Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Association of sunitinib concentration and clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a 2-week-on and 1-week-off schedule.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Sunitinib is used as a first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The primary aim of this study was to determine the optimal total sunitinib (sunitinib plus N-desethyl sunitinib) trough concentration for the alternative dosing schedule: 2-week-on and 1-week-off schedule (2/1 schedule). METHODS: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with the 2/1 schedule of sunitinib, whose total sunitinib concentrations were available, were recruited for this study. Out of 19 patients, 17 whose sunitinib dosage was not changed until the measurement of drug concentration were eligible for the analysis of the relationship between total sunitinib concentration and clinical outcome. Individual pharmacokinetic parameters in 19 patients were estimated via the Bayesian analysis. RESULTS: The onset of severe (grade ≥3) adverse effects among 17 patients during 3 weeks as a first course of sunitinib therapy was observed in 7 (41.2%) patients. The median total sunitinib concentration in patients with severe adverse effects was significantly higher compared with that in patients without severe adverse effects [median: 119 (113-131) vs. 87.8 (77.4-102) ng/mL, p = 0.01]. According to the receiver operating characteristic analysis of the onset of severe adverse effects, the cut-off value of the total sunitinib concentration was 108 ng/mL. Patients with a total sunitinib concentration lower than 108 ng/mL had a longer time to first dose reduction or withdrawal due to adverse effects compared with those with a total sunitinib concentration of 108 ng/mL or higher (p = 0.03). The probability without treatment failure was not significantly different between the two concentration groups. In addition, the estimated sunitinib apparent oral clearance (CL/F) was significantly lower in the severe adverse effects group. Our simulation demonstrated that 0.67-time dose is needed for patients with approximately 90.0 ng/mL of sunitinib concentration on day 7 to maintain the concentration at the same level as the patients with higher CL/F. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Maintaining the total sunitinib trough concentrations of less than 108 ng/mL is safe to avoid the onset of serious adverse effects without increasing the treatment failure in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with the 2/1 schedule of sunitinib.

Sequential Capecitabine/Temozolomide and Sunitinib Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Well-Differentiated Grade 1/Grade 2 Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

OBJECTIVE: The role of alternate sequential administration of sunitinib and capecitabine/temozolomide (CAPTEM) in metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) remains unexplored. We thus aimed to analyze the efficacy and tolerability of this strategy in advanced grade 1/grade 2 PanNETs. METHODS: In total, data of 43 patients with metastatic PanNET were collected from a real-world database of a cancer center. Twenty-four patients were treated with sunitinib followed by CAPTEM (group 1), and 19 patients were treated with CAPTEM followed by sunitinib (group 2). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated with first-line sunitinib or CAPTEM, and 20 patients were pretreated with somatostatin analog (SSA) or SSA in combination with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. The objective response rate with first-line treatment was similar in both groups, whereas that with second-line treatment was higher in group 1 than in group 2, albeit with no significant differences (21.1% vs 5.3%, respectively; P = .205). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for first-line and second-line treatments did not differ between the 2 groups (11 and 12 months vs 12 and 8 months, respectively). Following subgroup analyses, treatment with first-line sunitinib and sunitinib after pretreated SSA had a longer mPFS than that with second-line sunitinib after CAPTEM (11 months vs 8 months, respectively; P = .046), whereas treatment with first-line CAPTEM and CAPTEM after pretreated SSA had an mPFS similar to that of second-line CAPTEM after sunitinib treatment. CAPTEM and sunitinib had similar tolerability. CONCLUSION: Alternating sunitinib and CAPTEM were well tolerated and associated with similar mPFS in grade 1/grade 2 PanNETs. However, larger prospective studies are required to investigate the efficacy of alternate sequential therapies for metastatic PanNET.

Lost in third space: altered tyrosine-kinase inhibitor pharmacokinetics in a patient with malignant ascites.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib and sunitinib are oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) approved for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. For both oncolytics, a clear target trough concentration level in plasma has been defined above which improved clinical efficacy can be expected. However, many factors can alter TKI exposure, including disease characteristics. CASE: A 79-year old male with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma and malignant ascites was treated with pazopanib. Initially, treatment with pazopanib at adequate trough concentrations resulted in regression of ascites. After a 6-month puncture-free interval, paracenteses were again required and the plasma trough concentration of pazopanib had decreased to 5 mg/L without any dose adjustments. Despite a dose increase, pazopanib levels remained subtherapeutic and could not prevent new paracenteses. Pazopanib concentrations in the drained ascites fluid were comparable to plasma concentrations and remained high also after treatment discontinuation. This observation suggests that the ascites compartment may act as a third space in which pazopanib accumulates. During subsequent treatment with sunitinib, a similar distribution over ascites fluid was observed. CONCLUSION: Presence of ascites or pleural effusion in patients treated with TKIs may lead to subtherapeutic plasma exposure, which may hamper treatment efficacy. Measuring TKIs plasma concentrations regularly during treatment is essential to identify patients with subtherapeutic exposure.

Spontaneous recovery from sunitinib-induced disruption of sarcomere in human iPSC-cardiomyocytes and possible involvement of the Hippo pathway.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is known to cause cardiotoxicity in clinical settings. However, among sunitinib-treated patients experiencing adverse cardiac events, decreased cardiac function was reportedly reversible in > 50% of the patients. We previously showed that anti-cancer drugs such as sunitinib cause marked sarcomere disruption in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs), and the extent of sarcomere disruption can be used to predict drug-induced cardiotoxicity in humans. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the reversibility of sunitinib-induced cardiac events in clinical settings can be mimicked in vitro, and to examine the molecular mechanism responsible for sunitinib-induced cardiotoxicity focusing on the Hippo pathway. METHODS: iPSC-CMs were stimulated with sunitinib for 72 h and the morphology of sarcomere structures were analyzed by high-content analysis before and after sunitinib washout. To examine the involvement of the Hippo pathway in the sunitinib-induced sarcomere disruption, the extent of nuclear localization of YAP1 (yes-associated protein 1, a Hippo signaling target) was determined. iPSC-CMs were also stimulated with sunitinib and a small molecule inhibitor of the Hippo pathway, XMU-MP-1 and sarcomere structures were analyzed. RESULTS: We observed a spontaneous recovery in cardiac sarcomeres in iPSC-CMs that were significantly disrupted by sunitinib treatment after a 72 h or 144 h washout of sunitinib. The extent of nuclear localization of YAP1 was significantly reduced after sunitinib stimulation and tended to return to normal levels after drug washout. Simultaneous stimulation of iPSC-CM with sunitinib and XMU-MP-1 suppressed the sunitinib-induced disruption of sarcomeres. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that iPSC-CMs have the ability to recover from sunitinib-induced sarcomere disruption, and the Hippo pathway plays a role in the process of sunitinib-induced disruption of sarcomere and its recovery. Inhibition of the Hippo pathway may help to develop a co-medication strategy for mitigating the risk of sunitinib-induced adverse cardiac events.

Unconventional radiotherapy to enhance immunotherapy efficacy in bulky tumors: a case report.

Determining the most appropriate management strategy for patients with large tumor masses is a very challenging issue. Unconventional radiotherapy modalities, such as spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT), are associated with dramatic responses. Recent studies have suggested that systemic immune activation may be triggered by SFRT delivery to primary tumor lesion. This report describes the case of a patient treated with a novel form of immune-sparing partially ablative irradiation (ISPART) for a bulky peritoneal metastasis from renal cell cancer, refractory to anti-PD-1 therapy (nivolumab) as third-line therapy after sequential therapy with sunitinib and cabozantinib. The observed response suggests that there may be a synergistic effect between ISPART and immunotherapy. This case report supports the inclusion of ISPART in patients presenting with bulky lesions treated with checkpoint inhibitors .

Lay abstract Managing large tumor masses is a very challenging issue. In recent years, radiotherapy methods have been linked with good responses, which may be due to the activation of immune mechanisms. We describe the case of a patient with a large tumor mass from renal cell cancer. The patient had already been treated with anti-PD-1 therapy, after treatment with sunitinib and cabozantinib, along with radiotherapy. The results suggest that radiotherapy together with immunotherapy is very effective in enhancing immune response.

Clinical Importance of Plasma Drug Concentration of Oral Molecular Targeted Drugs for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is widely used in clinical practice to maximize drug efficacy and minimize toxicities. Currently, it is also practiced in the use of oral molecular targeted drugs. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical importance of measuring the systemic concentration of oral molecular targeted drugs used to treat renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: The systemic concentrations of the oral molecular targeted drugs sorafenib, sunitinib, axitinib, pazopanib, and everolimus used for RCC were useful for therapeutic interventions, and clinical outcomes were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: The interventional use of systemic drug concentration was confirmed in 26 of 87, and their categories are presented. The systemic concentration of sunitinib was useful in dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 10), dose escalation (n = 3), and adherence monitoring (n = 2). Nine of the 10 patients whose dose was reduced showed reduced adverse event. Two patients who were intervened in adherence monitor showed improved adherence. For axitinib, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and dose escalation (n = 6) were confirmed. For pazopanib, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and drug interaction detection (n = 1) were confirmed, both of them were confirmed to have reduced adverse events. For everolimus, dose reduction and/or discontinuation (n = 1) and drug interaction detection (n = 1) were confirmed, a patient with reduced dose recovered from adverse events. Interventions for sorafenib were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that systemic concentrations of oral molecular targeted drugs for RCC were considered to be clinically useful for dose adjustment, monitoring of treatment adherence, and the detection of drug interactions. Moreover, this information could be successfully used to guide individualized therapy to maximize the antitumor effects of these drugs.

c-Kit inhibitors for unresectable or metastatic mucosal, acral or chronically sun-damaged melanoma: a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Activating genomic alterations of the receptor tyrosine kinase KIT are found preferentially in certain melanoma subtypes such as acral and mucosal melanoma or melanoma arising in chronically sun-damaged skin. However, the therapeutic value of c-Kit inhibitors for these subtypes currently remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to summarise the efficacy and safety of c-Kit inhibitors for unresectable or metastatic mucosal, acral or chronically sun-damaged melanoma. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature research in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL and hand searched pertinent trial registers and conference abstracts for eligible trials until 23rd June 2020. Results were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate pooled proportions of objective response rates (ORRs) and severe adverse events (sAEs) from unselected KIT mutant or amplified cohorts. RESULTS: Nineteen single-arm studies with an overall sample size of 601 patients were included. The studies investigated imatinib (n = 8), nilotinib (n = 7), dasatinib (n = 3) and sunitinib (n = 1). The pooled ORR for all inhibitors was 15% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12-18%). Subgroup analysis revealed the highest ORR (20%; 95% CI: 14-26%) for nilotinib. The ORR for mucosal melanoma was 14% (95% CI: 6-24%) and 22% for acral lentiginous melanoma (95% CI: 14-30%). At least one sAE was reported in 42% of patients (95% CI: 34-50%). CONCLUSIONS: c-Kit inhibitors represent a valuable treatment option for patients with KIT-mutant melanoma, in particular for mutations of exons 11 and 13. Furthermore, high-quality trials are urgently needed to investigate putative combinations of specific targeted therapies with immunotherapy.

Fish Oil, Se Yeast, and Micronutrient-Enriched Nutrition as Adjuvant Treatment during Target Therapy in a Murine Model of Lung Cancer.

Despite the effectiveness of primary treatment modalities for cancer, the side effects of treatments, medication resistance, and the deterioration of cachexia after disease progression lead to poor prognosis. A supportive treatment modality to overcome these limitations would be considered a major breakthrough. Here, we used two different target drugs to demonstrate whether a nutraceutical formula (fish oil, Se yeast, and micronutrient-enriched nutrition; NuF) can interfere with cancer cachexia and improve drug efficacy. After Lewis lung cancer (LLC) tumor injection, the C57BL/6 mice were orally administered targeted therapy drugs Iressa and Sutent alone or combined with NuF for 27 days. Sutent administration effectively inhibited tumor size but increased the number of lung metastases in the long term. Sutent combined with NuF had no significant difference in tumor weight and metastasis compare with Sutent alone. However, NuF slightly attenuated metastases number in lung may via mesenchymal marker N-cadherin suppression. NuF otherwise increased epithelial-like marker E-cadherin expression and induce NO-mediated intrinsic apoptotic pathway in tumor cells, thereby strengthening the ability of the targeted therapy drug Iressa for inhibiting tumor progression. Our results demonstrate that NuF can promote the anticancer effect of lung cancer to targeted therapy, especially in Iressa, by inhibiting HIF-1α and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and inducing the apoptosis of lung cancer cells. Furthermore, NuF attenuates cancer-related cachectic symptoms by inhibiting systemic oxidative stress.

Recurrence of renal cell carcinoma after three decades in an octogenarian: Small molecules adding life to years.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common primary renal neoplasm. About a half of our patients relapse after primary treatment. We present here a case of RCC with solitary metastasis to the pleura which occurred 32 years after nephrectomy. Our patient is an 86-year-old male who presented to us with a cough of 2 months and a history of having undergone a right nephrectomy 32 years back. Imaging of the chest showed left pleural effusion with a left pleural nodule. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology from the pleural nodule was suggestive of malignancy with a clear cell morphology, suggestive of clear cell RCC. The patient was started on sunitinib 25 mg once daily. After the 1st month, the patient's performance status improved markedly, with no cough and improved appetite. He had developed Grade II hand-foot syndrome, which was managed conservatively, and the dose was deescalated to 25 mg once daily - 5 days on and 2 days off. An X-ray of the chest taken 6 weeks after the start of therapy showed complete resolution of the pleural fluid and regression of the pleural nodule. The patient is alive and well 5 years into therapy. The case highlights the unusual propensity for very late metastasis in RCC. Metastasis after 30 years is extremely rare. Another highlight of the case is the good tolerability of the dose-modified schedule of sunitinib. Wise patient selection and dose modification can certainly add "life to the years" in our very elderly patients.

G-Protein-coupled Estrogen Receptor 1 Agonist G-1 Perturbs Sunitinib Resistance-related Phosphoproteomic Signatures in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) often develops resistance to first-line targeted therapy such as sunitinib. G-Protein-coupled estrogen receptor 1 (GPER1) agonist G-1 was recently reported to regulate RCC physiology but the role of G-1 in RCC tumorigenesis and sunitinib resistance remains largely unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parental and sunitinib-resistant 786-O cells were treated with GPER1 agonist G-1, and quantitative phosphoproteomics was performed. Bioinformatic analyses and validations, including immunoblotting, cell migration, and cell cycle distribution, were performed. RESULTS: G-1 repressed cell proliferation and migration in both parental and sunitinib-resistant 786-O cells. Phosphoproteomic signatures, including phosphoinositide 3-kinase and protein kinase B (PI3K-AKT) as well as other pathways, were up-regulated in sunitinib-resistant cells but application of G-1 reversed this effect. Among phosphoprotein candidates, activating transcription factor 2 (ATF2) Thr69/71 phosphorylation was antagonistically regulated by sunitinib resistance and G-1. CONCLUSION: Our results open up the possibility for managing RCC and sunitinib resistance by GPER1 agonist G-1 and its regulated pathways.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Sunitinib and its Active Metabolite SU012662 in Pediatric Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors or Other Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Population pharmacokinetic analysis explored the pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its primary active metabolite, SU012662, in children and evaluated the sunitinib dose(s) that produce comparable plasma exposures to adults receiving the approved daily dose. METHODS: Data were from 65 children with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) or solid tumors. Pharmacokinetic models of sunitinib and SU012662 were developed using a systematic multi-step approach employing nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. The effect of predefined covariates on pharmacokinetic parameters was assessed. Final models were validated using visual predictive check and statistical techniques. RESULTS: The final dataset comprised 439 sunitinib and 417 SU012662 post-baseline plasma observations. Base models were characterized by two-compartment models with first-order absorption and lag time. Body surface area (BSA) was the only covariate that affected (P < 0.001) pharmacokinetic parameters for sunitinib and SU012662 and was incorporated into the final models. Bootstrap results indicated that the final models represented the final dataset adequately. Based on the final models, a sunitinib dose of ~ 20mg/m2/day in children with GIST aged 6-17 years would be expected to lead to similar total plasma exposures of sunitinib and SU012661 as a dose of 50 mg/day in an adult with GIST on schedule 4/2. CONCLUSIONS: In children with GIST or solid tumors receiving sunitinib, population pharmacokinetic analysis identified BSA as the only covariate that affected pharmacokinetic parameters and predicted a dose of ~ 20 mg/m2/day as achieving equivalent exposure to 50 mg/day in adults with GIST on schedule 4/2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers (date registered): NCT01396148 (July 2011); NCT01462695 (October 2011); NCT00387920 (October 2006).

Tumor flare of brain metastases upon dose interruption of sunitinib in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma are associated with poor prognosis. Sunitinib is a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor used for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It is taken orally on a traditional dosing schedule of 4-week on/2-week off cycles or an alternate dosing schedule of 2-week on/1-week off cycles. Although patients with brain metastases were excluded from the original phase 3 sunitinib registration trial, case reports and an expanded access trial suggest that sunitinib penetrates the blood brain barrier and has central nervous system (CNS) activity. We present a case report which illustrates an unusual presentation of symptomatic brain metastasis progression during the prescribed breaks in treatment during sunitinib monotherapy, and rapid clinical improvement upon resuming sunitinib during the cycle. Patients who develop increased symptoms during the "off treatment" period of sunitinib therapy may have new sites of metastasis. In such patients, appropriate imaging should be obtained to evaluate for disease progression and either a continuous sunitinib dosing schedule or an alternative therapy should be considered.

Real-world outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma according to risk factors: the STAR-TOR registry.

Aim: Examine outcomes in sunitinib-treated patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk factors. Patients & methods: Patients enrolled in STAR-TOR registry (n = 327). End points included overall survival, progression-free survival and objective response rate. Results: Overall survival was similar for IMDC 0 versus 1 (p = 0.238) or 2 versus ≥3 (p = 0.156), but different for MSKCC (0 vs 1, p = 0.037; 2 vs ≥3, p = 0.001). Progression-free survival was similar for IMDC 2 versus 3 (p = 0.306), but different for MSKCC (p = 0.009). Objective response rate was different for IMDC 1 (41.9%) and 2 (29.5%) and similar for MSKCC 1 (34.4%) and 2 (31.0%). Conclusion: Outcome data varied according to IMDC or MSKCC. MSKCC model accurately stratify patients into risk groups. Clinical trial registration: NCT00700258 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Predictive value of De Ritis ratio in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Predictive markers can help tailor treatment to the individual in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). De Ritis ratio (DRR) is associated with oncologic outcomes in various solid tumors. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of DRR in prognosticating survival in mRCC patients treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). METHODS: Overall, 220 mRCC patients treated with TKI first-line therapy were analyzed. An optimal cut-off point for DRR was determined with Youden's J. We used multiple strata for DRR, performed descriptive, Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox-regression analyses to assess associations of DRR with progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients above the optimal cut-off point for DRR of ≥ 1.58 had fewer liver metastases (p = 0.01). There was no difference in PFS (p > 0.05) between DRR groups. DRR above the median of 1.08 (HR 1.42; p = 0.03), DRR ≥ 1.1(HR 1.44; p = 0.02), ≥ 1.8 (HR 1.56; p = 0.03), ≥ 1.9 (HR 1.59; p = 0.02) and ≥ 2.0 (HR 1.63; p = 0.047) were associated with worse OS. These associations did not remain after multivariable adjustment. In the intermediate MSKCC group, DRR was associated with inferior OS at cut-offs ≥ 1.0 (HR 1.78; p = 0.02), ≥ 1.1 (HR 1.81; p = 0.01) and above median (HR 1.88; p = 0.007) in multivariable analyses. In patients with clear-cell histology, DRR above median (HR 1.54; p = 0.029) and DRR ≥ 1.1 (HR 1.53; p = 0.029) were associated with OS in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: There was no independent association between DRR and survival of mRCC patients treated with TKI in the entire cohort. However, OS of patients with intermediate risk and clear-cell histology were affected by DRR. DRR could be used for tailored decision-making in these subgroups.

A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Effects of CYP3A inhibitors ketoconazole, voriconazole, and itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its main metabolite in rats.

Sunitinib is a small molecule inhibitor of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases such as platelet derived growth factor receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, kit receptor and other receptors. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sunitinib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. It has been reported that sunitinib was mainly metabolized by CYP3A but its pharmacokinetic interactions have not been revealed. In this study, we investigated whether CYP3A inhibitors (ketoconazole, voriconazole, and itraconazole) could influence the pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its equipotent metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib in a drug-drug interaction study in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats. The results showed that ketoconazole and voriconazole significantly increased the exposure of sunitinib, decreased the exposure of N-desethyl sunitinib, and inhibited the metabolism of sunitinib in rats. However, itraconazole showed only a weak effect on pharmacokinetics and metabolism. Coadministration of sunitinib with ketoconazole and voriconazole should be avoided if possible or if not, there should be therapeutic drug monitoring of the levels of sunitinib and N-desethyl sunitinib. Therefore, drug-drug interaction should be considered when sunitinib is administered in conjunction with CYP3A inhibitors, which might lead to toxicity.