A group of novel VEGF splice variants as alternative therapeutic targets in renal cell carcinoma.

The efficacy of anti-angiogenic treatment by targeting VEGF/VEGF receptors in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) varies from patient to patient. Discovering the reasons behind this variability could lead to the identification of relevant therapeutic targets. Thus, we investigated the novel splice variants of VEGF that are less efficiently inhibited by anti-VEGF/VEGFR targeting than the conventional isoforms. By in silico analysis, we identified a novel splice acceptor in the last intron of the VEGF gene resulting in an insertion of 23 bp in VEGF mRNA. Such an insertion can shift the open-reading frame in previously described splice variants of VEGF (VEGFXXX ), leading to a change in the C-terminal part of the VEGF protein. Next, we analysed the expression of these alternatively spliced VEGF new isoforms (VEGFXXX/NF ) in normal tissues and in RCC cell lines by qPCR and ELISA, and we investigated the role of VEGF222/NF (equivalent to VEGF165 ) in physiological and pathological angiogenesis. Our in vitro data demonstrated that recombinant VEGF222/NF stimulated endothelial cell proliferation and vascular permeability by activating VEGFR2. In addition, VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced proliferation and metastatic properties of RCC cells, whereas downregulation of VEGF222/NF resulted in cell death. We also generated an in vivo model of RCC by implanting RCC cells overexpressing VEGF222/NF in mice, which we treated with polyclonal anti-VEGFXXX/NF antibodies. VEGF222/NF overexpression enhanced tumour formation with aggressive properties and a fully functional vasculature, while treatment with anti-VEGFXXX/NF antibodies slowed tumour growth by inhibiting tumour cell proliferation and angiogenesis. In a patient cohort from the NCT00943839 clinical trial, we investigated the relationship between plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels, resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy and survival. High plasmatic VEGFXXX/NF levels correlated with shorter survival and lower efficacy of anti-angiogenic drugs. Our data confirmed the existence of new VEGF isoforms that could serve as novel therapeutic targets in patients with RCC that are resistant to anti-VEGFR therapy.

Sorafenib and sunitinib for elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and sorafenib are small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors with known antitumor activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assess the response and tolerance of elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma to these two agents. Data of patients aged ≥70years receiving sorafenib or sunitinib at the Centre Léon Bérard were analyzed. Forty-eight patients received sorafenib or sunitinib as a first line treatment, 8 received sorafenib followed by sunitinib and 4 received the reverse sequence. Objective responses (ORs), stable disease (SD), toxicity, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were reported. RESULTS: Sorafenib and sunitinib achieved similar OR+SD rates (79% vs. 71% respectively). Median PFS was 6months in first-line sorafenib treated patients and 5months in the sunitinib group. Median OS was 16months in first-line sorafenib-treated patients and 15months in the sunitinib group. In patients receiving sorafenib followed by sunitinib, median PFS was 11.5months, and median OS was 13.1months. With the reverse sequence, median PFS was 8.1months and median OS was 15months. Treatment modifications were more frequent in sunitinib-treated patients, in first or second line (75% vs. 50%). Limitations are the retrospective design of the study and the small number of patients. CONCLUSION: First-line sunitinib and sorafenib seem equally efficient in elderly patients treated for advanced renal carcinomas, but sunitinib is less well tolerated. Sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by sunitinib seems to be better tolerated. These results should be confirmed in a larger prospective study.

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.

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.

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.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Sorafenib for treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Final efficacy and safety results of the phase III treatment approaches in renal cancer global evaluation trial.

PURPOSE: Mature survival data and evaluation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a prognostic biomarker from the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred three previously treated patients were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib versus placebo. On demonstration of progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with sorafenib, patients assigned to placebo were offered sorafenib. Overall survival (OS) was determined at two planned interim analyses and one final analysis, with a secondary OS analysis conducted by censoring placebo patients who crossed over to sorafenib. The relationships between baseline VEGF level and prognosis and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: The final OS of patients receiving sorafenib was comparable with that of patients receiving placebo (17.8 v 15.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; P = .146); however, when post-cross-over placebo survival data were censored, the difference became significant (17.8 v 14.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.78; P = .029). Adverse events at 16 months after cross over were similar to those previously reported. Baseline VEGF levels correlated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P < .0001), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (P < .0001), and PFS and OS in univariate (PFS, P = .0013; OS, P = .0009) and multivariate (PFS, P = .0231; OS, P = .0416) analyses of placebo patients and with short OS by multivariate analysis of patients receiving sorafenib (P = .0145). Both high-VEGF (P < .01) and low-VEGF (P < .01) groups benefited from sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although an OS benefit was not seen on a primary intent-to-treat analysis, results of a secondary OS analysis censoring placebo patients demonstrated a survival advantage for those receiving sorafenib, suggesting an important cross-over effect. VEGF levels are prognostic for PFS and OS in RCC. The results of TARGET establish the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in advanced RCC.

Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with sorafenib versus interferon Alfa-2a in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: An open-label, phase II study to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall best response, adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes with sorafenib versus interferon alfa-2a (IFN-alpha-2a) in patients with untreated, advanced renal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 189 patients were randomly assigned to oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to subcutaneous IFN-alpha-2a 9 million U three times weekly (period 1). Sorafenib patients who progressed were dose-escalated to 600 mg twice daily; IFN-alpha-2a patients who progressed were switched to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (period 2). RESULTS: In period 1 PFS was similar for sorafenib-treated (n = 97; 5.7 months) and IFN-alpha-2a-treated patients (n = 92; 5.6 months); more sorafenib-treated patients had tumor shrinkage (68.2% v 39.0%). Common drug-related AEs (Grades > or = 3) for sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (11.3%), diarrhea (6.2%), and rash/desquamation (6.2%); for IFN-alpha-2a, these were fatigue (10.0%), nausea (3.3%), flu-like syndrome (2.2%), and anorexia (2.2%). Sorafenib-treated patients reported fewer symptoms, better quality of life (QOL), and greater treatment satisfaction. In period 2, 41.9% of patients who received sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 43) experienced tumor reduction (median PFS, 3.6 months). After the switch to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, tumors were reduced in 76.2% of 50 patients (median PFS, 5.3 months). AEs were mostly grade 1 to 2; no increase in AEs of grades > or = 3 occurred after sorafenib dose escalation. CONCLUSION: In this study, sorafenib resulted in similar PFS as IFN-alpha-2a in patients with untreated RCC. However, sorafenib-treated patients experienced greater rates of tumor size reduction, better QOL, and improved tolerability. Both dose escalation of sorafenib after progression and a switch to sorafenib after progression on IFN-alpha-2a resulted in clinical benefit.

O-Mel-Inib: a Cancéro-pôle Nord-Ouest multicenter phase II trial of high-dose imatinib mesylate in metastatic uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, there is no consensual and effective treatment in metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM). Numerous preclinical data (for example, 75% of MUM express c-kit) suggest that imatinib mesylate (IM) may be a potential treatment of UMM. METHODS: The primary objective of this phase II trial was to determine the non-progression rate at 3 months for patients receiving IM at dose of 400 mg twice per day orally. The study was based on a Simon's optimal design, which allows entry a total of 29 patients, if at least two non-progressions among ten first patients were observed. RESULT: Thirteen patients including ten assessable patients were enrolled in 12 months. No objective response and only one stable disease with duration of 5 months were noted. Five and one out of 13 enrolled patients experienced grade 3 and grade 4 toxicities, respectively. The most common severe adverse events were abdominal pain. The overall survival was 10.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising preclinical data, IM is an inactive single agent in MUM. This phase II clinical trial has been stopped at the first step.

Efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib and sorafenib are novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have shown significant clinical activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The activity of sunitinib and sorafenib in non-clear cell histologies has not been evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical features at study entry and treatment outcomes were evaluated in patients with metastatic papillary RCC (PRCC) and chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) who received either sunitinib or sorafenib as their initial TKI treatment in five US and French institutions. Response rate and survival were documented. Fisher's exact test was used for categoric variables, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. The number of patients with papillary and chromophobe histologies was 41 (77%) and 12 (23%), respectively. Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) time, and overall survival time for the entire cohort were 10%, 8.6 months, and 19.6 months, respectively. Three (25%) of 12 ChRCC patients achieved a response (two patients treated with sorafenib and one treated with sunitinib), and PFS was 10.6 months. Two (4.8%) of 41 PRCC patients achieved a response (both patients were treated with sunitinib). PFS for the whole cohort was 7.6 months. Sunitinib-treated PRCC patients had a PFS of 11.9 months compared with 5.1 months for sorafenib-treated patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with PRCC and ChRCC may have prolonged PFS from sunitinib and sorafenib, although clinical responses remain overall low in PRCC. Additional prospective trials with these agents in non-clear cell RCC will further clarify their use in the future.

Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis, in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: From November 2003 to March 2005, we randomly assigned 903 patients with renal-cell carcinoma that was resistant to standard therapy to receive either continuous treatment with oral sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo; 451 patients received sorafenib and 452 received placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. A single planned analysis of progression-free survival in January 2005 showed a statistically significant benefit of sorafenib over placebo. Consequently, crossover was permitted from placebo to sorafenib, beginning in May 2005. RESULTS: At the January 2005 cutoff, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression in the sorafenib group, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.55; P<0.01). The first interim analysis of overall survival in May 2005 showed that sorafenib reduced the risk of death, as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94; P=0.02), although this benefit was not statistically significant according to the O'Brien-Fleming threshold. Partial responses were reported as the best response in 10% of patients receiving sorafenib and in 2% of those receiving placebo (P<0.001). Diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reactions were the most common adverse events associated with sorafenib. Hypertension and cardiac ischemia were rare serious adverse events that were more common in patients receiving sorafenib than in those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo, treatment with sorafenib prolongs progression-free survival in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in whom previous therapy has failed; however, treatment is associated with increased toxic effects. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00073307 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

[Clinical practice guideline: 2005 update of recommendations for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma without distant metastases (summary report)]. / Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: mise à jour 2005 des recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients adultes atteints d'un mélanome cutané sans métastase à distance (rapport abrégé).

CONTEXT: The National French federation of comprehensive cancer centres (FNCLCC) and the French society of dermatology (SFD) initiated together the update of clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma in collaboration with the French national cancer institute and with specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. This work is based on the methodology developed in the "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project. OBJECTIVES: To update SOR guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous melanoma previously validated in 1998 and French melanoma consensus conference published by SFD and ANAES in 1995. METHODS: The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPGs according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guidelines have been developed, they are reviewed by independent reviewers. RESULTS: This article is a summary version of the updated clinical practice guidelines with algorithms. The main questions addressed by the expert group in this update concerned (1) The new AJCC-UICC classification (2) Excision margins (3) Sentinel node biopsy (4) Adjuvant treatments (5) Initial staging and follow up of operated patients.