Angiogenic Factor and Cytokine Analysis among Patients Treated with Adjuvant VEGFR TKIs in Resected Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The use of VEGFR TKIs for the adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial. We investigated the effects of adjuvant VEGFR TKIs on circulating cytokines in the ECOG-ACRIN 2805 (ASSURE) trial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with resected high-risk RCC were randomized to sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo. Plasma from 413 patients was analyzed from post-nephrectomy baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment initiation. Mixed effects and Cox proportional hazards models were used to test for changes in circulating cytokines and associations between disease-free survival (DFS) and cytokine levels. RESULTS: VEGF and PlGF increased after 4 weeks on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001 for both) and returned to baseline at 6 weeks on sunitinib (corresponding to the break in the sunitinib schedule) but not sorafenib (which was administered continuously). sFLT-1 decreased after 4 weeks on sunitinib and 6 weeks on sorafenib (P < 0.0001). sVEGFR-2 decreased after both 4 and 6 weeks of treatment on sunitinib or sorafenib (P < 0.0001). Patients receiving placebo had no significant changes in cytokine levels. CXCL10 was elevated at 4 and 6 weeks on sunitinib and sorafenib but not on placebo. Higher baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS (HR 1.41 per log increase in CXCL10, Bonferroni-adjusted P = 0.003). This remained significant after adjustment for T-stage, Fuhrman grade, and ECOG performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated with adjuvant VEGFR TKIs for RCC, drug-host interactions mediate changes in circulating cytokines. Elevated baseline CXCL10 was associated with worse DFS. Studies to understand functional consequences of these changes are under way.

Adjuvant Treatment for High-Risk Clear Cell Renal Cancer: Updated Results of a High-Risk Subset of the ASSURE Randomized Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Given recently published results of a 750-patient adjuvant sunitinib trial showing improved disease-free survival (DFS), the appropriate strategy for treating high-risk patients is unclear. We sought to determine whether there is improved disease-free survival benefit to taking the active drug in patients with high-risk (pT3, pT4, node-positive) clear cell renal cancer (ccRCC) in the ASSURE trial (adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib vs placebo in resected unfavorable renal cell carcinoma [RCC]), the largest adjuvant trial published to date. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate DFS and overall survival (OS) in ccRCC high-risk patients randomized to sunitinib or sorafenib vs placebo among patients with stages comparable to other high-risk adjuvant trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The DFS and OS at 10 years postactivation were calculated for 1069 patients in US and Canadian cooperative groups with high-risk patients who had ccRCC histology and pT3, pT4, or node-positive disease accrued between 2006 and 2010 to the double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Outcome analyses by dose quartiles of these patients receiving sunitinib or sorafenib were also performed. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 1 year of adjuvant sunitinib (50 mg), sorafenib (800 mg) daily, or equivalent placebo. The study was amended for patient intolerance to sunitinib (37.5 mg), sorafenib (400 mg) daily, or equivalent placebo with mandatory dose escalation if no serious adverse effects were experienced. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Disease-free survival, defined as time from randomization to recurrence, second primary cancer, or death. RESULTS: Of 1069 patients, 358 (243 [67.9%] men, 115 [32.1%] women) received sunitinib, 355 (248 [69.9%] men, 107 [30.1%] women) received sorafenib, and 356 (254 [71.3%] men, 102 [28.7%] women) received placebo as adjuvant therapy. The mean (SD) age for each group was 58.3 (10.6) years, 56.8 (10.3) years, and 57.5 (10.4) years, respectively. Five-year DFS rates were 47.7%, 49.9%, and 50.0%, respectively for sunitinib, sorafenib, and placebo (HR, 0.94 for sunitinib vs placebo; and HR, 0.90; 97.5% CI, 0.71-1.14 for sorafenib vs placebo), with 5-year OS of 75.2%, 80.2%, and 76.5% (HR, 1.06; 97.5% CI, 0.78-1.45; P = .66, sunitinib vs placebo; and HR, 0.80; 97.5% CI, 0.58-1.11; P = .12 for sorafenib vs placebo). There was no difference by dose quartile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Neither prognostic category of the tumor nor dose intensity of therapy altered the lack of difference in DFS or OS in this population of patients with high-risk ccRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00326898.

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.

BEST: A Randomized Phase II Study of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, RAF Kinase, and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Combination Targeted Therapy With Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, and Temsirolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma--A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2804).

PURPOSE: On the basis of evidence that resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibition is caused by hypoxia-driven residual VEGF and other proangiogenic factors, combinations of agents from these classes were hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes relative to single-agent VEGF pathway blockade. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 361 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned equally to arm A (bevacizumab monotherapy 10 mg/kg intravenously [IV] every 2 weeks), B (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks and temsirolimus 25 mg IV every week), C (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks and sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, 15 to 19, and 22 to 26), or D (sorafenib 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly). Progression-free survival was the primary end point. RESULTS: Among 331 eligible treated patients, median PFS was 7.5 months for bevacizumab alone (90% CI, 5.8 to 10.8 months), 7.6 months for bevacizumab plus temsirolimus (90% CI, 6.7 to 9.2 months), 9.2 months for bevacizumab plus sorafenib (90% CI, 7.5 to 11.4 months), and 7.4 months for sorafenib plus temsirolimus (90% CI, 5.6 to 7.9 months). Hazard ratios from stratified Cox proportional hazards models were 1.01, 0.89, and 1.07 (with respective P values of .95, .49, and .68) for the three combinations, respectively, compared with bevacizumab alone. Adverse events did not differ significantly among treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The activity of sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab administered in doublet combinations did not significantly improve median progression-free survival in comparison with bevacizumab monotherapy.

Effects of Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib on Cardiac Function in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients without Overt Metastases: Results from ASSURE, ECOG 2805.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib and sorafenib are used widely in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These agents are associated with a significant incidence of cardiovascular (CV) dysfunction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) declines, observed largely in the metastatic setting. However, in the adjuvant population, the CV effects of these agents remain unknown. We prospectively defined the incidence of cardiotoxicity among resected, high-risk RCC patients treated with these agents. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo was administered for up to 12 months in patients with high-risk, resected RCC. LVEF was measured by multigated acquisition (MUGA) scans at standard intervals. Additional CV adverse events were reported according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). RESULTS: Among 1,943 patients randomized, 1,599 had at least 1 post-baseline MUGA. Within 6 months, 21 patients (1.3%) experienced a cardiac event, defined as an LVEF decline from baseline that was >15% and below the institutional lower limit of normal. Nine of 513 patients (1.8%) were on sunitinib, 7 of 508 (1.4%) on sorafenib, and 5 of 578 (0.9%) on placebo (P = 0.28 and 0.56 comparing sunitinib and sorafenib to placebo, respectively). With dose interruption or adjustment, 16 of the 21 recovered their LVEF to >50%. The incidence of symptomatic heart failure, arrhythmia, or myocardial ischemia did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the adjuvant setting, we prospectively define low incidence of cardiotoxicity with sunitinib and sorafenib. These findings may be related to close CV monitoring, or potentially to fewer CV comorbidities in our nonmetastatic population.

L-carnitine supplementation for the management of fatigue in patients with cancer: an eastern cooperative oncology group phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: L-carnitine, a popular complementary and alternative medicine product, is used by patients with cancer for the treatment of fatigue, the most commonly reported symptom in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of L-carnitine supplementation as a treatment for fatigue in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with invasive malignancies and fatigue were randomly assigned to either 2 g/d of L-carnitine oral supplementation or matching placebo. The primary end point was the change in average daily fatigue from baseline to week 4 using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with L-carnitine supplementation or placebo. L-carnitine supplementation resulted in significant carnitine plasma level increase by week 4. The primary outcome, fatigue, measured using the BFI, improved in both arms compared with baseline (L-carnitine: -0.96, 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.60; placebo: -1.11, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.78). There were no statistically significant differences between arms (P = .57). Secondary outcomes, including fatigue measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue instrument, depression, and pain, did not show significant difference between arms. A separate analysis of patients who were carnitine-deficient at baseline did not show statistically significant improvement in fatigue or other outcomes after L-carnitine supplementation. CONCLUSION: Four weeks of 2 g of L-carnitine supplementation did not improve fatigue in patients with invasive malignancies and good performance status.

Hyperthermia combined with radiation for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term results from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute study 94-153.

BACKGROUND: The authors present long-term results from a phase 2 study that assessed the efficacy of transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia plus radiation with or without androgen suppression for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with clinical T2b-T3bN0M0 disease (according to 1992 American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] criteria) received radiation plus 2 transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments. After the first 4 patients, 6 months of androgen suppression were allowed. The study was designed to assess absolute improvement in the 2-year disease-free survival rate compared with the short-term androgen suppression arm in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 92-02. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received a total of 72 hyperthermia treatments. The mean cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM) T90 43°C was 8.4 minutes. According to the 1992 AJCC classification, there were 19 patients with T2b tumors, 8 patients with T2c tumors, 5 patients with T3a tumors, and 5 patients with T3b tumors. The median Gleason score was 7 (range, 6-9), and the median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 13.3 ng/mL (range, 2-65 ng/mL). Thirty-three patients received androgen suppression. At a median follow-up of 70 months (range, 18-110 months), the 7-year overall survival rate was 94%, and 61% of patients remained failure free (according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition for failure free survival). The absolute rate of disease-free survival at 2 years, which was the primary study endpoint, improved significantly (84%) compared with a rate of 64% for similar patients on the 4-month androgen suppression arm of RTOG 92-02. When Phoenix criteria (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL) were used to define biochemical failure, 89% of patients were failure free at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperthermia combined with radiation for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer appeared to be promising. The current results indicated that further study of hyperthermia for the treatment of prostate cancer with optimal radiation and systemic therapy is warranted.

Effects of complementary therapies on clinical outcomes in patients being treated with radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) examined the clinical effects of 2 complementary (CAM) therapies, relaxation response therapy (RRT) and Reiki therapy, in men being treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRx) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Study participants were randomly assigned to weekly RRT, Reiki therapy twice weekly, or wait-list control. Well-validated instruments measured anxiety (STAI), depression (CES-D), and quality of life in cancer patients (FACT-G) at randomization and 3 subsequent time points. RESULTS: Fifty-four men were randomized, and 16 of 18 (89%) of RRT and 15 of 18 (83%) of Reiki patients completed the intervention protocol. No statistically significant difference was found between the RRT, Reiki, and control groups on total scores for the STAI, CES-D, or FACT-G instruments at any time point. However, at the end of the intervention, significant improvement was found on the emotional well-being subscale of the FACT-G quality of life scale in the RRT group compared with the Reiki and control groups (P = .01). In participants who were classified as "anxious" at baseline, statistically significant improvement occurred in the RRT group (P = .02), and a positive trend was found in the Reiki group (P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study documented the feasibility of conducting a RCT of CAM therapies in men undergoing EBRx for prostate cancer. Relaxation response therapy improved emotional well being and eased anxiety in participants. Reiki therapy also had a positive effect in anxious patients. A larger study to verify and better define the benefits of these therapies in men with prostate cancer is warranted.

Acupuncture as palliative therapy for physical symptoms and quality of life for advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is underutilized as an adjunct cancer therapy. The main study objectives were to determine the feasibility of administering acupuncture as palliative therapy to patients with advanced ovarian or breast cancer and to assess the effect on symptoms and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: This study was a pilot, single-armed prospective clinical trial for patients with advanced cancer to receive 12 acupuncture sessions over 8 weeks with follow-up at weeks 9 and 12. Ambulatory patients with advanced ovarian or breast cancer were enrolled to receive treatments at an outpatient academic oncology center. Symptom severity was measured before and after each acupuncture session.A composite QOL assessment tool, consisting of validated instruments, was completed at 5 time points. RESULTS: Forty patients enrolled in the study. Twenty-eight patients (70%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 53%-83%) completed 4 weeks of treatment, and 26 patients (65%; 95% CI = 48%-79%) completed 8 weeks. Eight patients (20%) withdrew before receiving acupuncture, and 6 patients (15%) discontinued treatment early because of disease progression or scheduling demands. Among all 32 assessed patients, there was self-reported improvement immediately post-treatment in anxiety,fatigue, pain, and depression and significant improvement over time for patients with anxiety (P = .001) and depression(P = .02). Among patients experiencing baseline symptoms, there was improvement in anxiety (P = .001), fatigue (P = .0002),pain (P = .0002), and depression (P = .003). QOL measures of pain severity and interference, physical and psychological distress, life satisfaction, and mood states showed improved scores during treatment, with sustained benefit at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that an 8-week outpatient acupuncture course is feasible for advanced cancer patients and produces a measurable benefit that should be evaluated in controlled trials.

Effects of a music therapy intervention on quality of life and distress in women with metastatic breast cancer.

This study examined the effects of music therapy (MT), immediate and over time, on patients' psychological functioning, quality of life, and physiologic stress arousal. This intervention, whereby patients use music strategies to cope with cancer-related stressors, is based on a transactional stress-coping framework. Using a longitudinal, randomized controlled design, 70 women with metastatic breast cancer received either MT or usual care. The MT consisted of three individual sessions led by a music therapist. Psychological symptoms were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and quality of life with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General plus a a Spirituality subscale at baseline approximately 6 weeks and 3 months later. Visual analog scales, heart rate, and blood pressure were assessed in the MT group immediately before and after individual session. Significant immediate effects of MT were observed: relaxation, p = < .00001; comfort, p = < . 00001; happiness, p = < .00001; heart rate, p = .0003; although no significant differences between conditions were found over time. A high attrition rate underscored the complexities inherent in conducting intervention research with advanced cancer patients.

Hyperthermia combined with radiation in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer is associated with a favourable toxicity profile.

PURPOSE: Hyperthermia is used to treat several pelvic tumours. An important step in establishing a broader role for hyperthermia in treatment of prostate cancer is verification of an acceptable toxicity profile. In this report, short- and long-term toxicity profiles of a completed phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer are presented. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-seven patients enrolled on a phase II study of external beam radiation +/- androgen suppression with two transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments were assessed for short- and long-term toxicity. Prostatic and anterior rectal wall temperatures were monitored. Rectal wall temperatures were limited to 40 degrees C (19 patients), 41 degrees C (three patients) and 42 degrees C (15 patients). Univariate logistic regression was used to estimate the log hazard of developing NCI CTC Grade 2 toxicity based on temperature parameters. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals, p-values for statistical significance of each parameter and proportion of variability explained for each of the parameters were calculated. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 42 months. Both short- and long-term GI toxicity were limited to grade 2 or less. Acute grade 2 proctitis was greater for patients with allowable rectal wall temperature of >40 degrees C. Eleven of 18 patients in this group had acute grade 2 proctitis vs three of 19 patients with rectal wall temperatures limited to 40 degrees C (p = 0.004). Long-term grade 2 GI and GU toxicity occurred in 5% and 19% of patients. No late grade 3 or greater toxicity occurred. Late GI and GU toxicity were not associated with the allowable rectal wall temperature. CONCLUSION: Transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation for treatment of advanced clinically localized prostate cancer is safe and well tolerated.

Association of rectal toxicity with thermal dose parameters in treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer with radiation and hyperthermia.

PURPOSE: Although hyperthermia has been used for more than two decades in the treatment of pelvic tumors, little is known about the potential impact of heat on rectal toxicity when combined with other treatment modalities. Because rectal toxicity is a concern with radiation and may be exacerbated by hyperthermia, definition of the association of thermal dose parameters with rectal toxicity is important. In this report, we correlate rectal toxicity with thermal dose parameters for patients treated with hyperthermia and radiation for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with T2b-T3b disease (1992 American Joint Committee On Cancer criteria) enrolled in a Phase II study of external beam radiation +/- androgen-suppressive therapy with two transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia treatments were assessed for rectal toxicity. Prostatic and anterior rectal wall temperatures were monitored for all treatments. Rectal wall temperatures were limited to 40 degrees C in 19 patients, 41 degrees C in 3 patients, and 42 degrees C in 8 patients. Logistic regression was used to estimate the log hazard of developing National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Grade 2 toxicity based on temperature parameters. The following were calculated: hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals, p values for statistical significance of each parameter, and proportion of variability explained for each parameter. RESULTS: Gastrointestinal toxicity was limited to Grade 2. The rate of acute Grade 2 proctitis was greater for patients with an allowable rectal wall temperature of >40 degrees C. In this group, 7 of 11 patients experienced acute Grade 2 proctitis, as opposed to 3 of 19 patients in the group with rectal wall temperatures limited to 40 degrees C (p = 0.004). Preliminary assessment of long-term toxicity revealed no differences in toxicity. Hazard ratios for acute Grade 2 proctitis for allowable rectal wall temperature, average rectal wall Tmax, and average prostate Tmax were 9.33 (p = 0.01), 3.66 (p = 0.03), and 2.29 (p = 0.08), respectively. A model combining these three parameters explained 48.6% of the variability among groups. CONCLUSION: Rectal toxicity correlates with maximum allowable rectal wall temperature, average rectal wall Tmax, and average prostate Tmax for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound hyperthermia combined with radiation for treatment of advanced clinically localized prostate cancer. Further definition of this association of thermal dose parameters with rectal toxicity in treatment of pelvic malignancies with hyperthermia should advance the goal of delivering thermal therapy in an effective yet safe manner.