Dangerous interaction of bitter melon (Momordica charantia) with pazopanib: A case of acute pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis associated with Pazopanib has been reported in the literature. Bitter Melon (Momordica Charantia) is traditionally used as a folk medicine in many regions. In this report, we describe a 65-year-old patient with a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, admitted to the hospital with symptoms of acute pancreatitis at the 8th year of pazopanib treatment. CASE REPORT: The patient diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma was admitted to the hospital with the complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting in the 8th year of Pazopanib treatment. It was noticed from the patient's history that he had received Bitter Melon extract for 4 days prior to the beginning of his complaints (100-150 ml/day). Levels of serum amylase and lipase were measured as 9163 U/L and 14,206 U/L, respectively. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: Pazopanib drug was held. The patient was treated for acute pancreatitis. Pazopanib treatment was started again after the clinical condition of the patient had improved and levels of serum amylase and lipase had returned to normal levels. Levels of serum amylase and lipase did not increase again after re-administration of pazopanib treatment. DISCUSSION: It is thought that Bitter Melon extract and pazopanib interaction might have led to acute pancreatitis. To the best of our knowledge, this case is the first to highlight the interaction of Bitter Melon extract with pazopanib. The Drug Interaction Probability Scale indicates that there is a probable association between bitter melon and acute pancreatitis.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Multi-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Radioiodine Refractory Thyroid Cancer.

Background: The management of patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) that is refractory to radioiodine (RAI) remains a therapeutic challenge. The multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib and lenvatinib have been approved based on phase 3 clinical trials. Patients and Methods: We aimed at describing the efficacy and safety of TKI treatment of RAI-refractory DTC in a real-world setting at six German referral centers. One hundred and one patients with locally advanced or metastatic RAI-refractory DTC treated with sorafenib, lenvatinib, and/or pazopanib were included. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) probabilities were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Ninety-seven of 101 patients had progressive disease before TKI initiation. The median PFS for first-line treatment with sorafenib (n = 33), lenvatinib (n = 53), and pazopanib (n = 15) was 9 (95% confidence interval 5.2-12.8), 12 (4.4-19.6), and 12 months (4.4-19.6), respectively. The median OS for first-line treatment was 37 (10-64) for sorafenib, 47 (15.5-78.5) for lenvatinib, and 34 months (20.2-47.8) for pazopanib. Serious complications (e.g., hemorrhage, acute coronary syndrome, and thrombosis/venous thromboembolism) occurred in 16 out of 75 (21%) patients taking lenvatinib, in 3 out of 42 (7%) patients taking sorafenib, and in 3 out of 24 (13%) patients taking pazopanib. Conclusions: Sorafenib, lenvatinib, and pazopanib are effective treatment options in the majority of patients with RAI-refractory DTC. The PFS and six-month survival rate in patients treated with lenvatinib und pazopanib appear to compare favorably with sorafenib in the first-line treatment setting. However, a more advanced disease stage at treatment initiation in sorafenib- and pazopanib-treated patients in the era before TKI-approval and the retrospective nature of this study precludes a direct comparison of TKIs.

Aortic Dissection and Cardiac Dysfunction Emerged Coincidentally During the Long-Term Treatment with Angiogenesis Inhibitors for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Angiogenesis inhibitors, such as sorafenib and axitinib, which target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling, are widely used for renal cell carcinoma, including metastasis. In this study, we report a case of cardiovascular adverse events of aortic dissection and cardiac dysfunction during treatment with sorafenib and axitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A 66-year-old man had been administered sorafenib for 2 years after nephrectomy due to renal cell carcinoma. To control the progression of metastatic lung tumor, axitinib was started after sorafenib for four years. During the treatment, angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers and Ca antagonists were used to strictly control the axitinib-induced hypertension and proteinuria. Aortic dissection and cardiac dysfunction occurred coincidentally. Considering the critical role of VEGF signaling in the homeostasis of the cardiovascular system, we speculated that the long-term use of axitinib and sorafenib directly influenced the initiation of aortic dissection and cardiac dysfunction. Although the precise mechanisms underlying the aortic dissection and cardiac dysfunction induced by angiogenesis inhibition are still elusive, onco-cardiologists and oncologists should pay careful attention to cardiovascular toxicity and complications in patients with cancer, particularly patients undergoing long-term cancer treatment.

Natural Modulators of Endosomal Toll-Like Receptor-Mediated Psoriatic Skin Inflammation.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease that can be initiated by excessive activation of endosomal toll-like receptors (TLRs), particularly TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9. Therefore, inhibitors of endosomal TLR activation are being investigated for their ability to treat this disease. The currently approved biological drugs adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, and secukizumab are antibodies against effector cytokines that participate in the initiation and development of psoriasis. Several immune modulatory oligonucleotides and small molecular weight compounds, including IMO-3100, IMO-8400, and CPG-52364, that block the interaction between endosomal TLRs and their ligands are under clinical investigation for their effectiveness in the treatment of psoriasis. In addition, several chemical compounds, including AS-2444697, PF-05387252, PF-05388169, PF-06650833, ML120B, and PHA-408, can inhibit TLR signaling. Although these compounds have demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity in animal models, their therapeutic potential for the treatment of psoriasis has not yet been tested. Recent studies demonstrated that natural compounds derived from plants, fungi, and bacteria, including mustard seed, Antrodia cinnamomea extract, curcumin, resveratrol, thiostrepton, azithromycin, and andrographolide, inhibited psoriasis-like inflammation induced by the TLR7 agonist imiquimod in animal models. These natural modulators employ different mechanisms to inhibit endosomal TLR activation and are administered via different routes. Therefore, they represent candidate psoriasis drugs and might lead to the development of new treatment options.

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.

Randomized phase II study of axitinib versus physicians best alternative choice of therapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

We conducted a randomized, non-comparative, multi center, phase II clinical trial in order to investigate the efficacy of axitinib, an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor with high affinity and specificity for the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma following prior treatment with radiation and temozolomide. Forty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment with axitinib (5 mg BID starting dose; N = 22) or "physicians best alternative choice of therapy" that consisted of bevacizumab (N = 20) or lomustine (N = 2). Six-month progression-free survival served as the primary endpoint. The estimated 6-month progression-free survival rate was 34 % (95 % CI 14-54) for patients treated with axitinib and 28 % (95 % CI 8-48) with best alternative treatment; median overall survival was 29 and 17 weeks, respectively. Objective responses according to RANO criteria were documented in 28 % of patients treated with axitinib and 23 % of patients treated with best alternative therapy. A decrease in maximal uptake of 18F-fluoro-ethyL-tyrosine (18F-FET) by the glioblastoma on PET imaging was documented in 85 % of patients at the time of response on axitinib. Corticosteroid treatment could be stopped in four and tapered in seven out of the 15 patients who were treated with steroids at baseline in the axitinib cohort. Most frequent axitinib related grade ≥3 adverse events consisted of fatigue (9 %), diarrhea (9 %), and oral hyperesthesia (4.5 %). We conclude that axitinib has single-agent clinical activity and a manageable toxicity profile in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

[Tyrosine kinase inhibiting the VEGF pathway and elderly people: Tolerance, pre-treatment assessment and side effects management]. / Inhibiteurs de tyrosine kinase ciblant l'angiogenèse et sujets âgés : tolérance, évaluation pré-thérapeutique et gestion des effets indésirables.

Angiogenesis inhibition is a major antitumor strategy that has emerged during the last decade. Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the VEGF receptor, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, regorafenib, pazopanib, and vandetanib reduce tumor growth and metastasis. These agents are approved for the treatment of metastatic diseases in first or second-line. They display a narrow therapeutic index. However, data in the elderly and/or in patients with multiple illnesses remain scarce. This population is classically excluded from clinical trials. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of existing literature regarding antiangiogenic TKI tolerance in the elderly (>70 years old). We also highlight key points of the pre-therapeutic evaluation and summarize the management of common toxicities.

First-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials.

In the recent years, a number of targeted therapies have been approved for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A systematic review was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy, safety and effect of all first-line treatments evaluated to date on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A systematic search of Embase, Cochrane and MEDLINE databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (1980-2015) evaluating any targeted therapy/immunotherapy against placebo or any other targeted intervention/immunotherapy in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Conference proceedings from major cancer congresses (2007-2015) were handsearched. Sixteen randomized controlled trials were identified, mostly phase III. Overall, targeted therapies were associated with either improved [sunitinib, bevacizumab+interferon α (IFNα) and temsirolimus] or comparable (sorafenib) progression-free survival (PFS) versus IFNα monotherapy. Sunitinib demonstrated comparable PFS and overall survival to pazopanib, comparable PFS to sorafenib and shorter PFS compared with bevacizumab+IFNα (although no conclusions were made with regard to superiority/inferiority). Compared with sorafenib, tivozanib demonstrated a significantly longer PFS, and both tivozanib and axitinib demonstrated higher response rates. Nintedanib demonstrated comparable PFS and overall survival to sunitinib in a phase II trial. Temsirolimus, sunitinib and sorafenib treatment led to better HRQoL versus IFNα; pazopanib was associated with better HRQoL versus sunitinib. No direct meta-analyses or indirect treatment comparison analysis were undertaken because of noncomparability of the trials. In general, targeted therapies demonstrated favourable clinical efficacy and improved HRQoL compared with IFNα monotherapy. The newer therapies, tivozanib and axitinib (but not nintedanib), appeared to exhibit greater clinical benefit (response rate) than older tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Risk factors and model for predicting toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies are standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, toxicities can lead to drug discontinuation, which can affect patient outcomes. This study was aimed at identifying risk factors for toxicity and constructing the first model to predict toxicity-related treatment discontinuation (TrTD) in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS: The baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and toxicity data were collected for 936 mRCC patients receiving first-line VEGF-targeted therapy from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. A competing risk regression model was used to identify risk factors for TrTD, and it accounted for other causes as competing risks. RESULTS: Overall, 198 (23.8%) experienced TrTD. Sunitinib was the most common VEGF-targeted therapy (77%), and it was followed by sorafenib (18.4%). The median time on therapy was 7.1 months for all patients and 4.4 months for patients with TrTD. The most common toxicities leading to TrTD included fatigue, diarrhea, and mucositis. In a multivariate analysis, significant predictors for TrTD were a baseline age ≥60 years, a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , a single metastatic site, and a sodium level <135 mmol/L. A risk group model was developed that used the number of patient risk factors to predict the risk of TrTD. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series to date, age, GFR, number of metastatic sites, and baseline sodium level were found to be independent risk factors for TrTD in mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Based on the number of risk factors present, a model for predicting TrTD was built to be used as a tool for toxicity monitoring in clinical practice.

Prolonging survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with targeted anticancer agents: a single-center experience of treatment strategy modifications.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated therapeutic outcomes in consecutive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted anticancer agents from 2008 to 2014 in order to determine the efficacy of adverse event management for such agents and the best sequence in which to use them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 132 consecutive patients who had taken targeted anticancer agents for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Of these, 101 patients received therapy between 2008 and 2011 (pioneer group) and 31 patients received therapy between 2011 and 2014 (contemporary group). Patients of the contemporary group were provided with aggressive adverse event management and education on such management, were treated according to a standard therapeutic strategy, and were able to receive axitinib as a second-line drug. We analyzed the incidence of hand-foot syndrome. Furthermore, we compared relative dose intensity between patients in the pioneer and contemporary groups who took sunitinib as first-line therapy. We also compared overall survival between the two groups to determine whether adverse event management improved prognosis. RESULTS: The incidence of hand-foot syndrome was significantly reduced by aggressive adverse event management. Relative dose intensity was significantly higher in the contemporary group than in the pioneer group. Median survival time was significantly longer in the contemporary group than in the pioneer group. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that aggressive management of adverse events associated with targeted drugs, the use of sunitinib as a first-line therapy, and the availability of axitinib as a second-line therapy all contribute to prolonged survival for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

Linifanib versus Sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.

A Case of Pancreatic Side Effects Resulting from Sorafenib and Axitinib Treatment of Stage IV Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib and axitinib were developed to treat malignancies, including stage IV renal cell carcinoma. Recently, we experienced a patient with pancreatic side effects from both sorafenib and axitinib. We report this case and include a discussion of the literature.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Axitinib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced understanding of the pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to development and approval of several molecularly targeted therapies since 2005. Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. In the randomized Phase III AXIS trial, axitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with sorafenib, respectively (6.7 vs 4.7 months; p < 0.0001), and improved objective response rate (19 vs 9%; p = 0.0001), resulting in its approval for advanced or metastatic RCC after failure of one systemic therapy. However, overall survival was similar with axitinib and sorafenib. Common adverse events associated with axitinib include diarrhea, hypertension and fatigue. AREAS COVERED: The properties, clinical efficacy, adverse events, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of axitinib are summarized and its position in the overall therapeutic landscape for metastatic RCC among several targeted therapies is described. EXPERT OPINION: Axitinib is generally well-tolerated and provides definitive clinical benefits in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC as second-line therapy. However, as with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the same class, axitinib does not prolong overall survival; therefore, selection of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, including axitinib, must be carefully considered to maximize outcomes for each patient.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of Japanese patients from the global randomized Phase 3 AXIS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. The efficacy and safety of axitinib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were evaluated. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was conducted in Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized Phase III trial of axitinib versus sorafenib after failure of one prior systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Twenty-five (of 361) and 29 (of 362) patients randomized to the axitinib and sorafenib arms, respectively, were Japanese and included in this analysis. Median progression-free survival in Japanese patients was 12.1 months (95% confidence interval 8.6 to not estimable) for axitinib and 4.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.8-6.6) for sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.390; 95% confidence interval 0.130-1.173; stratified one-sided P = 0.0401). The objective response rate was 52.0% for axitinib and 3.4% for sorafenib (P = 0.0001). The common all-causality adverse events (all grades) in Japanese patients were dysphonia (68%), hypertension (64%), hand-foot syndrome (64%) and diarrhea (56%) for axitinib, and hand-foot syndrome (86%), hypertension (62%) and diarrhea (52%) for sorafenib. The safety profiles of axitinib and sorafenib in Japanese patients were generally similar to those observed in the overall population, with the exceptions of higher incidences of hypertension, dysphonia, hand-foot syndrome, hypothyroidism and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib is efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, consistent with the results in the overall population, providing a new targeted therapy for these Japanese patients.

Patient-reported outcomes for axitinib vs sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase III (AXIS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib demonstrated greater progression-free survival vs sorafenib in a phase III study of previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Here, we report patient-reported kidney-specific symptoms and health status, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Cancer Symptom Index (FKSI) and the European Quality of Life self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D). METHODS: In all, 723 patients received axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.)) or sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.). The FKSI-15, including the disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale, was administered on day 1 before dosing, every 4 weeks and at end of treatment (EOT)/withdrawal. Statistical methods included a mixed-effects repeated-measures model. RESULTS: At baseline, patients in both arms had relatively high mean FSKI-15 and FKSI-DRS scores, comparable to the general US population. Subsequent on-treatment overall mean scores were similar between axitinib and sorafenib, and there was no substantial decline during treatment. Scores substantially worsened at EOT, mainly due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes were comparable for second-line axitinib and sorafenib and were maintained at relatively high levels while on treatment, but worsened at EOT. As duration of treatment was longer with axitinib than sorafenib, time to worsening of symptoms can be delayed longer with axitinib.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

[Multikinase inhibitors as a new approach in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatment: in vitro safety evaluations of axitinib, pazopanib and sorafenib for intraocular use]. / Multikinase-inhibitoren als therapeutischer ansatz bei neovaskulärer AMD: in-vitro-evaluation der sicherheit von axitinib, pazopanib und sorafenib zur intraokularen anwendung.

BACKGROUND: Multikinase inhibitors (MKI) interfere effectively at different levels of the neovascularisation cascade. Early clinical and experimental data suggest that MKIs represent a promising novel approach for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). However, so far little is known about the biocompatibility of MKIs regarding human ocular cells. This in vitro study investigates and compares the biocompatibility of three MKIs, axitinib, pazopanib, and sorafenib regarding ocular cells of the anterior and posterior segments, as well as organ-cultured donor corneas. METHODS: Primary human optic nerve head astrocytes (ONHA), trabecular meshwork cells (TMC), and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), human corneal endothelial and lens epithelial cells (CEC and LEC) were treated with different concentrations of axitinib, pazopanib, or sorafenib (0.1 to 100 µg/mL). To simulate oxidative stress, the cells were additionally co-incubated with 400 µM hydrogen peroxide. Induction of cell death and cellular viability were examined by live-dead assay and tetrazolium dye reduction assay (MTT). In addition, the influence of the three substances on human corneal endothelium was evaluated in seropositive donor corneas in organ culture by phase contrast microscopy. RESULTS: Up to a concentration of 7.5 mg/mL of the substances tested in any cell type examined, no toxic effects were found. Even after 10 days of incubation of organ-cultured donor corneas with 7.5 µg/mL, axitinib, pazopanib, or sorafenib, no evidence for endothelial toxicity was found. CONCLUSION: All three MKIs tested, axitinib, pazopanib, and sorafenib showed a good biocompatibility on the investigated ocular cells. Even under conditions of oxidative stress, there were no toxic effects up to a concentration of 7.5 µg/mL. Only at higher concentrations, there was a dose-dependent decrease in cellular viability and pronounced induction of cell death. These effects on cellular viability and induction of cell death appeared to be stronger with pazopanib, followed by sorafenib, than with axitinib.