Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Phase III Randomized IMmotion151 Trial: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab versus Sunitinib in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40-0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37-0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46-0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

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.

Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) is important to gauge clinical benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVES: To estimate important difference (ID) in FKSI-DRS scores that is considered to be meaningful when comparing treatment effect between groups, using mRCC trial data. METHODS: Data were derived from two pivotal phase III mRCC trials comparing sunitinib versus interferon alfa (N = 750) in first-line mRCC, and axitinib versus sorafenib (N = 723) in second-line mRCC. The change from baseline in FKSI-DRS score was examined as a function of a set of anchors using the repeated-measures model. Several anchors were evaluated: FKSI item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment," EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score, and adverse events. RESULTS: When the "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" score was used as an anchor, the ID ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 points. When change in the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score was used as an anchor, the FKSI-DRS ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.63 points. Selecting the adverse events that corresponded to a maximum worsening in the FKSI-DRS score in either trial, the ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.74 points. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing treatment for mRCC, between-group differences in FKSI-DRS scores as low as 1 point might be meaningful.

Genotype Correlations With Blood Pressure and Efficacy From a Randomized Phase III Trial of Second-Line Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III axitinib second-line (AXIS) trial, axitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Analyses of associations between germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and outcomes are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: DNA samples from blood were genotyped using TaqMan allelic discrimination. Logistic/Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate association of 15 SNPs in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF receptor (VEGFR)1, VEGFR2, or hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1α with outcomes for blood pressure (BP; Grade ≥ 3 hypertension, diastolic BP > 90 mm Hg, and increase ≥ 15 mm Hg from baseline) and efficacy (independent review committee-assessed objective response rate and PFS, and overall survival [OS]). Multivariate analyses assessed SNPs and baseline characteristics as potential predictors of PFS and OS. RESULTS: Genotype data were available for 305 (42.7%) of 714 patients; 159 received axitinib and 146 sorafenib. After Bonferroni adjustment, no SNP was associated with BP outcomes. In axitinib-treated patients, VEGF-A rs699947 (A/A vs. C/C) and rs833061 (C/C vs. T/T) were associated with longer OS (27.0 vs. 13.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; Padjusted = .015). In sorafenib-treated patients, VEGFR2 rs2071559 (G/G vs. A/A) was associated with longer OS (26.8 vs. 13.8 months; HR, 0.41; Padjusted = .030). In multivariate analyses, no SNP predicted axitinib efficacy; VEGFR2 rs2071559 predicted PFS (P = .0053) and OS (P = .0027) for sorafenib. Sensitivity/specificity of VEGFR2 rs2071559 for OS was < 80%. CONCLUSION: No SNP predicted axitinib outcomes. Although VEGFR2 rs2071559 predicted sorafenib efficacy in patients with mRCC, sensitivity/specificity limitations preclude its use for selecting individual patients for sorafenib treatment.

Efficacy of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the elderly patient population.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for mRCC. The efficacy of this therapy in the older population is poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with mRCC treated with first-line anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. Patient characteristics, data on second-line therapy, and outcomes including treatment duration and overall survival, were evaluated using summary statistics and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: All patients (n = 1381) were treated with front-line targeted therapy; 144 (10%) were 75 years old or older. Six patients (4%) were favorable risk, 99 patients (69%) intermediate risk, and 39 patients (27%) poor risk according to Heng Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 prognostic factors. The initial treatment for those ≥ 75 years of age was sunitinib (n = 98), sorafenib (n = 35), bevacizumab (n = 7), and AZD217 (n = 4). Twenty-three percent of older patients and 39% of the younger patients went on to receive second-line therapy (P < .0001). The overall response rate, median treatment duration, and overall survival for the older versus younger group were 18% versus 25% (P = .0975), 5.5 months versus 7.5 months (P = .1388), and 16.8 months versus 19.7 months (P = .3321), respectively. When adjusted for poor prognostic factors, age 75 years and older was not found to be associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.781-1.285) or shorter treatment duration (HR, 1.018; 95% CI, 0.827-1.252). The retrospective study design was the primary limitation. CONCLUSION: The use of advanced age as a selection criterion for targeted therapy requires further study, with data suggesting no clinically meaningful differences in overall response rate, treatment duration, and overall survival between older and younger age groups.

Prognostic factors of survival for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases treated with targeted therapy: results from the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes and prognosis of patients with brain metastases from advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are not well characterized in the targeted-therapy era. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) and brain metastases treated with targeted therapy were collected through the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium from 7 cancer centers. RESULTS: Overall, 106 (15%) of 705 patients with mRCC had brain metastases. Forty-seven patients had brain metastases at the start of first-line anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, and the rest developed metastases during follow-up. Of the patients with brain metastases, 12%, 42% and 29% were in the favorable, intermediate, and poor prognosis groups, respectively, per the Heng criteria. Ninety percent had cerebral metastases, 17% had cerebellar metastases, 37% had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80%, and 80% had neurologic symptoms at presentation. The median largest size and number of brain metastases was 1.8 cm (range, 0.2-6.6 cm) and one (range, 1 to innumerable), respectively. The patients were treated with sunitinib (n = 77), sorafenib (n = 23), bevacizumab (n = 5), and temsirolimus (n = 1). Local disease treatment included whole brain radiotherapy (81%), stereotactic radiosurgery (25%), and neurosurgery (25%). On multivariable analysis, KPS < 80%, diagnosis to treatment with targeted therapy <1 year, and a higher number of brain metastases (>4) was associated with worse survival from the time of diagnosis with brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with brain metastases from RCC are unlikely to be in the favorable risk group. KPS at the start of therapy, diagnosis to treatment time, and the number of brain metastases are prognostic factors for overall survival.

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.

Utilizing pre-therapy clinical schema and initial CT changes to predict progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on VEGF-targeted therapy: a preliminary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Because of varying treatment effectiveness with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the association of prognostic pre-therapy clinical schema, initial post-therapy computed tomography (CT) findings, and combination thereof in predicting progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated. A predictive biomarker that combines clinical risk factors and CT imaging features associated with initial response to therapy would be useful in stratifying patients into risk groups to guide therapy, in designing and interpreting results of clinical trials, in planning risk-directed therapy, and in patient counseling. Early identification of poor responders using an imaging biomarker may reduce drug-related toxicity and cost and allow for a therapeutic intervention before disease burden significantly advances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, baseline data for 82 patients with metastatic RCC treated with sunitinib or sorafenib was obtained for risk stratification by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria and criteria by Heng et al. (J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5794-9), (described here as "VEGF prognostic factors criteria"). The initial post-therapy CT was evaluated by Response Assessment Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), Choi criteria, and Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria. Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS (the reference standard) for each patient group and overall accuracy of each method and combined criteria were calculated. RESULTS: The MSKCC model, VEGF prognostic factors criteria, RECIST, MASS criteria, MSKCC + MASS criteria, and VEGF prognostic factors + MASS criteria each demonstrated significant differences in PFS among patient groups (P < 0.005 for each, Log-rank test). Stratification of patient groups by Choi criteria was not statistically significant with respect to PFS (P = 0.101). MSKCC + MASS criteria yielded the highest overall accuracy for identifying PFS ≥ 1 year (77%) and for identifying PFS < 1 year (77%). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of pre-therapy clinical risk factors and CT imaging response by MASS criteria more effectively predicted PFS in patients with metastatic RCC on VEGF-targeted therapy than any single method.

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.

The impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy.

PURPOSE: Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy is a standard of care in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in the era of novel agents remains poorly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed baseline characteristics and outcomes of 314 patients with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy naïve, metastatic renal cell carcinoma from United States and Canadian cancer centers to study the impact of cytoreductive nephrectomy on overall survival. RESULTS: Patients who underwent cytoreductive nephrectomy (201) were younger (p < 0.01), and more likely to have a better Karnofsky performance status (p < 0.01), more than 1 site of metastasis (p = 0.04) and lower corrected calcium levels (p < 0.01) compared to those who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (113). On univariable analysis cytoreductive nephrectomy was associated with a median overall survival of 19.8 months compared to 9.4 months for patients who did not undergo cytoreductive nephrectomy (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.32, 0.59; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis and adjusting for established prognostic risk factors the overall survival difference persisted (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46, 0.99; p = 0.04) in favor of the cytoreductive nephrectomy group. In subgroup analyses stratified for favorable/intermediate/poor risk criteria, patients in the poor risk group had a marginal benefit (p = 0.06). Similarly patients with Karnofsky performance status less than 80% also had a marginal survival benefit (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study cytoreductive nephrectomy was independently associated with a prolonged overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor targeted agents, although the benefit is marginal in those patients with poor risk features.

Sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma refractory to either sunitinib or bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab and sunitinib are standard initial therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Despite common use, the safety and activity of sorafenib in bevacizumab- or sunitinib-refractory mRCC have not been prospectively investigated. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined disease progression (PD) after treatment with either bevacizumab or sunitinib received twice daily 400 mg of sorafenib in a multicenter, prospective phase 2 study. Dose escalation was permitted in the absence of significant toxicity. The primary endpoint was tumor burden reduction rate, defined as the proportion of patients with ≥5% reduction in the sum of RECIST-defined target lesions without other PD. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival, and safety. A 2-stage accrual design was used to test the alternative hypothesis that the tumor burden reduction rate was >20% versus <5%. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The tumor burden reduction rate was 30% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-45%). One unconfirmed objective partial response was observed. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.9). There was no association of PFS and tumor shrinkage with response to prior therapy. Most treatment-related adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity, and included fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE). Patients previously treated with bevacizumab tended to develop more PPE (P=.03) and mucositis (P=.06), whereas sunitinib-treated patients tended to develop more skin rash (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of sorafenib is safe and feasible in patients with mRCC refractory to either bevacizumab or sunitinib. Modest clinical activity was observed supporting current practice patterns of sequential vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in mRCC.

Morphology, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) criteria: assessing response and predicting clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on antiangiogenic targeted therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate response assessment and predict clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving antiangiogenic targeted therapy. Target lesions were assessed on routine contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) images obtained during the portal venous phase using new response criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard CECT examinations of patients with metastatic clear cell RCC on first-line sunitinib or sorafenib therapy (n = 84) were retrospectively evaluated using Mass, Attenuation, Size, and Structure (MASS) Criteria; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST); Size and Attenuation CT (SACT) Criteria; and modified Choi Criteria. The objective response to therapy was compared with clinical outcomes including time to progression (TTP) and disease-specific survival. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival functions. RESULTS: A favorable response according to MASS Criteria had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 100% in identifying patients with a good clinical outcome (i.e., progression-free survival of > 250 days) versus 17% and 100%, respectively, for RECIST partial response. The objective categories of response used by MASS Criteria-favorable response, indeterminate response, and unfavorable response-differed significantly from one another with respect to TTP (p < 0.0001, log-rank test) and disease-specific survival (p < 0.0001, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: Assessment of metastatic RCC target lesions on CECT for changes in morphology, attenuation, size, and structure by MASS Criteria is more accurate than response assessment by SACT Criteria, RECIST, or modified Choi Criteria. Furthermore, the use of MASS Criteria for imaging response assessment showed high interobserver agreement and may predict disease outcome in patients with metastatic RCC on targeted therapy.

Association of percentage of tumour burden removed with debulking nephrectomy and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the fractional percentage of tumour volume (FPTV) removed with debulking nephrectomy was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) after subsequent targeted therapy, as a debulking nephrectomy is the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but there are few data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute Urologic Oncology database was retrospectively reviewed from 2005 to 2008 to identify patients with mRCC who had undergone debulking nephrectomy followed by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy, defined as sunitinib-, sorafenib- or bevacizumab-based therapy. FPTV was calculated as the largest diameter of the primary tumour divided by the total tumour burden (as per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, RECIST) through investigator re-review of imaging. PFS was defined from the start date of systemic therapy to disease progression per RECIST criteria. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were identified (80% men, median age 61 years, all clear cell histology and 67% with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0). Patients received treatment with bevacizumab ± interleukin-2 (18), sunitinib (14), sorafenib (11) or sunitinib + bevacizumab (three). The median diameter of the primary tumour was 10.0 cm. The median (range) FPTV removed was 95 (80-99)%. In univariable analysis, the FPTV removed (P = 0.002) and normal haemoglobin level (P = 0.04) were associated with improved PFS. In multivariable analysis, the FPTV removed (P < 0.001), male gender (P = 0.001) and corrected calcium (P = 0.05) were independent predictors of PFS. CONCLUSION: A greater percentage of tumour burden removed at debulking nephrectomy is significantly associated with improved PFS on subsequent VEGF-targeted systemic therapy.

Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agents: results from a large, multicenter study.

PURPOSE: There are no robust data on prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) -targeted therapy. METHODS: Baseline characteristics and outcomes on 645 patients with anti-VEGF therapy-naïve metastatic RCC were collected from three US and four Canadian cancer centers. Cox proportional hazards regression, followed by bootstrap validation, was used to identify independent prognostic factors for OS. RESULTS: The median OS for the whole cohort was 22 months (95% CI, 20.2 to 26.5 months), and the median follow-up was 24.5 months. Overall, 396, 200, and 49 patients were treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab, respectively. Four of the five adverse prognostic factors according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) were independent predictors of short survival: hemoglobin less than the lower limit of normal (P < .0001), corrected calcium greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN; P = .0006), Karnofsky performance status less than 80% (P < .0001), and time from diagnosis to treatment of less than 1 year (P = .01). In addition, neutrophils greater than the ULN (P < .0001) and platelets greater than the ULN (P = .01) were independent adverse prognostic factors. Patients were segregated into three risk categories: the favorable-risk group (no prognostic factors; n = 133), in which median OS (mOS) was not reached and 2-year OS (2y OS) was 75%; the intermediate-risk group (one or two prognostic factors; n = 301), in which mOS was 27 months and 2y OS was 53%; and the poor-risk group (three to six prognostic factors; n = 152), in which mOS was 8.8 months and 2y OS was 7% (log-rank P < .0001). The C-index was 0.73. CONCLUSION: This model validates components of the MSKCC model with the addition of platelet and neutrophil counts and can be incorporated into patient care and into clinical trials that use VEGF-targeted agents.

Phase II study of axitinib in sorafenib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of axitinib, an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) refractory to prior therapies that included, but were not limited to, sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients with sorafenib-refractory mRCC received a starting dose of axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily. A one-arm, single-stage design was used to estimate the primary end point of objective response rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Secondary end points included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 62 patients recruited, 100% had received prior sorafenib, and 74.2% had received two or more prior systemic treatments. The axitinib dose was titrated to greater than 5 mg twice daily in 53.2% of patients, and 35.5% of patients had the dose modified to less than 5 mg twice daily. In 62 patients evaluable for response, the ORR was 22.6%, and the median duration of response was 17.5 months. Median PFS and OS times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 11.0 months) and 13.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 18.8 months), respectively. All-causality grade 3 to 4 adverse events included hand-foot syndrome (16.1%), fatigue (16.1%), hypertension (16.1%), dyspnea (14.5%), diarrhea (14.5%), dehydration (8.1%), and hypotension (6.5%). CONCLUSION: Axitinib has antitumor activity in patients with mRCC refractory to prior VEGF-targeted therapy, including sorafenib. Toxicities were mild to moderate and were manageable. A randomized, phase III trial to compare axitinib with sorafenib in patients who have mRCC refractory to one prior first-line therapy regimen is underway.