ABSTRACT
While mutations affecting protein-coding regions have been examined across many cancers, structural variants at the genome-wide level are still poorly defined. Through integrative deep whole-genome and -transcriptome analysis of 101 castration-resistant prostate cancer metastases (109X tumor/38X normal coverage), we identified structural variants altering critical regulators of tumorigenesis and progression not detectable by exome approaches. Notably, we observed amplification of an intergenic enhancer region 624 kb upstream of the androgen receptor (AR) in 81% of patients, correlating with increased AR expression. Tandem duplication hotspots also occur near MYC, in lncRNAs associated with post-translational MYC regulation. Classes of structural variations were linked to distinct DNA repair deficiencies, suggesting their etiology, including associations of CDK12 mutation with tandem duplications, TP53 inactivation with inverted rearrangements and chromothripsis, and BRCA2 inactivation with deletions. Together, these observations provide a comprehensive view of how structural variations affect critical regulators in metastatic prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Genomic Structural Variation/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , BRCA2 Protein/metabolism , Cyclin-Dependent Kinases/metabolism , DNA Copy Number Variations , Exome , Gene Expression Profiling/methods , Genomics/methods , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mutation , Neoplasm Metastasis/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-myc/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-myc/metabolism , Receptors, Androgen/genetics , Receptors, Androgen/metabolism , Tandem Repeat Sequences/genetics , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/metabolism , Whole Genome Sequencing/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Kidney Neoplasms , Nephrectomy , Nivolumab , Humans , Nivolumab/administration & dosage , Nivolumab/therapeutic use , Nivolumab/adverse effects , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/surgery , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/pathology , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/mortality , Male , Female , Kidney Neoplasms/surgery , Kidney Neoplasms/pathology , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/mortality , Middle Aged , Aged , Canada , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Neoplasm Staging , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/administration & dosageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of renal cell carcinoma are at risk of disease relapse. We evaluated the effectiveness of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus administered after surgery. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma who had undergone a full surgical resection and were at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence at 398 academic and community institution centres in the USA. After nephrectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central web-based application using a dynamic balancing algorithm to receive 10 mg oral everolimus daily or placebo for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Efficacy analyses included all eligible, randomly assigned patients; safety analysis included all patients who received treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01120249 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2011, and Sept 15, 2016, a total of 1545 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=775) or placebo (n=770), of whom 755 assigned to everolimus and 744 assigned to placebo were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis. With a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 61-92), recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo (5-year recurrence-free survival 67% [95% CI 63-70] vs 63% [60-67]; stratified log-rank p=0·050; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·00; p=0·051) but did not meet the prespecified p value for statistical significance of 0·044. Recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo in the very-high-risk group (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·97; p=0·022) but not in the intermediate-high-risk group (0·99, 0·73-1·35; p=0·96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 343 (46%) of 740 patients who received everolimus and 79 (11%) of 723 who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative everolimus did not improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo among patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. These results do not support the adjuvant use of everolimus for renal cell carcinoma after surgery. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and The Hope Foundation.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Kidney Neoplasms , United States , Adult , Humans , Everolimus/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/surgery , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Sirolimus/therapeutic use , Adjuvants, Immunologic/therapeutic use , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC. METHODS: KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Indazoles , Kidney Neoplasms , Pyrimidines , Sulfonamides , Sunitinib , Humans , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Sunitinib/therapeutic use , Sunitinib/administration & dosage , Sulfonamides/administration & dosage , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/adverse effects , Male , Female , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Pyrimidines/therapeutic use , Pyrimidines/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/pathology , Kidney Neoplasms/mortality , Aged , Indazoles/administration & dosage , Indazoles/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , OximesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical significance of subtyping (type 1 vs 2) of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) in patients treated with targeted therapy, as well as the concordance, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of local review pathology review. METHODS: Patients with advanced refractory PRCC were randomised to receive sunitinib or cabozantinib, crizotinib or savolitinib, stratified by PRCC subtype (type 1, type 2, or not otherwise specified [NOS]/mixed) by local review. Central review was retrospectively conducted by three expert genitourinary pathologists who independently reviewed cases. The sensitivity and PPV of local review were estimated and outcomes [objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS)] were summarised for treatment groups stratified by subtypes by central review. RESULTS: Amongst the 147 patients reviewed, the prevalence of individual subtypes varied by local or central review (type 1: 17.7% vs 29.3%; type 2: 53.1% vs 45.6%; NOS/mixed: 29.3% vs 25.2%), respectively. Individual cases were frequently reclassified and local pathology review demonstrated low sensitivity (type 1: 48%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 65; type 2: 67%, 95% CI 55, 78; NOS/mixed: 43%, 95% CI 27, 61). The PPVs of local review were 80%, 57.7% and 37% for type 1, 2 and NOS/mixed, respectively. Compared to sunitinib, cabozantinib demonstrated improved PFS for both type 1 and type 2 PRCC subgroups (7.4 vs 9.0 and 2.9 vs 5.6 months, respectfully) as well as higher ORR. CONCLUSIONS: The PRCC subtype assignment did not identify a subset of patients with greater clinical benefit from cabozantinib, with significant discordance between local and central review. Our findings confirm the limited clinical value of pathological subtyping of metastatic PRCC, in line with the recent World Health Organisation 2022 guidelines. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, categorising papillary renal cell carcinoma into type 1 or 2 subtypes showed limited concordance between central and local pathological review and did not enrich for patients more likely to benefit from cabozantinib in the S1500 PAPMET trial.
ABSTRACT
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Kidney Neoplasms , Humans , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/diagnosis , Kidney Neoplasms/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6-13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7-46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant , Thrombocytopenia , Adolescent , Adult , Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use , Androgens , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , DNA Repair/genetics , Humans , Indazoles , Male , Piperidines , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/pathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.
Subject(s)
Anilides/administration & dosage , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Pyridines/administration & dosage , Sunitinib/administration & dosage , Aged , Anilides/adverse effects , Canada , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/mortality , Crizotinib/administration & dosage , Crizotinib/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Kidney Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Progression-Free Survival , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met/drug effects , Pyrazines/administration & dosage , Pyrazines/adverse effects , Pyridines/adverse effects , Sunitinib/adverse effects , Triazines/administration & dosage , Triazines/adverse effects , United StatesABSTRACT
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Kidney Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/therapy , Humans , Kidney Neoplasms/diagnosis , Kidney Neoplasms/therapy , Medical OncologyABSTRACT
LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not provide a benefit over axitinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had previously progressed on one or more vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. BACKGROUND: Endoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. METHODS: TRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. CONCLUSION: The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell , Kidney Neoplasms , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Axitinib , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Humans , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor AABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Until the advent of T cell check point inhibitors standard second-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) was undefined. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) have anti-cancer activity in a variety of tumor models including modulation of apoptosis in bladder cancer cell lines. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of the HDACi vorinostat in patients with mUC failing first-line platinum-based therapy either in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting or for recurrent/advanced disease. METHODS: Vorinostat was given orally 200 mg twice daily continuously until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was RECIST response rate (RR); a RR > 20% was deemed interesting in a 2-stage design requiring one response in the first 12 patients to proceed to 2nd stage for a total of 37 subjects. CT or MRI scan imaging occurred every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were accrued characterized by: median age 66 years (43-84); Caucasian (79%); males (86%); and Karnofsky performance status ≥90 (50%). Accrual was terminated in the first stage as no responses were observed. Best response was stable disease (3 patients). Progression was observed in 8 patients. Two patients came off therapy prior to re-imaging and a 3rd patient died while on treatment and was not assessed for response. Median number of cycles was 2 (range 1-11). Median disease-free survival and overall survival times were 1.1 (0.8, 2.1) & 3.2 (2.1, 14.5) months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly cytopenias and thrombocytopenic bleeding. Two pts. had grade 5 toxicity unlikely related to treatment. Two pts. had grade 4 and 6 had grade 3 toxicities observed. Two patients with stable disease remained on therapy for 6+ cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Vorinostat on this dose-schedule had limited efficacy and significant toxicity resulting in a unfavorable risk:benefit ratio in patients with mUC. NCT00363883.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/drug therapy , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Urologic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Vorinostat/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/mortality , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/pathology , Female , Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/mortality , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Treatment Outcome , Urologic Neoplasms/mortality , Urologic Neoplasms/pathology , Urothelium/pathology , Vorinostat/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence has suggested that DNA repair gene alterations may be important in prostate cancer pathogenesis. In the current study, the authors sought to characterize alterations in DNA repair pathway genes in both primary and metastatic prostate tumors with attention to tissue distribution as well as specific genomic alterations. METHODS: The authors studied the distribution and type of alterations in 24 genes that are considered important for DNA repair in 944 prostate cancers harvested from localized and metastatic tumors. Tumor DNA underwent hybrid capture for all coding exons of 287 or 395 cancer-related genes plus select introns from 19 or 31 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. Captured libraries were sequenced to a median exon coverage depth of >×500. Specific genomic alterations were characterized and the frequencies of mutations by tissue site (prostate vs metastases) were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients from the cohort of 944 men (16%) harbored a germline or somatic mutation in ≥1 DNA repair genes. The most frequently mutated genes were BRCA2 (11.4%) and ATM (5.8%), followed by MSH6 (2.5%) and MSH2 (2.1%). Mutations were identified in approximately 20.1% of primary prostate tumors compared with 18.8% of bone metastases. When stratified by tissue site, the highest rates of DNA repair mutations were found in solid organ metastases, including brain and visceral metastases, compared with prostate. CONCLUSIONS: DNA repair gene mutations are more common in metastatic than localized prostate tumors. Visceral and other solid organ metastases appear enriched for these mutations compared with localized tumors or bone and lymph node metastases.
Subject(s)
DNA Repair/genetics , Mutation , Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Proteins/genetics , Bone Neoplasms/genetics , Bone Neoplasms/secondary , Brain Neoplasms/genetics , Cyclin-Dependent Kinases/genetics , DNA-Binding Proteins/genetics , Exons , Genes, BRCA1 , Genes, BRCA2 , Germ-Line Mutation , Humans , Introns , Logistic Models , Male , MutS Homolog 2 Protein/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Tissue Distribution/geneticsABSTRACT
In the last 30 years, there have been many advances in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma of the clear cell type. Renal cell carcinoma has long been understood to have a component of immune mediation and has been responsive to immune-based therapies; in addition to early cytokine therapy, newer checkpoint inhibition therapies have also demonstrated activity. Molecular characterization of the genome of clear cell renal cell carcinoma enabled identification of the roles of angiogenesis and hypoxic stress. This led to development of small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors and inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin that have provided additional benefit to patients. Ongoing strategies of combinations of immune and antiangiogenic therapies may lead to further advancements.
Subject(s)
Angiogenesis Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/drug therapy , Kidney Neoplasms/drug therapy , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases/antagonists & inhibitors , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/secondary , Humans , Kidney Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the relationship between experience measured by caseload and oncological outcomes, economics, and access to care for prostate cancer care. Oncological outcomes have been limited to biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Questions remain regarding the more definitive measures of outcomes and their relationship with caseload. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to investigate the outcomes of radical prostatectomy in the United States. With overall survival (OS) as the primary outcome, the relationship between the facility annual caseload (FAC) for all prostate cancer encounters and the facility annual surgical caseload (FASC) for those requiring radical prostatectomy was examined with a Cox proportional hazards model. Four volume groups were defined by caseload: <50th percentile (volume group 1 [VG1]), 50th to 74th percentiles (volume group 2 [VG2]), 75th to 89th percentiles (volume group 3 [VG3]), and ≥90th percentile (volume group 4 [VG4]). By FAC/FASC, 11%/8%, 17%/18%, 25%/26%, and 47%/49% of patients were treated in VG1 through VG4, respectively. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, 488,389 patients underwent radical prostatectomy. At a median follow-up of 60.75 months, the median OS was not reached. There was a significant OS benefit as the caseload increased. For FAC, the adjusted OS difference between VG1 and VG4 at 90th percentile survivorship reached 13.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.23-1.36; P < .0001). For FASC, this was 11.3 months (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.192-1.321; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant OS advantage from performing radical prostatectomy at a facility with a high annual caseload. Caseload measured by all prostate cancer encounters is a better predictor of favorable outcomes than the number of surgeries performed at a facility. LAY SUMMARY: An in-depth analysis of 488,389 cases of radical prostatectomy performed in more than 1000 facilities over a 10-year period showed better survival when surgery was performed in facilities with more experience and greater caseload. A survival difference of up to 13 months was observed when comparing patients treated at less experienced versus more experienced centers. Experience across all stages of prostate cancer was a stronger predictor of survival outcome than just the number of surgeries performed.
Subject(s)
Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Prostate/surgery , Prostatectomy/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Proportional Hazards Models , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
LESSONS LEARNED: The negative results are consistent with the negative results of large phase III trials in which docetaxel plus antiangiogenic agents were used in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).The negative data underscore that, despite a sound biological rationale and supportive early-phase clinical results, adding antiangiogenic agents to docetaxel for mCRPC is a great challenge. BACKGROUND: Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling abrogates tumor-induced angiogenesis to constrain tumor growth, and can be exploited therapeutically by using cediranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor signaling. Our preliminary phase I trial data showed that adding cediranib to docetaxel plus prednisone (DP) was safe and feasible, with early evidence for efficacy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial assessed whether adding cediranib to DP improves efficacy of DP in patients with mCRPC. Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks) with prednisone (5 mg twice daily) plus cediranib (30 mg once daily; the DP+C arm) or DP only (the DP arm). The primary endpoint was to compare 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate between the two arms. Secondary endpoints included 6-month overall survival (OS), objective tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates, biomarkers, and adverse events. RESULTS: The 6-month PFS rate in a total of 58 patients was only numerically higher in the DP+C arm (61%) compared with the DP arm (57%). Similarly, the 6-month OS rate, objective tumor and PSA response rates, and biomarkers were not significantly different between the two arms. Increased baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), however, were significantly associated with increased risk of progression. Neutropenia was the only grade 4 toxicity (38% in the DP+C arm vs. 18% in the DP arm). CONCLUSION: Combining cediranib with docetaxel + prednisone failed to demonstrate superior efficacy, compared with docetaxel + prednisone, and added toxicity. Our data do not support pursuing the combination further in patients with mCRPC.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Docetaxel/administration & dosage , Humans , Kallikreins/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Metastasis , Prednisone/administration & dosage , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/pathology , Quinazolines/administration & dosage , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/bloodABSTRACT
Patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience high rates of recurrence despite definitive surgical resection. Recent trials of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy have provided conflicting efficacy results at the cost of significant adverse events. PD-1 blockade via monoclonal antibodies has emerged as an effective disease-modifying treatment for metastatic RCC. There is emerging data across other solid tumors of the potential efficacy of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade, and preclinical evidence supporting a neoadjuvant over adjuvant approach. PROSPER RCC is a Phase III, randomized trial evaluating whether perioperative nivolumab increases recurrence-free survival in patients with high-risk RCC undergoing nephrectomy. The neoadjuvant component, intended to prime the immune system for enhanced efficacy, distinguishes PROSPER from other purely adjuvant studies and permits highly clinically relevant translational studies.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell/therapy , Clinical Protocols , Kidney Neoplasms/therapy , Perioperative Care , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/therapeutic use , Biomarkers, Tumor , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/etiology , Carcinoma, Renal Cell/pathology , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Combined Modality Therapy/trends , Disease Susceptibility , Humans , Kidney Neoplasms/etiology , Kidney Neoplasms/pathology , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Neoplasm Staging , Nephrectomy , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/trends , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Interleukin 2 (IL-2) is a growth factor for T and natural killer cells, promotes proinflammatory cytokines, and can lead to durable responses in patients with melanoma. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis and modulates host innate and adaptive immunity. High VEGF levels were found to be associated with nonresponse to IL-2. Ziv-aflibercept may deplete VEGF and thereby enhance antitumor T-cell responses, thus supporting a combination immunotherapeutic strategy with IL-2. METHODS: NCI 8628 was a phase 2 trial of ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 (arm A) versus IL-2 alone (arm B) randomized at 2:1, respectively. Eligible patients had inoperable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or stage IV melanoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were enrolled and 84 patients were treated. The median follow-up was 41.4 months. Among treated patients (55 patients in arm A and 29 patients in arm B), PFS was significantly improved in favor of arm A, with a median of 6.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.1-8.7 months) versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6-3.5 months) (P<.001). No significant difference was noted with regard to overall survival, with a median of 26.9 months (95% CI, 14.4-63.6 months) for arm A and 24.2 months (95% CI, 11.3-36.4 months) for arm B. The response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST]) was 22% in arm A (4 complete responses [CRs] and 8 partial responses [PRs]) and 17% in arm B (1 CR and 4 PRs). Stable disease or PR or CR was noted in 65% of patients in arm A and 48% of patients in arm B. The combination was found to be superior to monotherapy in patients with high and low levels of serum VEGF and VEGF receptor 2. Adverse events were consistent with the expected profiles of monotherapy with IL-2 and ziv-aflibercept. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept and IL-2 were found to significantly improve PFS compared with IL-2 alone, thereby meeting the primary endpoint of the current study. These findings support further study of immunotherapeutic combination strategies involving VEGF inhibitors.
Subject(s)
Interleukin-2/administration & dosage , Melanoma/drug therapy , Melanoma/pathology , Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor/administration & dosage , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Interleukin-2/adverse effects , Male , Melanoma/metabolism , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/adverse effects , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/blood , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor-2/bloodABSTRACT
Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) produced in live cells may better reflect intracellular ncRNAs for research and therapy. Attempts were made to produce biologic ncRNAs, but at low yield or success rate. Here we first report a new ncRNA bioengineering technology using more stable ncRNA carrier (nCAR) containing a pre-miR-34a derivative identified by rational design and experimental validation. This approach offered a remarkable higher level expression (40%-80% of total RNAs) of recombinant ncRNAs in bacteria and gave an 80% success rate (33 of 42 ncRNAs). New FPLC and spin-column based methods were also developed for large- and small-scale purification of milligrams and micrograms of recombinant ncRNAs from half liter and milliliters of bacterial culture, respectively. We then used two bioengineered nCAR/miRNAs to demonstrate the selective release of target miRNAs into human cells, which were revealed to be Dicer dependent (miR-34a-5p) or independent (miR-124a-3p), and subsequent changes of miRNome and transcriptome profiles. miRNA enrichment analyses of altered transcriptome confirmed the specificity of nCAR/miRNAs in target gene regulation. Furthermore, nCAR assembled miR-34a-5p and miR-124-3p were active in suppressing human lung carcinoma cell proliferation through modulation of target gene expression (e.g., cMET and CDK6 for miR-34a-5p; STAT3 and ABCC4 for miR-124-3p). In addition, bioengineered miRNA molecules were effective in controlling metastatic lung xenograft progression, as demonstrated by live animal and ex vivo lung tissue bioluminescent imaging as well as histopathological examination. This novel ncRNA bioengineering platform can be easily adapted to produce various ncRNA molecules, and biologic ncRNAs hold the promise as new cancer therapeutics.
Subject(s)
Gene Expression Profiling , Genetic Engineering , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , MicroRNAs/genetics , Animals , Base Sequence , Cell Line, Tumor , Cell Proliferation/genetics , Cell Transformation, Neoplastic , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , MiceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway has improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, resistance inevitably occurs. CD105 (endoglin) is an angiogenic pathway that is strongly upregulated after VEGF inhibition, potentially contributing to resistance. The authors tested whether TRC105, a monoclonal antibody against endoglin, impacted disease control in patients with previously treated RCC who were receiving bevacizumab. METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic RCC who had previously received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy, including VEGF-targeted agents, were randomized 1:1 to receive bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm A) or the same plus TRC105 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 and 24 weeks. Correlative studies included serum transforming growth factor ß (TGFß) and CD105 levels as well as tissue immunostaining for TGFß receptors. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled (28 on arm A and 31 on arm B), and 1 patient on each arm had a confirmed partial response. The median PFS for bevacizumab alone was 4.6 months compared with 2.8 for bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .09). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred in 16 patients (57%) who received bevacizumab compared with 19 (61%) who received bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .9). Baseline serum TGFß levels below the median (<10.6 ng/mL) were associated with longer median PFS (5.6 vs 2.1 months; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: TRC105 failed to improve PFS when added to bevacizumab. TGFß warrants further study as a biomarker in RCC. Cancer 2017;123:4566-4573. © 2017 American Cancer Society.