Sunitinib: Ten Years of Successful Clinical Use and Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The oral multikinase inhibitor sunitinib malate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2006 for use in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Since then, it has been approved globally for this indication and for patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors and advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. As we mark the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the era of targeted therapy, and specifically the approval of sunitinib, it is worthwhile to highlight the progress that has been made in advanced RCC as it relates to the study of sunitinib. We present the key trials and data for sunitinib that established it as a reference standard of care for first-line advanced RCC therapy and, along with other targeted agents, significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Moreover, we discuss the research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers, plus the extent to which this research has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. We also explore the key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and how these findings and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for successful development of other agents. Finally, ongoing research into the continued and future role of sunitinib in RCC management is discussed. THE ONCOLOGIST: 2017;22:41-52 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Approved globally, sunitinib is established as a standard of care for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) therapy and, along with other targeted agents, has significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. Key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for the successful development of other agents.

Predicting Real-World Effectiveness of Cancer Therapies Using Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival from Clinical Trials: Empirical Evidence for the ASCO Value Framework.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the relationship between randomized controlled trial (RCT) efficacy and real-world effectiveness for oncology treatments as well as how this relationship varies depending on an RCT's use of surrogate versus overall survival (OS) endpoints. METHODS: We abstracted treatment efficacy measures from 21 phase III RCTs reporting OS and either progression-free survival or time to progression endpoints in breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. For these treatments, we estimated real-world OS as the mortality hazard ratio (RW MHR) among patients meeting RCT inclusion criteria in Surveillance and Epidemiology End Results-Medicare data. The primary outcome variable was real-world OS observed in the Surveillance and Epidemiology End Results-Medicare data. We used a Cox proportional hazard regression model to calibrate the differences between RW MHR and the hazard ratios on the basis of RCTs using either OS (RCT MHR) or progression-free survival/time to progression surrogate (RCT surrogate hazard ratio [SHR]) endpoints. RESULTS: Treatment arm therapies reduced mortality in RCTs relative to controls (average RCT MHR = 0.85; range 0.56-1.10) and lowered progression (average RCT SHR = 0.73; range 0.43-1.03). Among real-world patients who used either the treatment or the control arm regimens evaluated in the relevant RCT, RW MHRs were 0.6% (95% confidence interval -3.5% to 4.8%) higher than RCT MHRs, and RW MHRs were 15.7% (95% confidence interval 11.0% to 20.5%) higher than RCT SHRs. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world OS treatment benefits were similar to those observed in RCTs based on OS endpoints, but were 16% less than RCT efficacy estimates based on surrogate endpoints. These results, however, varied by tumor and line of therapy.

Circulating tumor cells in prostate cancer: beyond enumeration.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a population of rare cancer cells that have detached from the primary tumor and/or metastatic lesions and entered the peripheral circulation. Enumeration of CTCs has demonstrated value as a prognostic biomarker, and newer studies have pointed to information beyond enumeration that is of critical importance in prostate cancer. Technologic advances that permit examination of the morphology, function, and molecular content of CTCs have made it possible to measure these factors as part of liquid biopsy. These advances provide a way to study tumor evolution and the development of resistance to therapy. Recent breakthroughs have created new applications for CTCs that will affect the care of patients with prostate cancer.

Adjuvant treatment for renal cell carcinoma: do we finally have a major breakthrough?

Clinical parameters can be used to identify patients at greatest risk for recurrence following nephrectomy for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Molecular tools are being developed to improve risk stratification. An increasing list of available treatments for metastatic RCC continues to provide hope that an effective adjuvant therapy will be identified for patients with high-risk, clinically localized disease. In a phase 3 adjuvant therapy trial (S-TRAC), sunitinib increased median disease-free survival in patients with clear cell RCC who were at very high risk. This is the first positive phase 3 adjuvant therapy trial using a targeted therapy. However, a much larger phase 3 trial comparing sunitinib, sorafenib, and placebo (ASSURE) was negative. Careful review of recent adjuvant therapy trials reveals insights about who may benefit from adjuvant therapy and provides lessons for future trial design.

Randomized phase 2 trial of erlotinib in combination with high-dose celecoxib or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2)-dependent signaling represents a potential mechanism of resistance to therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This is mediated in part through an EGFR-independent activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Erk) by prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). PGE2 promotes downregulation of E cadherin and epithelial to mesenchymal transition. The current study investigated EGFR and COX-2 inhibition in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and elevated baseline urinary metabolite of PGE2 (PGEM). METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV (AJCC 6th edition) NSCLC who progressed after at least 1 line of therapy or refused standard chemotherapy were randomized to receive erlotinib and celecoxib versus erlotinib and placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a 50% improvement with a 1-sided significance level of .2 in the intent-to-treat and elevated baseline PGEM populations. Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival, and evaluation of molecular markers to assess targeting COX-2-related pathways and evaluate EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled with comparable baseline characteristics. Among the patients treated with celecoxib, those with wild-type EGFR were found to have an increased PFS (3.2 months vs 1.8 months; P = .03). PFS was numerically improved among patients in the intent-to-treat group who received erlotinib and celecoxib compared with those treated with erlotinib and placebo (5.4 months vs 3.5 months; P = .33) and was increased in patients in the erlotinib and celecoxib arm with elevated baseline PGEM (5.4 months vs 2.2 months; P = .15). Adverse events were similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of erlotinib and celecoxib did not appear to improve outcomes in an unselected population, but selection by elevated baseline PGEM led to an increase in PFS with this combination. Patients with EGFR wild-type status may benefit from the combination of erlotinib and celecoxib.

Literature Review and Profile of Cancer Diseases Among Afghan Refugees in Iran: Referrals in Six Years of Displacement.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of research on the profile of cancers among displaced populations, specifically Afghan refugees in Iran. This study illustrates the pattern of cancers in this population, and highlights the challenges of cancer care in displaced people with the intent that this data will facilitate appropriate allocation of resources to improve care in this population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, in which we collected the demographics and profile of cancers among Afghan refugees from 2005 to 2010 from referrals to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) offices in Iran. Accrued evidence by other studies published between January 1993 and July 2014 pertaining to cancer diagnoses in refugees from Afghanistan, Tibet, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq was reviewed. RESULTS: Cancer diagnoses accounted for 3083 of 23 152 total referrals, with 49% female and 51% male cases; 23.3% were 0-17 years of age, 61.2% were 18-59, and 15.5% were above 60. The most common health referral for females and males (0-17) was malignant neoplasms of lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue, accounting for 34.2%. In the age groups 18-59 and above 60 for both male and females it was malignant neoplasm of the digestive system, occurring in 26.3% and 48.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of humanitarian crises especially war, cancer diagnoses among refugees is a major health burden both on the host countries and the international community with serious implications considering the recent growing trend in the Middle Eastern countries. The prevalence of certain cancer diagnoses among refugees, like gastrointestinal, respiratory, breast, and genitourinary cancers necessitates a multidirectional approach, primarily aimed at prevention and early detection. International partnerships are essential for improvement in cancer surveillance service availability, and delivery of the standard of care, in an overall effort to reduce the human cost, monetary, and resource associated burdens of cancer. Recommendations to implement effective prevention and management goals as well as improved record keeping in the refugee setting and the acquisition of secure and sustainable funding sources should be implemented in collaboration with global humanitarian agencies like UNHCR.

Characterizing fatigue associated with sunitinib and its impact on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Using phase 3 trial data for sunitinib versus interferon (IFN)-α in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, retrospective analyses characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue and its impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day on a schedule of 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (375 patients) or IFN-α at a dose of 9 MU subcutaneously 3 times per week (360 patients). HRQoL was self-assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-15-item (FKSI-15) questionnaire, with fatigue assessed using its Disease-Related Symptoms subscale. Fatigue was also assessed by providers using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). A repeated-measures model (M1) and random intercept-slope model (M2) characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue over time. Another repeated-measures model examined the relationship between HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue grade. RESULTS: M1 demonstrated that the initial increase in patient-reported fatigue with sunitinib was worst during cycle 1, with mean values numerically better at subsequent cycles; most pairwise comparisons of consecutive CTCAE fatigue cycle means were not found to be statistically significant. M2 demonstrated that the overall trend (slope) for patient-reported and CTCAE fatigue with sunitinib was not statistically different from 0. The relationship between most HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue was close to linear regardless of treatment, with lower scores (worse HRQoL) corresponding to higher fatigue grade. The majority of HRQoL scores were better with sunitinib versus IFN-α for the same CTCAE fatigue grade. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported worse fatigue during the first sunitinib cycle. However, in subsequent consecutive cycles, less fatigue was reported with no statistically significant worsening. CTCAE fatigue assessment may not fully capture patient treatment experience.

A phase II trial of AS1411 (a novel nucleolin-targeted DNA aptamer) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: DNA aptamers represent a novel strategy in anti-cancer medicine. AS1411, a DNA aptamer targeting nucleolin (a protein which is overexpressed in many tumor types), was evaluated in patients with metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had failed treatment with ≥1 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: In this phase II, single-arm study, AS1411 was administered at 40 mg/kg/day by continuous intravenous infusion on days 1-4 of a 28-day cycle, for two cycles. Primary endpoint was overall response rate; progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: 35 patients were enrolled and treated. One patient (2.9 %) had a response to treatment. The response was dramatic (84 % reduction in tumor burden by RECIST 1.0 criteria) and durable (patient remains free of progression 2 years after completing therapy). Whole exome sequencing of this patient's tumor revealed missense mutations in the mTOR and FGFR2 genes which is of interest because nucleolin is known to upregulate mTOR pathway activity by enhancing AKT1 mRNA translation. No other responses were seen. Thirty-four percent of patients had an AS1411-related adverse event, all of which were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: AS1411 appears to have minimal activity in unselected patients with metastatic RCC. However, rare, dramatic and durable responses can be observed and toxicity is low. One patient in this study had an excellent response and was found to have FGFR2 and mTOR mutations which will be of interest in future efforts to discover and validate predictive biomarkers of response to nucleolin targeted compounds. DNA aptamers represent a novel way to target cancer cells at a molecular level and continue to be developed with a view to improving treatment and imaging in cancer medicine.

Programmed death-1 inhibition in renal cell carcinoma: clinical insights and future directions.

The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved markedly over the past decade, broaden- ing beyond immune-based strategies (eg, interleukin-2 and interferon-α) to include targeted agents (eg, sunitinib [Sutent, Pfizer] and sorafenib [Nexavar, Bayer]). Recently, there has been a renewed interest in immune-based strategies, with clinical trials underway to assess vaccines and other immunomodulatory agents. Of particular interest are agents that inhibit the interaction between the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor and its ligand (PD-L1) at the T-cell/antigen-presenting cell interface. This interaction produces T-cell anergy and therefore stifles the antitumor immune response. Monoclonal antibodies to PD-1 (eg, nivolumab, lambrolizumab, and pidilizumab) and PD-L1 (MPDL3280A and BMS-936559) are in various stages of clinical development. The clinical trajectory of these agents is discussed herein, with specific attention to the potential placement of PD-1/ PD-L1 inhibition in the crowded therapeutic landscape of mRCC.

Targeting PI3K and mTORC2 in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: new strategies for overcoming resistance to VEGFR and mTORC1 inhibitors.

With the advent of molecularly targeted agents, treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved significantly. Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) are more effective and less toxic than previous standards of care involving cytotoxic and cytokine therapies. Unfortunately, many patients relapse following treatment with VEGFR and mTORC1 inhibitors as a result of acquired resistance mechanisms, which are thought to lead to the reestablishment of tumor vasculature. Specifically, the loss of negative feedback loops caused by inhibition of mTORC1 leads to upregulation of downstream effectors of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mTOR pathway and subsequent activation of hypoxia-inducible factor, an activator of angiogenesis. De novo resistance involving activated PI3K signaling has also been observed. These observations have led to the development of novel agents targeting PI3K, mTORC1/2 and PI3K/mTORC1/2, which have demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models of RCC. Several agents--BKM120, BEZ235 and GDC-0980--are being investigated in clinical trials in patients with metastatic/advanced RCC, and similar agents are being tested in patients with solid tumors. The future success of mRCC treatment will likely involve a combination of agents targeting the multiple pathways involved in angiogenesis, including VEGFR, PI3K and mTORC1/2.

Prognostic or predictive plasma cytokines and angiogenic factors for patients treated with pazopanib for metastatic renal-cell cancer: a retrospective analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Several targeted drugs are approved for treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer, but no validated biomarkers are available for prediction of clinical outcome. We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive associations of pretreatment plasma concentrations of cytokine and angiogenic factors (CAFs) with data from a phase 2 and a phase 3 trial of pazopanib treatment. METHODS: We used a three-step approach for screening, confirmation, and validation of prospective CAF biomarkers. We screened 17 CAFs in 129 patients who had the greatest or least tumour shrinkage in a phase 2 trial of 215 patients treated with pazopanib. We confirmed associations of candidate CAFs (those identified in the screening and from previous studies) with tumour response and progression-free survival (PFS) in 215 patients from this phase 2 trial with an independent analytical platform. We validated confirmed markers in 344 patients from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical study of pazopanib. FINDINGS: Five candidate markers emerged from initial screening-interleukin 6, interleukin 8, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-1, and E-selectin. Confirmatory analyses identified associations of interleukin 6, interleukin 8, VEGF, osteopontin, E-selectin, and HGF with continuous tumour shrinkage or PFS in patients treated with pazopanib. In the validation set of samples from the phase 3 trial, patients treated with pazopanib who had high concentrations (relative to median) of interleukin 8 (p=0·006), osteopontin (p=0·0004), HGF (p=0·010), and TIMP-1 (p=0·006) had shorter PFS than did those with low concentrations. In the placebo group, high concentrations of interleukin 6 (p<0·0001), interleukin 8 (p=0·002), and osteopontin (p<0·0001) were all prognostically associated with shorter PFS. These factors were stronger prognostic markers than were standard clinical classifications (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Heng criteria). High concentrations of interleukin 6 were predictive of improved relative PFS benefit from pazopanib compared with placebo (p(interaction)=0·009); standard clinical classifications were not predictive of PFS benefit. INTERPRETATION: CAF profiles could provide prognostic information beyond that of standard clinical classification and identify markers predictive of pazopanib benefit in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Further studies of the predictive effects of these markers in different populations and with different drugs (eg, mTOR inhibitors) are warranted. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-α) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-α 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up. RESULTS: Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-α group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-α group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-α (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-α (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). CONCLUSION: Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-α plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

Two phase 2 trials of the novel Akt inhibitor perifosine in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: The clinical activity of allosteric inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may be limited by upstream activation of phosphatidylinositol 3 (PI3)-kinase/Akt resulting from mTOR1 inhibition. On the basis of this rationale, 2 independent phase 2 trials (Perifosine 228 and 231) were conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel Akt inhibitor perifosine in patients with advanced RCC who had failed on previous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. METHODS: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 24 patients with advanced RCC received oral perifosine (100 mg daily). Perifosine 231 enrolled 2 groups that received daily oral perifosine (100 mg daily): Group A comprised 32 patients who had received no prior mTOR inhibitor, and Group B comprised 18 patients who had received 1 prior mTOR inhibitor. RESULTS: In the Perifosine 228 trial, 1 patient achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-20%), and 11 patients (46%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14.2 weeks (95% confidence interval, 7.7-21.6 weeks). In the Perifosine 231 trial, 5 patients achieved a partial response (objective response rate, 10%; 95% confidence interval, 4.5%-22.2%) and 16 patients (32%) had stable disease as their best response. The median progression-free survival was 14 weeks (95% confidence interval, 12.9, 20.7 weeks). Overall, perifosine was well tolerated, and there were very few grade 3 and 4 events. The most common toxicities included nausea, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Although perifosine demonstrated activity in patients with advanced RCC after failure on VEGF-targeted therapy, its activity was not superior to currently available second-line agents. Nonetheless, perifosine may be worthy of further study in RCC in combination with other currently available therapies.

STAT3: a target to enhance antitumor immune response.

Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (Stat3) has emerged as a critical regulator for tumor-associated inflammation. Activation of Stat3 negatively regulates the Th1-type immune response and promotes expansion of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and regulatory T-cell functions in the tumor microenvironment. Mounting evidence suggests that Stat3 and related pathways may serve as a target for changing the tumor immunologic microenvironment to benefit cancer immunotherapies. Many recent studies support the use of certain tyrosine kinase inhibitors, through inhibition of Stat3, in decreasing immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. Other potential therapeutic avenues include the use of targeted delivery of Stat3 siRNA into immune cells. Here, we describe the role of Stat3 in regulating the immunologic properties of tumors as a background for Stat3-based therapeutic interventions.

Systemic therapy in renal cell carcinoma: advancing paradigms.

The 21st century has seen an explosion in the development of agents for renal-cell carcinoma (RCC), a malignancy previously considered refractory to systemic therapy beyond cytokine therapy. At this time, there are six US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agents available. In addition, there was a recent favorable review by the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of a next-generation vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor, axitinib (Inlyta); other agents are in advanced testing. Moreover, while VEGF- and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-targeted therapies have become the mainstay of RCC treatment, other new molecular targets and therapeutic approaches are being developed. The availability of active agents also brings opportunities for additional clinical maneuvers, such as neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, as well as a need for decisions on combinatorial therapeutics in the advanced disease setting. Together, these developments and the issues they raise pose important challenges for oncologists and cancer biologists, given the limited number of patients and resources available for studies and the urgent clinical needs of the patients and families affected by RCC.

Advance Care Planning in Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

PURPOSE: An initiative aimed to increase the rate of advance care planning (ACP) activities for outpatients with metastatic cancer, an essential step to achieving goal concordant care. METHODS: Patients with metastatic cancer were identified by International Classification of Diseases-10 coding and later by oncologists' electronic health record documentation of metastatic tumor status. ACP activities were defined as either an ACP note, Advance Directive, Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Therapy (POLST), or a Palliative Medicine (PM) consultation within the prior year. From 2017 to 2020, the initiative screened more than 5,000 total unique cancer patients per year. PM consultants were embedded in tumor boards, oncology care team meetings, and shared oncology clinic space. Quarterly reports were sent to 60 oncologists at three cancer care sites with data of their percentage of ACP activities for patients with metastatic cancer compared with their peers. Oncologists' identities were initially blinded, but later unblinded. Oncologists also received a monthly list of patients with metastatic cancer without ACP activities. RESULTS: The rate of ACP activities for patients with metastatic cancer increased from a baseline of 37% in July 2017 to 57% by the end of 2020. PM consultations increased from 12% to 39% and ACP notes increased from 16% to 29% during the same interval. There was no change in Advance Directive (17%-20%) or POLST completion (7%-6%). CONCLUSION: ACP activities are an essential step to achieve goal concordant care, and this initiative successfully increased ACP activities for patients with metastatic cancer. However, given that the main source of increased ACP activities during this initiative was PM referrals, further progress will depend upon strengthening the oncology care teams' ACP skills and motivation for completion.

Hypoxia-inducible factor pathway genes predict survival in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Hypoxia inducible factor (HIF) pathway alterations drive progression of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We aim to evaluate genes within the canonical and non-canonical HIF pathways as predictors of survival in metastatic ccRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gene expression was determined from 324 archival pretreatment nephrectomy specimens from CALGB90206, a phase III trial of patients treated with interferon alpha (INF-α) vs. INF-α plus bevacizumab. TaqMan RT-qPCR was performed using RNA from tumors macrodissected based on review by genitourinary pathology. RESULTS: A total of 35 HIF-related genes were assessed by Cox regression analysis. After adjusting for sex and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (MSKCC-RS), 11 genes predicted OS: HIF2A (HR 1.059, P = 0.012), EGLN3 (HR 1.089, P = 0.012), VEGFC (HR 0.904, P = 0.039), VEGFD (HR 1.085, P = 0.016), FLT4 (HR 1.093, P = 0.038), CCND1 (HR 1.077, P = 0.026), TGFA (HR 1.127, P = 0.003), EGFR (HR 1.151, P = 0.028), VHL (HR 0.764, P = 0.002), HSP90AA1 (HR 0.845, P = 0.002), and PTEN (HR 1.163, P = 0.050); 7 genes predicted PFS: HIF2A (HR 1.060, P = 0.011), CCND1 (HR 1.082, P = 0.016), TGFA (HR 1.096, P = 0.026), EP300 (HR 1.171, P = 0.031), VHL (HR 0.775, P = 0.007), HSP90AA1 (HR 0.871, P = 0.015), and TP53 (HR 1.119, P = 0.050). Most of these genes validated as significant predictors of survival in the external, TCGA dataset. In multivariate analysis of all externally validated genes, VEGFC (HR 0.906, P = 0.043), TGFA (HR 1.122, P = 0.003), CITED2 (HR 1.113, P = 0.035) and EP300 (HR 1.136, P = 0.049) predicted OS; and HIF2A (HR 1.049, P = 0.036) and EP300 (HR 1.199, P = 0.010) predicted PFS. EGLN3 (HR 1.156, P = 0.045) and BNIP3 (HR 1.254, P = 0.049) significantly interacted with treatment status and predicted PFS in patients treated with IFN-α and IFN-α+bevacizumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified specific gene isoforms in both the canonical and non-canonical HIF pathways associated with metastatic RCC survival. EGLN3 and BNIP3 showed significant interaction with treatment arm and may be predictive of treatment response. We have identified genes for future prospective investigation as predictive biomarkers and novel drug targets.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.