Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Bone metastasis is associated with poor prognosis in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma patients treated with first agent angiogenesis inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC) is a rare (10%-15%) subtype of renal cancer. Few prognostic biomarkers have been described in metastatic papRCC (m-papRCC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs). We aimed to study the prognostic impact of bone metastases (BM) on response rate, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS) in patients with m-papRCC treated with first agent VEGFR-TKIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentric, retrospective analysis of patient records was conducted. BM were detected by computed tomography and/or bone scintigraphy. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score was calculated at start of first agent VEGFR-TKI treatment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included. Best objective response was partial response in 20%, stable disease in 60% and early progressive disease in 20% of patients. Median PFS (mPFS) was 6.0 months and median OS (mOS) 14.0 months after start of first agent VEGFR-TKI. The IMDC score correlated with mOS: 77.5 months in good, 17.0 months in intermediate and 8.0 months in poor risk patients (P = 0.002). Patients with BM had a poorer outcome compared to patients without BM: mPFS was 4.0 vs. 7.0 months (P = 0.006) and mOS 7.5 vs. 19.0 months (P = 0.002). On bivariate analysis, the presence of BM was independently associated with PFS (P = 0.02) and OS (P = 0.049), independent of the IMDC risk groups. CONCLUSION: In m-papRCC patients treated with first agent VEGFR-TKIs, the presence of BM is an unfavorable prognostic factor, associated with shorter PFS and OS.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase III Randomized IMmotion151 Trial: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab versus Sunitinib in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40-0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37-0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46-0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

Vitamin D3 Prevents Calcium-Induced Progression of Early-Stage Prostate Tumors by Counteracting TRPC6 and Calcium Sensing Receptor Upregulation.

Active surveillance has emerged as an alternative to immediate treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Accordingly, identification of environmental factors that facilitate progression to more aggressive stages is critical for disease prevention. Although calcium-enriched diets have been speculated to increase prostate cancer risk, their impact on early-stage tumors remains unexplored. In this study, we addressed this issue with a large interventional animal study. Mouse models of fully penetrant and slowly evolving prostate tumorigenesis showed that a high calcium diet dramatically accelerated the progression of prostate intraepithelial neoplasia, by promoting cell proliferation, micro-invasion, tissue inflammation, and expression of acknowledged prostate cancer markers. Strikingly, dietary vitamin D prevented these calcium-triggered tumorigenic effects. Expression profiling and in vitro mechanistic studies showed that stimulation of PC-3 cells with extracellular Ca2+ resulted in an increase in cell proliferation rate, store-operated calcium entry (SOCE) amplitude, cationic channel TRPC6, and calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) expression. Notably, administration of the active vitamin D metabolite calcitriol reversed all these effects. Silencing CaSR or TRPC6 expression in calcium-stimulated PC3 cells decreased cell proliferation and SOCE. Overall, our results demonstrate the protective effects of vitamin D supplementation in blocking the progression of early-stage prostate lesions induced by a calcium-rich diet. Cancer Res; 77(2); 355-65. ©2016 AACR.

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.

Are tyrosine kinase inhibitors still active in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and everolimus? Experience of 36 patients treated in France in the RECORD-1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Because the response to treatment is limited, patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) typically receive multiple treatments. Guidelines recommend everolimus for patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or sorafenib. This study evaluated the efficacy of TKI re-treatment in patients with disease progression after a TKI-everolimus sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were reviewed for patients enrolled in RECORD-1 (Renal Cell Cancer Treatment With Oral RAD001 Given Daily) at French sites. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were evaluated in patients treated with a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received a TKI after everolimus: sunitinib in 17 patients, sorafenib in 15, and dovitinib (TKI258) in 4. The response rate with TKI re-treatment was 8%, and the disease-control rate (response plus stable disease) was 75%. The median PFS with each component of the TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence was 10.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-28.5 months), 8.9 months (95% CI, 1.7-34.6 months), and 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.2-11.9 months), respectively. The median overall survival from the start of everolimus was 29.1 months (95% CI 21.1 to not reached months), which suggests a benefit in using TKI in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a TKI-everolimus-TKI sequence may be associated with clinical benefit and should be prospectively investigated.

Phase I study of sorafenib in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemo-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We performed a dose-escalation study to investigate the safety of sorafenib in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemo-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Six patients were included per dose level. Following docetaxel infusion on day 1 (75 mg/m(2)/q3 weeks), sorafenib was administered at 200 mg BID on days 2-19 (dose level 1), at 200 mg BID on days 1-21 (dose level 2), at 400 mg BID on days 2-19 (dose level 3), at 400 mg BID on days 1-21 (dose level 4). Maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded if ≥2 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) during cycle 1. The recommended phase 2 dose for sorafenib was defined as one dose level below MTD. If MTD was not reached, the highest feasible dose would be selected to treat an expanded cohort to confirm safety. RESULTS: Two DLTs were observed during sorafenib dose-escalation consisting of grade 4 febrile neutropenia (dose level 2) and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (dose level 3). Our pharmacokinetic results showed an increased exposure to docetaxel across all dose levels during sorafenib comedication. The main grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (35 %), HFS (27 %), and febrile neutropenia (19 %). The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate was 74 %. Median overall survival was 25.2 months. CONCLUSION: Three-weekly docetaxel and prednisone could be combined with sorafenib at 400 mg BID on days 1-21 without reaching MTD. However, we observed a pharmacokinetic interaction between sorafenib and docetaxel, associated with significant toxicities, raising concerns about the safety of this combination in mCRPC.

Sequential therapy with targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: optimizing patient benefit.

Multiple targeted agents are now available for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although targeted agents offer improvements over previous treatments and significantly prolong progression-free survival, most patients eventually experience disease progression. For these patients, sequential treatment with multiple lines of therapy may afford sustained clinical benefit. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) are recommended as first-line therapy for most patients with mRCC. Current clinical practice guidelines uniformly recommend treatment with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus after initial VEGFr-TKI failure. Recent results of the AXIS phase 3 trial demonstrated improved efficacy with second-line axitinib compared with sorafenib in patients who progressed on a variety of first-line therapies, including the VEGFr-TKI sunitinib. Available clinical evidence, individual patient profile, and toxicity concerns should be carefully evaluated when deciding whether to administer an mTOR inhibitor or a second VEGFr-TKI after progression on a first-line VEGFr-TKI. In patients who progress on a VEGFr-TKI and an mTOR inhibitor, retrospective analyses indicate that treatment with a second VEGFr-TKI in the third-line setting provides additional clinical benefit. Recent results from a prospective phase 1/2 trial indicate that third-line therapy with the investigational TKI, dovitinib, may have promising efficacy in patients who progress on a VEGFr-TKI and an mTOR inhibitor; a phase 3 trial of dovitinib versus sorafenib in this patient population is ongoing. This review discusses and evaluates current clinical evidence for sequential therapy with targeted agents in patients with mRCC.

Complete remission with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Complete remission (CR) is uncommon during treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), but it may occur in some patients. It remains a matter of debate whether therapy should be continued after CR. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of a series of patients with mRCC who obtained CR during treatment with TKIs (sunitinib or sorafenib), either alone or with local treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, or radiofrequency ablation), was performed. RESULTS: CR was identified in 64 patients; 36 patients had received TKI treatment alone and 28 had also received local treatment. Most patients had clear cell histology (60 of 64 patients), and all had undergone previous nephrectomy. The majority of patients were favorable or intermediate risk; however, three patients were poor risk. Most patients developed CR during sunitinib treatment (59 of 64 patients). Among the 36 patients who achieved CR with TKI alone, eight continued TKI treatment after CR, whereas 28 stopped treatment. Seventeen patients who stopped treatment (61%) are still in CR, with a median follow-up of 255 days. Among the 28 patients in CR after TKI plus local treatment, 25 patients stopped treatment, and 12 of these patients (48%) are still in CR, with a median follow-up of 322 days. CONCLUSION: CR can occur after TKI treatment alone or when combined with local treatment. CR was observed at every metastatic site and in every prognostic group.

Long-term response and postsurgical complete remissions after treatment with sunitinib malate, an oral multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and significantly extended survival in these patients. Sunitinib is an oral multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs-1, -2, and -3), platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs-α and -ß), stem-cell factor receptor (KIT), FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF-1R), and glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor receptor (REarranged during Transfection; RET). Sunitinib is approved multinationally for the treatment of advanced RCC, and is considered the reference standard of care for first-line treatment. In clinical trials, sunitinib has been associated with a consistent, distinct profile of adverse events. Here we describe three cases that show that it is possible to manage adverse events occurring during sunitinib therapy, and thus allow patients with mRCC to receive an effective dose of sunitinib in order to achieve long-term disease control. These cases also show that surgical resection, performed whenever possible, can help to improve control of metastatic disease and so avoid the unnecessary toxicity and high costs of prolonged antiangiogenic therapy.

Evolution of renal function in patients treated with antiangiogenics after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Side effects of antiangiogenic agents are moderate compared with other therapies. The most frequent adverse events are of a renovascular origin and manifest as hypertension (HTN) and thrombotic microangiopathy. To date, data are scanty on the renal tolerance of such drugs regarding renal function as itself, i.e., glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We report on the evolution of GFR in patients receiving antiangiogenic therapy after unilateral nephrectomy for kidney cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 73 patients followed in our oncology department for kidney cancer, who had undergone unilateral nephrectomy, and received any antiangiogenic therapy were reviewed. Their GFR was calculated using the aMDRD formula. RESULTS: All patients showed a declining renal function over time (-1.23 and -2.51 mL/min/1.73 m(2) using the slope of the curve or the difference between GFR at baseline and that at the end of treatment, respectively). Among them, patients who were recorded as having HTN before initiation of antiangiogenic therapy showed a higher decrease in their GFR of -13.28 and -12.06 mL/min/1.73 m(2). CONCLUSION: We recommend that blood pressure should be measured closely in those patients before initiation of antiangiogenic therapy. When HTN is diagnosed, it should be treated and renal function should be monitored since those patients may be at risk for rapidly decreasing renal function under therapy.

A preclinical therapeutic schedule optimizing docetaxel plus estramustine administration in prostate cancer.

Androgen-dependent and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PC) is usually sensitive to docetaxel chemotherapy. Nevertheless, docetaxel resistance frequently appears after several cycles of treatment, raising the problem of salvage treatment for docetaxel-resistant PC patients. Although the combination of docetaxel and estramustine prolongs metastasis-free and overall survival of patients with androgen-independent PC, the use of this modality remains limited in elderly patients or patients with several comorbidities, especially vascular disease or gastrointestinal toxicity, because of unacceptable toxicity including venous thrombosis. The aims of this study were therefore (i) to evaluate the in-vivo efficacy of estramustine combined with docetaxel since initial tumor growth and following the appearance of docetaxel resistance in the androgen-dependent human PC xenograft PAC120, and (ii) to evaluate the efficacy of estramustine in six human androgen-independent PC models derived from PAC120. In docetaxel-resistant tumor-bearing mice, estramustine alone induced a TGD2 of 18 days, whereas the combination of docetaxel and estramustine induced a TGD2 of 50 days (P<0.05) with no significantly different overall survival of mice treated by docetaxel and estramustine since day 1 or since the onset of resistance to docetaxel. Among the six human androgen-independent tumors treated with estramustine alone, two highly sensitive models, two intermediate responding tumors, and two resistant models were observed. Altogether, these results suggest that estramustine should be combined with docetaxel in PC patients, but the use of this treatment could be limited, particularly in elderly patients, to docetaxel-resistant cases.

Metastatic renal carcinoma: evaluation of antiangiogenic therapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced CT.

PURPOSE: To determine whether tumor perfusion parameters assessed by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) could help predict and detect response in patients receiving antiangiogenic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained. In two phase-III trials involving 51 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (38 men, 13 women; age range, 30-80 years) receiving antiangiogenic drugs (sorafenib [n = 10], sunitinib [n = 22]), a placebo (n = 12), or interferon alfa (n = 7), serial dynamic contrast-enhanced CT was performed, during 90 seconds before and after injection of 80 mL of iobitridol. Perfusion parameters of a target metastatic tumor (tumor blood flow [TBF], tumor blood volume [TBV], mean transit time, and vascular permeability-surface area product) were calculated. Values before and after treatment were compared by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, and relative changes in groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results were compared with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response and with progression-free and overall survival by using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Among patients receiving antiangiogenic drugs, baseline perfusion parameters were higher in responders than in stable patients (TBF = 245.3 vs 119.5 mL/min/100 mL, P = .04; TBV = 15.5 vs 8.2 mL/100 mL, P = .02) but were not significantly predictive of survival. After the first cycle of treatment, there was a significant decrease in TBF (162.5 vs 76.7 mL/min/100 mL, P = .0002) and TBV (9.1 vs 3.9 mL/100 mL, P < .0001) in patients receiving antiangiogenic treatment. CONCLUSION: Renal carcinoma perfusion parameters determined with dynamic contrast-enhanced CT can help predict biologic response to antiangiogenic drugs before beginning therapy and help detect an effect after a single cycle of treatment.

Docetaxel reintroduction in patients with metastatic castration-resistant docetaxel-sensitive prostate cancer: a retrospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential benefit of reintroducing docetaxel chemotherapy in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had initially responded to first-line docetaxel-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records were evaluated retrospectively from French patients with mCRPC who had been included in seven controlled clinical studies of docetaxel as first-line treatment. We identified patients who were confirmed as responders to first-line treatment, discontinued for reasons other than disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and who received further docetaxel chemotherapy for disease progression. The primary objective was to assess efficacy in terms of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response after resuming a docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were overall survival and tolerance. RESULTS: Of the 148 patients who responded to first-line docetaxel, 50 received further therapy with docetaxel and were analysed. The median (range) response duration to first-line docetaxel was 10.3 (4.6-45.7) months and the median docetaxel-free interval was 18.4 (5.0-46.7) months. Docetaxel was reintroduced as second-line therapy in 52% of patients and as further lines in 48%. After docetaxel reintroduction, 24 patients (48%) had a 50% decrease in PSA level (95% confidence interval, CI, 34.1-61.8%). The median (95% CI) overall survival from docetaxel reintroduction was 16 (13-20) months. Re-treatment was well tolerated (6% of grade 3-4 haemotoxicity). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel reintroduction appears to be effective, with favourable tolerance profiles, in patients with mCRPC having responded to first-line docetaxel, and should be prospectively assessed in clinical trials against alternative therapies or investigational agents given alone or in combination, to define further management.

Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial.

PURPOSE: Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.

[Vascular and renal effects of anti-angiogenic therapy]. / Effets vasculaires et rénaux des médicaments anti-angiogéniques: recommandations françaises pour la pratique (SN, SFHTA, APNET, FFCD).

Angiogenesis inhibitor drugs (bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafénib...) are now widely used for treatment of cancers, including colorectal, advanced renal cell and hepatocellular carcinomas, breast cancer). Vascular and renal side-effects of these drugs are not well known. Hypertension is one of the most common side effects. Incidence of hypertension may be different among angiogenis inhibitors and seems dose-depend. Arterial pressure can usually be controlled with anti-hypertensive medications, and treatment with angiogenesis inhibitors can be continued in most cases; however, serious hypertension-induced side effects were reported included malignant hypertension, stroke and reversible posterior leucoencephalopathy. Renal damage is infrequently reported: usually reversible mild or moderate proteinuria and in some rare cases nephritic syndrome, acute renal dysfunction, proliferative or collapsing glomerulonephritis, interstitial nephritis and thrombotic microangiopathy. Prolongation of the QT interval, congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction have been reported in patients using tinibs. In the present guidelines, we recommend: (1) before the first administration of angiogenesis inhibitors: acute IV or oral antihypertensive medications should not be administered in a patient regardless of arterial pressure levels with postponing the administration because of hypertension is not recommended; (2) initial work-up should include ambulatory measurement of arterial pressure (by the general practitioner or by the patient using home blood pressure (three times in the morning and in the evening during three consecutive days) with a validated (cf: http://afssaps.sante.fr/) upper arm device: ideally, this device should be financed and provided by the pharmaceutical companies marketing the angiogenesis inhibitor drugs. Using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement is optional; (3) urine dipstick (and quantification if positive) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (using abbreviated MDRD rather than Cockcroft-Gault formula) must be performed before treatment and regularly during follow-up; (4) therapeutic management must be done in accordance with national or international guidelines (in France: http://www.has-sante.fr/); (5) optimal care is best achieved within a network of professionals including general practitioners, oncologists, cardiologists and nephrologists.

Sorafenib for older patients with renal cell carcinoma: subset analysis from a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The perception that older cancer patients may be at higher risk than younger patients of toxic effects from cancer therapy but may obtain less clinical benefit from it may be based on the underrepresentation of older patients in clinical trials and the known toxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. It is not known how older patients respond to targeted therapy. METHODS: This retrospective subgroup analysis of data from the phase 3, randomized Treatment Approach in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial examined the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in older (age >or=70 years, n = 115) and younger patients (age <70 years, n = 787) who received treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patient demographics and progression-free survival were recorded. Best tumor response, clinical benefit rate (defined as complete response plus partial response plus stable disease), time to self-reported health status deterioration, and toxic effects were assessed by descriptive statistics. Health-related quality of life was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to summarize time-to-event data. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was similar in sorafenib-treated younger patients (23.9 weeks; hazard ratio [HR] for progression compared with placebo = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.66) and older patients (26.3 weeks; HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.69). Clinical benefit rates among younger and older sorafenib-treated patients were also similar (83.5% and 84.3%, respectively) and were superior to those of younger and older placebo-treated patients (53.8% and 62.2%, respectively). Adverse events were predictable and manageable regardless of age. Sorafenib treatment delayed the time to self-reported health status deterioration among both older patients (121 days with sorafenib vs 85 days with placebo; HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.03) and younger patients (90 days with sorafenib vs 52 days with placebo; HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.81) and improved quality of life over that time. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving sorafenib treatment, outcomes of older (>or=70 years) and younger (<70 years) patients were similar.

Efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib and sorafenib are novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have shown significant clinical activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The activity of sunitinib and sorafenib in non-clear cell histologies has not been evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical features at study entry and treatment outcomes were evaluated in patients with metastatic papillary RCC (PRCC) and chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) who received either sunitinib or sorafenib as their initial TKI treatment in five US and French institutions. Response rate and survival were documented. Fisher's exact test was used for categoric variables, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. The number of patients with papillary and chromophobe histologies was 41 (77%) and 12 (23%), respectively. Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) time, and overall survival time for the entire cohort were 10%, 8.6 months, and 19.6 months, respectively. Three (25%) of 12 ChRCC patients achieved a response (two patients treated with sorafenib and one treated with sunitinib), and PFS was 10.6 months. Two (4.8%) of 41 PRCC patients achieved a response (both patients were treated with sunitinib). PFS for the whole cohort was 7.6 months. Sunitinib-treated PRCC patients had a PFS of 11.9 months compared with 5.1 months for sorafenib-treated patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with PRCC and ChRCC may have prolonged PFS from sunitinib and sorafenib, although clinical responses remain overall low in PRCC. Additional prospective trials with these agents in non-clear cell RCC will further clarify their use in the future.

[Chemotherapy for prostate cancer]. / Chimiothérapie du cancer de la prostate.

Chemotherapy treatment for patients with prostate cancer has advanced considerably during the past decade. The first demonstration of the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer was followed by FDA approval of mitoxantrone in this setting and by studies showing the usefulness of several different drugs in these patients. Docetaxel became the standard treatment for them. The development of new cytotoxic molecules and targeted therapies as well as the evaluation of the efficacy of docetaxel in earlier stages of prostate cancer, with many ongoing studies, are the current lines of research for improving management of these hormone-refractory patients.

Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: From November 2003 to March 2005, we randomly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo; 451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo. Consequently, crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib, beginning in May 2005. RESULTS: At the January 2005 cutoff, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.55; P<0.01). The first interim analysis of overall survival in May 2005 showed that sorafenib reduced the risk of death, as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94; P=0.02), although this benefit was not statistically significant according to the O'Brien-Fleming threshold. Partial responses were reported as the best response in 10% of patients receiving sorafenib and in 2% of those receiving placebo (P<0.001). Diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reactions were the most common adverse events associated with sorafenib. Hypertension and cardiac ischemia were rare serious adverse events that were more common in patients receiving sorafenib than in those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo, treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed; however, treatment is associated with increased toxic effects. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00073307 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).