Fish Oil, Se Yeast, and Micronutrient-Enriched Nutrition as Adjuvant Treatment during Target Therapy in a Murine Model of Lung Cancer.

Despite the effectiveness of primary treatment modalities for cancer, the side effects of treatments, medication resistance, and the deterioration of cachexia after disease progression lead to poor prognosis. A supportive treatment modality to overcome these limitations would be considered a major breakthrough. Here, we used two different target drugs to demonstrate whether a nutraceutical formula (fish oil, Se yeast, and micronutrient-enriched nutrition; NuF) can interfere with cancer cachexia and improve drug efficacy. After Lewis lung cancer (LLC) tumor injection, the C57BL/6 mice were orally administered targeted therapy drugs Iressa and Sutent alone or combined with NuF for 27 days. Sutent administration effectively inhibited tumor size but increased the number of lung metastases in the long term. Sutent combined with NuF had no significant difference in tumor weight and metastasis compare with Sutent alone. However, NuF slightly attenuated metastases number in lung may via mesenchymal marker N-cadherin suppression. NuF otherwise increased epithelial-like marker E-cadherin expression and induce NO-mediated intrinsic apoptotic pathway in tumor cells, thereby strengthening the ability of the targeted therapy drug Iressa for inhibiting tumor progression. Our results demonstrate that NuF can promote the anticancer effect of lung cancer to targeted therapy, especially in Iressa, by inhibiting HIF-1α and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and inducing the apoptosis of lung cancer cells. Furthermore, NuF attenuates cancer-related cachectic symptoms by inhibiting systemic oxidative stress.

Prognostic value of skeletal muscle mass during tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy, low muscle mass was associated with treatment toxicity and survival outcomes. A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2020, based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed by measuring inconsistency (I2) based on the Chi squared test. A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified, enrolling patients treated with sorafenib (n = 12), sunitinib (n = 6), lenvatinib (n = 3), regorafenib (n = 2), gefitinib (n = 1), imatinib (n = 1), and pazopanib (n = 1). Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for pooled analyses. Meta-analyses found a significant effect of low muscle mass on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.26-4.58, p = 0.008, I2 = 51%) in patients treated with TKI therapy. A subgroup analysis by treatment showed an association between DLT and low muscle during sorafenib or sunitinib, although not significant. A significant association between low skeletal muscle index and poorer overall survival was observed in HCC patients treated with sorafenib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.96, p = 0.02). For other TKIs, although some results showed an association between low muscle mass and worse outcomes, the number of studies for each TKI therapy was too small to reach conclusions. Skeletal muscle mass could influence the prognosis of some TKI-treated patients. This effect is demonstrated in sorafenib-treated HCC patients but remains almost unexplored in other cancer patients undergoing TKI therapy. Further prospective studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up are needed to clarify the role of muscle mass in the metabolism of TKI-based cancer treatment, and its association with toxicity and survival.

Relapse and Prognosis of Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer After Combined HOLRBT with Sunitinib and TGC Perfusion Chemotherapy.

Objective: To prevent postoperative relapse after HOLRBT, we compared postoperative adjuvant therapies. Methods: One hundred fifty patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) were meanly divided into three groups: A, B, and C. Group A patients only took sunitinib, group B patients underwent TGC perfusion chemotherapy, and group C patients took sunitinib and underwent TGC chemotherapy. Results: It was discovered that TGC perfusion chemotherapy combined with taking sunitinib can significantly reduce the relapse rate. Most of the tumor relapse period was assembled at 9 months after the operation. No-tumor relapse survival rate and no-fluorescence in situ hybridization positive survival rate in Group C were significantly higher than those of Group A and Group B. Conclusion: Therefore, the combined application of taking sunitinib drug and going through TGC perfusion chemotherapy after secondary HOLRBT will evidently improve the prognosis of patients with a glorious applicated prospect.

Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib as Initial Targeted Therapy for mCC-RCC With Favorable/Intermediate Risk: Multicenter Randomized Trial CROSS-J-RCC.

PURPOSE: The present study compared the efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib as first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mCC-RCC) with favorable or intermediate Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with mCC-RCC were randomized to receive open-label sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SU/SO) or sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SO/SU). The primary endpoint was first-line progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were total PFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 124 patients enrolled at 39 institutions from February 2010 to July 2012, 120 were evaluated. The median first-line PFS duration was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.08). The total PFS and OS were not significantly different between the SU/SO and SO/SU groups (27.8 and 22.6 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.428-1.246; and 38.4 and 30.9 months; HR, 0.934; 95% CI, 0.588-1.485, respectively). The subgroup analysis revealed that the total PFS with SU/SO was superior to the total PFS with SO/SU in the patients with favorable MSKCC risk and those with < 5 metastatic sites). SO/SU was superior to SU/SO for patients without previous nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were found in first-line PFS, total PFS, or OS between the 2 treatment arms (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01481870).

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of sunitinib vs sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the safety and efficiency of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Databases were searched up till February 28, 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility, quality, and extracted relevant data. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies including 3112 patients were accessed. Sorafenib group exhibited higher median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared to sunitinib group (MD, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.56 to -0.03), especially in the first-line treatment (MD, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.61 to -0.04). However, sunitinib significantly reduced the risk of progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.82). Sunitinib also significantly reduced risk of overall survival (OS) compared to sorafenib (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92), while median OS was similar in both groups (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -3.40-2.43). With regards to safety, the risk of rash (RR, 0.31, 95% CI, 0.12-0.79) was greater in sunitinib than sorafenib group, while the risk of decreased appetite (RR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.33-3.30) and dehydration (RR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.14-6.56) was smaller in contrast.Based on risk of PFS and OS, sunitinib was a better treatment option for RCC treatment while patients faced with severe skin reaction. And for those Asian patients classified under MSKCC moderate risk, whether in first or second-line treatment, had difficulty in feeding, sorafenib is a better choice for prolong mPFS.

Phase I Study of Rapid Alternation of Sunitinib and Regorafenib for the Treatment of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Refractory Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

PURPOSE: Polyclonal emergence of KIT secondary mutations is a main mechanism of imatinib progression in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Approved KIT inhibitors sunitinib and regorafenib have complementary activity against KIT resistance mutations. Preclinical evidence suggests that rapid alternation of sunitinib and regorafenib broadens the spectrum of imatinib-resistant subclones targeted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase Ib study investigating continuous treatment with cycles of sunitinib (3 days) followed by regorafenib (4 days) in patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-refractory GIST. A 3+3 dosing schema was utilized to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Plasma samples were analyzed for pharmacokinetics and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) studies using targeted error correction sequencing (TEC-seq) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). RESULTS: Of the 14 patients enrolled, 2 experienced dose-limiting toxicities at dose level 2 (asymptomatic grade 3 hypophosphatemia). Sunitinib 37.5 mg/day and regorafenib 120 mg/day was the RP2D. Treatment was well-tolerated and no unexpected toxicities resulted from the combination. Stable disease was the best response in 4 patients, and median progression-free survival was 1.9 months. Combined assessment of ctDNA with TEC-seq and ddPCR detected plasma mutations in 11 of 12 patients (92%). ctDNA studies showed that KIT secondary mutations remain the main mechanism of resistance in TKI-refractory GIST, revealing effective suppression of KIT-mutant subpopulations in patients benefiting from the combination. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib and regorafenib combination is feasible and tolerable. Rapid alternation of TKIs with complementary activity might be effective when combining drugs with favorable pharmacokinetics, potentially allowing active doses while minimizing adverse events. Serial monitoring with ctDNA may guide treatment in patients with GIST.

[Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. / Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde.

Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Carrier-Enhanced Anticancer Efficacy of Sunitinib-Loaded Green Tea-Based Micellar Nanocomplex beyond Tumor-Targeted Delivery.

Although a few nanomedicines have been approved for clinical use in cancer treatment, that recognizes improved patient safety through targeted delivery, their improved efficacy over conventional drugs has remained marginal. One of the typical drawbacks of nanocarriers for cancer therapy is a low drug-loading capacity that leads to insufficient efficacy and requires an increase in dosage and/or frequency of administration, which in turn increases carrier toxicity. In contrast, elevating drug-loading would cause the risk of nanocarrier instability, resulting in low efficacy and off-target toxicity. This intractable drug-to-carrier ratio has imposed constraints on the design and development of nanocarriers. However, if the nanocarrier has intrinsic therapeutic effects, the efficacy would be synergistically augmented with less concern for the drug-to-carrier ratio. Sunitinib-loaded micellar nanocomplex (SU-MNC) was formed using poly(ethylene glycol)-conjugated epigallocatechin-3-O-gallate (PEG-EGCG) as such a carrier. SU-MNC specifically inhibited the vascular endothelial growth factor-induced proliferation of endothelial cells, exhibiting minimal cytotoxicity to normal renal cells. SU-MNC showed enhanced anticancer effects and less toxicity than SU administered orally/intravenously on human renal cell carcinoma-xenografted mice, demonstrating more efficient effects on anti-angiogenesis, apoptosis induction, and proliferation inhibition against tumors. In comparison, a conventional nanocarrier, SU-loaded polymeric micelle (SU-PM) comprised of PEG-b-poly(lactic acid) (PEG-PLA) copolymer, only reduced toxicity with no elevated efficacy, despite comparable drug-loading and tumor-targeting efficiency to SU-MNC. Improved efficacy of SU-MNC was ascribed to the carrier-drug synergies with the high-performance carrier of PEG-EGCG besides tumor-targeted delivery.

Predictive factors for toxicity and survival of second-line sunitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST).

Introduction: Sunitinib is a standard second-line treatment in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to search for predictive factors for grade 3 and 4 toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a GIST reference center patient population, outside clinical trials.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients treated in two European Comprehensive Cancer Centers between January 2005 and December 2015. Demographic and clinical features, tumour characteristics and biological parameters were investigated. Logistic regression models were used to find factors associated with grade 3 and 4 toxicity. To identify predictive factors for PFS and OS, variables that were statistically significant in univariate analysis were used in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.Results: Ninety-one patients were included in this analysis. Age >60 years (HR 5.0, p = .006) and body weight ≤70 kg (HR 4.7, p = .009) were predictive factors for grade 3 and 4 toxicity. When divided into two categories, non-haematological grade 3 and 4 toxicity was predicted by age >60 years (HR 3.8, p = .012) and body weight ≤70 kg (HR 3.3, p = .025) whereas haematological toxicity had no significantly associated predictive factors. The median PFS and OS with sunitinib were 8.8 months and 27.5 months, respectively. The use of imatinib less than six months compared to 6-12 months (HR 0.2, p = .013) and to >12 months (HR 0.3, p = .016) and liver and/or peritoneal metastases (HR 0.1, p < .001, HR 0.2, p = .003 and HR 0.2, p = .004) compared to locally advanced disease only were predictive for longer PFS. High neutrophil (HR 3.1, p = 0.04) and platelet count (HR 2.4, p = .046) predicted a shorter OS. Flexible sunitinib dosing was associated with superior OS (p = .021).Conclusion: In advanced GIST patients treated with sunitinib, older and low-weight patients are at risk for grade 3 and 4 toxicity. Clinical (prior imatinib use and metastases), biological (neutrophil and platelet count) and treatment characteristics independently predict PFS and OS.

Serum Alpha1-Globulin as a Novel Prognostic Factor in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Serum protein fraction (SPF) is a common parameter reflecting the nutritional and inflammatory status of the human body. However, its role in patients with cancer, particularly those treated with targeted agents, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study to explore the prognostic value of SPF in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and its association with clinical characteristics. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (n = 213) who initiated first-line sunitinib or sorafenib systemic therapy for metastatic disease between March 2007 and June 2017 at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, were retrospectively included in our analysis. Clinical and pathological data were collected. SPF was measured by capillary electrophoresis. Prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Correlation was estimated with Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Among all SPF components, high α1-globulin was an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS (dichotomized by median, hazard ratio [HR] 2.356; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.399-3.966, p = 0.001; and HR 1.994; 95% CI 1.360-2.923, p < 0.001, respectively). In our cohort, α1-globulin showed better predictive value for OS than the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model (C-index 0.682 vs. 0.597; p = 0.005). Moreover, serum α1-globulin was positively correlated with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade (r = 0.237; p < 0.001), tumor size (r = 0.242; p < 0.001), initial tumor/node/metastasis (TNM) stage (r = 0.185; p = 0.007), and IMDC risk group (r = 0.485; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High serum α1-globulin correlates with high tumor load. Serum α1-globulin is an independent prognostic factor of OS and PFS in mRCC and demonstrates better predictive value for OS than does the IMDC model.

Prognostic Markers for Refined Stratification of IMDC Intermediate-Risk Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate-risk group have heterogeneous prognoses and thus may benefit from improved risk stratification. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze inflammatory parameters such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as prognostic markers for IMDC intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: Patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (n = 71) with IMDC intermediate risk who received tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy were included in this retrospective study. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). RESULTS: As first-line systemic therapy, 46 (65%), 19 (27%), and 6 (8%) patients received sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib, respectively. An IMDC prognostic score of 1 and 2 were observed in 34 (48%) and 37 (52%) patients, respectively. Mean CRP level was 1.06 mg/dL, and mean NLR was 3.0. Multivariate Cox regression revealed several factors significantly associated with poor OS, including NLR ≥ 3 (vs NLR < 3; hazard ratio [HR] 2.57; p = 0.0228), CRP level ≥ 1 mg/dL (vs CRP < 1 mg/dL; HR 2.89; p = 0.0279), and two or more metastatic organs (vs one organ; HR 3.77; p = 0.0008). Using these risk factors, patients were stratified into the following three risk categories: F0 (no prognostic factors; n = 20), in which the median OS (mOS) was not achieved; F1 (1 prognostic factor; n = 31), in which the mOS was 31 months; and F2-3 (2 or 3 prognostic factors; n = 20) in which the mOS was 13 months (log-rank p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: CRP, NLR, and the number of metastatic organs were independent prognostic factors in IMDC intermediate-risk patients.

Association between age and sex and mortality after adjuvant therapy for renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In phase 3 trials of patients with resected high-risk renal cell carcinoma, adjuvant sunitinib has demonstrated no overall survival (OS) benefit, an uncertain disease-free survival (DFS) benefit, and increased toxicity versus placebo. To identify patients who may derive benefit or harm from adjuvant therapy, the authors assessed the effects of age and sex on treatment outcomes in the phase 3 Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Cancer (ASSURE) trial. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of age and sex among patients in the ASSURE trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and DFS were evaluated with sunitinib or sorafenib versus placebo in 4 patient subgroups defined by sex and median age at the time of the study. RESULTS: Sunitinib treatment was associated with decreased OS (HR, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.80) among women aged >56 years, but not in women aged ≤56 years or men of any age. Similar associations with age and sex were observed for DFS, but these were not statistically significant (women aged >56 years: HR, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.10]). No such association was found for sorafenib. The interaction by age and sex on mortality was found to be statistically significant for sunitinib (P = .01), but not sorafenib (P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant sunitinib may increase mortality among older women with renal cell carcinoma. Given the recent approval of adjuvant sunitinib for patients with high-risk resected renal cell carcinoma, additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The combination of bevacizumab/temsirolimus after first-line anti-VEGF therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma: a clinical and biomarker study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting represents the standard first-line therapy for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), while blocking the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is effective in relapsed disease. Since continuing blockade of VEGF may be of value, we studied the combination of bevacizumab with temsirolimus in mRCC patients relapsing after first-line treatment. METHODS: A prospective, phase II study of the combination of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks) with temsirolimus (25 mg weekly) in patients with mRCC who failed first-line anti-VEGF treatment. 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was the primary end point. The association of VEGFa, VEGFR2, fibroblast growth factor (FGF) b, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) a and PDGFRb with prognostic factors and outcomes were also studied. RESULTS: 39 patients were enrolled. First-line therapy included: sunitinib (n = 16), bevacizumab/interferon (n = 12), pazopanib (n = 10), sorafenib (n = 1). After a median follow-up of 37 months, 6-month PFS rate was 50.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33.8-65.7], median time to progression 6.8 months (95% CI 5.5-9.2) and median overall survival (OS) 18.2 months (95% CI 12.9-27.2). Objective response rate was 27%. The most common AEs were metabolic (33%), renal (8%) and gastrointestinal (GI) (7%). The most common grade 3-5 AEs were GI (18%), infections (14%) and metabolic (25%). Toxicity was the most frequent cause of treatment discontinuation (40%). FGFb levels were associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: In concert with recent data, our study confirms the efficacy of anti-VEGF/anti-mTOR combination in mRCC relapsing after anti-VEGF therapy. Toxicity was considerable leading to high rate of treatment discontinuations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01264341.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System / Costo-efectividad entre el pazopanib y el sunitinib para el cáncer renal metastásico desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

Abstract: Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

Resumen: El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Multi-parameter MRI to investigate vasculature modulation and photo-thermal ablation combination therapy against cancer.

Nanotransducer-mediated photothermal therapy (PTT) has emerged as an attractive therapy modality against cancer, but its efficacy is often limited by the amount of nanoparticles delivered to tumors. Previous studies showed a vasculature modulation treatment, which dilates or prunes tumor blood vessels, may enhance tumor uptake of nanoparticles. However, exploiting these approaches for improved PTT has seldom been studied. In this study, we investigated the impact of mild hyperthermia or anti-angiogenesis therapy on PTT. Briefly, we gave tumor-bearing balb/c mice low doses of sunitinib or submerged tumors in a 42 °C water bath. Next, we injected PEGylated reduced graphene oxide (RGO-PEG) and irradiated the tumors to induce PTT. We then followed up the treatment with multi-parameter MRI. Contrary to expectation, both vessel modulation strategies led to diminished PTT efficacy. Our results show that vessel modulation does not warrant improved PTT, and should be carefully gauged when used in combination with PTT.

Open-label, randomized multicentre phase II study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib by dose administration regimen (dose modification or dose interruptions) in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: study protocol of the SURF trial.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in the first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) setting at the dose of 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by a pause of 2 weeks. Due to toxicity, this standard schedule (50 mg daily 4/2) can induce up to 50% of sunitinib dose modification (reduction and/or interruption). The current recommendation in such case is to reduce the dose to 37.5 mg per day (standard schedule 4/2). Recent data highlight an alternative schedule: 2 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week of pause (experimental schedule 2/1). The SURF trial is set up to evaluate prospectively experimental schedule 2/1 when toxicity occurs. This article displays the key elements of the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: SURF [NCT02689167] is a prospective, randomized, open-label phase IIb study. Patients are included at sunitinib initiation while receiving standard schedule 4/2 (50 mg daily) according to the marketing authorization indication. When a dose adjustment of sunitinib is required, patients are randomized between standard schedule 4/2 (37.5 mg daily) and experimental schedule 2/1 (50 mg daily). Key eligibility criteria are the following: patients with locally advanced inoperable or MRCC who are starting first-line treatment with sunitinib, with histologically or cytologically confirmed renal cancer clear cell variant or with a clear cell component, and with Karnofsky performance status ≥70%. The primary objective is to assess the median duration of sunitinib treatment (DOT) in each group. The key secondary objectives are progression-free survival, overall survival, time to randomization, objective response rate, safety, sunitinib dose intensity, health-related quality of life, and the description of main drivers triggering randomization. We hypothesized that experimental schedule 2/1 would result in an improvement in median DOT from 6 to 8.5 months. It was estimated that 112 patients would be needed in each arm during 24 months. In order to take into account the possibility of treatment discontinuation before randomization, 248 patients are necessary. DISCUSSION: The SURF trial is asking a pragmatic question adapted to the current practice on what is the best way to adapt sunitinib when treatment-related adverse events occur. The results of the SURF trial will bring high-value data to support the use of an alternative schedule in sunitinib treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02689167 . Registered on 26 February 2016.

Adverse reactions of sorafenib, sunitinib, and imatinib in treating digestive system tumors.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to assess the adverse reactions caused by multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of gastrointestinal tumors. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of drug-related adverse reactions in 115 patients who were treated with sorafenib, sunitinib, and imatinib for primary hepatocellular carcinoma or gastrointestinal stromal tumors from October 2003 to March 2012 at the Peking University International Hospital. RESULTS: The total incidence of adverse reactions of sorafenib, sunitinib, and imatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors was > 80%. The main adverse reactions of sorafenib were hypertension in 38 patients (33.3%) and diarrhea in 28 patients (24.4%). Sunitinib was associated with higher incidence and greater grade 3-4 toxicity. The common toxicities were skin color changes in 105 patients (90.9%), hand-foot skin reactions in 65 patients (54.6%), and leukopenia (63.6%), hypertension (22.7%), proteinuria (22.7%), liver function impairment (22.7%), and hypomagnesemia (27.3%). While imatinib was well tolerated, it was associated with the highest number of adverse reactions, including skin color change (55.6%) and edema (38.9%). Hypophosphatemia (4.4%) and hoarseness (2.2%) only occurred in the sorafenib treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The adverse reactions of multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments are generally mild to moderate, and most patients can tolerate these without the need for further intervention. Some serious adverse reactions may be alleviated by discontinuing the drugs or by administering symptomatic treatment.

High fat mass associates with occurrence of targeted therapy-induced left ventricular ejection fraction reduction in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent research suggests that variations of skeletal muscle (SM) and fat predict the severity of chemotherapy-induced toxicities in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Cardio-toxicity has not been evaluated in this context. METHODS: In this study we considered 47 RCC patients who participated in randomized clinical trials of sorafenib or sunitinib (i.e., targeted therapy). To capture cardio-toxicity, multi gated acquisition (MUGA) scan-defined left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) tests (at least 3 tests over 1 year of treatment) were abstracted. Computed tomography (CT) cross-sectional images were analyzed before start of targeted therapy and at 1 year to define SM and fat at baseline and changes over time concurrent with MUGA-defined LVEF measurement. RESULTS: MUGA-defined cardio-toxicity (usually fall in LVEF >10% to an absolute LVEF<55%) occurred in 8/47 (17%) patients over 1 year of targeted therapy (all were male). Percentage of patients with high fat mass (baseline CT-defined total adipose tissue/indexed by height2 greater than the gender-specific median value) was higher among patients with cardio-toxicity versus patients without cardio-toxicity [7 (87.5%) versus 16 (41.0%); p = 0.02]. The percentage of SM loss in patients with cardio-toxicity was higher than the patients without cardio-toxicity [median of loss (%) -7 versus 0 respectively; p = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: Cardio-toxicity in RCC patients might be associated with high fat mass. This finding is distinct from prior observations that low body weight and sarcopenia associated with non-cardiac toxicities of targeted therapies. Concurrence of SM loss over time and development of cardio-toxicity is reported for the first time.