Sorafenib and hepatocellular carcinoma: is alpha-fetoprotein a biomarker predictive of tumor biology and primary resistance?

Background: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is the only biomarker with proven prognostic value in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Preliminary data indicate crosstalk between AFP and VEGF signaling. Methods: The authors looked at 69 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were previously tested for VEGFR2 expression, had available baseline AFP serum concentrations and were treated with sorafenib within clinical trials. Results: Shorter progression-free survival and overall survival were associated with increased AFP level and elevated VEGFR2 staining. At multivariate analysis of AFP level was the only independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival and overall survival. Conclusion: The authors' study confirms the adverse prognostic role of elevated baseline AFP and also suggests a possible role of AFP in primary resistance to sorafenib therapy.

Lay abstract Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a plasma protein commonly used as a tumor marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. Sorafenib is a targeted therapy used to block the growth of cancer cells in several ways. It affects various proteins on the surface of cancer cells as well as targets inside the cell. Some of these targets are involved in tumor angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels). In the present analysis, elevated AFP plasma levels before starting sorafenib therapy were correlated with inferior survival compared with patients with low AFP levels, thus suggesting a possible role of AFP in resistance to sorafenib therapy. Using a specific antibody, the authors also studied the expression on cancer cells of VEGFR2, which is a protein involved in angiogenesis and one of the targets of sorafenib. No correlation was found between AFP level and VEGFR2 expression. The underlying mechanisms involved in resistance to sorafenib therapy still need to be clarified and deserve further studies.

Final Overall Survival Results from a Phase 3 Study to Compare Tivozanib to Sorafenib as Third- or Fourth-line Therapy in Subjects with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Tivozanib is a potent and selective inhibitor of the VEGF receptor. In an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial, we compared tivozanib to sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who had received two or three prior therapies. We have previously reported that the study met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in progression-free survival with tivozanib versus sorafenib (5.6 mo vs 3.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.94; p=0.016). The current report reflects the final assessment of overall survival, showing no difference between treatment with tivozanib and sorafenib (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.24). Given its activity and distinct tolerability profile, tivozanib represents a treatment option for patients with previously treated mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We show that tivozanib, a targeted therapy, can delay tumor growth relative to an already approved targeted therapy (sorafenib) in patients with kidney cancer who have received two or three prior treatments. No difference in survival was observed.

An evaluation of UGN-101, a sustained-release hydrogel polymer-based formulation containing mitomycin-C, for the treatment of upper urothelial carcinomas.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of low-grade upper tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUCs) after either surgery, or nephron-sparing techniques remains an unmet need in Genitourinary (GU) Oncology. UGN-101 is a novel drug in development for the treatment of UTUCs; it is composed of a sustained-release hydrogel polymer-based formulation containing the antitumor antibiotic mitomycin-C (MM-C); cold UGN-101 is liquid, but at body temperature, it becomes a gel, and thus, when administered through a ureteral catheter, it sticks to the upper tract urothelium, slowly releasing MM-C. AREAS COVERED: Here, the authors review the preclinical rationale for the development of UGN-101, as well as presently available clinical results for the treatment of low-grade UTUCs. EXPERT OPINION: The positive results of the recently completed OLYMPUS trial suggest the feasibility, activity (59% of complete responses, with just 6 of these complete responders on follow-up who recurred), and safety (68% of patients experiencing mild to moderate urinary adverse events) of UGN-101 instillations into the upper urinary tract. Our expectations are that UGN-101 will soon become a standard of treatment for low-grade UTUC at risk of relapse after either surgery, or nephron-sparing techniques.

Optimizing treatment of renal cell carcinoma with VEGFR-TKIs: a comparison of clinical pharmacology and drug-drug interactions of anti-angiogenic drugs.

Anti-angiogenic treatment is an important option that has changed the therapeutic landscape in various tumors, particularly in patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Agents that block signaling pathways governing tumor angiogenesis have raised high expectations among clinicians. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) comprise a heterogeneous class of drugs with distinct pharmacological profiles, including potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions. Among them, tivozanib is one of the last TKIs introduced in the clinical practice; this drug selectively targets VEGFRs, it is characterized by a favorable pharmacokinetics and safety profile and has been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). In this article, we describe the clinical pharmacology of selected VEGFR-TKIs used for the treatment of mRCC, highlighting the relevant differences; moreover we aim to define the main pharmacologic characteristics of these drug.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS: Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: AVEO Oncology.

The role of tivozanib in advanced renal cell carcinoma therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of VEGF-targeting therapies in clinical trials led to their recommendation in clinical guidelines for use across the advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment landscape, however, tolerability (including off-target effects) has remained a challenge. Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of all three VEGFRs, with limited off-target interaction, which demonstrates efficacy with improved tolerability relative to multikinase VEGFR-TKIs. Areas covered: Covered here is the clinical development of tivozanib in advanced RCC, including the pivotal Phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical study comparing tivozanib with sorafenib for the treatment of VEGF- and mTOR therapy-naïve advanced RCC patients. Also covered are ongoing trials, exploring the efficacy and safety of tivozanib in the setting of refractory disease and the utility of tivozanib in combination with checkpoint inhibitors for advanced RCC. Combination of a VEGFR-TKI and immunotherapy is promising in advanced RCC, if the treatment regimens have acceptable tolerability. Here the selectivity of tivozanib may contribute to an acceptable tolerability profile when used in combination therapy. Expert commentary: The approval of tivozanib provides an additional option for the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC patients in Europe and allows use of a VEGFR-TKI with selectivity for VEGFRs in this setting.

Cost-effectiveness of Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service Perspective.

PURPOSE: A prior randomized controlled trial (COMPARZ [Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib]) found non-inferior progression-free survival for pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma from an Italian National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead) was employed. The model time horizon was 5 years. For each treatment strategy, the model generated expected progression-free life years, post-progression life years, overall life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. Results were reported as incremental costs per QALY gained and the net monetary benefit of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact on results of methodological and parameter uncertainty. FINDINGS: In the base case, pazopanib was associated with higher QALYs and lower costs and dominated sunitinib. Using willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefits with pazopanib were €6508 and €7702 per patient, respectively, versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 85% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000, 86% at a threshold of €30,000, and 81% at a threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Results were robust to changes in key parameter values and assumptions. IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that pazopanib is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Italy.

Sorafenib dose escalation in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5-69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6-29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0-11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand-foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.

Targeting Stim and Orai Proteins as an Alternative Approach in Anticancer Therapy.

An increase in intracellular Ca2+ concentration plays a key role in the establishment of many cancer hallmarks, including aberrant proliferation, migration, invasion, resistance to apoptosis and angiogenesis. The dysregulation of Ca2+ entry is one of the most subtle mechanisms by which cancer cells overwhelm their normal counterparts and gain the adaptive advantages that result in tumour growth, vascularisation and dissemination throughout the organism. Both constitutive and agonist-induced Ca2+ influx may be mediated by store-dependent as well as store-independent Ca2+ entry routes. A growing body of evidences have shown that different isoforms of Stromal Interaction Molecules (Stim1) and Orai proteins, i.e. Stim1, Stim2, Orai1 and Orai3, underlie both pathways in cancer cells. The alteration in either the expression or the activity of Stim and Orai proteins has been linked to the onset and maintenance of tumour phenotype in many solid malignancies, including prostate, breast, kidney, esophageal, skin, brain, colorectal, lung and liver cancers. Herein, we survey the existing data in support of Stim and Orai involvement in tumourigenesis and provide the rationale to target them in cancer patients. Besides, we summarize the most recent advances in the identification of novel pharmacological tools that could be successfully used in clinical therapy.

Tivantinib, a new option for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? The experience of Italian centers.

In the last decades the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone significant changes following the introduction of novel therapies such as sorafenib, which have improved patient survival. Nevertheless, HCC is still the third most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The evidence-based therapy for advanced HCC that is unsuitable for locoregional treatment is limited to sorafenib, with no second-line option available. This article focuses on the development of the MET inhibitor tivantinib in HCC as a promising treatment option for patients who failed sorafenib. A randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study showed activity of tivantinib in patients with high MET expression. Based on these results, the METIV-HCC phase III study in second-line treatment for MET-high patients was initiated to demonstrate the survival advantage of tivantinib compared to placebo.

Expression of pERK and VEGFR-2 in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and resistance to sorafenib treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The study aimed to evaluate the tissue expression of molecules involved in intracellular signalling pathways as predictors of response to sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We considered 77 patients enrolled into three prospective trials of sorafenib treatment for whom pretreatment tumour tissue was available. The tissue expression of ß-catenin, glutamine synthetase (GS), phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase (pERK), phosphorylated v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog (pAKT) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) was analysed by immunostaining. Stains were scored semiquantitatively and compared with a reference group of 56 untreated HCCs. RESULTS: Overall, the expression of antigens was comparable between treated and untreated patients. Shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were associated with increased pERK staining (≥ 2+ scores) (PFS: 75th percentile 4.4 vs 8.4 months; P = 0.01; OS: 75th percentile 7.0 vs 15.0 months; P = 0.005) and VEGFR-2 staining (≥ 2+ scores) (PFS: 75th percentile 3.8 vs 7.0 months; P = 0.039; OS: 75th percentile 6.3 vs 15.0 months; P = 0.004). At multivariate analysis, both pERK and VEGFR-2 staining maintained an independent effect on OS (HR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.13-3.86, P = 0.019 and HR 2.28; 95% CI, 1.13-4.61, P = 0.021 respectively). No effect was observed for the other tested biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated tissue expression of pERK and VEGFR-2 was predictive of poor outcome in advanced HCC treated with sorafenib.

A systematic review of sequencing and combinations of systemic therapy in metastatic renal cancer.

CONTEXT: The introduction of novel molecular-targeted agents has revolutionised the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, uncertainties remain over sequential or simultaneous combination therapies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review relevant literature comparing the clinical effectiveness and harms of different sequencing and combinations of systemic targeted therapies for mRCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases (including Medline, Cochrane Library, trial registries, and conference proceedings) were searched (January 2000 to September 2013) including only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Risk of bias assessment was performed. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence was presented. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The literature search identified 5149 articles. A total of 24 studies reporting on 9589 patients were eligible for inclusion; data from four studies were included for meta-analysis. There were generally low risks of bias across studies; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented pooling of data for most studies. Overall, the data showed several targeted therapies were associated with an improvement in progression-free survival in patients with mRCC. There were limited data from RCTs regarding the issue of sequencing; studies on combination therapies have been hampered by difficulties with tolerability and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Although the role of vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor targeting therapies and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition in the management of mRCC is now established, limited reliable data are available regarding sequencing and combination therapies. Although data from retrospective cohort studies suggest a potential benefit for sequencing systemic therapies, significant uncertainties remain. Presently, mRCC systemic treatment should follow international guidelines (such as the European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and European Association of Urology) for patients fit to receive several lines of systemic therapies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly examined the literature on the benefits and harms of combining drugs for the treatment of kidney cancer that has spread and on the sequence in which the drugs should be given.

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.

Sequential targeted therapy after pazopanib therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: efficacy and toxicity.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in whom first-line therapies have failed might derive clinical benefit with sequential targeted agents. Limited data are available on the efficacy and toxicity of subsequent therapies after disease progression during pazopanib therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mRCC who received subsequent systemic treatment after pazopanib treatment failure were identified across 7 institutions. Pazopanib was given as first-line therapy in 28 patients and after cytokines therapy in 7 patients. Clinical outcome and toxicity analyses of 2 sequential treatment options (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi]) is presented. RESULTS: Subsequent therapy was anti-VEGF in 22 patients and mTORi in 13. One patient who received bevacizumab and temsirolimus combination was excluded. VEGF-targeted therapies included sorafenib (n = 10), sunitinib (n = 3), bevacizumab (n = 2), cediranib (n = 4) and cabozantinib (n = 3). Patients treated with mTORi received everolimus. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months from the start of subsequent therapy with anti-VEGF and 2.4 months with mTORi (P = .009). Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different (P = .68). Clinical benefit (including partial response and stable disease) on subsequent therapy was observed in 15 patients (64%) and 4 patients (31%) of anti-VEGF- and everolimus-treated patients, respectively (P = .021). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, targeting VEGF was an effective strategy after disease progression during pazopanib treatment, although OS was not different among patients treated with VEGF or mTORi.

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.

Regulation of CD4(+)NKG2D(+) Th1 cells in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with sorafenib: role of IL-15Rα and NKG2D triggering.

Beyond cancer-cell intrinsic factors, the immune status of the host has a prognostic impact on patients with cancer and influences the effects of conventional chemotherapies. Metastatic melanoma is intrinsically immunogenic, thereby facilitating the search for immune biomarkers of clinical responses to cytotoxic agents. Here, we show that a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sorafenib, upregulates interleukin (IL)-15Rα in vitro and in vivo in patients with melanoma, and in conjunction with natural killer (NK) group 2D (NKG2D) ligands, contributes to the Th1 polarization and accumulation of peripheral CD4(+)NKG2D(+) T cells. Hence, the increase of blood CD4(+)NKG2D(+) T cells after two cycles of sorafenib (combined with temozolomide) was associated with prolonged survival in a prospective phase I/II trial enrolling 63 patients with metastatic melanoma who did not receive vemurafenib nor immune checkpoint-blocking antibodies. In contrast, in metastatic melanoma patients treated with classical treatment modalities, this CD4(+)NKG2D(+) subset failed to correlate with prognosis. These findings indicate that sorafenib may be used as an "adjuvant" molecule capable of inducing or restoring IL-15Rα/IL-15 in tumors expressing MHC class I-related chain A/B (MICA/B) and on circulating monocytes of responding patients, hereby contributing to the bioactivity of NKG2D(+) Th1 cells.

Angiogenesis inhibitor therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma: toxicity and treatment patterns in clinical practice from a global medical chart review.

The aim of this study was to assess the treatment patterns and safety of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab in real-world clinical settings in US, Europe and Asia. Medical records were abstracted at 18 community oncology clinics in the US and at 21 tertiary oncology centers in US, Europe and Asia for 883 patients ≥ 18 years who had histologically/cytologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced RCC and received sunitinib (n=631), sorafenib (n=207) or bevacizumab (n=45) as first-line treatment. No prior treatment was permitted. Data were collected on all adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications, including discontinuation, interruption and dose reduction. Treatment duration was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Demographics were similar across treatment groups and regions. Median treatment duration ranged from 6.1 to 10.7 months, 5.1 to 8.5 months and 7.5 to 9.8 months for sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs were experienced by 26.0, 28.0 and 15.6% of sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. Treatment discontinuations occurred in 62.4 (Asia) to 63.1% (US) sunitinib, 68.8 (Asia) to 90.0% (Europe) sorafenib, and 66.7 (Asia) to 81.8% (US) bevacizumab patients. Globally, treatment modifications due to AEs occurred in 55.1, 54.2 and 50.0% sunitinib, sorafenib and bevacizumab patients, respectively. This study in a large, global cohort of advanced RCC patients found that angiogenesis inhibitors are associated with high rates of AEs and treatment modifications. Findings suggest an unmet need for more tolerable agents for RCC treatment.