Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC.

BACKGROUND: RECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored. RESULTS: At final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1-26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0-29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9-1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6-33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8-33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9-1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175.

Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in patients 75 years or older with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from PREVAIL.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer disproportionately affects older men. Because age affects treatment decisions, it is important to understand the efficacy and tolerability of therapies for advanced prostate cancer in elderly men. This analysis describes efficacy and safety outcomes in men aged ≥75 years who received enzalutamide, an androgen receptor inhibitor, in the phase III PREVAIL trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PREVAIL was a randomised, double-blind, multinational study of oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day (N = 872) versus placebo (N = 845) in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were coprimary end points. Subgroup analysis of men aged ≥75 years (elderly) and men aged <75 years was pre-specified for the coprimary end points and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among 609 elderly patients (35%) who participated in PREVAIL, median treatment duration was 16.6 and 5.0 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. In the elderly subgroup, OS was greater with enzalutamide than with placebo [32.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 27.7-not yet reached] versus 25.1 months (95% CI 22.6-28.0); hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61 (95% CI 0.47-0.79); P = 0.0001], as was rPFS [not yet reached (95% CI 12.3-not yet reached) versus 3.7 months (95% CI 3.6-5.3); HR = 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.24); P < 0.0001]. Irrespective of treatment assignment, incidence of AEs was similar between the two age groups, except for an overall higher incidence of falls among elderly patients than younger patients [84/609 (13.8%) versus 62/1106 (5.6%)] and among elderly patients receiving enzalutamide than those receiving placebo [61/317 (19.2%) versus 23/292 (7.9%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly men benefited from treatment with enzalutamide in terms of OS and rPFS. Enzalutamide was well tolerated in the elderly subgroup and those aged <75 years. Age and enzalutamide treatment were associated with a higher incidence of falls. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT01212991, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Does Gleason score at initial diagnosis predict efficacy of abiraterone acetate therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? An analysis of abiraterone acetate phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Gleason score (<8 or ≥8) at initial diagnosis as a predictive marker of response to abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was explored retrospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial diagnosis Gleason score was obtained in 1048 of 1195 (COU-AA-301, post-docetaxel) and 996 of 1088 (COU-AA-302, chemotherapy-naïve) patients treated with AA 1 g plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily by mouth or placebo plus prednisone. Efficacy end points included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Distributions and medians were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by Cox model. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across studies and treatment groups. Regardless of Gleason score, AA treatment significantly improved rPFS in post-docetaxel [Gleason score <8: median, 6.4 versus 5.5 months (HR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.86), P = 0.0009 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 5.6 versus 2.9 months (HR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.48-0.72), P < 0.0001] and chemotherapy-naïve patients [Gleason score <8: median, 16.5 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), P < 0.0001 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 13.8 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76), P < 0.0001]. Clinical benefit of AA treatment was also observed for OS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, objective response and time to PSA progression across studies and Gleason score subgroups. CONCLUSION: OS and rPFS trends demonstrate AA treatment benefit in patients with pre- or post-chemotherapy mCRPC regardless of Gleason score at initial diagnosis. The initial diagnostic Gleason score in patients with mCRPC should not be considered in the decision to treat with AA, as tumour metastases may no longer reflect the histology at the time of diagnosis. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: COU-AA-301 (NCT00638690); COU-AA-302 (NCT00887198).

Functionalized gold nanorods for thermal ablation treatment of bladder cancer.

Nanomaterial-directed, photothermal ablation is a practical future approach for the treatment of early-stage bladder cancer. Using a new PEGylation technique with bi-functional nitrophenyl carbonate PEG (bi-NPC-PEG) that promotes uniform suspension of the nanomaterial in solution, we have shown that gold nanorods conjugated to an anti-EGFR antibody (nano-alphaEGFR) bind effectively to EGFR-expressing bladder cancer cells. The subsequent application of infrared light, specifically tuned to the plasmon resonance of the nanorods used in this work, allows for the specific heating of nano-alphaEGFR to the point of localized cellular death. Such an approach, administering nano-alphaEGFR intravesically via a urinary catheter and infrared light via a modified cystoscope, represents a novel, future clinical application of this technology, which avoids the problem of systemic exposure and clearance of nanoparticles from body.

Exploratory analysis of the visceral disease subgroup in a phase III study of abiraterone acetate in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Visceral disease, non-nodal soft-tissue metastases predominantly involving the lung and liver, is a negative prognostic factor in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). An exploratory analysis of COU-AA-301 assessed whether abiraterone acetate (AA) improved overall survival (OS) in mCRPC patients with visceral disease progressing post docetaxel. METHODS: In COU-AA-301, post-docetaxel mCRPC patients were randomized 2:1 to AA 1000 mg (n=797) or placebo (n=398) once daily, each with prednisone 5 mg b.i.d. The primary end point was OS; secondary end points included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), PSA response rate and objective response rate (ORR). Treatment effects in visceral disease (n=352) and non-visceral disease (n=843) subsets were examined using final data (775 OS events). RESULTS: AA plus prednisone produced similar absolute improvement in median OS in patients with (4.6 months) and without (4.8 months) visceral disease versus prednisone; hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60-1.05; P=0.102) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58-0.83; P<0.0001), respectively. Treatment with AA plus prednisone significantly and comparably improved secondary endpoint outcomes versus prednisone in both the subsets: the HRs for rPFS were 0.60 (95% CI: 0.46-0.78; P=0.0002) and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.58-0.80; P<0.0001) in visceral and non-visceral disease subsets, respectively. PSA response rates were 28% versus 7% in the visceral disease subsets and 30% versus 5% in the non-visceral disease subsets (both P<0.0001), and ORRs were 11% versus 0% (P=0.0058) and 19% versus 5% (P=0.0010), respectively. The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events was similar between the subsets and between the treatment arms in each subset. Adverse events related to CYP17 blockade were increased in the AA arms and were similar in patients with or without visceral disease. CONCLUSIONS: AA plus prednisone provides significant clinical benefit, including improvements in OS and secondary end points, in post-docetaxel mCRPC patients with or without baseline visceral disease. The presence of visceral disease does not preclude clinical benefit from abiraterone.

Tivozanib: practical implications for renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumors.

Tivozanib is a recently developed, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor with specific affinity for the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) family of kinases. Given known relevance of VHL (Von Hippel-Lindau disease tumor suppressor) deregulation in the clear cell variant of renal cell carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma remains an area of interest and subject of recent registration trials with this approach. TIVO-1, a phase III study evaluating tivozanib versus sorafenib in the first-line setting, met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (11.9 months for tivozanib vs. 9.1 months for sorafenib), with a manageable toxicity profile, leading to formal consideration of regulatory approval in this setting. This review focuses on the preclinical development, pharmacokinetics and early clinical activity of tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma and other solid tumors.

A phase I study of sorafenib and vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors with expanded cohorts in renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib combined with vorinostat in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with sorafenib 400 mg po bid daily and vorinostat 200-400 mg po days 1-14 of a 21 day cycle to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The tolerability and efficacy of the RP2D was further tested in two cohorts of 6-12 patients each with advanced RCC and NSCLC. RESULTS: 17 patients were treated in the dose escalation phase that established the RP2D at sorafenib 400 mg po bid daily, vorinostat 300 mg po days 1-14. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included intolerable grade 2 hand-foot syndrome and multiple grade 1 toxicities causing dose interruption for more than 14 days. Despite good tolerance in the all-comers population, the RP2D was poorly tolerated in the RCC and NSCLC cohorts with the majority being unable to finish 2 full cycles of therapy. Although there were no confirmed responses, 1 patient each with NSCLC adenocarcinoma and renal sarcoma had unconfirmed partial responses and 5 of 8 patients with RCC having durable minor responses (11-26 %), including 2 who were on treatment for nearly a year. CONCLUSIONS: Although tolerable in other tumor types, sorafenib 400 mg po bid with vorinostat 300 mg po daily days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle is not tolerable without dose reductions/delays in RCC and NSCLC patients. These patients may require lower doses than the RP2D explored within this study. No confirmed responses were seen but minor responses particularly in RCC were observed.

Axitinib, a new therapeutic option in renal cell carcinoma.

Axitinib is a small-molecule protein-tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor specifically targeting this family of receptors, in addition to platelet-derived growth factor receptor and proto-oncogene c-Kit. Improved knowledge of kidney cancer development, and specifically mutations in the VHL gene, has supported the targeting of angiogenesis pathways. Axitinib is the most recently approved agent for use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This review will focus on the preclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of this agent, and describe its place in the current treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

Safety and efficacy of the combination of erlotinib and sirolimus for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of sunitinib or sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an important therapeutic target in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Pre-clinical data indicate that the combined inhibition of both the epidermal growth factor receptor and mTOR results in enhanced anticancer activity. METHODS: All patients had metastatic RCC with progression after treatment with sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Treatment consisted of erlotinib 150 mg orally once a day starting on day 1 and sirolimus 6 mg orally on day 8 followed by 2 mg daily, adjusted according to blood levels. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were enrolled between July 2006 and March 2008. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 weeks (95% CI 5.9-18.1) and median overall survival (OS) 40 weeks (95% CI 0-85.7). No confirmed complete or partial responses were observed, but stable disease >6 months was noted in 21.8% (95% CI 4.9-38.6) of patients. The most common adverse events were rash and diarrhoea. There was no correlation between erlotinib, OSI-420 (days 8 and 15) or sirolimus (days 15 and 29) blood levels and PFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of sirolimus and erlotinib for RCC failed to demonstrate an advantage over available single-agent therapy in the second-line setting.