Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.

Indications and Outcomes for Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Combination Therapy: Can Systemic Therapy be Withdrawn in Patients with No Evidence of Disease?

Background: Upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) is no longer the standard of care for patients with metastastic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with intermediate or poor prognosis according to the International mRCC Database Consortium categories. Objective: To investigate indications for CN following first-line ipilimumab-nivolumab, and assess management and outcomes for patients achieving no evidence of disease (NED) after CN. Design setting and participants: This was a retrospective cohort study among 125 patients with synchronous mRCC who received ipilimumab-nivolumab treatment between March 2019 and June 2022 at four European centres. At one of the four centres, nivolumab was stopped following NED. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured complete response of metastases (mCR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1; near-complete response of mestastases (mnCR) was defined as a >80% reduction in cumulative metastatic volume. Treatment-free survival (TFS), disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were determined. Results and limitations: At median follow-up of 25 mo, 23/125 patients (18%) had undergone deferred CN. Of 26 patients (21%) with mCR or mnCR, 19 (73%) underwent CN to achieve NED, of whom 11 (58%) discontinued nivolumab, with median TFS of 21 mo. For patients who continued (n = 8, 42%) versus discontinued nivolumab following NED, 2-yr DFS was 83% versus 60% (p = 0.675) and 3-yr CSS was 100% versus 70% (p = 0.325). Four patients underwent CN because of a dissociated response of the primary tumour and were still alive at median follow-up of 5 mo. Conclusions: CN can result in NED, durable DFS, and substantial time off systemic therapy. More collaborative data are required to ascertain the benefits of treatment discontinuation versus oncologic safety. Patient summary: In our study using real-world data, 18% of patients treated with immunotherapy underwent deferred kidney surgery. The majority were free of disease after 3 years. Half of the patients who stopped immunotherapy after surgery have been off therapy for 21 months or longer. Larger studies are needed to investigate the effect of kidney surgery and discontinuation of immunotherapy on survival.

Case Report: Disease progression of renal cell carcinoma containing a novel putative pathogenic KAT6A::NRG1 fusion on Ipilimumab- Nivolumab immunotherapy. A case study and review of the literature.

Renal cell carcinoma still carries a poor prognosis despite therapeutic advancements. Detection of genetic mutations is vital in improving our understanding of this disease as well as potential role in targeted therapy. Here we present a case of a 49 year old man with an aggressive renal cell carcinoma bearing a novel pathogenic KAT6A::NRG1 fusion. We will explore the clinical presentation, histological and molecular diagnostics, treatment and disease progression. We will discuss the relevance of this unique fusion and comparisons with cancer cases with similar genetic mutations. Further research is warranted for such cases, in order to facilitate better targeted treatments.

A Phase II study of neoadjuvant axitinib for reducing the extent of venous tumour thrombus in clear cell renal cell cancer with venous invasion (NAXIVA).

BACKGROUND: Surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumour thrombus (VTT) extension into the renal vein (RV) and/or inferior vena cava (IVC) has high peri-surgical morbidity/mortality. NAXIVA assessed the response of VTT to axitinib, a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: NAXIVA was a single-arm, multi-centre, Phase 2 study. In total, 20 patients with resectable clear cell RCC and VTT received upto 8 weeks of pre-surgical axitinib. The primary endpoint was percentage of evaluable patients with VTT improvement by Mayo level on MRI. Secondary endpoints were percentage change in surgical approach and VTT length, response rate (RECISTv1.1) and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: In all, 35% (7/20) patients with VTT had a reduction in Mayo level with axitinib: 37.5% (6/16) with IVC VTT and 25% (1/4) with RV-only VTT. No patients had an increase in Mayo level. In total, 75% (15/20) of patients had a reduction in VTT length. Overall, 41.2% (7/17) of patients who underwent surgery had less invasive surgery than originally planned. Non-responders exhibited lower baseline microvessel density (CD31), higher Ki67 and exhausted or regulatory T-cell phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: NAXIVA provides the first Level II evidence that axitinib downstages VTT in a significant proportion of patients leading to reduction in the extent of surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03494816.

Primary Renal Tumour Response in Patients Treated with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real-world Data Assessment.

Following CARMENA and SURTIME, patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate and poor risk receive systemic therapy with the primary tumour (primary) in place, with the option of deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in responding patients. We retrospectively analysed the safety and efficacy of first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab in 71 primary mRCC patients (42.3% IMDC poor risk; 43.6% with more than three metastatic sites). The baseline mean primary diameter was 9.3 cm and median follow-up was 11.5 mo. Of 69 patients with at least one follow-up computed tomography scan, 23 (33.3 %) had a partial response (PR) of the primary after a median of 4.8 mo, which was associated with a 91.3% overall response rate at metastatic sites (MSs) and absence of progressive disease, irrespective of the IMDC risk. The complete response (CR) rate at MSs (n = 7 [10.1%]) is similar to the CR rate in CheckMate 214. Thirteen deferred CNs were performed (18.8%) after a median of 13 mo, rendering four patients disease free. Only 4.3% of primaries progressed; grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 31.9%. Irrespective of the IMDC risk, patients with a PR in the primary had a 1-yr overall survival rate of 89% versus 67% in those without (p = 0.012). PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with metastatic kidney cancer receiving immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had superior response at metastatic sites and better survival irrespective of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk.

Learning from Crisis: a Multicentre Study of Oncology Telemedicine Clinics Introduced During COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated adaptation of cancer patient care. Oncology patients who contract COVID-19 have poor outcomes. Telemedicine clinics (teleclinics) have been introduced for cancer patients to reduce the risk of horizontal transmission at St. Bartholomew's Hospital and The Royal Free Hospital in London. Teleclinics have become routine in many specialities; however, inclusion in oncology care was not standard prior to the pandemic. A mixed-methods survey was designed and delivered to cancer patients (n = 106) at St. Bartholomew's Hospital and The Royal Free Hospital who had transitioned to teleclinics in March 2020. The survey explored patients' perceptions of this format. In total, 96 (90.5%) patients consented to take part, across a range of tumour types. Overall, respondents reacted favourably to the format of the teleclinics, with 90.6% of respondents (87/96) stating they would utilise teleclinics beyond the pandemic. Additionally, a survey was distributed to clinicians delivering these teleclinics (n = 16) to explore previous training in, perceptions of, and lessons learned from the introduction of telemedicine. Results suggest patients are accepting of teleclinic use for most clinical purposes. Teleclinic implementation affords benefits to cancer patient care both during and after COVID-19, but there is an urgent need for telemedicine education in oncology specialty training.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

Radiological Response Heterogeneity Is of Prognostic Significance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) is widely used to assess tumour response but is limited by not considering disease site or radiological heterogeneity (RH). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether RH or disease site has prognostic significance in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a second-line phase II study in patients with metastatic ccRCC (NCT00942877), evaluating 138 patients with 458 baseline lesions. INTERVENTION: The phase II trial assessed vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy±Src inhibition. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: RH at week 8 was assessed within individual patients with two or more lesions to predict overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model. We defined a high heterogeneous response as occurring when one or more lesion underwent a ≥10% reduction and one or more lesion underwent a ≥10% increase in size. Disease progression was defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In patients with a complete/partial response or stable disease by RECIST 1.1 and two or more lesions at week 8, those with a high heterogeneous response had a shorter OS compared to those with a homogeneous response (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39-2.92; p<0.001). Response by disease site at week 8 did not affect OS. At disease progression, one or more new lesion was associated with worse survival compared with >20% increase in sum of target lesion diameters only (HR 2.12; 95% CI: 1.43-3.14; p<0.001). Limitations include retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: RH and the development of new lesions may predict survival in metastatic ccRCC. Further prospective studies are required. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at individual metastases in patients with kidney cancer and showed that a variable response to treatment and the appearance of new metastases may be associated with worse survival. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Safety and Efficacy of Pazopanib Therapy Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer in the era of targeted therapy is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To establish the safety and efficacy of upfront pazopanib therapy prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-arm phase 2 study of 104 previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer recruited between June 2008 and October 2012 at cancer treatment centers with access to nephrectomy services. The minimum follow-up was 30 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 12 to 14 weeks of preoperative pazopanib therapy prior to planned cytoreductive nephrectomy and continued pazopanib therapy after surgery. Treatment was stopped at disease progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior to surgery (at 12-14 weeks). Secondary end points included surgical complications, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients recruited, 100 patients were assessable for clinical benefit prior to planned nephrectomy; 80 of 104 (76.9%) were men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [56-71] years). Overall, 84 of 100 (84% [95% CI, 75%-91%]) gained clinical benefit before planned nephrectomy. The median reduction in the size of the primary tumor was 14.4% (interquartile range, 1.4%-21.1%). No patients were unable to undergo surgery as a result of local progression of disease. Nephrectomy was performed in 63 (61%) of patients; 14 (22%) reported surgical complications. The 2 most common reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression of disease (n = 13) and patient choice (n = 9). There was 1 postoperative surgical death. The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort were 7.1 (95% CI, 6.0-9.2) and 22.7 (95% CI, 14.3-not estimable) months, respectively. Patients with MSKCC poor-risk disease or progressive disease prior to surgery had a poor outcome (median OS, 5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-10.8] and 3.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.1] months, respectively). Surgical complications were observed in 14 (22%) of the nephrectomies. Biomarker analysis from sequential tissue samples revealed a decrease in CD8 expression (20.00 vs 13.75; P = .05) and significant reduction in expression of von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor (100 vs 40; P < .001) and C-MET (300 vs 100; P < .001) and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 expression (0 vs 1.5; P < .001) in the immune component. No on-treatment biomarker correlated with response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nephrectomy after upfront pazopanib therapy could be performed safely and was associated with good outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

A Randomised Phase 2 Study of AZD2014 Versus Everolimus in Patients with VEGF-Refractory Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor used in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It acts on only part of the mTOR complex (TORC1 alone). In vitro data support the use of mTOR inhibitors with broader activity (TORC1 and TORC2). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether combined TORC1 and TORC2 inhibition with AZD2014 has superior activity to everolimus in VEGF-refractory clear cell mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial. INTERVENTION: Starting in February 2013, patients were randomised (1:1) to AZD2014 (50 mg twice daily) or everolimus (10 mg once daily) until progression of disease at 10 centres across the United Kingdom. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point and was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included tolerability, response rates, overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis. The study was planned to recruit 120 patients. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recruitment into the trial was stopped early (June 2014) due to lack of efficacy of AZD2014. At that point, 49 patients were randomised (26 to AZD2014 and 23 to everolimus). The PFS for AZD2014 and everolimus was 1.8 and 4.6 mo, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-6.5]; p=0.01). Progression of disease as the best response to therapy was 69% for AZD2014 and 13% for everolimus (p<0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35% of AZD2014 and 48% of everolimus patients (p=0.3). Only 4% of patients stopped AZD2014 due to AEs. PK analysis suggested concentrations of AZD2014 were compatible with the therapeutic range. Final stratified OS hazard ratio at the time of trial closure (January 2015) was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1-8.4; p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is a strong rationale for testing mTOR inhibitors with a broader spectrum of activity than everolimus in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AZD2014 is such an agent, but in this study, it was inferior to everolimus despite its attractive toxicity profile.

Management of crizotinib therapy for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung carcinoma: an expert consensus.

Within 4 years of the discovery of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the ALK inhibitor crizotinib gained US and European approval for the treatment of advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. This was due to the striking response data observed with crizotinib in phase I and II trials in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, as well as the favorable tolerability and safety profile observed. Recently published phase III data established crizotinib as a new standard of care for this NSCLC molecular subset. A consequence of such rapid approval, however, is the limited clinical experience and relative paucity of information concerning optimal therapy management. In this review, we discuss the development of crizotinib and the clinical relevance of its safety profile, examining crizotinib-associated adverse events in detail and making specific management recommendations. Crizotinib-associated adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity in clinical studies, and appropriate monitoring and supportive therapies are considered effective in avoiding the need for dose interruption or reduction in most cases. Therapy management of patients following disease progression on crizotinib is also discussed. Based on available clinical data, it is evident that patients may have prolonged benefit from crizotinib after Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression, and crizotinib should be continued for as long as the patient derives benefit.

The effect of VEGF-targeted therapy on biomarker expression in sequential tissue from patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate how biologically relevant markers change in response to antiangiogenic therapy in metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) and correlate these changes with outcome. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The study used sequential tumor tissue and functional imaging (taken at baseline and 12-16 weeks) obtained from three similar phase II studies. All three studies investigated the role of VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) before planned nephrectomy in untreated mRCC (n = 85). The effect of targeted therapy on ten biomarkers was measured from sequential tissue. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) array and DNA methylation profiling (MethylCap-seq) was performed in matched frozen pairs. Biomarker expression was correlated with early progression (progression as best response) and delayed progression (between 12-16 weeks). RESULTS: VEGF TKI treatment caused a significant reduction in vessel density (CD31), phospho-S6K expression, PDL-1 expression, and FOXP3 expression (P < 0.05 for each). It also caused a significant increase in cytoplasmic FGF-2, MET receptor expression in vessels, Fuhrman tumor grade, and Ki-67 (P < 0.05 for each). Higher levels of Ki-67 and CD31 were associated with delayed progression (P < 0.05). Multiple samples (n = 5) from the same tumor showed marked heterogeneity of tumor grade, which increased significantly with treatment. Array CGH showed extensive intrapatient variability, which did not occur in DNA methylation analysis. CONCLUSION: TKI treatment is associated with dynamic changes in relevant biomarkers, despite significant heterogeneity in chromosomal and protein, but not epigenetic expression. Changes to Ki-67 expression and tumor grade indicate that treatment is associated with an increase in the aggressive phenotype of the tumor.

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.).

An indirect comparison of the toxicity of sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Both sunitinib and pazopanib are widely used as first line therapy in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). The efficacy of these agents appears similar but they may have distinct toxicity profiles. In this study we compare the severity of symptomatic and asymptomatic toxicity associated with sunitinib and pazopanib. METHODS: Two sequential prospective single arm phase II studies investigated either 12 weeks of sunitinib (n=43) or pazopanib (n=34) prior to nephrectomy in untreated mRCC. Toxicity was defined as either symptomatic (hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, oedema, headache, pain, anorexia and change in taste) or asymptomatic (liver toxicity or haematological toxicity). Pazopanib (800 mg once daily (OD)) and sunitinib (50 mg 4/2) were given. Regular Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) toxicity assessment was performed during the first 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall number of toxic events (grade 1-4) for sunitinib and pazopanib (mean number of toxic events/patients: 1.97 versus 1.96: p>0.05). Increased grade 2-4 symptomatic toxicity events occurred with sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.56] p<0.03). Sunitinib was associated with an increased grade 2-4 mucositis (16% versus 0% p=0.02) and fatigue (42% versus 15% p=0.01). Pazopanib was associated with more frequent grade 1 diarrhoea (39% versus 12%: p=0.03). Dose reductions for symptomatic toxicity occurred more frequently with sunitinib (26% versus 6% p<0.05). There was no difference in the occurrence of asymptomatic toxicity. CONCLUSION: This indirect analysis suggests sunitinib and pazopanib have distinct toxicity profiles which may help guide patient's choice. Further comparative data from randomised trials are awaited.

The outcome of patients treated with sunitinib prior to planned nephrectomy in metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of patients with metastatic ccRCC who receive sunitinib prior to planned nephrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study combined the data from two prospective phase 2 studies that assessed upfront sunitinib (12-16 wk) prior to nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Sunitinib was discontinued during the perioperative period (median: 29 d). INTERVENTION: Sunitinib 50mg in six weekly cycles (4 wk on, 2 wk off). MEASUREMENTS: Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-one patients (32%) had Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) poor-risk disease; 45 (68%) had intermediate-risk disease. Nephrectomy was not performed in 19 (29%), most commonly due to disease progression (n = 12). The PFS for the cohort was 6.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-8.5). Seventeen (36%) patients progressed during the treatment break, 13 (76%) of whom stabilised upon reinitiating of sunitinib. The OS for the cohort was 15.2 mo (95% CI, 10.3-NA). The OS for the intermediate MSKCC risk group was significantly longer than that for the poor-risk group (26.0 mo [95% CI, 13.6-NA] and 9.0 mo [95% CI, 5.8-20.5], respectively; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, progression of disease prior to planned nephrectomy (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.34; 95% CI, 3.17-13.27), high Fuhrman grade (HR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.38-7.72), and MSKCC poor risk at diagnosis (HR 4.75; 95% CI, 2.05-11.02) were associated with short survival (p < 0.01). However, in the absence of randomised studies it is not possible to determine if this approach is beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront sunitinib prior to planned nephrectomy in intermediate-risk disease is associated with a median survival of >2 yr despite frequent progression during treatment break. Progression in metastatic sites prior to planned surgery and MSKCC poor-risk disease was associated with a poor outcome.