Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. RESULTS: After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Role and relevance of quality indicators in the selection of first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a position paper of the MeetURO Group.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors still play a very important role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma despite a continuously changing scenario, in which immunotherapy and several combination-based approaches are also available. In this light, patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life are important factors in the selection of the best first-line treatment. This Review focuses on the existing evidence on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life with several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (pazopanib, sunitinib, cabozantinib and tivozanib) used as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Immune System and DNA Repair Defects in Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Locoregional Approaches.

In the last few years, substantial progress has been made in the treatment of ovarian cancer, with increased knowledge about the biology of the disease. Ovarian cancer is a neoplasm strongly linked to defects in DNA repair mechanisms, where deficiency in the homologous recombination (HR) system results in a better response of ovarian cancers to therapy, whether platinum-based chemotherapy, anthracyclines, or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. More recently, it has been demonstrated that different ovarian cancer histotypes may have different immunogenicity. Interestingly, defects in HR systems are associated more frequently with higher tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, providing a rationale for developing combination therapy with immune-modulating agents and PARP inhibitors. Again, locoregional therapies combining heat shock and chemotherapy delivery have been shown to induce an anticancer immune response in vitro. Thus, the potential for locoregional therapeutic approaches that may impact the immune system, perhaps in combination with immune-modulating agents or PARP inhibitors, needs to be further explored. With this premise, we reviewed the main biological and clinical data demonstrating a strict interplay between the immune system, DNA repair mechanisms, and intraperitoneal therapies in ovarian cancer, with a focus on potential future therapeutic implications.

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical treatment: prospective results in 314 patients.

PURPOSE: We studied the usefulness of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT for detecting relapse in a prospective series of patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical treatment. METHODS: Patients with BCR of PCa after radical surgery and/or radiotherapy with or without androgen-deprivation therapy were included in the study. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans performed from the top of the head to the mid-thigh 60 min after intravenous injection of 150 ± 50 MBq of 68Ga-PSMA were interpreted by two nuclear medicine physicians. The results were correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at the time of the scan (PSApet), PSA doubling time, Gleason score, tumour stage, postsurgery tumour residue, time from primary therapy to BCR, and patient age. When available, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans were compared with negative 18F-choline PET/CT scans routinely performed up to 1 month previously. RESULTS: From November 2015 to October 2017, 314 PCa patients with BCR were evaluated. Their median age was 70 years (range 44-92 years) and their median PSApet was 0.83 ng/ml (range 0.003-80.0 ng/ml). 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was positive (one or more suspected PCa lesions detected) in 197 patients (62.7%). Lesions limited to the pelvis, i.e. the prostate/prostate bed and/or pelvic lymph nodes (LNs), were detected in 117 patients (59.4%). At least one distant lesion (LNs, bone, other organs, separately or combined with local lesions) was detected in 80 patients (40.6%). PSApet was higher in PET-positive than in PET-negative patients (P < 0.0001). Of 88 patients negative on choline PET/CT scans, 59 (67%) were positive on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in restaging PCa patients with BCR, highlighting its superior performance and safety compared with choline PET/CT. Higher PSApet was associated with a higher relapse detection rate.

A phase II study of a dose-density regimen with fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide on days 1 and 4 every 14 days with filgrastim support followed by weekly paclitaxel in women with primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence shows that use of anthracycline and taxane adjuvant chemotherapy and dose-dense regimens, consisting of more frequent administration of the drugs, have improved outcomes for breast cancer patients. In this study, we evaluated administration of an epirubicin-based regimen with paclitaxel in a sequential, dose-dense schedule as adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk primary breast cancer. METHODS: In a phase II Simon two-stage design study, we evaluated the feasibility of a modified fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) regimen at high dose intensity (fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 4, epirubicin 60 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 4, and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 4; all drugs were administered every 14 days for 3 cycles) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support followed by dose-intense weekly paclitaxel 100 mg/m(2) for 8 cycles. In 11 patients with breast cancer following quadrantectomy (n = 8) or modified radical mastectomy (n = 3), any grade 3 (G3) or higher nonhematologic toxicity (excluding alopecia, nausea or vomiting, and bone pain, which might be a consequence of the administration of filgrastim) and adherence to the scheduled dose-dense treatment (deliverability) were monitored with the purpose of enrolling an additional 27 patients in the case of a satisfying toxicity profile and deliverability of the planned treatment (at least 7 patients completing the treatment). RESULTS: Five of 11 patients experienced G3 or higher nonhematologic toxicity during the FEC regimen. We did not observe G3 or higher nonhematologic toxicity related to paclitaxel treatment. In particular, three patients experienced G3 fatigue, one patient had G3 oral mucositis, three patients had G3 hypokalemia, one patient had G3 syncope, one patient had G3 transaminitis (alanine aminotransferase), one patient experienced G4 pulmonary thromboembolism, and 1 patient had a G3 breast infection. Four of 11 patients received the regimen with a 25% dose reduction of day 1 and 4 administrations of FEC. Seven of 11 patients required FEC delay ≥7 days in at least 1 cycle, regardless of dose intensity. Two patients failed to complete the FEC regimen. Two of the remaining 9 patients were treated with paclitaxel delay ≥7 days in at least one cycle. After a median follow-up of 28 months, 9 patients were continuously disease free. CONCLUSION: The tolerability rate of a dose-density regimen with FEC followed by weekly paclitaxel was considered not promising for completing the accrual of this study.

Treatment-related fatigue with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumors: an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Fatigue is the most common symptom associated with cancer and cancer treatment. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the incidence and relative risk (RR) of fatigue in patients (pts) with cancer treated with sorafenib (SO), sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ). PubMed databases were searched for articles published till August 2013. Eligible studies were selected according to PRISMA statement. Summary incidence, RR and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of selected studies. Fifteen studies were included in our analysis. A total of 6,996 pts was enrolled: 2,260 had renal cell carcinomas (RCC), 1,691 non-small cell lung cancers, 1,290 breast cancers, 823 hepatocellular carcinomas, 362 soft tissue sarcomas, 304 gastrointestinal solid tumors, 165 neuroendocrine tumors and 101 melanomas. When stratified by drug, SO registered lower incidence and RR of all and high-grade fatigue when compared to SU, whereas the difference between SO and PZ was significant only for all-grade fatigue (p < 0.001). The difference between SU and PZ was significant for high-grade (p < 0.001) but not for all-grade fatigue (p = 0.52). In RCC pts, PZ showed the lower incidence and RR of all and high-grade fatigue. The differences were significant for SU vs. SO (p < 0.001), SU vs. PZ (p < 0.001) and SO vs. PZ (p < 0.001). Treatment with SO, SU and PZ is associated with an increased incidence of fatigue in pts with cancer. Early and appropriate management is required to avoid unnecessary dose reductions and transitory or definitive treatment discontinuations.

Sunitinib, pazopanib or sorafenib for the treatment of patients with late relapsing metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Late recurrence of renal cell carcinoma is not a rare event. In this retrospective study we investigate the clinicopathological features and the outcome of patients treated with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib for late relapsing renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 21 Italian centers involved in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Late relapse was defined as more than 5 years after initial radical nephrectomy. RESULTS: A total of 2,490 patients were screened and 269 (11%) were included in the study. First line therapy was sunitinib in 190 patients (71%), sorafenib in 58 (21%) and pazopanib in 21 (8%). Median progression-free survival was 20.0 months for sunitinib (95% CI 17.0-25.1), and 14.1 months for sorafenib (95% CI 11.0-29.0) and pazopanib (95% CI 11.2-not reported). On multivariate analysis MSKCC score and metastases to lymph nodes, liver and brain were associated with worst overall survival, while pancreatic metastases were associated with longer survival. Furthermore, age, MSKCC score and brain metastases were associated with worst progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with late relapsing renal cell carcinoma seem to present a characteristic pattern of metastatic spread without showing significant differences in terms of progression-free survival among sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib.

Sorafenib as first- or second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a community setting.

AIM: The Italian Retrospective Analysis of Sorafenib as First or Second Target Therapy study assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated in the community. PATIENTS & METHODS: Patients receiving first- or second-line single-agent sorafenib between January 2008 and December 2010 were eligible. Retrospective data collection started in 2012 and covers at least 1-year follow-up. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI: 15.5-19.6): 19.9 months (95% CI: 15.9-25.3) in patients treated with first-line sorafenib and 16.3 months (95% CI: 13.1-18.2) with second-line sorafenib. Overall median (95% CI) progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.9-6.7): 6.6 (95% CI: 4.9-9.3) and 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.0) in first- and second-line patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of sorafenib in routine community practice was generally good, especially in relation to OS in patients treated in the second line, where results were similar to those seen in recent prospective clinical trials.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS: 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.