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.

Oncologist Peer Comparisons as a Behavioral Science Strategy to Improve Hospice Utilization.

PURPOSE: Hospice utilization metrics are essential for any serious effort to improve end-of-life care in oncology. However, oncologists do not routinely receive these personalized reports. We evaluated whether a behavioral science intervention, using peer comparisons coupled with social norms, was associated with improvements in hospice use. METHODS: Oncologists at two academic practices of Johns Hopkins Medicine were randomly assigned to receive a peer comparison report by e-mail displaying individual hospice utilization metrics compared with top-performing peers or to receive no report. The data accrued for the intervention represented hospice utilization for the previous calendar year. The intervention period was from June 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020, and included oncologists from both the solid and hematologic malignancies programs. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients between groups with short hospice length of stay (LOS; defined as ≤ 7 days) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included hospice referral rate, enrollment rate, and median LOS. RESULTS: Forty-seven oncologists participated. The percent of patients with a short hospice stay in the intervention group was lower (17.4%) compared with patients treated by physicians in the usual care group (46.3%, difference = 21.8%; 95% CI, 16.0 to 41.6; P < .001). Receipt of peer comparisons was associated with a greater likelihood of enrolling in hospice (73.7% v 42.8%; difference = 31.1%; 95% CI, 20.4 to 41.7; P < .001) and a longer hospice LOS (37.2 v 18.3 days; difference = 17.2; 95% CI, 8.8 to 25.7 days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Peer comparisons improved hospice utilization metrics among a group of academic oncologists. Behavioral science offers one pragmatic strategy to overcome suboptimal oncologist decision-making biases related to hospice use.

Predicting Renal Cancer Recurrence: Defining Limitations of Existing Prognostic Models With Prospective Trial-Based Validation.

PURPOSE: To validate currently used recurrence prediction models for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by using prospective data from the ASSURE (ECOG-ACRIN E2805; Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma) adjuvant trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight RCC recurrence models (University of California at Los Angeles Integrated Staging System [UISS]; Stage, Size, Grade, and Necrosis [SSIGN]; Leibovich; Kattan; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC]; Yaycioglu; Karakiewicz; and Cindolo) were selected on the basis of their use in clinical practice and clinical trial designs. These models along with the TNM staging system were validated using 1,647 patients with resected localized high-grade or locally advanced disease (≥ pT1b grade 3 and 4/pTanyN1Mo) from the ASSURE cohort. The predictive performance of the model was quantified by assessing its discriminatory and calibration abilities. RESULTS: Prospective validation of predictive and prognostic models for localized RCC showed a substantial decrease in each of the predictive abilities of the model compared with their original and externally validated discriminatory estimates. Among the models, the SSIGN score performed best (0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.689), and the UISS model performed worst (0.556; 95% CI, 0.555 to 0.557). Compared with the 2002 TNM staging system (C-index, 0.60), most models only marginally outperformed standard staging. Importantly, all models, including TNM, demonstrated statistically significant variability in their predictive ability over time and were most useful within the first 2 years after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In RCC, as in many other solid malignancies, clinicians rely on retrospective prediction tools to guide patient care and clinical trial selection and largely overestimate their predictive abilities. We used prospective collected adjuvant trial data to validate existing RCC prediction models and demonstrate a sharp decrease in the predictive ability of all models compared with their previous retrospective validations. Accordingly, we recommend prospective validation of any predictive model before implementing it into clinical practice and clinical trial design.

Dysregulation of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in chromophobe renal cell carcinomas.

Targeted therapy in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) is now an established modality. The latter is in stark contrast to non-clear cell subtypes. We explored the translational support for the use of antagonists of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and the vascular endothelial growth factor pathways in chromophobe RCC. The immunoexpression of PTEN, phos-AKT, phosphorylated S6 (phos-S6), 4EBP1, p27, c-MYC, and HIF-1α was evaluated in 33 patients with chromophobe RCC who were treated by partial/radical nephrectomy without adjuvant therapy. PTEN was lower in tumor than in normal kidney (P<.001), and loss of PTEN expression was found in 67% of the tumors. In tumor tissues, phos-S6 and 4EBP1 were higher than in normal kidney (P≤.005). Conversely, scores of p27 were lower in tumor than in normal kidney (P<.001). Finally, scores of phos-AKT, c-MYC, and HIF-1α were not significantly different in tumor and in normal kidney. Overall mortality and cancer-specific mortality were 9% and 0%, respectively. Multifocal tumors had higher levels of PTEN, phos-AKT, and HIF-1α (P≤.01). None of the clinicopathologic variables (age, ethnicity, gender, pT stage, tumor size, multifocality, and positive surgical margins) was associated with outcome. Similarly, none of the tested biomarkers predicted overall mortality, either in unadjusted or adjusted Cox regression models. In summary, our study provides new evidence of dysregulation of the mTOR pathway in chromophobe RCC. Immunohistochemistry for mTOR pathway and hypoxia-induced pathway members lacked prognostic significance in our cohort.