Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Associated with Pazopanib Monotherapy / Osteonecrosis de la Mandíbula Relacionada con Medicamentos Asociada con la Monoterapia con Pazobanib

ABSTRACT: Pazopanib, an antiangiogenic agent, has shown promising results in controlling tumor growth and metastasis in patients with renal cell carcinoma. The use of pazopanib in the management of malignancies has increased over recent years, with more patients at risk of developing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). This paper presents the first case report of MRONJ associated with pazopanib monotherapy. A 59-year-old man was referred to the dental clinic with complaints of dysphagia and dysgeusia. The patient was prescribed pazopanib (400 mg) daily following surgical treatment and chemotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. He had undergone extraction of the maxillary left second premolar nine weeks previously. Intraoral examination revealed exposed necrotic bone, which was treated effectively with leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF). The patient was followed up for 150 days after dental treatment with no signs of relapse.

RESUMEN: Pazopanib, un agente antiangiogénico, ha mostrado resultados prometedores en el control del crecimiento tumoral y las metástasis en pacientes con carcinoma de células renales. El uso de pazopanib en el tratamiento de las neoplasias malignas ha aumentado en los últimos años, con más pacientes en riesgo de desarrollar osteonecrosis de la mandíbula relacionada con la medicación (MRONJ). Este artículo presenta el primer reporte de caso de MRONJ asociado con la monoterapia con pazopanib. Un hombre de 59 años fue remitido a la clínica dental con quejas de disfagia y disgeusia. Al paciente se le prescribió pazopanib (400 mg) al día tras tratamiento quirúrgico y quimioterapia por carcinoma metastásico de células renales. Había sido sometido a extracción del segundo premolar superior izquierdo nueve semanas antes. El examen intraoral reveló hueso necrótico expuesto, que fue tratado eficazmente con leucocitos y fibrina rica en plaquetas (LPRF). El paciente fue seguido durante 150 días después del tratamiento dental sin signos de recidiva.

Paraganglioma metastásico pulmonar con respuesta a pazopanib. reporte de un caso y revisión de la literatura / Pulmonary metastatic paraganglioma with response to pazopanib. Case report and literature review

RESUMEN: El paraganglioma es un tumor neuroendocrino dependiente del sistema nervioso parasimpático que se encuentra generalmente en localización adrenal y extra-adrenal. En general son de mal pronóstico, siendo el tratamiento primario cirugía, con pobre respuesta a quimioterapia. Presentamos el caso clínico de una paciente con paraganglioma metastásico pulmonar de primario desconocido con respuesta favorable a pazopanib.

ABSTRACT: The paraganglioma is a dependent of the parasympathetic nervous system is generally in adrenal and extra-adrenal neuroendocrine tumor location. They are generally poor prognosis, surgery remains the primary treatment, with poor response to chemotherapy. We report the case of a patient with pulmonary metastatic paraganglioma of unknown primary with a favorable response to pazopanib

Binding Mechanism between Acetylcholinesterase and Drugs Pazopanib and Lapatinib: Biochemical and Biophysical Studies.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are antitumor compounds that prevent the phosphorylation of proteins in a biological environment. However, the multitarget performance of TKIs promotes them as possible candidates for drug repositioning. In this work, interaction and inhibition studies through spectroscopic and computational techniques to evaluate the binding effectiveness of lapatinib and pazopanib TKIs to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) are reported. The results indicated potent inhibition at the µM level. The types of inhibition were identified, with pazopanib acting through non-competitive inhibition and lapatinib through acompetitive inhibition. The fluorescence suppression studies indicate a static mechanism for lapatinib-AChE and pazopanib-AChE systems, with a binding constant in the order of 105 M-1. The obtained thermodynamic parameters reveal interactions driven by van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds in the lapatinib-AChE system (ΔH° and ΔS° < 0). In contrast, the pazopanib-AChE system shows positive ΔH° and ΔS°, characteristic of hydrophobic interactions. The Foster resonance energy transfer study supports the fluorescence studies performed. The 3D fluorescence studies suggest changes in the microenvironment of the tryptophan and tyrosine residues of the protein in contact with lapatinib and pazopanib. The results suggest effective inhibition and moderate interaction of the drugs with AChE, making them interesting for conducting more in-depth repositioning studies as AChE inhibitors.

Prognostic Value of Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) encompasses a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with distinct clinical behavior and prognoses. As a result of the increasing number of therapeutic options in the metastatic setting, it is crucial to improve prognostic stratification ability. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and combination platelet count and neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (COP-NLR) in patients with mRCC. We evaluated a cohort of mRCC patients treated with first-line pazopanib or sunitinib. Levels of NLR, PLR and COP-NLR were measured prior to systemic treatment and evaluated as prognostic predictors. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Data from 276 patients were included, of which 54.7% received first-line pazopanib and 45.3%, sunitinib. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk classification was intermediate and poor in 50% and 42.6% of patients, respectively. High NLR (> 3.5) was associated with inferior OS (median 9.6 vs 17.8 months, P < 0.001). A high PLR (> 200) was associated with inferior OS (median 10.3 vs 17 months, P = 0.002). The median OS in the COP-NLR 1, 2 and 3 groups were 19.0 months (95% CI 15.3-26.0), 13.1 months (95% CI 9.8-17.0) and 7.4 months (95% CI 3.6-11.9), respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, high NLR and high COP-NLR were associated with inferior OS. Both high NLR and high COP-NLR were associated with poorer OS in our cohort of patients with mRCC treated with first-line pazopanib or sunitinib.

Real-World Effectiveness and Tolerability of Pazopanib as First Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Chart Review in Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Pazopanib is approved in Latin America as first targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of adult patients with mRCC who initiated pazopanib as first targeted therapy between January 2011 and March 2016 was conducted among oncology care centers in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 156 charts of patients with mRCC receiving first-line pazopanib were reviewed (29, 54, 27, 28, and 18 patients from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, respectively). The mean age at initial mRCC diagnosis was 61.6 years, 73.7% were male, and 51.3% were Hispanic. The median dose of pazopanib was 800 mg and the median time from initial mRCC diagnosis to pazopanib start was 2.2 months. The median time on treatment was 10.0 months. At the time of data extraction, 16.7% of patients remained on pazopanib, with clinical progression listed as the main reason for discontinuation. Subsequent therapy was received by 25.6% of patients; the most common were everolimus (9.6%) and axitinib (5.8%). Overall, median PFS and OS were 10.8 and 16.9 months, respectively, and varied across countries. The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (44.9%), asthenia/fatigue (43.6%), and nausea (28.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib was used for first-line mRCC treatment in a clinically diverse patient population across Latin America. Real-world PFS and tolerability were similar to clinical studies of pazopanib. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Inc.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison.

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Tumor renal benigno versus carcinoma renal: reporte de caso y revisión de la literatura / Benign Kidney Tumor versus Renal Carcinoma: Case Report and Literature Review

Introducción El cáncer renal representa 2,4% de los casos diagnosticados de cáncer en la población general, es más común en hombres que en mujeres, y se presenta con más frecuencia entre la 6ta y la 8ta décadas de vida. Se estima que el 16% de los pacientes se diagnostican como enfermedad metastásica. Objetivo Se presenta el caso de un paciente cuyo diagnóstico de carcinoma renal se confundió inicialmente con un tumor benigno. Métodos A un hombre de 56 años de edad se le realizó hace 3 años ese diagnóstico en un estadio avanzado de la enfermedad, a pesar del hallazgo incidental de una masa, que se consideró benigna durante 5 años. Resultados Al momento del diagnóstico de carcinoma de células claras, el tumor era Estadio IV, con metástasis a pulmón. Recibió primera línea de tratamiento con sunitinib, pero fue suspendido por toxicidad; segunda línea con pazopanib durante 1 año, después presentó progresión de la enfermedad, por lo cual se cambió a tratamiento con axitinib con respuesta parcial, sin embargo, se suspendió por toxicidad cardiaca, entre otras. Al momento el paciente ha recibido 5 ciclos de bevacizumab con adecuada tolerancia. Conclusiones Es necesario resaltar la indicación de diagnóstico adecuado y manejo quirúrgico en masas renales sospechosas.

Introduction Kidney cancer represents 2.4% of diagnosed cases of cancer in the general population; it is more common in men than in women, and occurs more frequently between the 6th and 8th decades of life. It is estimated that 16% of patients are diagnosed as metastatic disease. Objective To report the case of a male patient whose diagnosis of renal carcinoma was initially misdiagnosed as a benign tumor. Methods We present a 56-year-old male diagnosed three years back with malignancy at an advanced stage of the disease, despite the incidental finding of a tumor that for 5 years was considered benign. Results At the time of diagnosis of clear cell carcinoma, the tumor was Stage IV, with lung metastasis. He received first line treatment with sunitinib, which was discontinued due to toxicity. Subsequently, a second line with pazotinib for 1 year, then presented progression of the disease, so treatment was changed to axitinib with partial response., It was discontinued, however, due to cardiac toxicity, among others. At the time of writing, the patient has received 5 cycles of bevacizumab with adequate tolerance. Conclusions It is necessary to highlight the need for adequate diagnosis and surgical management in suspicious renal masses.

First-line sunitinib versus pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) are standards of care for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, how the efficacy of these drugs translates into effectiveness on a population-based level is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) and performed proportional hazard regression adjusting for IMDC prognostic groups. Second-line OS (OS2) and second-line PFS (PFS2) were also evaluated. RESULTS: We obtained data from 7438 patients with mRCC treated with either first-line SU (n = 6519) or PZ (n = 919) with an overall median follow-up of 40.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-42.1). There were no significant differences in IMDC prognostic groups (p = 0.36). There was no OS difference between SU and PZ (22.3 versus 22.6 months, respectively, p = 0.65). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for PZ versus SU was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p = 0.58). There was no PFS difference between SU and PZ (8.4 versus 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.17). When adjusted for IMDC criteria, the HR for PFS for PZ versus SU was 1.08 (95% CI 0.981-1.19, p = 0.12). There was no difference in RR between SU and PZ (30% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.15). We also found no difference in any second-line treatment between either post-SU or post-PZ groups for OS2 (13.1 versus 11 months, p = 0.27) and PFS2 (3.7 versus 5.0 months, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed in real-world practice that SU and PZ have similar efficacy in the first-line setting for mRCC and do not affect outcomes with subsequent second-line treatment.

Prescribing Preferences in the First-Line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite existing guidelines for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), prescribing preferences in the United States have not been fully examined. The objectives of this study were to characterize US physicians' preferences and factors influencing first-line mRCC treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Web-based study presented physicians with hypothetical mRCC patient cases and recorded initial therapy preference and rationale. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize preferred treatment; logistic regression was used to determine patient characteristics associated with therapy changes. Analyses were conducted on pooled responses across cases. Model results were summarized using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals, and P values for the covariates. RESULTS: One hundred nine physicians participated in the study; 96 (88.1%) chose a tyrosine kinase inhibitor as their preferred first-line mRCC treatment (62 [56.9%], sunitinib; 31 [28.4%], pazopanib). Perceived superior overall survival and progression-free survival were top reasons physicians chose sunitinib; enhanced tolerability and efficacy similar to sunitinib were top reasons physicians chose pazopanib. Initial sunitinib prescribers were more likely to change therapy in the presence of comorbid conditions (OR, 2.915; P = .0068), poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR, 2.368; P = .0106), or poor prognostic risk (OR, 3.884; P = .0224). This was not seen for initial pazopanib prescribers. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib and pazopanib were the most preferred agents for first-line mRCC treatment. Sunitinib preference was driven by perceptions of efficacy, and pazopanib was preferred for its perceived tolerability and efficacy similar to sunitinib. With varying clinical scenarios, initial pazopanib prescribers were more likely to maintain pazopanib and alter dosing; sunitinib prescribers were more likely to switch therapy.