personal history of breast cancer and no family history of breast and ovarian cancer or an uninformative BRCA mutation test) for stage, histologic subtype, age, and year of diagnosis. All patients received primary platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistical comparisons included responses after first-, second-, and third-line treatment (chi(2)/Fisher's exact test) and median OS (Kaplan-Meier method/log-rank test).
Compared with controls, BRCA-positive patients had higher overall (95.5% v 59.1%; P = .002) and complete response rates (81.8% v 43.2%; P = .004) to first line treatment, higher responses to second and third line platinum-based chemotherapy (second line, 91.7% v 40.9% P = .004; third line, 100% v 14.3% P = .005) and longer TFIs. A significant improvement in median OS in BRCA-positive patients compared with controls was observed from both time of diagnosis (8.4 v 2.9 years; P < .002) and time of first relapse (5 v 1.6 years; P < .001). BRCA status, stage, and length of first response were independent prognostic factors from time of first relapse.
BRCA-positive EOC patients have better outcomes than nonhereditary EOC patients. There exists a clinical syndrome of BRCAness that includes serous histology, high response rates to first and subsequent lines of platinum-based treatment, longer TFIs between relapses, and improved OS.
Hypertension (HTN) is an on-target effect of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, sunitinib. We evaluated the association of sunitinib-induced HTN with antitumor efficacy and ...HTN-associated adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
This retrospective analysis included pooled efficacy (n = 544) and safety (n = 4917) data from four studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib 50 mg/d administered on a 4-week-on 2-week-off schedule (schedule 4/2). Blood pressure (BP) was measured in the clinic on days 1 and 28 of each 6-week cycle. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; hazard ratios (HRs) for survival were also estimated by a Cox proportional hazards models using HTN as a time-dependent covariate. Efficacy outcomes were compared between patients with and without HTN (maximum systolic BP SBP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP DBP ≥90 mm Hg). Adverse events were also compared between patients with and without HTN (mean SBP ≥140 mm Hg or mean DBP ≥90 mm Hg). All P values were two-sided.
Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP had better outcomes than those without treatment-induced HTN (objective response rate: 54.8% vs 8.7%; median PFS: 12.5 months, 95% confidence interval CI = 10.9 to 13.7 vs 2.5 months, 95% CI = 2.3 to 3.8 months; and OS: 30.9 months, 95% CI = 27.9 to 33.7 vs 7.2 months, 95% CI = 5.6 to 10.7 months; P < .001 for all). Similar results were obtained when comparing patients with vs without sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP. In a Cox proportional hazards model using HTN as a time-dependent covariate, PFS (HR of disease progression or death = .603, 95% CI = .451 to .805; P < .001) and OS (HR of death = .332, 95% CI = .252 to .436; P < .001) were improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP; OS (HR of death = .585, 95% CI = .463 to .740; P < .001) was improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP, but PFS was not. Few any-cause cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, ocular, and renal adverse events were observed. Rates of adverse events were similar between patients with and without HTN defined by mean SBP; however, hypertensive patients had somewhat more renal adverse events (5% vs 3%; P = .013).
In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib-associated HTN is associated with improved clinical outcomes without clinically significant increases in HTN-associated adverse events, supporting its viability as an efficacy biomarker.
Genetic analysis was applied to different regions of renal-cell cancers. The lesions noted in the tumor were not found in every sample, and regions of the tumor had different gene-expression ...patterns. This suggests that extrapolation from results of a single biopsy may be problematic.
Large-scale sequencing analyses of solid cancers have identified extensive heterogeneity between individual tumors.
1
–
6
Genetic intratumor heterogeneity has also been shown
7
–
15
and can contribute to treatment failure and drug resistance. Intratumor heterogeneity may have important consequences for personalized-medicine approaches that commonly rely on single tumor-biopsy samples to portray tumor mutational landscapes. Studies comparing mutational profiles of primary tumors and associated metastatic lesions
16
,
17
or local recurrences
18
have provided evidence of intratumor heterogeneity at nucleotide resolution. Intratumor heterogeneity within primary tumors and associated metastatic sites has not been systematically characterized by next-generation sequencing. We applied exome sequencing, chromosome aberration analysis, . . .
PDF
