Systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Current systemic treatment of targeted therapies, namely the vascular endothelial growth factor-antibody (VEGF-AB), VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, have improved progression-free survival and replaced non-specific immunotherapy with cytokines in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A panel of experts convened to review currently available phase 3 data for mRCC treatment of approved agents, in addition to available EAU guideline data for a collaborative review as the plurality of substances offers different options of first-, second- and third-line treatment with potential sequencing. RESULTS: Sunitinib and pazopanib are approved treatments in first-line therapy for patients with favorable- or intermediate-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC). Temsirolimus has proven benefit over interferon-alfa (IFN-α) in patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). In the second-line treatment TKIs or mTOR inhibitors are treatment choices. Therapy options after TKI failure consist of everolimus and axitinib. Available third-line options consist of everolimus and sorafenib. Recently, nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD1) checkpoint inhibitor, improved overall survival benefit compared to everolimus after failure of one or two VEGFR-targeted therapies, which is likely to become the first established checkpoint inhibitor in mRCC. Data for the sequencing of agents remain limited. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high level of evidence for first and second-line treatment in mRCC, data for third-line therapy are limited. Possible sequences include TKI-mTOR-TKI or TKI-TKI-mTOR with the upcoming checkpoint inhibitors in perspective, which might settle a new standard of care after previous TKI therapy.

Therapy of mRCC beyond mTOR-inhibition in clinical practice: results of a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common renal tumor and accounts for nearly 3 % of adult cancers. In the recent years, seven new targeted agents have been approved changing the treatment in metastatic RCC dramatically. So far, however, it remains unclear which sequence is best for those patients. This study analyzed retrospectively the outcome of patients treated with everolimus after failure of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-directed therapy and which therapies were used after everolimus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, patients receiving everolimus after failure of first-line VEGFR-directed therapy have been analyzed in regard to response, duration of treatment and subsequent therapies. In total, the data of 81 patients have been analyzed. RESULTS: The most observed first-line therapy was sunitinib followed by sorafenib. Thirty-two patients received everolimus as second-line therapy, and 49 as third-line therapy. The median duration of treatment with everolimus was 4.5 months. Seventy-seven of eighty-one patients (95 %) received a further therapy after discontinuation of everolimus. The agents administered beyond were sunitinib (28.6 %), sorafenib (28.6 %) and 42.8 % received other therapies. Twenty-seven patients received an additional sequence of therapy (fourth to fifth line). Fifty-eight percentage of patients have still been alive at time of analysis. CONCLUSION: The duration of everolimus therapy beyond failure of anti-VEGF-directed therapy and the reported time to progression was in the range of the RECORD-1 trial in daily practice as well. After failure of everolimus, reexposure to tyrosine kinase inhibitors is a common clinical practice and demonstrates a clinical benefit of therapies beyond everolimus.

Feasibility of preemptive biomarker profiling for personalised early clinical drug development at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Multiple investigational drugs are currently explored in cancer patient populations defined by specific biomarkers. This demands a new process of patient selection for clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Starting January 1, 2012, preemptive biomarker profiling was offered at the West German Cancer Center to all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC), who met generic study inclusion criteria. Tumour specimens were subjected to prespecified profiling algorithms to detect 'actionable biomarkers' by amplicon sequencing, in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry. The clinical course was closely monitored to offer trial participation whenever applicable. RESULTS: Within 12 months, 267 patients (188 NSCLC, 79 CRC) were profiled. Estimated additional cost for biomarker profiling was 219615.51 EUR excluding histopathology workup and administration. The most prevalent biomarkers in pulmonary adenocarcinoma were KRAS mutations (29%), loss of PTEN expression (18%), EGFR mutations (9%), HER2 amplification (5%) and BRAF mutations (3%), while the prevalence of ALK translocations and PIK3CA mutations was extremely low. In pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma FGFR1 amplifications were found in 15%, PTEN expression was lost in 20% and DDR2 was mutated in a single case. KRAS mutations (41%) predominated in CRC, followed by loss of PTEN expression (16%), PIK3CA (5%) and BRAF (5%) mutations. So far 13 patients (5%) have entered biomarker-stratified clinical trials. Therapeutic decisions for approved drugs were guided in another 45 patients (17%). CONCLUSION: Preemptive biomarker profiling can be implemented into the diagnostic algorithm of a large Comprehensive Cancer Center. Substantial investments in diagnostics and administration are required.