Electrolyte disorders induced by six multikinase inhibitors therapy for renal cell carcinoma: a large-scale pharmacovigilance analysis.

To provide evidence for optimization of multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) use in the clinic, we use the public database to describe and evaluate electrolyte disorders (EDs) related to various MKIs treated for renal cell carcinoma. We analyzed spontaneous reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) in an observational and retrospective manner. Selecting electrolyte disorders' adverse events to multikinase inhibitors (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sunitinib, and sorafenib). We used Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms to analyze suspected adverse reactions of electrolyte disorders induced by MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) between January 2004 and December 2022. As of December 2022, 2772 MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) ICSRs were related to electrolyte disorders AEs. In general, there were more AEs cases in males, except lenvatinib and 71.8% of the cases were submitted from North America. ICSRs in this study, the age group most frequently affected by electrolyte disorders AEs was individuals aged 45-64 years for axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, and sunitinib, whereas electrolyte disorders AEs were more common in older patients (65-74 years) for sorafenib and lenvatinib. For all EDs documented in ICSRs (excluding missing data), the most common adverse outcome was hospitalization(1429/2674, 53.4%), and the most serious outcome was death/life-threat(281/2674, 10.5%). The prevalence of mortality was highest for sunitinib-related EDs (145/616, 23.5%), excluding missing data (n = 68), followed by cabozantinib-related EDs (20/237, 8.4%), excluding missing data (n = 1). The distribution of time-to-onset of Each drug-related ICSRs was not all the same, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). With the criteria of ROR, the six MKIs were all significantly associated with electrolyte disorders AEs, the strongest association was the association between cabozantinib and hypermagnesaemia. MKIs have been reported to have significant electrolyte disorders AEs. Patients and physicians need to recognize and monitor these potentially fatal adverse events.

Inflammatory response-based prognostication and personalized therapy decisions in clear cell renal cell cancer to aid precision oncology.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of inflammatory response on tumor development and therapeutic response is of significant importance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). The customization of specialized prognostication approaches and the exploration of supplementary treatment options hold critical clinical implications in relation to the inflammatory response. METHODS: In the present study, unsupervised clustering was implemented on TCGA-KIRC tumors using transcriptome profiles of inflammatory response genes, which was then validated in two ccRCC datasets (E-MATB-1980 and ICGC) and two immunotherapy datasets (IMvigor210 and Liu et al.) via SubMap and NTP algorithms. Combining co-expression and LASSO analyses, inflammatory response-based scoring system was defined, which was evaluated in pan-cancer. RESULTS: Three reproducible inflammatory response subtypes (named IR1, IR2 and IR3) were determined and independently verified, each exhibiting distinct molecular, clinical, and immunological characteristics. Among these subtypes, IR2 had the best OS outcomes, followed by IR3 and IR1. In terms of anti-angiogenic agents, sunitinib may be appropriate for IR1 patients, while axitinib and pazopanib may be suitable for IR2 patients, and sorafenib for IR3 patients. Additionally, IR1 patients might benefit from anti-CTLA4 therapy. A scoring system called IRscore was defined for individual ccRCC patients. Patients with high IRscore presented a lower response rate to anti-PD-L1 therapy and worse prognostic outcomes. Pan-cancer analysis demonstrated the immunological features and prognostic relevance of the IRscore. CONCLUSION: Altogether, characterization of inflammatory response subtypes and IRscore provides a roadmap for patient risk stratification and personalized treatment decisions, not only in ccRCC, but also in pan-cancer.

The multikinase inhibitor axitinib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the current clinical applications and the molecular mechanisms.

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a formidable public health problem with limited curable treatment options. Axitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 1, 2, and 3. This anti-angiogenic drug was found to have promising activity in various solid tumors, including advanced HCC. At present, however, there is no relevant review article that summarizes the exact roles of axitinib in advanced HCC. In this review, 24 eligible studies (seven studies in the ClinicalTrials, eight experimental studies, and nine clinical trials) were included for further evaluation. The included randomized or single-arm phase II trials indicated that axitinib could not prolong the overall survival compared to the placebo for the treatment of advanced HCC, but improvements in progression free survival and time to tumor progression were observed. Experimental studies showed that the biochemical effects of axitinib in HCC might be regulated by its associated genes and affected signaling cascades (e.g. VEGFR2/PAK1, CYP1A2, CaMKII/ERK, Akt/mTor, and miR-509-3p/PDGFRA). FDA approved sorafenib combined with nivolumab (an inhibitor of PD-1/PD-L1) as the first line regimen for the treatment of advanced HCC. Since both axitinib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors as well as the VEGFR inhibitors, axitinib combined with anti-PDL-1/PD-1 antibodies may also exhibit tremendous potential in anti-tumoral effects for advanced HCC. The present review highlights the current clinical applications and the molecular mechanisms of axitinib in advanced HCC. To move toward clinical applications by combining axitinib and other treatments in advanced HCC, more studies are still warranted in the near future.

Response to Combination of Pembrolizumab and Axitinib in Hereditary Leyomiomatosis and Renal Cell Cancer (HLRCC).

In current clinical guidelines, such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), evidence for treatment is based on a small clinical trial that included patients with HLRCC. They support the use of the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab as the first therapeutic option in this rare condition. In the present study, we report a rare case of this condition in an 18-year-old male with a family history of kidney cancer whom we successfully treated with surgery and a novel drug treatment modality based on the combination of an immune check-point inhibitor (ICPI) and a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) with excellent and promising results.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

Bone metastasis is associated with poor prognosis in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma patients treated with first agent angiogenesis inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (papRCC) is a rare (10%-15%) subtype of renal cancer. Few prognostic biomarkers have been described in metastatic papRCC (m-papRCC) patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs). We aimed to study the prognostic impact of bone metastases (BM) on response rate, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS) in patients with m-papRCC treated with first agent VEGFR-TKIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentric, retrospective analysis of patient records was conducted. BM were detected by computed tomography and/or bone scintigraphy. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score was calculated at start of first agent VEGFR-TKI treatment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included. Best objective response was partial response in 20%, stable disease in 60% and early progressive disease in 20% of patients. Median PFS (mPFS) was 6.0 months and median OS (mOS) 14.0 months after start of first agent VEGFR-TKI. The IMDC score correlated with mOS: 77.5 months in good, 17.0 months in intermediate and 8.0 months in poor risk patients (P = 0.002). Patients with BM had a poorer outcome compared to patients without BM: mPFS was 4.0 vs. 7.0 months (P = 0.006) and mOS 7.5 vs. 19.0 months (P = 0.002). On bivariate analysis, the presence of BM was independently associated with PFS (P = 0.02) and OS (P = 0.049), independent of the IMDC risk groups. CONCLUSION: In m-papRCC patients treated with first agent VEGFR-TKIs, the presence of BM is an unfavorable prognostic factor, associated with shorter PFS and OS.

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.

Drug-Induced Hypertension Caused by Multikinase Inhibitors (Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Lenvatinib and Axitinib) in Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment.

This paper reviews current treatments for renal cell carcinoma/cancer (RCC) with the multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) sorafenib, sunitinib, lenvatinib and axitinib. Furthermore, it compares these drugs regarding progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse effects (AE), with a focus on hypertension. Sorafenib and sunitinib, which are included in international clinical guidelines as first- and second-line therapy in metastatic RCC, are now being challenged by new-generation drugs like lenvatinib and axitinib. These drugs have shown significant clinical benefits for patients with RCC, but all four induce a variety of AEs. Hypertension is one of the most common AEs related to MKI treatment. Comparing sorafenib, sunitinib and lenvatinib revealed that sorafenib and sunitinib had the same efficacy, but sorafenib was safer to use. Lenvatinib showed better efficacy than sorafenib but worse safety. No trials have yet been completed that compare lenvatinib with sunitinib. Although axitinib promotes slightly higher hypertension rates compared to sunitinib, the overall discontinuation rate and cardiovascular complications are favourable. Although the mean rate of patients who develop hypertension is similar for each drug, some trials have shown large differences, which could indicate that lifestyle and/or genetic factors play an additional role.

First-line axitinib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: exploratory subgroup analyses of Phase III data.

AIM: Efficacy/safety of first-line axitinib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were assigned (2:1) to 5-mg axitinib (n = 48) or 400-mg sorafenib (n = 24) twice daily. Primary end point was progression-free survival. Objective response rate, overall survival and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: For axitinib versus sorafenib, hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.652 (95% CI: 0.340-1.252; p = 0.0989), objective response rate was higher (35.4 vs 16.7%; p = 0.0495), overall survival longer (hazard ratio: 0.739; 95% CI: 0.397-1.375; p = 0.1683). Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (57.4%), diarrhea (55.3%), hypertension (51.1%) were commonest adverse events with axitinib; palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (50.0%) with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Axitinib improved efficacy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma; adverse events were consistent with previous findings.

Financial impact of oral chemotherapy wastage on society and the patient.

BACKGROUND: Targeted oral agents are now increasingly being utilized in cancer treatment, but are expensive. Changing the dose of these medications due to toxicity or discontinuation secondary to disease progression or death causes waste from unused medication. Limiting waste is an important goal, as waste has a substantial financial impact on patients and insurance companies. METHODS: Patients started on oral targeted agents' sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, or vemurafenib between January 2012 and February 2015 who obtained their medications at Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center specialty pharmacy were included in the analysis. We acquired dispensing data retrospectively for each of the agents and reviewed patient charts. Wasted tablets/capsules were calculated from their last fill to the dates of stoppage or dose adjustment. The amount associated with the wastage was calculated using the average wholesale price. Repository drug usage data during the same time period was obtained. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients had their prescriptions filled at Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center during the study time period. Waste occurred in 41% of all patients with primary reasons attributed to cancer progression in 25 patients, death in five patients, toxicity in five patients and increase in dosage of targeted therapy in two patients. A total of 1179 tablets or capsules were wasted from all causes, priced at a total of $248,595.69. CONCLUSION: Oral chemotherapy medications are associated with wastage, which is a significant financial burden to society. Progression of disease emerged as the single most important factor accounting for wastage. Novel ideas are needed to prevent wastage, thereby reducing healthcare costs.

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.

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients' progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario. RESULTS: In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib + axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib + sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers' perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.