Prospective randomized double-blind multicentre phase II study comparing gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus placebo in locally advanced and/or metastasized urothelial cancer: SUSE (AUO-AB 31/05).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in combination with sorafenib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized phase II trial. Its primary aim was to show an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.5 months by adding sorafenib to conventional chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The patients included in the trial had histologically confirmed locally advanced and/or metastatic urothelial cancer of the bladder or upper urinary tract. Chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1250 mg/qm on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/qm on day 1) repeated every 21 days, was administered to all patients in a double-blind randomization of additional sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) vs placebo (two tablets twice daily) on days 3-21. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity, the maximum number of cycles was limited to eight. The response assessment was repeated after every two cycles. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and October 2010, 98 of 132 planned patients were recruited. Nine patients were ineligible. The final analysis included 40 patients in the sorafenib and 49 patients in the placebo arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms concerning ORR (sorafenib: complete response [CR] 12.5%, partial response [PR] 40%; placebo: CR 12%, PR 35%), median PFS (sorafenib: 6.3 months, placebo: 6.1 months) or OS (sorafenib: 11.3 months, placebo: 10.6 months). Toxicity was moderately higher in the sorafenib arm. Diarrrhoea occurred significantly more often in the sorafenib arm and hand-foot syndrome occurred only in the sorafenib arm. The study was closed prematurely because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy showed acceptable toxicity, the trial failed to show a 4.5 months improvement in PFS.

Neoadjuvant therapy of renal cell carcinoma: a novel treatment option in the era of targeted therapy?

The study was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness, toxicity and optimal duration of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with organ-confined or locally advanced renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted agents. A literature review was carried out using Medline/Pubmed articles, as well as congress reports from the last five American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Urological Association and European Association of Urology Annual Meetings. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy is feasible and shows toxicity similar to that seen in a palliative setting. Most studies recommend an application for 2-4 months. The current data situation is best for sunitinib. Surgery can apparently be carried out the day right after discontinuing the drug. However, even sunitinib leads to only a mean 10% decrease in primary tumor size, and one-quarter to one-fifth of all patients show local tumor progression during treatment. Few patients (approximately 12%) with a vena cava tumor thrombus achieve a significant decrease in its level under neoadjuvant therapy; here too, progression is observed in a significant number of cases. Even the new targeted agents show limited effectiveness in achieving relevant remissions of the primary tumor. Furthermore, tumor progression is seen in a significant percentage of patients during neoadjuvant therapy. Thus, even today in the era of targeted agents, a neoadjuvant approach should only be made in patients with localized or locally advanced renal cell carcinoma, which primarily seem to be absolutely inaccessible by (partial) nephrectomy.