Pazopanib: Evidence review and clinical practice in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib is indicated in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). The aim of this study was to review the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib and see how these aspects are linked to clinical practice. METHODS: A non-exhaustive systematic review was conducted according to the three topics. No publication restrictions were imposed and the selected languages were Spanish and English. After that, a summary of the main results and findings of the review was presented and discussed during three meetings (one for each topic) with 13 medical oncologists that usually treat mRCC. At these meetings, a questionnaire on the first-line use of pazopanib in clinical practice was also drawn up. After the meetings, the questionnaire was completed by 60 specialist medical oncologists in renal cancer. RESULTS: The efficacy and safety of pazopanib have been demonstrated in several clinical trials, and subsequently confirmed in studies in real-world clinical practice. In addition to its clinical benefit and good safety profile, quality of life results for pazopanib, which compare favorably to sunitinib, make it a good option in the first-line treatment of patients. Special populations have been included in studies conducted with pazopanib, and it is safe for use in elderly patients, poor functional status, kidney failure, and mild or moderate hepatic impairment, and in patients with concomitant cardiovascular disease. The results of the questionnaire have shown that pazopanib is perceived as an effective drug, in which quality of life (QoL) outcomes are valued above all. CONCLUSIONS: This paper offers a comprehensive and critical summary of efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of pazopanib in the treatment of mRCC. Pazopanib is an effective treatment with an acceptable safety profile. Its QoL and tolerability results offer certain advantages when compared with other therapeutic alternatives, and its use appears to be safe in different patient profiles.

OPTIMOX1: a randomized study of FOLFOX4 or FOLFOX7 with oxaliplatin in a stop-and-Go fashion in advanced colorectal cancer--a GERCOR study.

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer, a combination of leucovorin (LV) and fluorouracil (FU) with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) 4 is a standard first-line regimen. The cumulative neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin often requires therapy to be stopped in patients who are still responding. This study evaluates a new strategy of intermittent oxaliplatin treatment that is based on FOLFOX7, a simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil regimen with high-dose oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to either FOLFOX4 administered every 2 weeks until progression (arm A) or FOLFOX7 for six cycles, maintenance without oxaliplatin for 12 cycles, and reintroduction of FOLFOX7 (arm B). RESULTS: Six hundred twenty patients were enrolled, including an exploratory cohort of 95 elderly or poor prognosis patients. Median progression-free survival and survival times were 9.0 and 19.3 months, respectively, in patients allocated to arm A compared with 8.7 and 21.2 months, respectively, in patients allocated to arm B (P = not significant). Response rates were 58.5% with arm A and 59.2% with arm B. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed in 54.4% of the patients in arm A v 48.7% of patients in arm B. From cycle 7, fewer patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicity in arm B. Grade 3 sensory neuropathy was observed in 17.9% of the patients in arm A v 13.3% of patients in arm B (P = .12). In arm B, oxaliplatin was reintroduced in only 40.1% of the patients but achieved responses or stabilizations in 69.4% of these patients. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin can be safely stopped after six cycles in a FOLFOX regimen. Further study is needed to fully evaluate oxaliplatin reintroduction.