Deciphering the origin and therapeutic targets of cancer of unknown primary: a case report that illustrates the power of integrative whole-exome and transcriptome sequencing analysis.

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) represents a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, being the third to fourth leading cause of cancer death, despite advances in diagnostic tools. This article presents a successful approach using a novel genomic analysis in the evaluation and treatment of a CUP patient, leveraging whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). The patient, with a history of multiple primary tumors including urothelial cancer, exhibited a history of rapid progression on empirical chemotherapy. The application of our approach identified a molecular target, characterized the tumor expression profile and the tumor microenvironment, and analyzed the origin of the tumor, leading to a tailored treatment. This resulted in a substantial radiological response across all metastatic sites and the predicted primary site of the tumor. We argue that a comprehensive genomic and molecular profiling approach, like the BostonGene© Tumor Portrait, can provide a more definitive, personalized treatment strategy, overcoming the limitations of current predictive assays. This approach offers a potential solution to an unmet clinical need for a standardized approach in identifying the tumor origin for the effective management of CUP.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS: Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.

Impact of Primary Tumor Location on Survival from the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Advanced Urothelial Cancer Studies.

PURPOSE: The prognostic relevance of primary location of urothelial carcinoma on survival has been poorly investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from 3 European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer advanced urothelial carcinoma studies, including 30924 (methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin vs high dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin), 30986 (methotrexate, carboplatin and vinblastine vs gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients who were not candidates for cisplatin) and 30987 (gemcitabine and cisplatin-paclitaxel vs gemcitabine and cisplatin in candidates for cisplatin). Patients were grouped by primary tumor location as those with bladder cancer or upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Progression-free and overall survival was tested by tumor location using Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by study and treatment using 2-sided α = 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 1,039 patients 878 (85.3%) and 161 (14.7%) had bladder cancer and upper tract urothelial carcinoma, respectively. Patients with bladder cancer had better performance status and were more likely to be male (p = 0.008 and <0.074, respectively). By a median followup of 4.8 years (IQR 4.0-6.7) 733 patients had died and 925 had experienced disease progression. Overall and progression-free survival did not differ significantly between bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma cases (p = 0.3 and 0.7, respectively), even after adjusting for the effects of Bajorin risk group by each tumor location. When upper tract urothelial carcinoma was considered separately, patients with primary ureteral tumors had better overall survival than patients with primary bladder cancer (OR = 0.74, p = 0.047). However, this association did not remain significant after adjusting for Bajorin risk group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Primary tumor location had no impact on progression-free or overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with platinum based combination chemotherapy.

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.

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.

Toxicities following treatment with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitors in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with skeletal complications, both as a result of bone metastases and because of fractures associated with fragility due to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Osteoclast inhibitors are commonly used to reduce skeletal complications but are associated with a number of potential adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To review clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa, to discuss the adverse event profile of these agents, and to discuss strategies to address specific adverse events. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched for reports of clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa. As zoledronic acid and denosumab are used most commonly in this disease, these trials were the focus. The literature was reviewed to identify key publications addressing the prevention and management of adverse events associated with these drugs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The major findings of the trials and the adverse events are discussed. Prevention and management of common adverse events are addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid prevents loss of bone mineral density associated with ADT and delays skeletal-related events in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). Denosumab reduces the incidence of fragility fractures associated with ADT, delays the onset of bone metastases in nonmetastatic castration-resistant disease, and is superior to zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal complications in mCRPC. Adverse events associated with both agents include osteonecrosis of the jaw and hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia is more common with denosumab. Zoledronic acid requires dose modifications for renal insufficiency, is contraindicated in severe renal insufficiency, and has been associated with deterioration of renal function. Appropriate patient selection with close attention to dental health, supplementation with calcium and vitamin D, and monitoring of laboratory values are effective strategies to minimize the impact of adverse events associated with osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). CONCLUSION: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

Phase II escalation study of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have been previously treated with anti-angiogenic treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess both clinical and biological efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with an anti-angiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: Sorafenib is an orally active multikinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of mRCC. Drug-focused translational research on tissues (i.e. B-RAF) and plasma (VEGFR-α, circulating endothelial cells, endothelial progenitor cells) was performed to define biological predictive and prognostic markers and their related kinetics. Patients with mRCC pretreated with an anti-angiogenic treatment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-2 and adequate organ function were eligible. Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice a day continuously in 4-week cycles. Patients with no progressive disease at 12 weeks continued to receive sorafenib at the standard dose, whereas progressing patients received an increased dose (600 mg twice a day) with early disease restaging after 4 weeks. Patients who progressed at 600 mg twice a day went off study. Efficacy (overall tumour control) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: In all, 19 patients were entered. The baseline characteristics were as follows: ECOG PS 0-1 94.8%; median (range) age 62 (41-81) years; nephrectomy 100%; surgery for metastatic disease 26.4%; clear cell 79.1%; papillary cell 15.7%; sarcomatoid/high grade 5.2%; two or more metastatic sites 84%. Overall, 11 patients (58%) had disease control at 6 months without significant correlation between response to prior therapy and hypertension. Progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months was observed. Of six patients for whom the dose was escalated due to early progression, three benefitted with PFS of >3 months. Three (15.7%) of 19 patients had a V600E mutation and one had a K601E mutation; PFS appeared to be substantially shorter in these patients compared with 15 patients with wild-type B-RAF (2.5 vs 9.1 month, P < 0.05). The most common toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, NCIC 3.0, all patients) was grade ≥1 diarrhoea and grade 2-3 hand-foot syndrome in 11 patients. Grade 3 mucositis was observed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib at doses of 400-600 mg twice a day continuously results in acceptable and well tolerated salvage treatment after VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor failure. In progressive patients, treatment with a higher dose could be a valid option and B-RAF mutations may be an interesting predictive marker to be studied in a larger randomized trial.

Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma: review of adverse event management strategies.

With the advent of targeted agents for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overall survival has improved, and patients are being treated continuously for increasingly long periods of time. This has raised challenges in the management of adverse events (AEs) associated with the six targeted agents approved in RCC-sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, bevacizumab (in combination with interferon alpha), temsirolimus, and everolimus. Suggestions for monitoring and managing AEs have been published, but there are few consensus recommendations. In addition, there is a risk that patients will be subjected to multiple unnecessary investigations. In this review, we aimed to identify the level of supporting evidence for suggested AE management strategies to provide practical guidance on essential monitoring and management that should be undertaken when using targeted agents. Five databases were systematically searched for relevant English language articles (including American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts) published between January 2007 and March 2011; European Society of Medical Oncology congress abstracts were hand searched. Strategies for AE management were summarized and categorized according to the level of recommendation. A total of 107 articles were identified that describe a large number of different investigations for monitoring AEs and interventions for AE management. We identify and summarize clear recommendations for the management of dermatologic, gastrointestinal, thyroid, cardiovascular, and other AEs, based predominantly on expert opinion. However, because the evidence for the suggested management strategies is largely anecdotal, there is a need for further systematic investigation of management strategies for AEs related to targeted therapies for RCC.

Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men and predominantly affects older men (aged >or=70 years). The median age at diagnosis is 68 years; overall, two-thirds of prostate cancer-related deaths occur in men aged >or=75 years. With the exponential ageing of the population and the increasing life-expectancy in developed countries, the burden of prostate cancer is expected to increase dramatically in the future. To date, no specific guidelines on the management of prostate cancer in older men have been published. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) conducted a systematic bibliographic search based on screening, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for localized and advanced prostate cancer, to develop a proposal for recommendations that should provide the highest standard of care for older men with prostate cancer. The consensus of the SIOG Prostate Cancer Task Force is that older men with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, which is mainly driven by the severity of associated comorbid conditions, and not according to chronological age. Existing international recommendations (European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Urological Association) are the backbone for localized and advanced prostate cancer treatment, but need to be adapted to patient health status. Based on a rapid and simple evaluation, patients can be classified into four different groups: 1, 'Healthy' patients (controlled comorbidity, fully independent in daily living activities, no malnutrition) should receive the same treatment as younger patients; 2, 'Vulnerable' patients (reversible impairment) should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; 3, 'Frail' patients (irreversible impairment) should receive adapted treatment; 4, Patients who are 'too sick' with 'terminal illness' should receive only symptomatic palliative treatment.

Background for the proposal of SIOG guidelines for the management of prostate cancer in senior adults.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of prostate cancer increases with age, with a median age at diagnosis of 68 years. Owing to increased life expectancy, the management of prostate cancer in senior adult men (i.e., aged 70 years or older) represents an important public health concern and a major challenge for the future. No specific guidelines have previously been published on the management of prostate cancer in older men. The SIOG has developed a proposal of recommendations in this setting. METHODS: A systematic bibliographical search focused on screening, diagnostic procedures, treatment options for localised, locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer in senior adults was performed. Specific aspects of the geriatric approach were emphasised, including evaluation of health status (nutritional, cognitive, thymic, physical and psycho-social) and screening for vulnerability and frailty. Attention was drawn to the consequences of androgen deprivation and complications of local treatment, mainly incontinence. The collected material has been reviewed and discussed by a scientific panel including urologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and geriatricians from both Europe and North America. RESULTS: The consensus is to use either European Association of Urology or National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical recommendations for prostate cancer treatment and to adapt them to health status based on instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and activities daily living (ADL), comorbidity evaluation by Cumulative Illness Scoring Rating-Geriatrics and screening for malnutrition. Patients in Group 1 (no abnormality) are 'fit' and should receive the same treatment as younger patients; patients in Group 2 (one impairment in IADL or one uncontrolled comorbidity or at risk of malnutrition) are 'vulnerable' and should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; patients in Group 3 (one impairment in ADL or more than one uncontrolled comorbidity or severe malnutrition) are 'frail' and should receive adapted treatment; patients in Group 4 (dependent) should receive only symptomatic palliative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of prostate cancer in senior adults should be adapted to health status. Specific prospective studies in this setting are warranted.

Vinflunine in platinum-pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: results of a large phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The activity and safety of vinflunine was evaluated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) who developed disease progression within 12 months of platinum-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with UC were eligible if they received a prior platinum-based regimen in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting or as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease and had developed disease progression within 12 months. Vinflunine was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Patients with Karnofsky performance status of 80 or 90, impaired renal function, prior pelvic irradiation, or age>or=75 years received an initial dose of 280 mg/m2, which was escalated to 320 mg/m2 in Cycle 2 if well tolerated. All other patients received an initial dose of 320 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was response rate defined by an independent response review committee (IRRC). RESULTS: Per the IRRC, 22 patients achieved a partial response, with a response rate of 15% (95% confidence interval, 9%-21%) with a median duration of response of 6.0 months. Sixty-four (42%) patients had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, and the median overall survival was 8.2 months. Myelosuppression was the most frequent adverse event, with grade 3 of 4 (adverse events were evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] guidelines) neutropenia reported in 58% of the patients. Grade 3 of 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 10 (7%) patients. Nonhematologic treatment-related events (grade 3 of 4) were generally manageable and included constipation (17%), asthenia/fatigue (13%), ileus (5%), and abdominal pain (5%). No cumulative toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Vinflunine demonstrates moderate activity in patients with platinum-pretreated UC. Toxicity is manageable and noncumulative.

New treatment approaches in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent developments in the understanding of the molecular biology of renal cell carcinoma have led to the development of several biologic agents with different mechanisms of action. In 2005, promising results have been observed especially in second-line therapy following cytokine failures and in 2006 more mature data with regard to time to progression and overall survival should be available. This review, analyzing basic translational research principles, will summarize the available evidence with a glimpse of the future therapeutic approaches in renal cell carcinoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Vascular endothelial growth factor- and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-inhibiting drugs (SU11248, Bay 43-9006, Bevacizumab, AG-013736, etc.) report time to progression ranging between 4 and 9 months and variable benefits in overall survival. Confirmatory studies are ongoing regarding other novel treatments (CCI-779, Infliximab, PTK-787). SUMMARY: In renal cell carcinoma, there is a strong rationale for targeting multiple pathways and particularly angiogenesis. Vascular endothelial growth factor- and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-inhibiting drugs have been rapidly approved in the second-line setting and will soon be used as first-line therapy. In the next years, translational/clinical research will provide evidence for combination strategies to improve upon the results of the biologic agents and hopefully offer more hope to patients with renal cell carcinoma.

New treatments for metastatic kidney cancer.

Renal cell carcinoma accounts for approximately 3% of adult malignancies and 90%-95% of neoplasms arising from the kidney. It is characterized by a lack of early warning signs, diverse clinical manifestations, resistance to radiation and chemotherapy, and infrequent but reproducible responses to immunotherapy with agents such as interferon alpha (IFNa) and interleukin 2 (IL-2). International studies have shown objective response rates of < 15% in patients with advanced and metastatic disease, with 5-year disease-specific survival ranging between 0-20%. Considering these poor outcomes, renal cancers' very vascular nature and overexpression of receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), various biologic and angio-suppressive therapies are being evaluated in clinical trials. Promising results in terms of overall response rate and median time to progression have been reported especially as second-line therapy following cytokine failure, a setting where no effective systemic therapy has been recognized (SU011248, Bay 43-9006, Bevacizumab and Erlotinib). While confirmatory studies are ongoing, other novel treatments in first line trials (CCI-779, Infliximab, PTK-787, and Thalidomide) have drawn international attention. This review, analyzing basic translational research principles, will summarize the available data on the use of these new therapeutic approaches in RCC.

Development of and clinical experience with capecitabine (Xeloda) in the treatment of solid tumours.

The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (Xeloda) delivers 5-FU to the tumour site, thereby limiting the side effects and other complications associated with intravenous (i.v.) 5-FU. As an oral drug, capecitabine is preferred to 5-FU by many patients as it can be conveniently taken at home. In first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), capecitabine results in superior response rates and equivalent progression-free and overall survival compared with i.v. 5-FU/LV. There is also increasing evidence for replacing i.v. 5-FU with capecitabine in combination with other anticancer agents (e.g. oxaliplatin and irinotecan) in MCRC and in the adjuvant treatment of early stage colon cancer. In anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC), adding capecitabine to docetaxel improves survival, time to progression (TTP) and response rates beyond docetaxel. Single-agent capecitabine is also effective in pretreated MBC and is a promising first-line therapy. Capecitabine has a favourable safety profile, the most frequent adverse events being hand-foot syndrome, stomatitis and diarrhoea. Because capecitabine is orally administered, it is possible to intervene promptly with dose interruption/reduction to resolve adverse events without impacting on efficacy. The increasing availability of capecitabine in the home-based setting requires careful consideration of the role of the oncology nurse, who is the key link between the patient and clinician for effective and efficient management.