Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Prevalence of potential interactions of medications, including herbs and supplements, before, during, and after chemotherapy in patients with breast and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of herbs and supplements (HS) is common among patients with cancer, yet limited information exists about potential medication interactions (PMIs) with HS use around chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with breast or prostate cancer who had recently finished chemotherapy at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed by telephone. Interviewers inquired about all medications, including HS, before, during, and after chemotherapy. Micromedex, Lexicomp, and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database interaction software programs were used to determine PMIs. RESULTS: A total of 67 subjects (age range, 39-77 years) were evaluated in this study. Participants were primarily White patients (73%) with breast cancer (87%). The median number of medications was 11 (range, 2-28) during the entire study and was highest during chemotherapy (7; range, 2-22). Approximately four-fifths (84%) used HS. A total of 1747 PMIs were identified, and they represented 635 unique PMIs across all 3 timeframes, with most occurring during chemotherapy. Prescription-related PMIs (70%) were the most common type, and they were followed by HS-related (56%) and anticancer treatment-related PMIs (22%). Approximately half of the PMIs (54%) were categorized as moderate interactions, and more than one-third (38%) were categorized as major interactions. Patient use of HS increased from 51% during chemotherapy to 66% after chemotherapy, and this correlated with an increased prevalence of HS PMIs (46% to 60%). HS users were more likely to be at risk for a major PMI than non-HS users (92% vs 70%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HS remains prevalent among patients with cancer and may place them at risk for PMIs both during chemotherapy and after the completion of treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study evaluates the risk of potential medication interactions for patients with breast or prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The results show that patients often use herbs and supplements during treatment. Prescription medications are most often associated with medication interactions, which are followed by herb and supplement-related interactions. More than one-third of potential medication interactions are considered major. Patients should be educated about the risk of herb and supplement-related medication interactions during treatment.

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.

Contemporary Patterns of Multidisciplinary Care in Patients With Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary clinics integrate the expertise of several specialties to provide effective treatment to patients. This exposure is especially relevant in the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which requires critical input from urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology, among other supportive specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the present study, we sought to catalog the different styles of multidisciplinary care models used in the management of MIBC and to identify barriers to their implementation. We surveyed providers from academic and community practices regarding their currently implemented multidisciplinary care models, available resources, and perceived barriers using the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and the Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada e-mail databases. RESULTS: Of the 101 responding providers, most practiced at academic institutions in the United States (61%) or Canada (29%), and only 7% were from community practices. The most frequently used model was sequential visits on different days (57%), followed by sequential same-day (39%) and concurrent (1 visit with all providers; 22%) models. However, most practitioners preferred a multidisciplinary clinic involving sequential same-day (41%) or concurrent (26%) visits. The lack of clinic space (58%), funding (41%), staff (40%), and time (32%) were the most common barriers to implementing a multidisciplinary clinic. CONCLUSION: Most surveyed practitioners at academic centers use some form of a multidisciplinary care model for patients with MIBC. The major barriers to more integrated multidisciplinary clinics were limited time and resources rather than a lack of provider enthusiasm. Future studies should incorporate patient preferences, further evaluate practice patterns in community settings, and assess their effects on patient outcomes.

Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6-8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85-1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7-not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80-1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5-NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue 110 [18%] patients on sunitinib [corrected]. There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer.

MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided laser-based thermotherapy in men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer and a concordant lesion at biopsy and MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant phase I prospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Transperineal MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for clinically low-risk prostate cancer was performed in patients with a Gleason score of 7 or less in three or fewer cores limited to one sextant obtained with transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy and a concordant lesion at MR imaging. Lesions were targeted with a laser ablation system. Periprocedural complications were recorded. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score were collected before and after the procedure. MR imaging-guided biopsy of the ablation zone was performed 6 months after treatment. The prostate-specific antigen level, IPSS, and SHIM score before and after ablation were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Treatment was successfully completed in nine patients (procedure duration, 2.5-4 hours; mean laser ablation duration, 4.3 minutes). Immediate contrast-enhanced posttreatment MR imaging showed a hypovascular defect in eight patients. Self-resolving perineal abrasion and focal paresthesia of the glans penis each occurred in one patient. The mean (± standard deviation) IPSS and SHIM score at baseline were 5.8 ± 5.3 and 19.0 ± 8.0, respectively. Average score changes were not significantly different from zero during follow-up (P = .18-.99). MR imaging-guided biopsy of the ablation zone showed no cancer in seven patients (78%) and Gleason grade 6 cancer in two (22%). CONCLUSION: Transperineal MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation appears to be a feasible and safe focal therapy option for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Resampling phase III data to assess phase II trial designs and endpoints.

PURPOSE: The best phase II design and endpoint for growth inhibitory agents is controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from a positive (sorafenib vs. placebo; TARGET) and a negative (AE941 vs. placebo) phase III trial in metastatic renal cancer to compare the ability of various designs and endpoints to predict the known results. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 770 and 259 patients from TARGET and the AE 941 trial, respectively, were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one-sided). Designs/endpoints: single arm, two-stage with response rate (RR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; 37 patients); and randomized, two arm (20-35 patients per arm) with RR by RECIST, mean log ratio of tumor sizes (log ratio), progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 90 days (PFS-90), and overall PFS. RESULTS: Single-arm trials were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 1% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively. Randomized trials versus placebo with 20 patients per arm were positive with RR by RECIST in 55% and 7%, log ratio in 88% and 25%, PFS-90 in 64% and 15%, and overall PFS in 69% and 9% of replications for sorafenib and AE 941, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the single-arm design and the randomized design comparing PFS, the randomized phase II design with the log ratio endpoint has greater power to predict the positive phase III result of sorafenib in renal cancer, but a higher false positive rate for the negative phase III result of AE 941.

Gemcitabine plus sorafenib in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase II trial of the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib, an inhibitor of B-raf, VEGFR2, and PDGFR-ß, has activity against pancreatic cancer in preclinical models. In a phase I trial of gemcitabine plus sorafenib, 57% of pancreatic cancer patients achieved stable disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-center phase II trial of sorafenib plus gemcitabine in chemo-naïve patients with histologically-confirmed, advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28 day cycle. RESULTS: Seventeen patients enrolled at 4 centers; 13 were evaluable for response. There were no objective responses; 18% had stable disease. Median overall survival was 4.0 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9); median progression-free survival was 3.2 months (95% CI: 1.6, 3.6). Grade 3/4 toxicities included thrombosis in 18% of patients, dehydration or hand-foot syndrome in 12%, and hypertension or gastrointestinal bleeding in 6%. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus sorafenib is inactive in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Baseline patient-reported kidney cancer-specific symptoms as an indicator for median survival in sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of the study was to determine the relationship of baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Cancer Symptom Index (FKSI) scores with median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) after treatment with axitinib in patients with sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: As part of a multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients (N = 62) reported symptoms at baseline using the FKSI, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms. A Weibull (fully parametric) model was fit to time-to-event data to establish the relationship of baseline FKSI score with mPFS and mOS. Kaplan-Meier curves were obtained as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Longer progression-free and overall survivals were associated with higher (more favorable) baseline FKSI-15 and FKSI disease-related symptoms (FKSI-DRS) subscale specific to kidney cancer scores. For example, for FKSI-15 scores of 0 (most symptoms), 30, and 60 (no symptoms), the mPFS were 0.72, 3.83, and 20.43 months, respectively, and the mOS were 1.05, 6.27, and 37.53 months. Similar patterns and interpretations were observed for the FKSI-DRS scores. The results from the Kaplan-Meier analyses supported the parametric model. DISCUSSIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Baseline patient-reported kidney cancer symptoms are linked to mPFS and mOS in a clear and interpretable way. These results support the evaluation of patient-reported symptoms at baseline in clinical trials and in clinical practice to measure symptom severity and potentially predict progression-free and overall survival outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The results provide a heightened opportunity to use patient data not only to assist in medical treatment planning but also to prepare patients, who have advanced disease and an already reduced expected lifespan, with an opportunity to deal with the psychosocial aspects of the dying process.

Pazopanib in renal cell carcinoma.

Pazopanib is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of patients with advanced renal cell cancer on the basis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, which showed that once a day dosing of 800 mg of pazopanib resulted in progression free survival of 9.2 months versus 4.2 months (P < 0.0001). Pazopanib thus joins sorafenib and sunitinib as one of the clinically available VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-targeted drugs for the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell cancer. The mechanism of action, preclinical and clinical data, and a comparison with the other drugs in its class are outlined below.

Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in elderly patients treated in the North American advanced renal cell carcinoma sorafenib expanded access program.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective analysis of the Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS) program in North America, we compared the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients aged ≥70 with those aged <70 years. METHODS: Patients were treated with oral sorafenib twice daily until the occurrence of disease progression or treatment intolerance. The primary objective of the ARCCS program was making sorafenib available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the USA and Canada before marketing approval was obtained; the secondary objective was the evaluation of its safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Of the 2,504 patients enrolled in the ARCCS program who received at least 1 dose of sorafenib, 736 (29%) were aged ≥70 years. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events included rash/desquamation (5% in both groups), hand-foot skin reaction (8% in those aged ≥70 years vs. 10% in those <70 years of age), hypertension (5 vs. 4%) and fatigue (7 vs. 4%). Partial response was seen in 4% of the patients in both age groups. The median overall survival for the ≥70-year versus <70-year groups was also similar (46 vs. 50 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: There were no substantial differences in safety and efficacy between patients aged ≥70 and <70 years with advanced RCC treated with sorafenib.

Safety and efficacy results of the advanced renal cell carcinoma sorafenib expanded access program in North America.

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (ARCCS) program made sorafenib available to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) before regulatory approval. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, open-label expanded access program, 2504 patients from the United States and Canada were treated with oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Safety and efficacy were explored overall and in subgroups of patients including those with no prior therapy, nonclear cell (nonclear cell) RCC, brain metastases, prior bevacizumab treatment, and elderly patients. Sorafenib was approved for RCC 6 months after study initiation, at which time patients with no prior therapy or with nonclear cell RCC could enroll in an extension protocol for continued assessment for a period of 6 months. RESULTS: The most common grade > or =2 drug-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (18%), rash (14%), hypertension (12%), and fatigue (11%). In the 1891 patients evaluable for response, complete response was observed in 1 patient, partial response in 67 patients (4%), and stable disease for at least 8 weeks in 1511 patients (80%). Median progression-free survival in the extension population was 36 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 33-45 weeks; censorship rate, 56%); median overall survival in the entire population was 50 weeks (95% CI, 46-52 weeks; censorship rate, 63%). The efficacy and safety results were similar across the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib 400 mg twice daily demonstrated activity and a clinically acceptable toxicity profile in all patient subsets enrolled in the ARCCS expanded access program (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00111020).

Dose-escalated radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: outcomes in modern era with short-term androgen deprivation therapy.

PURPOSE: Randomized data have supported the use of long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiotherapy (RT) for men with high-risk prostate cancer. The present study reviewed the outcomes of intermediate- and high-risk men treated with RT and short-term ADT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 184 men with any single risk factor of prostate-specific antigen >or=10 ng/mL, clinical Stage T2b or greater, or Gleason score >or=7 were treated with primary external beam RT for nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The median radiation dose was 74 Gy; 55% were treated with intensity-modulated RT. All patients received ADT for 1 to 6 months (median, 4), consisting of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed for risk factors, including T stage, Gleason score, radiation dose, and prostate-specific antigen level. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 51 months, the 4-year freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) using the nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition was 83% for all patients. Clinical Stage T3 disease was the only variable tested associated with FFBF on univariate (4-year FFBF rate, 46% vs. 87% for Stage T1-T2c disease; p = .0303) and multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 3.9; p = .0016). On a subset analysis of high-risk patients (National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria), those with clinical Stage T3 disease (4-year FFBF rate, 46% vs. 80%; p = .0303) and a radiation dose <74 Gy (4-year FFBF rate, 64% vs. 80%) had a poorer outcome on univariate analysis. However, clinical Stage T3 disease and radiation dose were not significant on multivariable analysis, although a statistical multivariable trend was seen for both (p = .0650 and p = .0597, respectively). CONCLUSION: Short-term ADT and RT might be acceptable for men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, especially for clinically localized disease treated with doses of >or=74 Gy.

Ambulatory monitoring detects sorafenib-induced blood pressure elevations on the first day of treatment.

PURPOSE: Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxicity of sorafenib and other cancer therapeutics that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway. This prospective, single-center, cohort study characterized ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as an early pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Fifty-four normotensive advanced cancer patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before and between days 6 and 10 of sorafenib therapy. After blood pressure changes were detected among the first cohort within 10 days, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done during the first 24 hours of treatment for the second cohort. RESULTS: For the entire patient population, the blood pressure increase [mean systolic, +10.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 8.6-13.0; range, -5.2 to +28.7 mm Hg; mean diastolic, +8.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, 6.3-9.7; range, -4.4 to +27.1 mm Hg] was detected between days 6 and 10 (P < 0.0001 for both) and plateaued thereafter. Variability in blood pressure change did not associate with: age, body size, sex, self-reported race, baseline blood pressure, or steady-state sorafenib plasma concentrations. In the second cohort, the blood pressure elevation was detected during the first 24 hours (mean systolic, +8.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, 5.0-11.3; mean diastolic, +6.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.7-8.3; P < 0.0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects the blood pressure response to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib during the first 24 hours of treatment. The magnitude of blood pressure elevation is highly variable and unpredictable but could be important in optimizing the therapeutic index of VEGF signaling pathway inhibitor therapy.

Phase II study of axitinib in sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of axitinib, an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior therapies that included, but were not limited to, sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients with sorafenib-refractory mRCC received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily. A one-arm, single-stage design was used to estimate the primary end point of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 62 patients recruited, 100% had received prior sorafenib, and 74.2% had received two or more prior systemic treatments. The axitinib dose was titrated to greater than 5 mg twice daily in 53.2% of patients, and 35.5% of patients had the dose modified to less than 5 mg twice daily. In 62 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 22.6%, and the median duration of response was 17.5 months. Median PFS and OS times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 11.0 months) and 13.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 18.8 months), respectively. All-causality grade 3 to 4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (16.1%), fatigue (16.1%), hypertension (16.1%), dyspnea (14.5%), diarrhea (14.5%), dehydration (8.1%), and hypotension (6.5%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib has antitumor activity in patients with mRCC refractory to prior VEGF-targeted therapy, including sorafenib. Toxicities were mild to moderate and were manageable. A randomized, phase III trial to compare axitinib with sorafenib in patients who have mRCC refractory to one prior first-line therapy regimen is underway.

Vinflunine in platinum-pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results of a large phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The activity and safety of vinflunine was evaluated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) who developed disease progression within 12 months of platinum-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with UC were eligible if they received a prior platinum-based regimen in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting or as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease and had developed disease progression within 12 months. Vinflunine was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Patients with Karnofsky performance status of 80 or 90, impaired renal function, prior pelvic irradiation, or age>or=75 years received an initial dose of 280 mg/m2, which was escalated to 320 mg/m2 in Cycle 2 if well tolerated. All other patients received an initial dose of 320 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was response rate defined by an independent response review committee (IRRC). RESULTS: Per the IRRC, 22 patients achieved a partial response, with a response rate of 15% (95% confidence interval, 9%-21%) with a median duration of response of 6.0 months. Sixty-four (42%) patients had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, and the median overall survival was 8.2 months. Myelosuppression was the most frequent adverse event, with grade 3 of 4 (adverse events were evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] guidelines) neutropenia reported in 58% of the patients. Grade 3 of 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 10 (7%) patients. Nonhematologic treatment-related events (grade 3 of 4) were generally manageable and included constipation (17%), asthenia/fatigue (13%), ileus (5%), and abdominal pain (5%). No cumulative toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Vinflunine demonstrates moderate activity in patients with platinum-pretreated UC. Toxicity is manageable and noncumulative.

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.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacodynamic biomarker study of sorafenib in metastatic renal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib is an antiangiogenic agent with activity in renal cancer. We conducted a randomized trial to investigate dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) as a pharmacodynamic biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to placebo or 200 or 400 mg twice per day of sorafenib. DCE-MRI was performed at baseline and 4 weeks. DCE-MRI parameters, area under the contrast concentration versus time curve 90 seconds after contrast injection (IAUC(90)), and volume transfer constant of contrast agent (K(trans)) were calculated for a metastatic site selected in a blinded manner. Primary end point was change in K(trans). RESULTS: Of the 56 assessable patients, 48 underwent two MRIs; 44 MRIs were assessable for study end points. Mean K(trans) log ratios were 0.131 (standard deviation [SD], 0.315), -0.148 (SD, 0.382), -0.271 (SD, 0.499) in placebo, 200- and 400-mg cohorts, respectively (P = .0077 for trend) corresponding to changes of +14%, -14%, and -24%. IAUC(90) log ratios were 0.041 (SD, 0.197), -0.040 (SD, 0.132), -0.356 (SD, 0.411), respectively (P = .0003 for trend), corresponding to changes of +4%, -4%, and -30%. Using a log-rank test, IAUC(90) and K(trans) changes were not associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with high baseline K(trans) had a better PFS (P = .027). CONCLUSION: IAUC(90) and K(trans) are pharmacodynamic biomarkers for sorafenib, but variability is high and magnitude of effect is less than previously reported. Changes in DCE-MRI parameters after 4 weeks of sorafenib are not predictive of PFS, suggesting that these biomarkers are not surrogate end points. The value of baseline K(trans) as a prognostic or predictive biomarker requires additional study.

Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of phase II cancer clinical trials is to determine whether a new regimen has sufficient activity to warrant further study, with activity generally defined as tumor shrinkage. However, oncology drug development has been limited by high rates of failure (lack of efficacy) in subsequent phase III testing. This high failure rate may reflect the process by which antineoplastic agents are usually evaluated in phase II trials, i.e., via single-arm studies in which the primary efficacy measure is the proportion of patients who achieve a complete or partial response to the treatment. This design may efficiently eliminate truly ineffective therapy but may not reliably indicate whether subsequent phase III testing is warranted. METHODS: We describe the design of a randomized phase II clinical trial of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib for the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer using change in tumor size, measured on a continuous scale, as the primary outcome variable. For the purpose of determining the sample size of the trial, we made assumptions as to the likely magnitude of treatment effect and the variability in tumor size changes based on data from four previous trials using these agents. RESULTS: The study design includes two different dosage arms and a placebo group with a total sample size of 150 patients and is powered to detect a modest reduction in the mean tumor size burden in the high-dose sorafenib arm compared with a slight increase in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial designs that treat change in tumor size as a continuous variable rather than categorizing the changes are feasible, and by inclusion of a prospective control group they offer advantages over conventional single-arm trials.