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.

Dovitinib (CHIR258, TKI258): structure, development and preclinical and clinical activity.

Dovitinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting FGF receptors, PDGF receptors and VEGF receptors. Its activity against FGF receptors suggests its usefulness in treating cancers after the failure of VEGF/VEGF receptor-targeting agents. The identified dose and schedule to be used in further studies was 500 mg orally for 5 days on and 2 days off. Biological considerations and the results achieved in a Phase I/II trial suggested its activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients pretreated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an mTOR inhibitor. Surprisingly, in a randomized controlled Phase III trial versus sorafenib in the same setting, dovitinib failed to demonstrate any superiority. At present, dovitinib is being tested in different tumor types. However, molecular-based patient selection seems to be key to fully exploit the activity of this drug.

Changes in circulating pro-angiogenic cytokines, other than VEGF, before progression to sunitinib therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study included a cohort of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib. Since resistance to sunitinib may be mediated through angiogenic cytokines other than VEGF, we measured the circulating levels of three pro-angiogenic cytokines: basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and interleukin (IL)-6. METHODS: Cytokines were measured at baseline and on the first day of each treatment cycle until progression in 85 advanced kidney cancer patients treated with sunitinib using a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) technique. RESULTS: Even though no statistically significant differences in the titers of the three cytokines were observed between baseline and the time of progression in the whole patient cohort, in 45.3, 46.6, and 37.3% of the patients a more than 50% increase between baseline and the time of progression was shown in circulating IL-6, bFGF, and HGF, respectively. Furthermore, this increase was more than 100% in 37.3, 44, and 30.6% of the patients, respectively. We also demonstrated that, in these patients, cytokines tended to increase and to remain high immediately before progression. CONCLUSIONS: In a large percentage of kidney cancer patients, progression is preceded by a significant increase in pro-angiogenic cytokines other than VEGF.

Sunitinib in advanced metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a single institution retrospective study.

AIM: Sunitinib is an orally active multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that exerts its antitumor effects primarily through the selective inhibition of VEGF. Novel targeted therapies such as sunitinib have transformed the treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinomas, particularly those with clear cell histology. Here, our experience in patients with non-clear cell kidney cancer treated as part of the sunitinib Expanded Access Program is reported. MATERIALS & METHODS: This was a retrospective assessment of 21 patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma who were treated with oral sunitinib 50 mg/day in repeated 6 weekly cycles (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Disease assessment and physical examination were recorded at baseline and tumor assessments were performed every 3 months, according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Patients received an average of 6.38 cycles of sunitinib; one patient was classified as a complete responder and two as partial responders. The overall response rate was 14.3% and clinical benefit was attained by 52.4%. The median progression-free survival was 4.1 months while median overall survival was 14.6 months. In general, sunitinib was well tolerated and only three patients experienced a grade 3 toxicity, which resolved with dosage reduction. CONCLUSION: As expected, sunitinib exerted lower antitumor activity in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma than was achieved in the general population with metastatic kidney cancer. However, responses (one complete and two partial) were documented and clinical benefit was observed in more than half of all patients.

The effect of sorafenib treatment on the diabetic status of patients with renal cell or hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of sorafenib on the glucose tolerance and diabetic status of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS & METHODS: Eighty patients with metastatic RCC or advanced HCC received 400 mg sorafenib twice daily for an average of approximately 8 and 5 months, respectively; 22 had diabetes mellitus and three had prediabetes. RESULTS: One of 55 nondiabetic patients, and one of three patients with impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance developed diabetes mellitus, one of 12 patients on oral antihyperglycemic agents switched to insulin and no patient treated with insulin needed to increase their dose. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has the potential to be a feasible and safe treatment option for patients with advanced HCC or metastatic RCC and comorbid diabetes mellitus or prediabetes.

Safety and treatment patterns of multikinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma at a tertiary oncology center in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) sunitinib and sorafenib have become a standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This study assessed safety and treatment patterns for these agents in a real-world clinical practice setting in Italy. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed at a tertiary oncology center in Italy. The study included MKI-naïve non-trial patients ≥18 years old, with a histological diagnosis of mRCC, and who received sunitinib or sorafenib as first MKI during 9/2005-7/2008. Data were collected on adverse events (AEs), treatment modifications (discontinuations, interruptions, dose changes), and reasons for these modifications. RESULTS: 145 patients were included; 85 received sunitinib and 60 received sorafenib as first-line MKI. Median treatment duration was 6.6 (sunitinib) and 5.8 (sorafenib) months. 97.6% and 70.0% of patients receiving sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, experienced ≥1 AE; 27.1% and 31.7% had ≥1 grade 3/4 AE. The most common any grade AE for sunitinib was fatigue/asthenia (81.2%), followed by mucositis/stomatitis (58.8%) and decreased taste sensation (42.4%), while for sorafenib this was fatigue/asthenia (43.3%) followed by hand-foot syndrome (38.3%) and diarrhea (31.7%). Treatment discontinuation, interruption, and dose reduction due to AEs occurred in 11.8%, 23.5%, and 30.6%, respectively, of patients receiving sunitinib, and 5.0%, 23.3%, and 36.7%, respectively, of patients receiving sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, most patients experienced ≥1 AE during first-line MKI treatment. AEs were reported frequently and resulted in treatment modifications in 40% of patients receiving sunitinib and 45% of patients receiving sorafenib. These results suggest a need for additional effective and more tolerable treatments for mRCC.

Sequential use of sorafenib and sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC): an Italian multicentre retrospective analysis of 189 patient cases.

OBJECTIVE: •To conduct a retrospective, multicentre, cohort analysis to assess the sequential use of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib and sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: •Records of 189 patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) who were treated with sorafenib and sunitinib sequentially between March 2004 and April 2009 at 12 Italian study centres were analysed. •Patients were treated under European Expanded Access Programmes or, following market approval, in general clinical practice. •Interventions were sorafenib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib (50 mg every day; 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). •Progression-free survival (PFS) during treatment with the first and second TKI was evaluated. RESULTS: •In all, 99 patients were treated with sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SuSo) and 90 were treated with sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SoSu); 104 (55%) patients had received prior systemic therapy, mostly with cytokines. •The median (range) PFS on the first TKI was similar between treatment groups [sorafenib 8.4 (1.1-28.9) months; sunitinib 7.8 (0.5-30.4) months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.40, P=0.758]. Multivariate analysis showed that good Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center status was associated with increased PFS. •After the second TKI, patients in the SoSu group had a longer median PFS than those in the SuSo group (7.9 months vs 4.2 months, respectively; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39-0.74, P<0.001). •Multivariate analysis showed only treatment and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (and not age, gender, study centre or previous treatment) were significantly associated with duration of PFS. CONCLUSION: •Our findings suggest a limited cross-resistance between sorafenib and sunitinib and that the sequence SoSu may result in a longer combined PFS than SuSo. This is the largest retrospective study to date, though its findings are limited in part by the retrospective nature.

Predictive value of baseline serum vascular endothelial growth factor and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin in advanced kidney cancer patients receiving sunitinib.

To identify factors that might predict response to sunitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma, we measured serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) levels. A total of 85 patients were selected and, using the Motzer classification, 46 were assigned to the good- and 38 to the intermediate-risk groups. With univariate Cox analysis, both baseline serum VEGF and NGAL titers, determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, significantly predicted progression-free survival. For each biomarker, a threshold value was identified, which proved useful to classify patients into groups having titers above or below the thresholds. We then stratified patients according to the two dichotomous variables into good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, and found significantly different progression-free survival rates ranging from 3.5 to 11.6 months. Both VEGF and NGAL maintained their predictive significance at bivariate analysis. Our study shows that serum levels of VEGF and NGAL are significant predictors of progression-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

Sorafenib tosylate in advanced kidney cancer: past, present and future.

The objective of this paper was to review the development of sorafenib tosylate in kidney cancer. The MedLine database, the Proceedings of the Annual American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, as well as those of other key international meetings were extensively searched to identify relevant publications. Furthermore, the authors' direct experience with the drug was taken into account when commenting on the results retrieved. Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor that targets VEGF and PDGF receptors, other kinases, as well as the serine-threonine kinase Raf. Following early signs of activity from phase I and II studies, it has been shown to improve survival of pretreated advanced kidney cancer patients within a placebo-controlled, randomized, phase III trial, leading to its approval both in the United States and in Europe. Its activity has been subsequently confirmed in a real-world population by two expanded access programs performed globally, but not in a first-line setting; it also proved to be non-cross-resistant with two other molecularly targeted agents. Finally, its toxicity profile, which is acceptable and highly predictable, makes sorafenib appealing for combination treatments, especially with other molecularly targeted agents. Despite having been already demonstrated to be active in kidney cancer, the exact role of sorafenib in the first-line setting, in patients who have failed other molecularly targeted agents, and especially in combination with other agents, deserves further, prospective, studies.

Use of sorafenib in two metastatic renal cell cancer patients with end-stage renal impairment undergoing replacement hemodialysis.

Patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may exhibit renal impairment as a more or less direct consequence of their primary disease. Renal impairment may become a severe complication and alter the normal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic behavior of treatment drugs, thus increasing the risk of side effects. We will discuss the cases of two advanced RCC patients with end-stage renal impairment submitted to dialysis who were treated with sorafenib tosylate in our center. Our experience confirms the scarce literature data available so far that indicate that sorafenib can be used in patients undergoing dialysis. Dialysis cannot be considered per se a contraindication to sorafenib therapy, which can be effective. However, patients must be carefully selected and monitored, since sorafenib administration unquestionably increases the risk of side effects in patients affected by several conditions.

Immunological stress in kidney cancer patients undergoing either open nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery: an immunophenotypic study of lymphocyte subpopulations and circulating dendritic cells.

Immunosuppression is a characteristic hallmark of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with several complex immune defects, almost solely at the level of cell-mediated immune function, well evident even in patients at first diagnosis. The main circulating lymphocyte subsets and the total number of circulating dendritic cells were quantified in 47 RCC patients at diagnosis (T0), 12 h (T1), 24 h (T2) and 8 days following either radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing surgery using flow cytometry. RCC patients presented, at baseline, (T0) a profound state of immunosuppression involving naïve T-cells, memory T-cells, CD16+ NK and total circulating dendritic cells, that worsened after 12 (T1) and 24 h (T2) from surgery, involving the majority of the analysed subsets; after 8 days (T3) from surgical removal of tumor, however, there was a return of all the analyzed parameters to the basal state. In conclusion, surgery causes transient but relevant immune suppression in RCC patients; even though, by day +8, this tends to return to baseline, immunostimulatory therapies could be considered in the peri-operative setting with the aim of reducing immunosuppression and, hopefully, also disease recurrence.

Renal cell carcinoma-induced immunosuppression: an immunophenotypic study of lymphocyte subpopulations and circulating dendritic cells.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)-induced immune dysfunction in patients at first diagnosis was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The main circulating lymphocyte subsets, the total number of circulating and intratumor dendritic cells and the titers of circulating VEGF were quantified in 47 RCC patients, using flow cytometric, immunohistochemical and ELISA assays. RESULTS: Despite a significant activation of CD3/HLA-DR+ lymphocytes and of the CD56+ NK subset, RCC patients presented a marked immunosuppression of CD4/CD45RA naïve T-cells, CD4/CD45RO memory T-cells, CD16+ NK-cells, and total circulating dendritic cells, as well as a significant increase of lymphocytes co-expressing the CD4 and CD8 antigens. Finally, CD16+/CD56+ NK and DCs were poorly represented in tumor specimens. CONCLUSION: The complex immunological dysfunctions demonstrated involve different levels of immunocompetence and indicate a pattern of major disturbance of the immune system.

Cytokine-based immunotherapy for advanced kidney cancer: past results and future perspectives in the era of molecularly targeted agents.

Until recently, immunotherapy has been the only therapeutic option available for patients with advanced kidney cancer, even though different choices were often made on the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The absence of alternatives made different immunotherapeutic approaches common practice, even with few adequate randomized studies that addressed key questions, such as the best treatment and schedule, and so on. The recent registration of the first two, molecularly targeted, agents Sorafenib and Sunitinib could (and will) render many therapeutic approaches, e.g., single-agent Interferon, obsolete. In this review, we shall cover the past achievements obtained so far with cytokine-based immunotherapy and discuss the present role of immunotherapy in the era of molecularly targeted agents. In particular, specific indications for immunotherapy are emerging (e.g., the use of Interleukin-2 in patients with high CAIX expression), while new trials are ongoing to test immunotherapy in combination with molecularly targeted agents, such as Sorafenib, Sunitinib, or Bevacizumab.

Targeted therapy for renal cell carcinoma: focus on 2nd and 3rd line.

INTRODUCTION: Second- and third-line treatments are more and more frequently administered to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. AREAS COVERED: Here we discuss the various levels of evidence supporting presently available recommendations, trying to address a number of as yet unanswered issues, and also to take a glowing glance at the future. To do this, we interrogated the Medline database, as well as the proceedings of the main Oncological and Urological conferences for relevant studies. EXPERT OPINION: Until recently, with regard to choosing the second line treatment after the failure of therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), the continued inhibition of the VEGF/VEGR pathway, or else the switch to an mTOR inhibitor, is recommended. These two options are characterized by partly different targets, completely different toxicity profiles, but a comparable efficacy. This scenario will change soon, after the publication of two randomized, controlled, phase III trials in which cabozantinib and nivolumab proved to be superior as compared to everolimus. As regards third line treatment, where a sequence of two VEGFR-TKIs has been used beforehand, the choice is represented by the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, whilst if a VEGFR-TKI followed by everolimus has been chosen, a return to VEGF pathway inhibition is suggested.

Prognostic Role of PD-L1 Expression in Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials have reported that therapies targeting programmed death-1 (PD1) and its ligand (PD-L1) improve patient outcomes, while tumor response has been related to PD-L1 expression. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ASCO University were searched for studies investigating the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in RCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Six studies and 1323 cases were included in the final analysis. PD-L1 was expressed in 24.2 % of clear cell tumors compared to 10.9 % of non-clear cell tumors (p = 0.002). In the overall population, a higher level of PD-L1 expression increased the risk of death by 81 % (HR; 1.81, 95 % CI 1.31-2.49; p < 0.001). When the analysis was restricted to cases evaluated by immunohistochemistry alone, the higher expression of PD-L1 more than doubled the risk of death (HR; 2.05, 95 % CI 1.38-3.05; p < 0.001). In clear cell histology, higher PD-L1 expression increased the risk of death by 53 % (HR; 1.53, 95 % CI 1.27-1.84; p < 0.001), while in metastatic patients, the evaluation of PD-L1 expression on primary tumors revealed that it retains its prognostic role (HR; 1.45, 95 % CI 1.08-1.93; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Significant heterogeneity has been identified among the included studies. As a consequence, cautious interpretation of the results is recommended. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that a higher level of PD-L1 expression is a negative prognostic factor in RCC. Its validation as an independent prognostic factor compared to other traditionally used clinical parameters in localized or advanced disease is recommended.

Raltitrexed-Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy is inactive as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients.

Within a single-institution phase II trial, we investigated the antitumor activity of the Raltitrexed-Oxaliplatin combination as second-line therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Fourteen patients were enrolled and all were assessable for response. The trial was then closed because chemotherapy, though well tolerated, yielded no objective responses. The best response observed was disease stabilization in 4 patients only (28.57%), while the other 10 patients (71.42%) progressed despite treatment. Median time to progression (TTP) was 8 weeks (average: 9.85, range: 7-20), while median overall survival was just 14 weeks (average: 21.69, range: 9-66+).

Pro-neoangiogenic cytokines (VEGF and bFGF) and anemia in solid tumor patients.

Using a commercial ELISA assay, we evaluated circulating VEGF and bFGF levels in 203 consecutive patients with solid tumors, and sought a correlation between them and with the grade of anemia. Serum VEGF values were within the normal range in 128 patients (63.05%), with a mean value of 675.04 pg/ml (median, 571.00; range, 0-2796.54). The analysis of VEGF values per tumor group did not provide any statistically significant difference. Regarding bFGF, 143 patients (70.44%) had measurable, and thus abnormal, bFGF values. Overall, mean bFGF serum value was 57.14 pg/ml (median, 8.30; range, 0-4334.71), with the highest bFGF levels found in breast carcinoma patients. As expected, a large number of our patients was fairly anemic, mean hemoglobin level being 11.47 g/dl (median, 11.30; range, 7.1-19.20), the lowest titers being observed in prostate carcinoma patients. No statistically significant correlation was found between serum VEGF and hemoglobin values (r=0.004) but a significant negative correlation was seen between serum bFGF and hemoglobin (r=-0.22, p<0.05). Considering the different tumor groups, a statistically significant negative correlation between bFGF and hemoglobin becomes even more apparent in the subgroup of renal carcinoma patients (r=-0.55, p<0.05). In conclusion, our results demonstrate that there is a statistically significant correlation between systemic hypoxia (evaluated in terms of hemoglobin levels) and circulating bFGF values, but not VEGF; this correlation may lead to therapeutic interventions.

[Current approaches to the first-line treatment of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma]. / Approccio al trattamento di prima linea del carcinoma renale a cellule chiare metastatico.

The medical treatment of renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionized in recent years, thanks to translation of our increasingly accurate knowledge on the molecular pathogenesis of this tumor, and of its clear cell histology in particular, into an accelerated drug development, and then into everyday's clinical practice. In this review, starting with the pathogenesis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma, we shall address the results of the clinical trials that led to the registration of seven targeted agents for this disease once orphan of active treatments, taking into account the different prognostic groups in which the patients suffering from it can be divided. Finally, we shall discuss the complex and controversial issue of the ideal timing to start a systemic treatment, a critical and still highly debated topic. All major international guidelines agree on the standard first line therapeutic options, which are represented by sunitinib, bevacizumab (associated with interferon-α) and pazopanib for patients with good or intermediate risk features, and temsirolimus for poor-risk patients. All these agents proved able to prolong progression-free survival within randomized phase III trials. The use of an observation period, before starting a systemic treatment, seems also reasonable, at least in the more indolent tumors and in patients with a better prognosis, even if the topic is still controversial. Finally, the individualization of therapy and the proper conduct of the same is essential for a successful outcome of the treatment.