Radium-223 Dichloride in Combination with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-Targeting Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma with Bone Metastases.

Purpose: This study investigates the biologic activity of radium-223 with VEGF-targeted therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) and bone metastases.Patients and Methods: Fifteen treatment-naïve patients (n = 15) received pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily, and 15 previously treated patients received sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. Radium-223 55 kilobecquerel/kg was administered concurrently every 4 weeks for up to six infusions in both cohorts. The primary endpoint was decline in bone turnover markers (Procollagen I Intact N-Terminal, N-telopeptide, C-telopeptide, osteocalcin, and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase) compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included safety, rate of symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) and time to first SSE, objective response rate, change in analgesic use, and quality of life. Exploratory analysis of tumor genomic alterations was performed.Results: Of the 30 patients enrolled, 83% had IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk disease, 33% had liver metastases, and 83% had a history of SSE prior to enrollment. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. All bone turnover markers significantly declined from baseline at week 8 and 16. Forty percent of patients experienced treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events. Response rates were 15% and 18% per RECIST v1.1 and bone response was 50% and 30% per MD Anderson criteria, in the pazopanib and sorafenib cohort, respectively. Median SSE-free interval was 5.8 months and not reached, respectively. Analgesic use remained stable over the study time.Conclusions: Radium-223 combined with VEGF-targeted therapy is biologically active and safe. Randomized-controlled trials are needed to define the role of radium-223 in aRCC with skeletal metastases. Clin Cancer Res; 24(17); 4081-8. ©2018 AACR.

Medical oncology consultation and minimization of overtreatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Specialist bias, in which specialists recommend the therapy that they are capable of delivering, is thought to influence the treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer and to contribute to overtreatment of men with limited life expectancy. Consequently, rates of active surveillance, the preferred management modality per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for patients with low- and very low-risk disease and a life expectancy of less than 10 and less than 20 years, respectively, are low. We sought to determine whether consultation with a medical oncologist is associated with increased rates of active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We identified 188 patients with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance at one of three referral centers in Boston, MA in 2009. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether consultation with a medical oncologist was associated with selection of active surveillance. The data were reanalyzed for patients with low- and very low-risk disease and a life expectancy of less than 10 and less than 20 years, respectively. RESULTS: Consultation with a medical oncologist was associated with increased rates of active surveillance (37% v 21%, P = .01), an association that remained significant on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio [OR] = 2.70; 95% CI, 1.27 to 5.75; P = .01). When applied to patients with limited life expectancy, this finding remained significant (OR = 4.74; 95% CI, 1.17 to 19.25; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Consultation with a medical oncologist is associated with increased rates of active surveillance, adherence to NCCN guidelines, and minimization of overtreatment in men with early prostate cancer and limited life expectancy.

Models of care and NCCN guideline adherence in very-low-risk prostate cancer.

NCCN Guidelines recommend active surveillance as the primary management option for patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer and an expected survival of less than 20 years, reflecting the favorable prognosis of these men and the lack of perceived benefit of immediate, definitive treatment. The authors hypothesized that care at a multidisciplinary clinic, where multiple physicians have an opportunity to simultaneously review and discuss each case, is associated with increased rates of active surveillance in men with very-low-risk prostate cancer, including those with limited life expectancy. Of 630 patients with low-risk prostate cancer managed at 1 of 3 tertiary care centers in Boston, Massachusetts in 2009, 274 (43.5%) had very-low-risk classification. Patients were either seen by 1 or more individual practitioners in sequential settings or at a multidisciplinary clinic, in which concurrent consultation with 2 or more of the following specialties was obtained: urology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Patients seen at a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic were more likely to select active surveillance than those seen by individual practitioners (64% vs 30%; P<.001), an association that remained significant on multivariable logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 4.16; P<.001). When the analysis was limited to patients with an expected survival of less than 20 years, this association remained highly significant (72% vs 34%, P<.001; OR, 5.19; P<.001, respectively). Multidisciplinary care is strongly associated with selection of active surveillance, adherence to NCCN Guidelines and minimization of overtreatment in patients with very-low-risk prostate cancer.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: overall survival analysis and updated results from a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. METHODS: Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: Median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 16.7-23.4) with axitinib and 19.2 months (17.5-22.3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.7-9.2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4.7-6.5) with sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand-foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20.7 months (95% CI 18.4-24.6) versus 12.9 months (10.1-20.4) in the axitinib group (p=0.0116), and 20.2 months (17.1-32.0) versus 14.8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020). INTERPRETATION: Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS: We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS: A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

ASCO 2006 highlights: targeted therapy for renal cell carcinoma.

In the past few years, advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have resulted in the identification of new therapeutic targets, and ultimately, the development of new targeted agents for the treatment of the disease. This paper reviews latest data in RCC for the recently approved agents sunitinib and sorafenib, as well as other molecularly targeted drugs, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, held in Atlanta, Georgia, in June 2006. Clinical findings to date show that these new agents are challenging the role of cytokines in this setting, and for some (e.g. sunitinib) a substantially improved efficacy profile (progression-free survival and response) over conventional cytokine therapy has been reported. While challenges remain with regard to optimal use of these agents, the outlook for patients with advanced RCC has improved considerably and there is great hope for continuing progress.