Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

The Challenge of Managing Bladder Cancer and Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Review with Treatment Recommendations from the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG).

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men and the ninth most common in women in the Western world. The management of bladder carcinoma requires a multidisciplinary approach. Optimal treatment depends on several factors, including histology, stage, patient status, and possible comorbidities. Here we review recent findings on the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma, advanced urothelial carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, non-urothelial carcinoma, and urologic complications arising from the disease or treatment. In addition, we present the recommendations of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group for the treatment of these diseases, based on a focused analysis of clinical management and the potential of current research, including recent findings on the potential benefit of immunotherapy. In recent years, whole-genome approaches have provided new predictive biomarkers and promising molecular targets that could lead to precision medicine in bladder cancer. Moreover, the involvement of other specialists in addition to urologists will ensure not only appropriate therapeutic decisions but also adequate follow-up for response evaluation and management of complications. It is crucial, however, to apply recent molecular findings and implement clinical guidelines as soon as possible in order to maximize therapeutic gains and improve patient prognosis.

Phase 2 Randomized Study of Radiation Therapy and 3-Year Androgen Deprivation With or Without Concurrent Weekly Docetaxel in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel improves survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. This randomized phase 2 trial aimed to assess the activity of weekly docetaxel with radiation therapy (RT) plus androgen deprivation in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. The study examined the benefit of 9 weekly docetaxel administrations to RT plus 3 years of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 132 patients were recruited for the study. Patients' characteristics included T3-T4 stage (81.1%), Gleason score ≥8 (77.3%), prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL (28.9%), and pN+ (18.2%). All patients included in the trial received either the standard-of-care control arm with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues plus RT (arm A) or the experimental arm (RT + 9 weekly cycles of docetaxel + 3 years of androgen deprivation therapy, arm B). The primary objective was to achieve a high percentage of patients who were free of biochemical recurrence within 5 years of randomization. Secondary endpoints included biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical response rate, biochemical response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: No difference between the arms of the study was found in biochemical recurrence (93.4% at 60 months for arm A vs 85.3% for arm B; P = .3297). PFS at 60 months was 93.4% and 83.7% in arms A and B, respectively (P = .2532). Five-year survival was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 83.1-97.45) in arm A versus 93.6% (83.8-97.55) in arm B; median PFS and OS have not been reached. Prostate-specific antigen level ≤0.2 ng/mL at 3 months after the end of treatment was seen in 81.25% of patients in arm A compared with 90.48% of patients in arm B (P = .2028). BRFS was not significantly different between treatment arms. Diarrhea was the main nonhematologic toxicity. Long-term follow-up has not yet been enough to meet median PFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent weekly docetaxel can be administered safely with standard doses of RT without a significant increase in the toxicity profile. No statistically significant differences for 5-year BRFS, PFS, and OS have been observed when docetaxel was added to conventional treatment.

Quantification of circulating endothelial cells as a predictor of response to chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) play an important role in tumor neovascularization and may have prognostic value in cancer patients. This study was designed to investigate the role of CEC as a marker for predicting platinum plus pemetrexed first-line chemotherapy efficacy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A prospective study was performed whose main objective was to study whether the numbers of CEC at baseline and prior to the second and third cycle of chemotherapy were response predictors. Sixty-nine patients received cisplatin plus pemetrexed, and peripheral blood samples were performed at baseline and after second and third cycle. Separation and CEC count were performed using inmunomagnetic separation (CellSearch). RESULTS: The CEC count in 4 mL of peripheral blood was obtained prior to the first, second, and third cycle of treatment. Baseline levels and evolution of CEC were correlated with response to treatment according to RECIST criteria after three cycles of treatment. Sixty-nine patients were included: 43 (64.2 %) received cisplatin/pemetrexed and 24 (35.8 %) carboplatin/pemetrexed. Range of baseline CEC: 8-965 (mean of 153 cel/4 mL). The results after 3 cycles were: 25 partial responses (36.2 %), 17 cases of stabilization of disease (24.6 %), 16 of progressive disease (23.2 %) and 11 non-evaluables (16 %). No significant relationship between the baseline CEC count and response was found (p value = 0.831). Increase >50 % between the first and second cycle was correlated significantly with progression disease (p = 0.008). Patients who had a baseline CEC count greater than the mean (>153 cells/4 mL) showed longer progression-free survival and global survival without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this homogeneous group of patients with NSCLC, there is no correlation between response to treatment and CEC baseline levels. The increase in CEC numbers after the first cycle could be a negative predictive factor.

First-line bevacizumab, cisplatin and vinorelbine plus maintenance bevacizumab in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer chemo-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with bevacizumab, cisplatin and vinorelbine and bevacizumab maintenance in non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients with stage IIIB plus pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC were included in a Phase II clinical trial. Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1), cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) on day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). After 6 cycles, non-progressing patients received bevacizumab maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Thirteen (29%) of 45 evaluable patients presented a partial response. PFS and overall survival were 6.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5 - 7.5) and 14.7 months (95% CI 8.4 - 21), respectively. Fourteen patients (28%) experienced grade 3 - 4 neutropenia and 7 (14%) experienced febrile neutropenia during the combination treatment. During the maintenance phase, the most frequent grade 3 - 4 adverse event was hypertension. Neither grade 3 - 4 thrombocytopenia nor toxic death was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The studied regimen achieved a similar efficacy to other regimens containing platinum doublets. The data provide further evidence that bevacizumab may be used in combination with multiple standard platinum-based doublets in this setting.