Real-World Effectiveness and Tolerability of Pazopanib as First Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Chart Review in Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Pazopanib is approved in Latin America as first targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of adult patients with mRCC who initiated pazopanib as first targeted therapy between January 2011 and March 2016 was conducted among oncology care centers in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 156 charts of patients with mRCC receiving first-line pazopanib were reviewed (29, 54, 27, 28, and 18 patients from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, respectively). The mean age at initial mRCC diagnosis was 61.6 years, 73.7% were male, and 51.3% were Hispanic. The median dose of pazopanib was 800 mg and the median time from initial mRCC diagnosis to pazopanib start was 2.2 months. The median time on treatment was 10.0 months. At the time of data extraction, 16.7% of patients remained on pazopanib, with clinical progression listed as the main reason for discontinuation. Subsequent therapy was received by 25.6% of patients; the most common were everolimus (9.6%) and axitinib (5.8%). Overall, median PFS and OS were 10.8 and 16.9 months, respectively, and varied across countries. The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (44.9%), asthenia/fatigue (43.6%), and nausea (28.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib was used for first-line mRCC treatment in a clinically diverse patient population across Latin America. Real-world PFS and tolerability were similar to clinical studies of pazopanib. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Inc.

COMPARZ Post Hoc Analysis: Characterizing Pazopanib Responders With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase III COMPARZ study showed noninferior efficacy of pazopanib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this COMPARZ post hoc analysis we characterized pazopanib responders, patient subgroups with better outcomes, and the effect of dose modification on efficacy and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to pazopanib 800 mg/d (n = 557) or sunitinib 50 mg/d, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (n = 553). Secondary end points included time to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR); the proportion of patients with CR/PR ≥10 months and progression-free survival (PFS) ≥10 months; efficacy in patients with baseline metastasis; and logistic regression analyses of patient characteristics associated with CR/PR ≥10 months. Median PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety were evaluated in patients with or without dose reductions or interruptions lasting ≥7 days. RESULTS: Median time to response was numerically shorter for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib (11.9 vs. 17.4 weeks). Similar percentages of pazopanib and sunitinib patients had CR/PR ≥10 months (14% and 13%, respectively), and PFS ≥10 months (31% and 34%, respectively). For patients without versus with adverse event (AE)-related dose reductions, median PFS, median overall survival, and ORR were 7.3 versus 12.5 months, 21.7 versus 36.8 months, and 22% versus 42% (all P < .0001) for pazopanib, and 5.5 versus 13.8 months, 18.1 versus 38.0 months, and 16% versus 34% (all P < .0001) for sunitinib; results were similar for dose interruptions. CONCLUSION: Dose modifications when required because of AEs were associated with improved efficacy, suggesting that AEs might be used as a surrogate marker of adequate dosing for individual patients.

Safety and efficacy of Pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: PALETTE (EORTC 62072) subgroup analyses.

BACKGROUND: PALETTE is a phase 3 trial that demonstrated single-agent activity of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas (aSTS). We performed retrospective subgroup analyses to explore potential relationships between patient characteristics, prior lines of therapy, dose intensity, and dose modifications on safety and efficacy of pazopanib in aSTS. METHODS: PALETTE compared pazopanib with placebo in patients with aSTS (age ≥ 18 years) whose disease had progressed during or following prior chemotherapy. In these subgroup analyses, median progression-free survival (mPFS) among patients receiving pazopanib was the efficacy outcome of interest. Adverse events (AEs) were also compared within subgroups. All analyses were descriptive and exploratory. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients received pazopanib in the PALETTE study. The mPFS was longer in patients who had only 1 prior line versus 2+ prior lines of therapy (24.7 vs 18.9 weeks, respectively); AE rates were similar regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. The mPFS was similar in patients aged < 65 and ≥ 65 y (20.0 and 20.1 weeks, respectively). Although AEs leading to study discontinuation were higher in older patients (≥65 y, 30%; < 65 y, 17%), rates of dose reductions, dose interruptions, and serious AEs were similar between the 2 age groups. No reduction in mPFS was noted in patients requiring dose reductions or dose interruptions to manage toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Longer mPFS was observed in patients receiving pazopanib following only 1 line of therapy. Additionally, mPFS with pazopanib was maintained regardless of patient age or dose modifications used to manage toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00753688 , first posted September 16, 2008 (registered prospectively).

Real-world Effectiveness and Safety of Pazopanib in Patients With Intermediate Prognostic Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib in patients with intermediate-risk advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the PRINCIPAL study (NCT01649778). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had clear-cell advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma and met intermediate-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Assessments included progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. We also evaluated effectiveness based on number of risk factors, age, and performance status (PS), as well as safety in older and younger patients. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty three and 343 intermediate-risk MSKCC and IMDC patients were included, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 13.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-18.1 months) and 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.2-10.3 months) for patients with 1 and 2 MSKCC risk factors, respectively, and 13.1 months (95% CI, 10.7-18.1 months) and 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-10.7 months) for patients with 1 and 2 IMDC risk factors, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached and was 15.2 months (95% CI, 12.3-26.5 months) for patients with 1 and 2 MSKCC risk factors, respectively, and 33.9 months (95% CI, 33.9 months to not estimable) and 19.4 months (95% CI, 14.3 months to not estimable) with 1 and 2 IMDC risk factors, respectively. A lower overall response rate was observed with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≥ 2 (vs. PS < 2). All-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in approximately 63% of patients, and the safety profile among older and younger patients was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes with pazopanib in intermediate-risk patients suggest that patients can be further stratified by number of risk factors (1 vs. 2) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS (< 2 vs. ≥ 2) to more accurately predict outcomes.

Prospective Observational Study of Pazopanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (PRINCIPAL Study).

BACKGROUND: Real-world data are essential to accurately assessing efficacy and toxicity of approved agents in everyday practice. PRINCIPAL, a prospective, observational study, was designed to confirm the real-world safety and efficacy of pazopanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Patients with clear cell advanced/metastatic RCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib treatment within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. Primary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), relative dose intensity (RDI) and its effect on treatment outcomes, change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. We also compared characteristics and outcomes of clinical-trial-eligible (CTE) patients, defined using COMPARZ trial eligibility criteria, with those of non-clinical-trial-eligible (NCTE) patients. Secondary study objectives were to evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and RDI in patient subgroups. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of pazopanib. Median PFS and OS were 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-12.0) and 29.9 months (95% CI, 24.7 to not reached), respectively, and the ORR was 30.3%. HRQoL showed no or little deterioration over time. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interest occurred in 64 (9.7%), and 399 (60.7%) patients, respectively. More patients were classified NCTE than CTE (85.2% vs. 14.8%). Efficacy of pazopanib was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PRINCIPAL confirms the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in a real-world clinical setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: PRINCIPAL is the largest (n = 657) prospective, observational study of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma, to the authors' knowledge. Consistent with clinical trial results that often contain specific patient types, the PRINCIPAL study demonstrated that the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib is similarly safe and effective in patients with advanced kidney cancer in a real-world clinical setting. The PRINCIPAL study showed that patients with advanced kidney cancer who are treated with first-line pazopanib generally do not show disease progression for approximately 10 months and generally survive for nearly 30 months.

RECORD-4 multicenter phase 2 trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Asian versus non-Asian population subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: RECORD-4 assessed everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progressed after 1 prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or cytokine and reinforced the clinical benefit of second-line everolimus. Because of the high percentage of patients from China enrolled in RECORD-4 (41%) and some reported differences in responses to certain targeted agents between Chinese and Western patients, this subanalysis evaluated outcomes in Asian versus non-Asian patients. METHODS: RECORD-4 enrolled patients with clear cell mRCC into 3 cohorts based on prior first-line therapy: sunitinib, other anti-VEGF (sorafenib, bevacizumab, pazopanib, other), or cytokines. Patients received everolimus 10 mg/d until progression of disease (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. Primary end point was progression-free survival per investigator review. Data cutoff was Sept 1, 2014. RESULTS: Among Asian (n = 55) versus non-Asian (n = 79) patients, 98% versus 84% had good/intermediate MSKCC prognosis; 73% versus 65% were men, and 85% versus 73% were < 65 years of age. All (100%) Asian patients were of Chinese ethnicity. Median duration of exposure was 5.5 mo for Asian and 6.0 mo for non-Asian patients. Among Asian versus non-Asian patients, median progression-free survival (months) was 7.4 versus 7.8 overall, 7.4 versus 4.0 with prior sunitinib, and 5.7 versus 9.2 with prior other anti-VEGFs. Clinical benefit rate was similar between populations: 74.5% (95% CI 61.0-85.3) for Asian patients and 74.7% (95% CI 63.6-83.8) for non-Asian patients. Most patients achieved stable disease as best overall response (Asian, 63.6%; non-Asian, 69.6%). Overall rate of grade 3/4 adverse events appeared similar for Asian (58%) and non-Asian patients (54%). CONCLUSIONS: This RECORD-4 subanalysis demonstrated comparable efficacy and adverse event profiles of second-line everolimus in Asian and non-Asian patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes by prior therapy should be interpreted with caution because of small patient numbers in some subpopulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Everolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell. Carcinoma (RECORD-4); ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01491672 . Registration date: December 14, 2011.

Nilotinib first-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-negative/BCR-ABL-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase: ENEST1st sub-analysis.

PURPOSE: The ENEST1st sub-analysis presents data based on Philadelphia chromosome (Ph) status, i.e., Ph+ and Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + chronic myeloid leukemia. METHODS: Patients received nilotinib 300 mg twice daily, up to 24 months. RESULTS: At screening, 983 patients were identified as Ph+ and 30 patients as Ph-/BCR-ABL + based on cytogenetic and RT-PCR assessment; 76 patients had unknown karyotype (excluded from this sub-analysis). In the Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + subgroup, no additional chromosomal aberrations were reported. In the Ph+ subgroup, 952 patients had safety and molecular assessments. In the Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + subgroup, 30 patients had safety assessments and 28 were followed up for molecular assessments. At 18 months, the molecular response (MR) 4 rate [MR4; BCR-ABL1 ≤0.01% on International Scale (IS)] was similar in the Ph-/BCR-ABL1+ (39.3%) and Ph+ subgroups (38.1%). By 24 months, the cumulative rates of major molecular response (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.1%;), MR4, and MR4.5 (BCR-ABL1IS ≤0.0032%) were 85.7, 60.7, and 50.0%, respectively, in the Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + subgroup, and 80.3, 54.7, and 38.3%, respectively, in the Ph+ subgroup. In both Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + and Ph+ subgroups, rash (20 and 22%), pruritus (16.7 and 16.7%), nasopharyngitis (13.3 and 10.4%), fatigue (10 and 14.2%), headache (10 and 15.8%), and nausea (6.7 vs 11.4%) were frequent non-hematologic adverse events, whereas hypophosphatemia (23.3 and 6.8%), anemia (10 and 6.5%), and thrombocytopenia (3.3 and 10.2%) were the common hematologic/biochemical laboratory events. CONCLUSION: Based on similar molecular response and safety results in both subgroups, we conclude that Ph-/BCR-ABL1 + patients benefit from nilotinib in the same way as Ph+ patients.

Cell fusion in tumor progression: the isolation of cell fusion products by physical methods.

BACKGROUND: Cell fusion induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) is an efficient but poorly controlled procedure for obtaining somatic cell hybrids used in gene mapping, monoclonal antibody production, and tumour immunotherapy. Genetic selection techniques and fluorescent cell sorting are usually employed to isolate cell fusion products, but both procedures have several drawbacks. RESULTS: Here we describe a simple improvement in PEG-mediated cell fusion that was obtained by modifying the standard single-step procedure. We found that the use of two PEG undertreatments obtains a better yield of cell fusion products than the standard method, and most of these products are bi- or trinucleated polykaryocytes. Fusion rate was quantified using fluorescent cell staining microscopy. We used this improved cell fusion and cell isolation method to compare giant cells obtained in vitro and giant cells obtained in vivo from patients with Hodgkin's disease and erythroleukemia. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study we show how to improve PEG-mediated cell fusion and that cell separation by velocity sedimentation offers a simple alternative for the efficient purification of cell fusion products and to investigate giant cell formation in tumor development.

Mutations in the 5' UTR of ANKRD26, the ankirin repeat domain 26 gene, cause an autosomal-dominant form of inherited thrombocytopenia, THC2.

THC2, an autosomal-dominant thrombocytopenia described so far in only two families, has been ascribed to mutations in MASTL or ACBD5. Here, we show that ANKRD26, another gene within the THC2 locus, and neither MASTL nor ACBD5, is mutated in eight unrelated families. ANKRD26 was also found to be mutated in the family previously reported to have an ACBD5 mutation. We identified six different ANKRD26 mutations, which were clustered in a highly conserved 19 bp sequence located in the 5' untranslated region. Mutations were not detected in 500 controls and are absent from the 1000 Genomes database. Available data from an animal model and Dr. Watson's genome give evidence against haploinsufficiency as the pathogenetic mechanism for ANKRD26-mediated thrombocytopenia. The luciferase reporter assay suggests that these 5' UTR mutations might enhance ANKRD26 expression. ANKRD26 is the ancestor of a family of primate-specific genes termed POTE, which have been recently identified as a family of proapoptotic proteins. Dysregulation of apoptosis might therefore be the pathogenetic mechanism, as demonstrated for another thrombocytopenia, THC4. Further investigation is needed to provide evidence supporting this hypothesis.