Phase 1 trial of navitoclax and sorafenib in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors with hepatocellular carcinoma expansion cohort.

Navitoclax (ABT-263) is an oral BCL2 homology-3 mimetic that binds with high affinity to pro-survival BCL2 proteins, resulting in apoptosis. Sorafenib, an oral multi kinase inhibitor also promotes apoptosis and inhibits tumor angiogenesis. The efficacy of either agent alone is limited; however, preclinical studies demonstrate synergy with the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib. In this phase 1 study, we evaluated the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib in a dose escalation cohort of patients with refractory solid tumors, with an expansion cohort in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the continual reassessment method. Navitoclax and sorafenib were administered continuously on days 1 through 21 of 21-day cycles. Ten patients were enrolled in the dose escalation cohort and 15 HCC patients were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Two dose levels were tested, and the MTD was navitoclax 150 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Among all patients, the most common grade 3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (5 patients, 20%): there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range 1-36 cycles) and all patients were off study treatment at data cut off. Six patients in the expansion cohort had stable disease, and there were no partial or complete responses. Drug-drug interaction between navitoclax and sorafenib was not observed. The combination of navitoclax and sorafenib did not increase induction of apoptosis compared with navitoclax alone. Navitoclax plus sorafenib is tolerable but showed limited efficacy in the HCC expansion cohort. These findings do not support further development of this combination for the treatment of advanced HCC. This phase I trial was conducted under ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT01364051.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Have No Evidence of Disease After Metastasectomy: ECOG-ACRIN E2810.

PURPOSE: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo (Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

Genomic attributes of prostate cancer across primary and metastatic noncastrate and castrate resistant disease states: a next generation sequencing study of 183 patients.

Primary prostatic adenocarcinoma (pPC) undergoes genomic evolution secondary to therapy-related selection pressures as it transitions to metastatic noncastrate (mNC-PC) and castrate resistant (mCR-PC) disease. Next generation sequencing results were evaluated for pPC (n = 97), locally advanced disease (involving urinary bladder/rectum, n = 12), mNC-PC (n = 21), and mCR-PC (n = 54). We identified enrichment of TP53 alterations in high-grade pPC, TP53/RB1 alterations in HGNE disease, and AR alterations in metastatic and castrate resistant disease. Actionable alterations (MSI-H phenotype and HRR genes) were identified in approximately a fifth of all cases. These results help elucidate the landscape of genomic alterations across the clinical spectrum of prostate cancer.

Assessment of minimum target dose as a predictor of local failure after spine SBRT.

OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated robust clinical benefits in carefully selected patients, improving local control and even overall survival (OS). We assess a large database to determine clinical and dosimetric predictors of local failure after spine SBRT. METHODS: Spine SBRT treatments with imaging follow-up were identified. Patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost technique using 1 or 3 fractions, delivering 20-24 Gy in 1 fraction to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 16 Gy to the low dose volume (or 27-36 Gy and 21-24 Gy for 3 fraction treatments). Exclusions included: lack of imaging follow-up, proton therapy, and benign primary histologies. RESULTS: 522 eligible spine SBRT treatments (68 % single fraction) were identified in 377 unique patients. Patients had a median OS of 43.7 months (95 % confidence interval: 34.3-54.4). The cumulative incidence of local failure was 10.5 % (7.4-13.4) at 1 year and 16.3 % (12.6-19.9) at 2 years. Local control was maximized at 15.3 Gy minimum dose for single-fraction treatment (HR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.17 - 0.56, p < 0.0001) and confirmed via multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence of local failure was 6.1 % (2.6-9.4) vs. 14.2 % (8.3-19.8) at 1 year using this cut-off, with comparable findings for minimum 14 Gy. Additionally, epidural and soft tissue involvement were predictive of local failure (HR = 1.77 and 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spine SBRT offers favorable local control; however, minimum dose to the GTV has a strong association with local control. Achieving GTV minimum dose of 14-15.3 Gy with single fraction SBRT is recommended whenever possible.

Deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Deferred cytoreductive nephrectomy (dCN) after upfront systemic therapy has been utilized in the management of select patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Herein, we sought to review the current evidence and define oncologic and perioperative outcomes associated with deferred surgical management of newly diagnosed mRCC. Our objective was to critically evaluate the role of dCN in the targeted and immunotherapy eras, comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes between dCN and upfront CN. Medline, OVID, and Scopus databases were searched for studies evaluating patients undergoing dCN following systemic therapy (ST). PRISMA guidelines were referenced and followed. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), percent of patients proceeding to dCN, reduction in primary tumor size, complication rates, and perioperative mortality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed comparing overall survival between dCN vs. ST alone and dCN vs. upfront CN. Nineteen studies were included to assess the primary outcomes. The percent of patients proceeding to planned dCN after planned pre-surgical ST ranged from 60.5% to 84%. The most common reason for not undergoing dCN was disease progression on upfront ST. Of patients undergoing dCN, 76% to 96% were able to resume ST postoperatively. OS and PFS ranged from 12.4 to 46 months and 4.5 to 11 months, respectively. Pooled results demonstrated significantly improved OS favoring dCN over upfront CN (hazard ratio, HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.69) and ST alone (HR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.38-0.53). Deferred CN represents a potential treatment option in appropriately selected patients with mRCC with a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy. Future randomized trials will be needed to clarify how much this is due to the surgery vs. patient selection.