Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Tivozanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Axitinib: Subgroup Analysis from TIVO-3.

BACKGROUND: In phase III TIVO-3 trial, tivozanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the effectiveness of this drug after exposure to other selective VEGFR agents has not yet been defined. Herein, we characterize the clinical efficacy of tivozanib in patients with mRCC previously treated with axitinib. METHODS: We identified patients from the intention to treat (ITT) population, in the TIVO-3 trial, who received treatment with axitinib before enrolment in the study and evaluated PFS, response rate (RR), and safety. RESULTS: Out of 350 patients, 172 (83:89, tivozanib:sorafenib) had received prior treatment with axitinib in TIVO-3. In this subgroup, PFS was 5.5 months with tivozanib and 3.7 months with sorafenib (HR 0.68). RR was 13% and 8% favoring tivozanib. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib is active in the treatment of patients with mRCC who have progressed on prior therapies, including axitinib.

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions From the CLEAR Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed significantly improved progression-free and overall survival outcomes compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the CLEAR study (NCT02811861). Here, we used CLEAR data to characterize common adverse reactions (ARs; adverse-event preferred terms grouped in accordance with regulatory authority review) associated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and review management strategies for select ARs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safety data from the 352 patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the CLEAR study were analyzed. Key ARs were chosen based on frequency of occurrence (≥30%). Time to first onset and management strategies for key ARs were detailed. RESULTS: The most frequent ARs were fatigue (63.1%), diarrhea (61.9%), musculoskeletal pain (58.0%), hypothyroidism (56.8%), and hypertension (56.3%); grade ≥3 severity ARs that occurred in ≥5% of patients were hypertension (28.7%), diarrhea (9.9%), fatigue (9.4%), weight decreased (8.0%), and proteinuria (7.7%). Median times to first onset of all key ARs were within approximately 5 months (approximately 20 weeks) of starting treatment. Strategies for effectively managing ARs included baseline monitoring, drug-dose modifications, and/or concomitant medications. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was consistent with the known profile of each monotherapy; ARs were considered manageable with strategies including monitoring, dose modifications, and supportive medications. Proactive and prompt identification and management of ARs are important for patient safety and to support continued treatment. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02811861.

Plain language summary looking at how long side effects last after treatment with axitinib is stopped in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a medication that stops cancer cell growth by depriving the cancer cell of the nutrients and oxygen that it needs. Axitinib is used to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is a type of kidney cancer that has spread within or beyond the kidney. Axitinib has been approved for the treatment of RCC as either a first treatment option or a second treatment option. It is used as a first treatment option for RCC when combined with a medication that reactivates the immune system (immunotherapy), either avelumab or pembrolizumab. If the advanced RCC starts growing again it can be used as a second treatment option where it is taken by itself. It is essential to conduct studies to assess how well the drug works and whether it has any side effects in order to understand whether it is safe to give to people. This summary reports the combined results of 5 studies and looks at how long side effects last after treatment is temporarily stopped. Researchers found that side effects generally got better in 3 days or less after people stopped taking axitinib on its own. The time it took for side effects to get better was generally shorter than for other similar drugs or combinations of axitinib and immunotherapy. The results of individual studies may vary from these 5 combined study results. Three of the 5 studies were ongoing at the time of this analysis and the final outcomes of those studies may differ from those described in this summary. The purpose of this plain language summary is to help you understand the findings from recent research. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

Tivozanib, a highly potent and selective inhibitor of VEGF receptor tyrosine kinases, for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The VHL mutation-HIF upregulation-VEGF transcription sequence is the principal pathway in the development of renal cell carcinoma. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors target the VEGF receptors to inhibit further growth of renal cell carcinoma tumors. Tivozanib, originally named AV-951 and KRN-951, is a novel, orally bioavailable VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is selective for VEGF receptors 1, 2 and 3. Further, only picomolar concentrations of tivozanib are required to target these VEGF receptors and prevent phosphorylation; this potency prevents the debilitating side effects that occur with treatments whose mechanisms of action involve broad-spectrum tyrosine kinase inhibition. This review summarizes the growing body of evidence supporting tivozanib's efficacy and safety in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Lenvatinib plus everolimus or pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: study design and rationale.

AIM: Lenvatinib plus everolimus is approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a Phase I/II trial of RCC. METHODS: We describe the rationale and design of the CLEAR study, a three-arm Phase III trial comparing lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib monotherapy for first-line treatment of RCC. Eligible patients must have advanced clear cell RCC and must not have received any prior systemic anticancer therapy. The primary end point is progression-free survival; secondary end points include objective response rate, overall survival, safety, health-related quality of life and pharmacokinetics. Biomarker evaluations are included as exploratory end points.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: patient characteristics and treatment patterns in US community oncology centers.

AIM: To study patient characteristics and treatment patterns in real-world axitinib use for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS & METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of second- or third-line axitinib use between 1 January 2012 and 31 October 2014 in 135 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using the US Oncology Network database. RESULTS: Overall, 86.7% had clear cell histology, 57.8% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis and 55.6% were poor risk by Heng criteria. Median treatment duration was 4.6 months (range: 0.03-35.49); 80.7% initiated axitinib at 5 mg/day twice daily, and 67.4% maintained this dose. Overall, 77.8% discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression (50.5%) and toxicity (21.9%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib usage patterns were consistent with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines®. Ease of use among community oncologists and patient tolerance are key features of axitinib.

Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. FUNDING: Exelixis Inc.

Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).

Management of poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: current approaches, the role of temsirolimus and future directions.

Targeted therapies have substantially improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). As expected, poor-risk patients have the worst outcomes. Temsirolimus is currently the only agent licensed for treatment of poor-risk mRCC patients. It is associated with meaningful improvements in survival and quality of life, highlighting the importance of correctly stratifying risk in mRCC patients so they receive optimal treatment. Currently, data for other targeted therapies in poor-risk patients are relatively sparse. Optimizing outcomes in these patients is the subject of ongoing research, including studies of biomarkers and studies to elucidate the role of nephrectomy and neoadjuvant targeted therapy in poor-risk mRCC patients. The impacts of novel combinations including temsirolimus have also been explored to further improve outcomes.

Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9-20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5-7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24-0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6-10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38-0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor activating (V600) mutations in the serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF). The oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) frequently produced tumor regressions in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma in a phase 1 trial and improved overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: We designed a multicenter phase 2 trial of vemurafenib in patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma to investigate the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to overall response rate (percentage of treated patients with a tumor response), duration of response, and overall survival. The primary end point was the overall response rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients had a median follow-up of 12.9 months (range, 0.6 to 20.1). The confirmed overall response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 62; 6% with a complete response and 47% with a partial response), the median duration of response was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.6), and the median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.1). Primary progression was observed in only 14% of patients. Some patients had a response after receiving vemurafenib for more than 6 months. The median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 18.3). The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2 arthralgia, rash, photosensitivity, fatigue, and alopecia. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (the majority, keratoacanthoma type) were diagnosed in 26% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib induces clinical responses in more than half of patients with previously treated BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma. In this study with a long follow-up, the median overall survival was approximately 16 months. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949702.).

RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas are common findings in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. METHODS: We performed a molecular analysis to identify oncogenic mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53) in the lesions from patients treated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. An analysis of an independent validation set and functional studies with BRAF inhibitors in the presence of the prevalent RAS mutation was also performed. RESULTS: Among 21 tumor samples, 13 had RAS mutations (12 in HRAS). In a validation set of 14 samples, 8 had RAS mutations (4 in HRAS). Thus, 60% (21 of 35) of the specimens harbored RAS mutations, the most prevalent being HRAS Q61L. Increased proliferation of HRAS Q61L-mutant cell lines exposed to vemurafenib was associated with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-pathway signaling and activation of ERK-mediated transcription. In a mouse model of HRAS Q61L-mediated skin carcinogenesis, the vemurafenib analogue PLX4720 was not an initiator or a promoter of carcinogenesis but accelerated growth of the lesions harboring HRAS mutations, and this growth was blocked by concomitant treatment with a MEK inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations in RAS, particularly HRAS, are frequent in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas that develop in patients treated with vemurafenib. The molecular mechanism is consistent with the paradoxical activation of MAPK signaling and leads to accelerated growth of these lesions. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00405587, NCT00949702, NCT01001299, and NCT01006980.).

A randomized, open-label clinical trial of tasisulam sodium versus paclitaxel as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Tasisulam sodium (hereafter referred to as tasisulam) is a novel, highly albumin-bound agent that demonstrated activity in a phase 2 melanoma study. METHODS: In this open-label phase 3 study, patients with AJCC stage IV melanoma received tasisulam (targeting an albumin-corrected exposure of 1200-6400 h (hour).µg/mL on day 1) or paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days as second-line treatment. RESULTS: The study was placed on clinical hold after randomization of 336 patients when a safety review indicated an imbalance of possibly drug-related deaths in the tasisulam arm. Efficacy results for tasisulam versus paclitaxel revealed a response rate of 3.0% versus 4.8%, a median progression-free survival of 1.94 months versus 2.14 months (P = .048), and a median overall survival of 6.77 months versus 9.36 months (P = .121). The most common drug-related grade ≥3 laboratory toxicities (graded according to Common Terminology for Adverse Events [version 3.0]) were thrombocytopenia (18.9%) for patients treated with tasisulam and neutropenia/leukopenia (8.7%) among those receiving paclitaxel. There were 13 possibly related deaths reported to occur on the study, with the majority occurring during cycle 2 in the setting of grade 4 myelosuppression, all in the tasisulam arm. Investigation of the unexpectedly high rate of hematologic toxicity revealed a subset of patients with low tasisulam clearance, leading to drug accumulation and high albumin-corrected exposure in cycle 2. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was stopped early because of safety issues in the tasisulam arm, tasisulam was considered unlikely to be superior to paclitaxel, and paclitaxel activity in the second-line treatment of melanoma was much lower than expected. The toxicity imbalance was attributed to an unexpectedly low tasisulam clearance in a subset of patients, underscoring the importance of pharmacokinetic monitoring of compounds with complex dosing, even in late-phase studies.

Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biosynthesis of extragonadal androgen may contribute to the progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated whether abiraterone acetate, an inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have received chemotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 1195 patients who had previously received docetaxel to receive 5 mg of prednisone twice daily with either 1000 mg of abiraterone acetate (797 patients) or placebo (398 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (elevation in the PSA level according to prespecified criteria), progression-free survival according to radiologic findings based on prespecified criteria, and the PSA response rate. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, overall survival was longer in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group (14.8 months vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.77; P<0.001). Data were unblinded at the interim analysis, since these results exceeded the preplanned criteria for study termination. All secondary end points, including time to PSA progression (10.2 vs. 6.6 months; P<0.001), progression-free survival (5.6 months vs. 3.6 months; P<0.001), and PSA response rate (29% vs. 6%, P<0.001), favored the treatment group. Mineralocorticoid-related adverse events, including fluid retention, hypertension, and hypokalemia, were more frequently reported in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of androgen biosynthesis by abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who previously received chemotherapy. (Funded by Cougar Biotechnology; COU-AA-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00638690.).