Electrolyte disorders induced by six multikinase inhibitors therapy for renal cell carcinoma: a large-scale pharmacovigilance analysis.

To provide evidence for optimization of multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) use in the clinic, we use the public database to describe and evaluate electrolyte disorders (EDs) related to various MKIs treated for renal cell carcinoma. We analyzed spontaneous reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) in an observational and retrospective manner. Selecting electrolyte disorders' adverse events to multikinase inhibitors (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sunitinib, and sorafenib). We used Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms to analyze suspected adverse reactions of electrolyte disorders induced by MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) between January 2004 and December 2022. As of December 2022, 2772 MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) ICSRs were related to electrolyte disorders AEs. In general, there were more AEs cases in males, except lenvatinib and 71.8% of the cases were submitted from North America. ICSRs in this study, the age group most frequently affected by electrolyte disorders AEs was individuals aged 45-64 years for axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, and sunitinib, whereas electrolyte disorders AEs were more common in older patients (65-74 years) for sorafenib and lenvatinib. For all EDs documented in ICSRs (excluding missing data), the most common adverse outcome was hospitalization(1429/2674, 53.4%), and the most serious outcome was death/life-threat(281/2674, 10.5%). The prevalence of mortality was highest for sunitinib-related EDs (145/616, 23.5%), excluding missing data (n = 68), followed by cabozantinib-related EDs (20/237, 8.4%), excluding missing data (n = 1). The distribution of time-to-onset of Each drug-related ICSRs was not all the same, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). With the criteria of ROR, the six MKIs were all significantly associated with electrolyte disorders AEs, the strongest association was the association between cabozantinib and hypermagnesaemia. MKIs have been reported to have significant electrolyte disorders AEs. Patients and physicians need to recognize and monitor these potentially fatal adverse events.

Investigation of Gastrointestinal Toxicities Associated with Concurrent Abdominal Radiation Therapy and the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Sunitinib in a Mouse Model.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be combined with radiation therapy (RT) to enhance tumor control; however, increased incidences of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity have been reported with this combination. We hypothesize that toxicity is due to compromised intestinal healing caused by inhibition of vascular repair and proliferation pathways. This study explores underlying tissue toxicity associated with abdominal RT and concurrent sunitinib in a mouse model. Four groups of CD-1 mice were treated with 12 Gy abdominal RT, oral sunitinib, abdominal RT + sunitinib, or sham treatment. Mice received oral sunitinib or the vehicle via gavage for 14 days. On day 7, mice were irradiated with 12 Gy abdominal RT or sham treated. Mice were euthanized on day 14 and intestinal tract was harvested for semiquantitative histopathologic evaluation and immunohistochemical quantification of proliferation (Ki67) and vascular density (CD31). Non-irradiated groups had stable weights while abdominal irradiation resulted in weight loss, with mice receiving RT + SUN having greater weight loss than mice receiving RT alone. Semiquantitative analysis showed significant increases in inflammation in irradiated groups. The difference in the density of CD31+ cells was significantly increased in RT alone compared to SUN alone. Ki67+ density was not significant. In summary, we identify a lack of angiogenic response in irradiated GI tissues when abdominal RT is combined with a TKI, which may correlate with clinical toxicities seen in canine and human patients receiving combined treatment.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Chronic thrombotic microangiopathy presenting as acute nephrotic syndrome in a patient with renal cancer receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is a rare but serious side effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Previous case reports of renal TMA have usually occurred in the first few months of TKI initiation with only very few cases occurring within 2-3 years. We report a case of a patient who was referred to the Nephrology service for nephrotic syndrome and worsening renal function after 8 years of sunitinib therapy for metastatic clear cell carcinoma of the kidney. Renal biopsy showed chronic TMA without another secondary aetiology identified. With discontinuation of sunitinib and pharmacological optimisation of his hypertension, his renal function and proteinuria both significantly improved. No relapse or recurrence of disease activity was noted after a year of follow-up. This case highlights the importance of remaining vigilant for the development of renal TMA even after an extended duration of TKI therapy.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced immune hemolytic anemia; three different drugs in three separate cases.

INTRODUCTION: Molecular multitargeted small tyrosine kinase inhibitory (TKI) agents such as axitinib, sunitinib and pazopanib are commonly used in several types of solid tumors. Anemia is not a rare effect of these drugs which may occur at all grades. However, drug-induced immune hemolytic anemia (IHA), a very rare condition is distinctive from other types of anemia with its specific mechanism and management strategy. CASE REPORTS: We reported three different TKI-induced IHA cases that occurred due to axitinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, respectively. The first two cases were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and the last one was diagnosed with soft tissue sarcoma. They all presented with the characteristic symptoms of anemia and hemolysis. All the cases were detected positive for the complement C3d direct antiglobulin (direct coombs) test. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES: Discontinuation of the causative drug and 1 mg/kg/day dose of corticosteroid treatment were able to control IHA in all three cases. Excluding the other factors of IHA and an evident laboratory and clinical benefit after withholding the TKI led to the diagnosis of TKI-related IHA in each case. DISCUSSION: TKIs are relatively new in clinical practice and are being used for more indications and in more patients. To our knowledge#these three cases are unique in terms of axitinib#sunitinib#and pazopanib-related IHA.

Efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs. sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib: A phase 2, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in China.

AIM: A bridging study of INTRIGUE study to assess the efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in Chinese GIST patients. METHODS: This was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in China. GIST patients previously treated with imatinib were randomized (1:1) to receive ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) by continuous dosing in 42-day cycles or sunitinib 50 mg QD in 42-day cycles (four weeks on/two weeks off). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiological review (IRR). RESULTS: Between 6 December 2020 and 15 September 2021, 108 patients were randomized to receive ripretinib (n = 54) or sunitinib (n = 54) (all-patient [AP] intention-to-treat [ITT] population). Seventy patients had primary KIT exon 11 mutations (ripretinib, n = 35; sunitinib, n = 35; Ex11 ITT population). By data cut-off (20 July 2022), in AP ITT population, PFS by IRR was comparable between ripretinib and sunitinib arms (HR 0·99, 95 % CI 0·57, 1·69; nominal p = 0·92; median PFS [mPFS] 10·3 vs 8·3 months). In Ex11 ITT population, PFS by IRR was longer for ripretinib than sunitinib (HR 0·46, 95 % CI 0·23, 0·92; nominal p = 0·03; mPFS not reached in ripretinib arm and 4·9 months in sunitinib arm). Fewer patients experienced grade 3/4 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events with ripretinib (17%) versus sunitinib (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Ripretinib demonstrated similar efficacy and a favorable safety profile versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in Chinese GIST patients. Furthermore, ripretinib provided greater clinically meaningful benefit versus sunitinib in patients with KIT exon 11 mutation.

Toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: RENOTORCH, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors are standard treatments for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This phase III RENOTORCH study compared the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk unresectable or metastatic RCC were randomized in a ratio of 1 : 1 to receive toripalimab (240 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily) or sunitinib [50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle) or 2 weeks (3-week cycle)]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 421 patients were randomized to receive toripalimab plus axitinib (n = 210) or sunitinib (n = 211). With a median follow-up of 14.6 months, toripalimab plus axitinib significantly reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% compared with sunitinib as assessed by an IRC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.86; P = 0.0028]. The median PFS was 18.0 months in the toripalimab-axitinib group, whereas it was 9.8 months in the sunitinib group. The IRC-assessed ORR was significantly higher in the toripalimab-axitinib group compared with the sunitinib group (56.7% versus 30.8%; P < 0.0001). An OS trend favoring toripalimab plus axitinib was also observed (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.92). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.5% of patients in the toripalimab-axitinib group and 58.6% of patients in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSION: In patients with previously untreated intermediate-/poor-risk advanced RCC, toripalimab plus axitinib provided significantly longer PFS and higher ORR than sunitinib and had a manageable safety profile TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394975.

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022).

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Patient-reported outcomes and tolerability in patients receiving ripretinib versus sunitinib after treatment with imatinib in INTRIGUE, a phase 3, open-label study.

PURPOSE: In the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire at day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following 2 weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for 2 weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib.

Anti-angiogenic drug aggravates the degree of anti-resorptive drug-based medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw by impairing the proliferation and migration function of gingival fibroblasts.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of anti-resorptive or anti-angiogenic drugs in cancer patients with odontogenic infections may lead to medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This study investigated whether anti-angiogenic agents aggravate MRONJ occurrence in anti-resorptive-treated patients. METHODS: The clinical stage and jawbone exposure of MRONJ patients caused by different drug regimens were analyzed to ascertain the aggravation effect of anti-angiogenic drugs on anti-resorptive drug-based MRONJ. Next, a periodontitis mice model was established, and tooth extraction was performed after administering anti-resorptive and/or anti-angiogenic drugs; the imaging and histological change of the extraction socket were observed. Moreover, the cell function of gingival fibroblasts was analyzed after the treatment with anti-resorptive and/or anti-angiogenic drugs in order to evaluate their effect on the gingival tissue healing of the extraction socket. RESULTS: Patients treated with anti-angiogenic and anti-resorptive drugs had an advanced clinical stage and a bigger proportion of necrotic jawbone exposure compared to patients treated with anti-resorptive drugs alone. In vivo study further indicated a greater loss of mucosa tissue coverage above the tooth extraction in mice treated with sunitinib (Suti) + zoledronate (Zole) group (7/10) vs. Zole group (3/10) and Suti group (1/10). Micro-computed tomography (CT) and histological data showed that the new bone formation in the extraction socket was lower in Suti + Zole and Zole groups vs. Suti and control groups. In vitro data showed that the anti-angiogenic drugs had a stronger inhibitory ability on the proliferation and migration function of gingival fibroblasts than anti-resorptive drugs, and the inhibitory effect was obviously enhanced after combining zoledronate and sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Our findings provided support for a synergistic contribution of anti-angiogenic drugs to anti-resorptive drugs-based MRONJ. Importantly, the present study revealed that anti-angiogenic drugs alone do not induce severe MRONJ but aggravate the degree of MRONJ via the enhanced inhibitory function of gingival fibroblasts based on anti-resorptive drugs.

Nephrotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Few data are available regarding the nephrotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study aimed to investigate the nephrotoxicity of ICI-based combination therapy versus standard of care sunitinib in patients with advanced RCC. METHODS: We searched Embase/PubMed/Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment-related nephrotoxicities including increase of creatinine and proteinuria were analyzed by Review Manager 5.4 software. RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 5239 patients were included. The analysis showed that ICI combination therapy had similar risks of any grade (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.77-1.37, P = 0.87) and grade 3-5 (RR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.19-11.66, P = 0.71) increased creatinine compared with sunitinib monotherapy. However, ICI combination therapy was associated with significantly higher risks of any grade (RR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.54-3.51, P < 0.0001) and grade 3-5 proteinuria (RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.21-4.17, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that ICI combination therapy shows more nephrotoxicity of proteinuria than sunitinib in advanced RCC, which deserves a high attention in the clinic.

An update on safety evaluation of immune-based combinations in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Significant advances have been made in the first-line therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) since the approval of immune-based combinations, including nivolumab plus ipilimumab or cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus axitinib or lenvatinib. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this review is to compare the different safety profiles of first-line immune-based combinations versus sunitinib across the four respective pivotal trials (CheckMate 214, CheckMate 9ER, KEYNOTE-426, and CLEAR), with a particular attention to patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment. EXPERT OPINION: The concurrent use of an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as a first-line treatment strategy for mRCC has highlighted the unmet clinical need for prompt detection and consequently proper management of adverse events (AEs), both immune-related and TKI-induced. Overlapping AEs, such as hypertransaminasemia, are most challenging to manage, and evidence is still outlined from clinical practice. The specific patterns of toxicities of the approved first-line immune-based combinations, along with the impact of these interventions on patients' HRQoL, demand a deeper consideration by physicians while choosing the appropriate treatment for each individual mRCC patient. Both safety profile and HRQoL evaluation could be exploited to guide the first-line treatment selection in this setting.

Efficacy and safety analysis of TACE + sunitinib vs. sunitinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Since renal cell carcinoma(RCC) is insensitive to conventional chemoradiotherapy, molecularly targeted drugs are commonly used treatments for unresectable advanced RCC. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of TACE + sunitinib vs. sunitinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced RCC. METHODS: This study included 98 patients with unresectable advanced RCC who were treated in Union Hospital from January 2015 to December 2018, and they met the criteria. They were divided into two groups: TACE + Sunitinib group (N = 47) and Sunitinib group (N = 51). We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the efficacy and safety of the two groups of patients. RESULTS: (1)TACE + Sunitinib group: 4 patients (8.5%) achieved CR, 27 patients (57.5%) achieved PR, 9 patients (19.1%) achieved SD, and 7 patients (14.9%) achieved PD. Sunitinib group, 0 patients (0%) achieved CR, 20 patients (39.2%) achieved PR, 14 patients (27.5%) achieved SD, and 17 patients (33.3%) achieved PD. (P = 0.017) (2)ORR: TACE + sunitinib group, 66.0%; sunitinib group, 39.2%. (P = 0.009) (3)DCR: TACE + sunitinib group, 85.1%; sunitinib group, 66.7%. (P = 0.038) (4) In the TACE + sunitinib group, mPFS was 15.6 months, mOS was 35.0 months; in the sunitinib group, the mPFS was 10.9 months, mOS was 25.7 months. (P < 0.001) (5) The incidence of abdominal pain, fever, and vomiting was higher in the TACE + sunitinib group than in the sunitinib group (abdominal pain: 55.3% vs. 13.7%; fever: 61.7% vs. 7.8%; vomiting: 40.4% vs. 19.6%; P < 0.05). The technical success rate of TACE in TACE + Sunitinib group is 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The TACE + sunitinib group had higher ORR and DCR, longer OS and PFS than the sunitinib alone group. TACE combined with sunitinib can play a complementary role and is a safe and effective treatment for advanced RCC.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Gonadal Function in Male Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Treated With Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors are still prescribed as first-line treatment to a relevant subgroup of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). These agents are known to cause disfunction of many endocrine glands (e.g., thyroid). In this two-step trial, we aimed to assess gonadal function among male patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled a first cross-sectional cohort of pre-treated (>6 months) patients and a subsequent cohort of treatment-naïve patients who were prospectively followed-up. All patients were screened for hypogonadism and received a Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) questionnaire at study entry and after 6 months of therapy. Patients who were candidates for testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) also received a FACT-G questionnaire at baseline and 3 months after supplementation. RESULTS: Among the 30 enrolled patients, the prevalence of hypogonadism was found to be higher in those receiving sunitinib for a longer period (27.3% at baseline, 41.7% in the first 6 months, and 68.4% after 9 months of therapy). The testosterone level of patients correlated with quality of life (R=0.32). A total of six patients received TRT, with a significant improvement in their global quality of life after the first 3 months of treatment. CONCLUSION: An increasing prevalence of hypogonadism was seen among male patients who received long-term treatment with sunitinib. TRT was associated with relevant improvements in quality of life. These findings corroborate similar published observations and encourage the assessment of gonadal function in male patients with mRCC under treatment with sunitinib.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.

PURPOSE: Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments. RESULTS: The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%. CONCLUSION: NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Sunitinib or Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could cross over to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the two arms was also determined. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial two treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the two treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of four or six cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates. See related commentary by Wilky and Maleddu, p. 1163.

First-line therapy for elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the immuno-oncology era: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), either alone or in combination, confers a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for metastatic RCC in the first-line setting. However, guidance for optimal treatment selection in elderly patients remains limited. METHODS: A database search was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line regimens for patients with advanced RCC older than 65 years old. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Indirect comparisons of available regimens were estimated using a random-effects network meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 and five RCTs were eligible for PFS and OS analyses. Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97) and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.94) were associated with improved OS. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, and cabozantinib alone each showed improved PFS over sunitinib. Among these, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib showed better PFS than pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91), but no PFS difference compared to nivolumab plus cabozantinib (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.03) and cabozantinib alone (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40-1.77). Network ranking showed pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib provided the favored OS and PFS benefit for elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ICB with TKI such as pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib needs to be considered over monotherapy in the elderly population, but further validation using real-world data or prospective trials is necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of first-line regimens for the geriatric population with advanced RCC.

Myositis ossificans circumscripta after surgery and radiotherapy and during sunitinib treatment: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Myositis ossificans circumscripta is a self-limiting, benign, ossifying lesion that can affect any type of soft tissue. It is most commonly found in muscles as a solitary lesion. A history of recent trauma has been reported in approximately 50% of cases. Clinically, MOC presents as a painful swelling, which rapidly increases in size. The pain and inflammatory symptoms spontaneously disappear after approximately 2-6 weeks, and the mass stabilizes or decreases. Radiologically, myositis ossificans circumscripta can be divided into two phases. The first is the acute phase, which is followed by the mature phase 2-6 weeks later. During the acute phase, the radiological aspect does not show any specific abnormality. In the mature phase, plain radiographs and computed tomography show blurred calcifications around a hypodense center. We describe here the first case of myositis ossificans circumscripta, with appropriate follow-up, occurring during sunitinib exposure. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of myositis ossificans circumscripta in a 34-year-old man (ethnicity unknown) receiving sunitinib for metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma of the left thigh after surgery and radiotherapy. Four months after the first dose of sunitinib, the patient experienced painful swelling in the surgical scar area. Magnetic resonance imaging showed diffuse and marked edema of the anterior compartment of the thigh, without nodular lesions circumscribing a central core, and without bone signal abnormality. The increased visibility of the intermuscular fascia and convergence of normal muscle fibers (black hole effect), without the displacement seen in tumors, were suggestive of myositis. Therefore, antiangiogenic treatment was discontinued, and the symptoms rapidly resolved within a few days. Three weeks after the discontinuation of sunitinib, the inflammatory findings completely disappeared. Two months after the diagnosis of myositis ossificans circumscripta, plain radiographs and computed tomography showed an extensive calcified mass measuring > 12 cm. The continuation of favorable clinical outcomes was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of myositis ossificans circumscripta with appropriate follow-up occurring during sunitinib exposure. Owing to multimodal treatment of sarcoma, we cannot rule out the radiotherapy and surgery causality.