Optimizing targeted drug selection in combination therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of safety.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the dose of targeted agents was recommended in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a network meta-analysis to describe a categorized safety ranking profile and assess the adaptability of the combination options of targeted agents. METHODS: The targeted agents refer to vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials comparing these drugs were enrolled in a Bayesian model network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical trials with 11 treatments and 10,615 patients were included. For grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), compared with placebo, lenvatinib plus everolimus showed worse safety than all other treatments except for lenvatinib (placebo vs. OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.78). Everolimus was generally the safest agent (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.50-3.14). Sorafenib arose the least renal AEs (placebo vs. OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06-11.64), whereas lenvatinib plus everolimus had the highest risk of renal toxicity (placebo vs. 0.17 95% CI 0.01-1.02). For gastrointestinal symptoms, everolimus was related to much lower toxicity than other agents. In the respiratory safety analysis, tivozanib (placebo vs. OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.31) and axitinib (OR 5.43, 95% CI 3.26-9.22) were the riskiest agents. In terms of hepatobiliary (placebo vs. OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09-2.10) and hemotoxicity (placebo vs. OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.14-7.68) related AEs, lenvatinib was found to be the safest treatment compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus, with the best safety of grade ≥ 3, gastrointestinal, and respiratory AEs, was more likely to be considered for combination therapies. Lenvatinib appears to be the safest for blood/lymphatic and hepatobiliary AEs. For patients with renal disorders, sorafenib arises the least renal toxicity AEs. This study will guide treatment options and optimize the trial design for advanced or metastatic RCC.

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. RESULTS: After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Development of an antiepileptogenesis drug screening platform: Effects of everolimus and phenobarbital.

OBJECTIVE: The kainic acid (KA)-induced status epilepticus (SE) model in rats is a well-defined model of epileptogenesis. This model closely recapitulates many of the clinical and pathological characteristics of human temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) that arise following SE or another neurological insult. Spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS) in TLE can present after a latent period following a neurological insult (traumatic brain injury, SE event, viral infection, etc.). Moreover, this model is suitable for preclinical studies to evaluate the long-term process of epileptogenesis and screen putative disease-modifying/antiepileptogenic agents. The burden of human TLE is highly variable, similar to the post-KA SE rat model. In this regard, this model may have broad translational relevance. This report thus details the pharmacological characterization and methodological refinement of a moderate-throughput drug screening program using the post-KA-induced SE model of epileptogenesis in male Sprague Dawley rats to identify potential agents that may prevent or modify the burden of SRS. Specifically, we sought to demonstrate whether our protocol could prevent the development of SRS or lead to a reduced frequency/severity of SRS. METHODS: Rats were administered either everolimus (2-3 mg/kg po) beginning 1, 2, or 24 h after SE onset, or phenobarbital (60 mg/kg ip) beginning 1 h after SE onset. All treatments were administered once/day for 5-7 days. Rats in all studies (n = 12/treatment dose/study) were then monitored intermittently by video-electroencephalography (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 2 weeks on epochs) to determine latency to onset of SRS and disease burden. RESULTS: Although no adverse side effects were observed in our studies, no treatment significantly modified disease or prevented the presentation of SRS by 6 weeks after SE onset. SIGNIFICANCE: Neither phenobarbital nor everolimus administered at several time points after SE onset prevented the development of SRS. Nonetheless, we demonstrate a practical and moderate-throughput screen for potential antiepileptogenic agents in a rat model of TLE.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Experience With Early Sorafenib Treatment With mTOR Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurring After Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib (SOR) is currently used for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurring after liver transplantation (LT) when HCC is unsuitable for surgical/locoregional treatments. We evaluated safety and effectiveness of early introduction of SOR after HCC-recurrence. METHODS: All patients with HCC-recurrence after LT treated with SOR in 2 centers were included (January 2008 to June 2018). Baseline and on-treatment data were collected. RESULTS: Fifty patients early treated with SOR for HCC-recurrence after LT (74% mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi], 54% HCC-treated at baseline) were enrolled. During 7.3 (0.3-88) months of SOR, all patients had at least one adverse event (AE), 56% graded 3-4. SOR was reduced in 68%, being AEs the main cause of reduction, and discontinued in 84% (60% symptomatic progression, 33% AE). Objective response was obtained in 16% and stable disease in 50%. Median time to radiological progression was 6 months (95% confidence Interval [CI], 4-8). Thirty-three patients (69%) died, 94% for HCC progression. Median overall survival (OS) was 18 months (95% CI, 8-27); 5-year OS was 18% (95% CI, 4%-32%). Baseline predictors of OS were SOR+mTORi (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; P = 0.04), previous curative treatments (HR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = 0.003) and alpha-fetoprotein > 100 ng/mL (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0, P = 0.02). At multivariate analysis, HCC curative treatment was the only independent predictor (HR, 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-1.0; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Early and combined treatment with SOR and mTORi resulted in a favorable safety profile, while its effectiveness should be confirmed by meta-analysis of previous studies or by larger studies. Curative treatment for HCC resulted the only independent predictor of OS.

5-Year Outcome Following Randomized Treatment of All-Comers With Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Integrity and Everolimus-Eluting PROMUS Element Coronary Stents: Final Report of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate for the first time the 5-year outcomes after treating an all-comers population with newer-generation cobalt chromium-based Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) versus platinum chromium-based PROMUS Element everolimus eluting stents (EES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts). BACKGROUND: The DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) (DUrable polymer-based sTent CHallenge of Promus ElemEnt versus ReSolute integrity: TWENTE II) trial is a randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, investigator-initiated all-comers trial that found at its main analysis similar 1-year safety and efficacy for both drug-eluting stents. It is the first randomized trial ever to investigate the Resolute Integrity ZES and the first trial to compare both devices. METHODS: In total, 1,811 patients were 1:1 randomized to ZES versus EES. We performed a pre-specified assessment of the 5-year clinical outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. The main endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included the individual components of TVF, and stent thrombosis. The study was independently monitored, and adverse clinical events were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Five-year clinical follow-up data was available in 1,798 (99.3%) patients. The ZES and EES groups showed favorable outcomes, with similar 5-year incidence of TVF (13.2% vs. 14.2%; plog-rank = 0.62) and its individual components: cardiac death (4.5% vs. 4.9%; plog-rank = 0.69), target vessel-related myocardial infarction (3.1% vs. 2.6%; plog-rank = 0.47), and target vessel revascularization (7.6% vs. 8.6%; plog-rank = 0.46). The 5-year incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis was similar (1.5% vs. 1.3%; plog-rank = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up, the Resolute Integrity ZES and PROMUS Element EES showed similar and sustained results in terms of safety and efficacy for treating a broad population of all-comers.

Neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole versus fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide for ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: study protocol for a randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: The response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) varies by estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) statuses, with responses being lower in ER-positive, HER2-negative tumors as compared with ER-negative, HER2-positive or triple-negative tumors. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is an attractive alternative to NAC for ER-positive, HER2-negative cancer. However, a prior trial comparing NET with standard NAC in ER-positive tumor showed that the difference of response was not significant. Studies demonstrated that the mTOR inhibitor everolimus could sensitize breast tumors to endocrine therapy. A pilot open-label, randomized trial has been designed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and tolerability of neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole versus NAC in treating postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Forty postmenopausal women with non-metastatic ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer with a primary tumor > 2 cm or positive axillary lymph node(s) proved by biopsy will be randomly (1:1) enrolled from Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital to receive neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole for 18 weeks or fluorouracil, epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (FEC) for six cycles before surgery. Primary outcome is the feasibility of the trial. Secondary outcome measures include ultrasound response rate, pathological complete response rate, breast-conserving surgery rate, toxicities, and changes in the percentages of peripheral blood CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, T helper cells, regulatory T cells, and NK cells. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to determine the feasibility, efficacy and tolerability of head-to-head neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole versus neoadjuvant FEC in treating postmenopausal women with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The trial will provide evidence to assess the feasibility of a future multicenter, randomized controlled trial, and will provide valuable clinical data of the immunoregulatory effect of everolimus in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry, ID: NCT02742051 . Registered on 7 April 2016.

A Phase Ib Study of the Dual PI3K/mTOR Inhibitor Dactolisib (BEZ235) Combined with Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The combination of everolimus and the imidazoquinoline derivative, BEZ235 (dactolisib), a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, demonstrated synergy in a preclinical model. OBJECTIVE: To establish clinical feasibility, a phase Ib dose-escalation trial investigating safety and pharmacokinetics of this combination in patients with advanced tumors was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEZ235 was orally administered daily in escalating doses of 200, 400, and 800 mg along with everolimus at 2.5 mg daily in 28-day cycles. Nineteen patients were enrolled. Adverse events and tumor responses were evaluated using CTCAE v4.0 and RECIST 1.1, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Common toxicities observed included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, mucositis, and elevated liver enzymes. No confirmed responses were observed. BEZ235 pharmacokinetics exhibited dose-proportional increases in Cmax and AUC0-24 over the three doses, with high inter-individual variability. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic-based simulations indicated significant increases in everolimus Cmax and AUC0-24 on day 28 and decreased clearance to 13.41 L/hr. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of BEZ235 and everolimus demonstrated limited efficacy and tolerance. BEZ235 systemic exposure increased in a dose-proportional manner while oral bioavailability was quite low, which may be related to gastrointestinal-specific toxicity. The changes in steady-state pharmacokinetics of everolimus with BEZ235 highlight potential drug-drug interactions when these two drugs are administered together. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01508104.