Impact of COVID-19 on healthcare organisation and cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the management of patients with cancer and delays in treatment delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the use of hospital resources and cancer mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient flows, patient pathways and use of hospital resources during the pandemic were simulated using a discrete event simulation model and patient-level data from a large French comprehensive cancer centre's discharge database, considering two scenarios of delays: massive return of patients from November 2020 (early-return) or March 2021 (late-return). Expected additional cancer deaths at 5 years and mortality rate were estimated using individual hazard ratios based on literature. RESULTS: The number of patients requiring hospital care during the simulation period was 13,000. In both scenarios, 6-8% of patients were estimated to present a delay of >2 months. The overall additional cancer deaths at 5 years were estimated at 88 in early-return and 145 in late-return scenario, with increased additional deaths estimated for sarcomas, gynaecological, liver, head and neck, breast cancer and acute leukaemia. This represents a relative additional cancer mortality rate at 5 years of 4.4 and 6.8% for patients expected in year 2020, 0.5 and 1.3% in 2021 and 0.5 and 0.5% in 2022 for each scenario, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic-related diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with cancer are expected to impact patient survival. In the perspective of recurrent pandemics or alternative events requiring an intensive use of limited hospital resources, patients should be informed not to postpone care, and medical resources for patients with cancer should be sanctuarised.

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Everolimus Versus Axitinib as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experience From Institut Gustave Roussy.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (E) and axitinib (A) have been standard treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line therapy (1L) with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. This study aims to compare both drugs in a large comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcome data from all patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received E or A as second-line therapy at Gustave Roussy from April 2007 to May 2015 have been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were treated with E and 45 patients with A. There were no major differences between the 2 groups. The most common 1L was sunitinib (79% in the E group and 82.2% in the A group). The median follow-up was 29 months; 26 months for A and 33 months for E (P = .046). The median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months for E and 14.9 months for A (P = .23). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 and 7.7 months for E and A, respectively (P = .39). Partial response was achieved in 4% and in 24% of patients (P = .002) in the E and A cohort, respectively. In the A group, the median PFS and OS were statistically different according to response, tumor burden, and 1L duration. No differences were found in the E arm. CONCLUSION: In this series, there are no significant differences for PFS and OS with E and A. A appears to provide more objective response. A appears to be more effective in patients with small tumor burden, responders to 1L, and 1L therapy > 12 months.

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing the Effectiveness and Adverse Effects of Different Systemic Treatments for Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

CONTEXT: While vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition are effective strategies in treating clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most effective therapeutic approach for patients with non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the oncological outcomes and adverse events of different systemic therapies for patients with metastatic non-ccRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 24, 2016. Only comparative studies were included. Risk of bias and confounding assessments were performed. A meta-analysis was planned for and only performed if methodologically appropriate; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 812 potential titles and abstracts. Five randomized controlled trials, recruiting a total of 365 patients, were included. Three studies compared sunitinib against everolimus, one of which reported the results for non-ccRCC as a subgroup rather than as an entire randomized cohort. Individually, the studies showed a trend towards favoring sunitinib in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS; Everolimus versus Sunitinib in Patients with Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 80% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.92 and 1.41, 95% CI: 0.88-2.27, Evaluation in Metastatic Non-clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.67-2.01, Efficacy and Safety Comparison of RAD001 Versus Sunitinib in the First-line and Second-line Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9-2.8), but this trend did not reach statistical significance in any study. Meta-analysis was performed on two studies which solely recruited patients with non-ccRCC reporting on PFS, the results of which were inconclusive (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.91-1.86). Sunitinib was associated with more Grade 3-4 adverse events than everolimus, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis represent a robust summary of the evidence base for systemic treatment of metastatic non-ccRCC. The results show a trend towards favoring vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for PFS and overall survival compared with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, although statistical significance was not reached. The relative benefits and harms of these treatments remain uncertain. Further research, either in the form of an individual patient data meta-analysis involving all relevant trials, or a randomized controlled trial with sufficient power to detect potential differences between treatments, is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to determine the most effective treatments for advanced kidney cancer patients whose tumors are not of the clear cell subtype. The results suggest that a drug called sunitinib might be more effective than everolimus, but the statistics supporting this statement are not yet entirely reliable. Further research is required to clarify this unmet medical need.

Risk factors and model for predicting toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies are standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, toxicities can lead to drug discontinuation, which can affect patient outcomes. This study was aimed at identifying risk factors for toxicity and constructing the first model to predict toxicity-related treatment discontinuation (TrTD) in mRCC patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS: The baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, and toxicity data were collected for 936 mRCC patients receiving first-line VEGF-targeted therapy from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. A competing risk regression model was used to identify risk factors for TrTD, and it accounted for other causes as competing risks. RESULTS: Overall, 198 (23.8%) experienced TrTD. Sunitinib was the most common VEGF-targeted therapy (77%), and it was followed by sorafenib (18.4%). The median time on therapy was 7.1 months for all patients and 4.4 months for patients with TrTD. The most common toxicities leading to TrTD included fatigue, diarrhea, and mucositis. In a multivariate analysis, significant predictors for TrTD were a baseline age ≥60 years, a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , a single metastatic site, and a sodium level <135 mmol/L. A risk group model was developed that used the number of patient risk factors to predict the risk of TrTD. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series to date, age, GFR, number of metastatic sites, and baseline sodium level were found to be independent risk factors for TrTD in mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Based on the number of risk factors present, a model for predicting TrTD was built to be used as a tool for toxicity monitoring in clinical practice.

A systematic review of sequencing and combinations of systemic therapy in metastatic renal cancer.

CONTEXT: The introduction of novel molecular-targeted agents has revolutionised the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, uncertainties remain over sequential or simultaneous combination therapies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the clinical effectiveness and harms of different sequencing and combinations of systemic targeted therapies for mRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases (including Medline, Cochrane Library, trial registries, and conference proceedings) were searched (January 2000 to September 2013) including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Risk of bias assessment was performed. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence was presented. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 5149 articles. A total of 24 studies reporting on 9589 patients were eligible for inclusion; data from four studies were included for meta-analysis. There were generally low risks of bias across studies; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented pooling of data for most studies. Overall, the data showed several targeted therapies were associated with an improvement in progression-free survival in patients with mRCC. There were limited data from RCTs regarding the issue of sequencing; studies on combination therapies have been hampered by difficulties with tolerability and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although the role of vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeting therapies and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in the management of mRCC is now established, limited reliable data are available regarding sequencing and combination therapies. Although data from retrospective cohort studies suggest a potential benefit for sequencing systemic therapies, significant uncertainties remain. Presently, mRCC systemic treatment should follow international guidelines (such as the European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and European Association of Urology) for patients fit to receive several lines of systemic therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly examined the literature on the benefits and harms of combining drugs for the treatment of kidney cancer that has spread and on the sequence in which the drugs should be given.

Tumor growth rate provides useful information to evaluate sorafenib and everolimus treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: an integrated analysis of the TARGET and RECORD phase 3 trial data.

BACKGROUND: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria may not be sufficient to evaluate the response of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The tumor growth rate (TGR) incorporates the time between evaluations and may be adequate. OBJECTIVE: To determine how TGR is modified along the treatment sequence and is associated with outcome in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical records from all patients prospectively treated at Gustave Roussy (IGR) in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) (sorafenib vs placebo, n=84) and the RECORD (everolimus vs placebo, n=43) phase 3 trials were analyzed. TGR was computed across clinically relevant periods: BEFORE treatment introduction (wash-out), UNDER (first cycle), at PROGRESSION (last cycle) and AFTER treatment discontinuation (washout). The association between TGR and outcome (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]) was computed in the entire TARGET cohort (n=903). INTERVENTION: Sorafenib, everolimus, or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: TGR, RECIST, OS, and PFS rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Although nearly all the patients (IGR) were classified as stable disease (RECIST) after the first cycle, the great majority of the patients exhibited a decrease in TGR UNDER compared with BEFORE (sorafenib: p<0.00001; everolimus: p<0.00001). In sorafenib-treated but not in everolimus-treated patients (IGR), TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) was still lower than TGR BEFORE (washout) (p=0.012), while TGR AFTER progression (washout) was higher than TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) (p=0.0012). Higher TGR (first cycle) was associated with worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.34) and worse OS (HR: 4.69; 95% CI, 1.54-14.39), independently from the Motzer score and from the treatment arm in the entire TARGET cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Computing TGR in mRCC patients is simple and provides clinically useful information for mRCC patients: (1) TGR is independently associated with prognosis (PFS, OS), (2) TGR allows for a subtle and quantitative characterization of drug activity at the first evaluation, and (3) TGR reveals clear drug-specific profiles at progression.

Second line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with targeted therapies in 251 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Sequential treatment is currently the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, very little is known on how many patients (pts) can receive second line or further, and on how to predict those pts. The goal of this study was to evaluate these questions in a large series of pts treated in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from all mRCC patients treated at the IGR from 2005 to 2009 with first line targeted therapy (sunitinib (SU), sorafenib (SO), bevacizumab (B), temsirolimus or everolimus (pooled together as mammalian target of rapamycin - mTOR)) were analysed. Only patients with subsequent follow-up have been included in this analysis. Patients were defined as 'non-eligible' for second treatment if: they were (i) still on first line treatment, (ii) not showing progressive (durable stable disease or partial response or complete response) or (iii) if they refused a second line treatment. RESULTS: 251 patients, median age 60 years, median follow-up 20.2 months were treated with targeted therapy with a median overall survival (OS) of 25.8 months. Median OS with SU (127), SO (60) or B (61) were 26.3, 16.4 and 32.5 months respectively. Only three patients received an mTOR inhibitor as first line. According to the eligibility criteria, the percentage of patients who received a second line was 59% (n=61/103), 52% (n=30/58) and 79% (n=38/48) for Su, So and B, respectively. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) classification (P=0.02) and first line agent (P=0.001) were significant predictive factor for receiving a second line of treatment. Overall, patients receiving B were in better general condition, with 77% of performance status score (PS)=0 compared to SO (53%) and SU (48%) (P=0.005). Among the 131 patients who received a second line, the median OS from the start of second line treatment was 20.8 months for a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n=98; 75%) and 16.6 months for an mTOR (n=32; 42%) (P=0.12). Furthermore, the percentage of patients who received a third line was 56% (27/48), 28% (7/25) and 65% (13/20) for SU, SO and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: The median OS in patients treated with targeted therapies for mRCC in The Institut Gustave Roussy exceeds 2 years. The use of second line varies from 52% to 79%. Further studies are needed to validate the MSKCC groups and first line therapy as predictive factor for second line treatment.

Metastatic tumors to the colon and rectum: a multi-institutional study.

CONTEXT: Unlike the small bowel, the colorectal mucosa is seldom the site of metastatic disease. Objective.-To determine the incidence of truly colorectal metastases, and subsequent clinicopathologic findings, in a substantial colorectal cancer population collected from 7 European centers. DESIGN: During the last decade, 10 365 patients were identified as having colorectal malignant tumors, other than systemic diseases. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical symptoms, treatment, the presence of metastases in other sites, disease-free interval, follow-up, and overall survival. All secondary tumors resulting from direct invasion from malignant tumors of the contiguous organs were excluded, as well as those resulting from lymph node metastases or peritoneal seeding. RESULTS: Only 35 patients were included (10 men) with a median age of 59 years. They presented with obstruction, bleeding, abdominal pain, or perforation. The leading source of metastases was the breast, followed by melanoma. Metastases were synchronous in 3 cases. The mean disease-free interval for the remaining cases was 6.61 years. Surgical resection was performed in 28 cases. Follow-up was available for 26 patients; all had died, with a mean survival time of 10.67 months (range, 1-41 months). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal metastases are exceptional (0.338%) with the breast as a leading source of metastases; they still represent a late stage of disease and reflect a poor prognosis. Therefore, the pathologist should be alert for the possibility of secondary tumors when studying large bowel biopsies. Any therapy is usually palliative, but our results suggest that prolonged survival after surgery and complementary therapy can be obtained in some patients.

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.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is, to date, the key element in the pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). VEGF pathway activation is responsible for the recruitment, migration, and expansion of endothelial cells, with this angiogenesis tumor model being characteristic of RCC. Different strategies have been developed for almost a decade to block the VEGF pathway in this setting. Four different compounds were approved for metastatic RCC (mRCC) in the past 6 years: bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib. Axitinib and tivozanib are also promising compounds under evaluation. The revolution in the management and prognosis of patients with mRCC is ongoing.