Final results from the large sunitinib global expanded-access trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We report final results with extended follow-up from a global, expanded-access trial that pre-regulatory approval provided sunitinib to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, ineligible for registration-directed trials. METHODS: Patients ⩾18 years received oral sunitinib 50 mg per day on a 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule. Safety was assessed regularly. Tumour measurements were scheduled per local practice. RESULTS: A total of 4543 patients received sunitinib. Median treatment duration and follow-up were 7.5 and 13.6 months. Objective response rate was 16% (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-17). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-10.0) and 18.7 months (95% CI: 17.5-19.5). Median PFS in subgroups of interest: aged ⩾65 years (33%), 10.1 months; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ⩾2 (14%), 3.5 months; non-clear cell histology (12%), 6.0 months; and brain metastases (7%), 5.3 months. OS was strongly associated with the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model (n=4065). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (10%), fatigue (9%), and asthenia, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome (each 7%). CONCLUSION: Final analysis of the sunitinib expanded-access trial provided a good opportunity to evaluate the long-term side effects of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor used worldwide in mRCC. Efficacy and safety findings were consistent with previous results.

Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively analyzed sunitinib outcome as a function of age in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by log-rank test between patients aged <70 (n=857; 81%) and ≥70 (n=202; 19%) years. RESULTS: In first-line patients, median PFS was comparable in younger and older patients, 9.9 vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73-1.09; P=0.2629), as was median OS, 23.6 vs 25.6 months (HR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P=0.5442). Similarly, in cytokine-refractory patients, median PFS was 8.1 vs 8.4 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; P=0.3350), while median OS was 20.2 vs 15.8 months (HR, 1.14; 95% CI: 0.73-1.79; P=0.5657). Some treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly less common in younger vs older patients, including fatigue (60% vs 69%), cough (20% vs 29%), peripheral edema (17% vs 27%), anemia (18% vs 25%), decreased appetite (13% vs 29%), and thrombocytopenia (16% vs 25%; all P<0.05). Hand-foot syndrome was more common in younger patients (32% vs 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age should not be a deterrent to sunitinib therapy and elderly patients may achieve additional clinical benefit.

A phase I dose escalation trial of tremelimumab (CP-675,206) in combination with gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tremelimumab (CP-675,206) is a fully human monoclonal antibody binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) on T cells that stimulates the immune system by blocking the CTLA4-negative regulatory signal. Combination with standard chemotherapy may strengthen antitumor therapy. This is a phase Ib, multisite, open-label, nonrandomized dose escalation trial evaluating the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of tremelimumab combined with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycles) was administrated with escalating doses of i.v. tremelimumab (6, 10, or 15 mg/kg) on day 1 of each 84-day cycle for a maximum of 4 cycles. The first 18 patients had an initial 4-week gemcitabine-only lead-in period. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) related to tremelimumab were evaluated during the first 6 weeks after the first dose of tremelimumab. RESULTS: From June 2008 to August 2011, 34 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of tremelimumab. No DLTs related to tremelimumab were observed at any dose, even when the maximum dose established for tremelimumab (15 mg/kg) was used. Most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were asthenia (11.8%) and nausea (8.8%). Only one patient had a serious drug-related event (diarrhea with dehydration). The median overall survival was 7.4 months (95% confidence interval 5.8-9.4 months). At the end of treatment, two patients achieved partial response. Both patients received tremelimumab 15-mg/kg group (n = 2/19, 10.5%). CONCLUSION: Tremelimumab plus gemcitabine demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile, warranting further study in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINICALTRIALSGOV ID: NCT00556023.

Prognostic factors for survival in 1059 patients treated with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term OS (≥30 months) were investigated in sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Baseline variables, including ethnicity, were analysed for prognostic significance by Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Median PFS and OS were 9.7 and 23.4 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS identified independent predictors, including ethnic origin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time from diagnosis to treatment, prior cytokine use, haemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, corrected calcium, neutrophils, platelets, and bone metastases (OS only). Characteristics of long-term survivors (n=215, 20%) differed from those of non-long-term survivors; independent predictors of long-term OS included ethnic origin, bone metastases, and corrected calcium. There were no differences in PFS (10.5 vs 7.2 months; P=0.1006) or OS (23.8 vs 21.4 months; P=0.2135) in white vs Asian patients; however, there were significant differences in PFS (10.5 vs 5.7 months; P<0.001) and OS (23.8 vs 17.4 months; P=0.0319) in white vs non-white, non-Asian patients. CONCLUSION: These analyses identified risk factors to survival with sunitinib, including potential ethnic-based differences, and validated risk factors previously reported in advanced RCC.

Phase III randomized trial of droloxifene and tamoxifen as first-line endocrine treatment of ER/PgR-positive advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This trial was designed to demonstrate equivalence between droloxifene 40 mg/d and tamoxifen 20 mg/d as first-line treatment in pre- and post-menopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ advanced breast cancer based on time to disease progression and tumor response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand three hundred fifty four women with measurable disease, previously untreated by hormonal or chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent breast cancer, were enrolled by 179 institutions in 35 countries. Patients were stratified at baseline for menopausal status. Patients receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy within I year were excluded. All patients gave written informed consent, were randomized to 40mg droloxifene or 20 mg tamoxifen daily as single-agent therapy and underwent tumor assessment every 3 months. A central committee reviewed digitized images for all cases of tumor progression or objective response. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (droloxifene/tamoxifen) for the primary endpoint, time to disease progression, was 1.287 favoring tamoxifen (95% C.I.: 1.114-1.487; p <.001). The objective response rate (CR+PR) was 22.4% for droloxifene and 28.6% for tamoxifen (p = .02). Tamoxifen was superior to droloxifene overall, among both pre- and postmenopausal patients and among patients < or =65 years; there was no difference among women >65 years. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.871 (95% C.I.: 0.672-1.129; p = .29), favoring droloxifene but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Droloxifene was significantly less effective than tamoxifen overall and particularly among women under 65 years. Tamoxifen and droloxifene were both less effective in pre-menopausal women with receptor-positive disease compared to post-menopausal women. Further clinical development of droloxifene was stopped.