Androgen deprivation therapy use and duration with definitive radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have investigated various androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification strategies in men receiving radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. This individual patient data meta-analysis of relevant randomised trials aimed to quantify the benefit of these interventions in aggregate and in clinically relevant subgroups. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, we performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, the Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings to identify trials with results published in English between Jan 1, 1962, and Dec 30, 2020. Multicentre randomised trials were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of ADT (or both) in men with localised prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy, reported or collected distant metastasis and survival data, and used ADT for a protocol-defined finite duration. The Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate (MARCAP) Consortium was accessed to obtain individual patient data from randomised trials. The primary outcome was metastasis-free survival. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through stratified Cox models for ADT use (radiotherapy alone vs radiotherapy plus ADT), neoadjuvant ADT extension (ie, extension of total ADT duration in the neoadjuvant setting from 3-4 months to 6-9 months), and adjuvant ADT prolongation (ie, prolongation of total ADT duration in the adjuvant setting from 4-6 months to 18-36 months). Formal interaction tests between interventions and metastasis-free survival were done for prespecified subgroups defined by age, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, and radiotherapy dose. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021236855. FINDINGS: Our search returned 12 eligible trials that provided individual patient data (10 853 patients) with a median follow-up of 11·4 years (IQR 9·0-15·0). The addition of ADT to radiotherapy significantly improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·77-0·89], p<0·0001), as did adjuvant ADT prolongation (0·84 [0·78-0·91], p<0·0001), but neoadjuvant ADT extension did not (0·95 [0·83-1·09], p=0·50). Treatment effects were similar irrespective of radiotherapy dose, patient age, or NCCN risk group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings provide the strongest level of evidence so far to the magnitude of the benefit of ADT treatment intensification with radiotherapy for men with localised prostate cancer. Adding ADT and prolonging the portion of ADT that follows radiotherapy is associated with improved metastasis-free survival in men, regardless of risk group, age, and radiotherapy dose delivered; however, the magnitude of the benefit could vary and shared decision making with patients is recommended. FUNDING: University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma refractory to either sunitinib or bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab and sunitinib are standard initial therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Despite common use, the safety and activity of sorafenib in bevacizumab- or sunitinib-refractory mRCC have not been prospectively investigated. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined disease progression (PD) after treatment with either bevacizumab or sunitinib received twice daily 400 mg of sorafenib in a multicenter, prospective phase 2 study. Dose escalation was permitted in the absence of significant toxicity. The primary endpoint was tumor burden reduction rate, defined as the proportion of patients with ≥5% reduction in the sum of RECIST-defined target lesions without other PD. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival, and safety. A 2-stage accrual design was used to test the alternative hypothesis that the tumor burden reduction rate was >20% versus <5%. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The tumor burden reduction rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-45%). One unconfirmed objective partial response was observed. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.9). There was no association of PFS and tumor shrinkage with response to prior therapy. Most treatment-related adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity, and included fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE). Patients previously treated with bevacizumab tended to develop more PPE (P=.03) and mucositis (P=.06), whereas sunitinib-treated patients tended to develop more skin rash (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of sorafenib is safe and feasible in patients with mRCC refractory to either bevacizumab or sunitinib. Modest clinical activity was observed supporting current practice patterns of sequential vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in mRCC.

Association of percentage of tumour burden removed with debulking nephrectomy and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the fractional percentage of tumour volume (FPTV) removed with debulking nephrectomy was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) after subsequent targeted therapy, as a debulking nephrectomy is the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but there are few data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute Urologic Oncology database was retrospectively reviewed from 2005 to 2008 to identify patients with mRCC who had undergone debulking nephrectomy followed by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy, defined as sunitinib-, sorafenib- or bevacizumab-based therapy. FPTV was calculated as the largest diameter of the primary tumour divided by the total tumour burden (as per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, RECIST) through investigator re-review of imaging. PFS was defined from the start date of systemic therapy to disease progression per RECIST criteria. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were identified (80% men, median age 61 years, all clear cell histology and 67% with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0). Patients received treatment with bevacizumab ± interleukin-2 (18), sunitinib (14), sorafenib (11) or sunitinib + bevacizumab (three). The median diameter of the primary tumour was 10.0 cm. The median (range) FPTV removed was 95 (80-99)%. In univariable analysis, the FPTV removed (P = 0.002) and normal haemoglobin level (P = 0.04) were associated with improved PFS. In multivariable analysis, the FPTV removed (P < 0.001), male gender (P = 0.001) and corrected calcium (P = 0.05) were independent predictors of PFS. CONCLUSION: A greater percentage of tumour burden removed at debulking nephrectomy is significantly associated with improved PFS on subsequent VEGF-targeted systemic therapy.

Surgical resection of renal cell carcinoma after targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: The development of targeted agents for renal cell carcinoma has renewed interest in consolidative surgery due to the robust clinical responses seen with these agents. The integration of targeted therapy and surgery requires careful consideration due to the potential for increased perioperative morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib, sorafenib or bevacizumab plus interleukin-2 before tumor resection. RESULTS: Between June 2005 and August 2008, 19 patients were treated with targeted therapy and subsequently underwent resection. Surgical extirpation involved an open and a laparoscopic approach in 18 and 3 cases, respectively, for locally advanced (8), locally recurrent (6) and metastatic disease (3). Two patients with extensive bilateral renal cell carcinoma were also treated to downsize the tumors to enable partial nephrectomy. Perioperative complications were noted in 16% of patients. One patient had a significant intraoperative hemorrhage and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy from a concomitant liver resection. An anastomotic bowel leak and abscess were noted postoperatively in another patient who underwent en bloc resection of a retroperitoneal recurrence and adjacent colon. Two patients (11%) had minor wound complications, including a wound seroma and a ventral hernia. Pathological analysis of 20 specimens revealed clear cell, chromophobe and unclassified renal cell carcinoma in 80%, 5% and 10% of cases, respectively. One patient (5%) had a pathological complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of renal cell carcinoma after targeted therapy is feasible with low morbidity in most patients. However, significant complications can occur, raising concern for possible compromise of tissue and/or vascular integrity associated with surgery in this setting.

Metastatic sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with sarcomatoid differentiation is an aggressive disease that is associated with poor outcomes to chemotherapy or immunotherapy. The utility of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in patients with this disease is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had mRCC with sarcomatoid features in the primary tumor and who were treated with VEGF-targeted therapy were retrospectively identified. Pathology slides were reviewed to determine the percentage of sarcomatoid differentiation. Objective response rate, percentage of tumor burden shrinkage, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined. RESULTS: Forty-three patients who had sarcomatoid mRCC were identified. The median percentage of sarcomatoid features was 14% (range, 3% to 90%). Patients were treated with either sunitinib (49%), sorafenib (28%), bevacizumab (19%), or sunitinib plus bevacizumab (5%). Partial responses were observed in eight patients (19%); 21 patients (49%) had stable disease; and 14 patients (33%) had progressive disease as their best response. Partial responses were limited to patients who had underlying clear-cell histology and less than 20% sarcomatoid elements. Median tumor shrinkage was -2% (range, -85% to 127%), and 53% achieved some degree of tumor shrinkage on therapy. Median PFS and OS were estimated to be 5.3 months and 11.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients who have mRCC and sarcomatoid differentiation can demonstrate objective responses and tumor shrinkage to VEGF-targeted therapy. Patients who have clear-cell histology and a lower percentage of sarcomatoid differentiation may have better outcomes with VEGF-targeted therapy.

Antitumor effects of sunitinib or sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received prior antiangiogenic therapy.

PURPOSE: Antiangiogenic therapy with sunitinib and sorafenib has become the standard of care for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. However, the clinical benefit of these agents after prior antiangiogenic therapy has not been defined. Currently, several agents with a putative antiangiogenic mechanism exist and they are often being used in sequence with little to no data regarding activity in a second line or later setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma currently being treated with either sunitinib or sorafenib after receiving 1 or more prior antiangiogenic agent(s) were investigated in a retrospective analysis. Time to progression and the overall response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty patients receiving current sunitinib (16 patients) or sorafenib (14 patients) were identified. Patients received 1 or more prior antiangiogenic therapies: thalidomide, lenalidomide, bevacizumab, volociximab, AG13736, sorafenib or sunitinib. Of 16 patients treated with sunitinib 13 had some degree of tumor shrinkage, including 9 with a partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Of 14 patients treated with sorafenib 10 had some degree of tumor shrinkage, including 1 with a partial response. The median time to progression for the entire cohort was 10.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Significant antitumor activity is observed when sorafenib or sunitinib are used in patients who have failed prior therapy with an antiangiogenic agent. Prior response to an antiangiogenic agent does not appear to predict subsequent clinical benefit to either sunitinib or sorafenib.

Clinical factors associated with outcome in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: Therapy targeted against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway is a standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The identification of patients who are more likely to benefit from these agents is warranted. METHODS: In total, 120 patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC received bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, or axitinib on 1 of 9 prospective clinical trials at the Cleveland Clinic. Clinical features associated with outcome were identified by univariate analysis; then, a stepwise modeling approach based on Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify independent prognostic factors and to form a model for progression-free survival (PFS). A bootstrap algorithm was used to provide internal validation. RESULTS: The overall median PFS was 13.8 months, and the objective response according to the Response Criteria in Solid Tumors was 34%. Multivariate analysis identified time from diagnosis to current treatment <2 years; baseline platelet and neutrophil counts >300 K/microL and >4.5 K/microL, respectively; baseline corrected serum calcium <8.5 mg/dL or >10 mg/dL; and initial Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 as independent, adverse prognostic factors (PF) for PFS. Three prognostic subgroups were formed based on the number of adverse prognostic factors present. The median PFS in patients with 0 or 1 adverse prognostic factor was 20.1 months compared with 13 months in patients with 2 adverse prognostic factors and 3.9 months in patients with >2 adverse prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Five independent prognostic factors for predicting PFS were identified and were used to categorize patients with metastatic RCC who received VEGF-targeted therapies into 3 risk groups. These prognostic factors can be incorporated into patient care and clinical trials that use such novel, VEGF-targeted agents.

Prior estrogen therapy as a predictor of response to subsequent estramustine-based chemotherapy in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) has modest response rates to second-line estrogenic agents such as diethylstilbestrol and the herbal product PC SPES. Estramustine phosphate (EMP) is a microtubule inhibitory agent with estrogenic properties commonly used in patients with metastatic HRPC. To determine whether previous response to second-line estrogen therapy would predict subsequent response to EMP-based chemotherapy, a retrospective study was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HRPC previously treated with second-line estrogenic therapy who subsequently received EMP-based chemotherapy were enrolled in a retrospective analysis. The progression of disease or response to treatment was determined with use of standard prostate-specific antigen (PSA) criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in the analysis. Twenty-five patients with disease progression after receiving estrogen therapy received subsequent EMP-based chemotherapy. Overall, initial PSA response to any estrogen therapy was 54%. The overall PSA response to EMP-based chemotherapy was 60%, and the objective response was 36%. The PSA response to subsequent EMP-based chemotherapy was independent of patients having a previous response to estrogen therapy (70% vs. 53%; P = 0.68). The median overall survival for patients receiving estrogenic therapy and subsequent EMP-based chemotherapy was 12.7 months. CONCLUSION: Previous response to second-line hormonal maneuvers with estrogen therapy does not predict subsequent response to EMP-based chemotherapy.