Integrating cytokines and angiogenic factors and tumour bulk with selected clinical criteria improves determination of prognosis in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In two clinical trials of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor pazopanib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), we found interleukin-6 as predictive of pazopanib benefit. We evaluated the prognostic significance of candidate cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) identified in that work relative to accepted clinical parameters. METHODS: Seven preselected plasma CAFs (interleukin-6, interleukin-8, osteopontin, VEGF, hepatocyte growth factor, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP-1), and E-selectin) were measured using multiplex ELISA in plasma collected pretreatment from 343 mRCC patients participating in the phase 3 registration trial of pazopanib vs placebo (NCT00334282). Tumour burden (per sum of longest diameters (SLD)) and 10 other clinical factors were also analysed for association with overall survival (OS; based on initial treatment assignment). RESULTS: Osteopontin, interleukin-6, and TIMP-1 were independently associated with OS in multivariable analysis. A model combining the three CAFs and five clinical variables (including SLD) had higher prognostic accuracy than the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria (concordance-index 0.75 vs 0.67, respectively), and distinguished two groups of patients within the original intermediate risk category. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model incorporating osteopontin, interleukin-6, TIMP-1, tumour burden, and selected clinical criteria increased prognostic accuracy for OS determination in mRCC patients.

Relationships between pazopanib exposure and clinical safety and efficacy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)/platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)/c-Kit, is approved in locally advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Data from trials in advanced solid tumours and advanced/metastatic RCC were used to explore the relationships between plasma pazopanib concentrations and biomarker changes, safety, and efficacy. Initially, the relationships between pharmacokinetic parameters and increased blood pressure were investigated, followed by analysis of steady-state trough concentration (Cτ) and sVEGFR2, safety, progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and tumour shrinkage. Efficacy/safety end points were compared at Cτ decile boundaries. RESULTS: Strong correlation between increased blood pressure and Cτ was observed (r(2)=0.91), whereas weak correlation was observed between Cτ and decline from baseline in sVEGFR2 (r(2)=0.27). Cτ threshold of >20.5 µg ml(-1) was associated with improved efficacy (PFS, P<0.004; tumour shrinkage, P<0.001), but there was no appreciable benefit in absolute PFS or tumour shrinkage from Cτ >20.5 µg ml(-1). However, the association of Cτ with certain adverse events, particularly hand-foot syndrome, was continuous over the entire Cτ range. CONCLUSIONS: The threshold concentration for efficacy overlaps with concentrations at which toxicity occurs, although some toxicities increase over the entire Cτ range. Monitoring Cτ may optimise systemic exposure to improve clinical benefit and decrease the risk of certain adverse events.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy. CONCLUSIONS: AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in elderly patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively analyzed sunitinib outcome as a function of age in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by log-rank test between patients aged <70 (n=857; 81%) and ≥70 (n=202; 19%) years. RESULTS: In first-line patients, median PFS was comparable in younger and older patients, 9.9 vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.73-1.09; P=0.2629), as was median OS, 23.6 vs 25.6 months (HR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; P=0.5442). Similarly, in cytokine-refractory patients, median PFS was 8.1 vs 8.4 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; P=0.3350), while median OS was 20.2 vs 15.8 months (HR, 1.14; 95% CI: 0.73-1.79; P=0.5657). Some treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly less common in younger vs older patients, including fatigue (60% vs 69%), cough (20% vs 29%), peripheral edema (17% vs 27%), anemia (18% vs 25%), decreased appetite (13% vs 29%), and thrombocytopenia (16% vs 25%; all P<0.05). Hand-foot syndrome was more common in younger patients (32% vs 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age should not be a deterrent to sunitinib therapy and elderly patients may achieve additional clinical benefit.

Prognostic factors for survival in 1059 patients treated with sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term OS (≥30 months) were investigated in sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Data were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Baseline variables, including ethnicity, were analysed for prognostic significance by Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Median PFS and OS were 9.7 and 23.4 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis of PFS and OS identified independent predictors, including ethnic origin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time from diagnosis to treatment, prior cytokine use, haemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, corrected calcium, neutrophils, platelets, and bone metastases (OS only). Characteristics of long-term survivors (n=215, 20%) differed from those of non-long-term survivors; independent predictors of long-term OS included ethnic origin, bone metastases, and corrected calcium. There were no differences in PFS (10.5 vs 7.2 months; P=0.1006) or OS (23.8 vs 21.4 months; P=0.2135) in white vs Asian patients; however, there were significant differences in PFS (10.5 vs 5.7 months; P<0.001) and OS (23.8 vs 17.4 months; P=0.0319) in white vs non-white, non-Asian patients. CONCLUSION: These analyses identified risk factors to survival with sunitinib, including potential ethnic-based differences, and validated risk factors previously reported in advanced RCC.

Sorafenib tolerability in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results from a large pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients tend to be underrepresented in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) clinical trials. The Sorafenib RCC Integrated Database includes data from six clinical trials and two expanded-access studies evaluating sorafenib monotherapy in >4600 patients with RCC. Using this database, sorafenib tolerability and treatment patterns were analysed according to age group (<55, 55-<65, 65-<75, or ≥ 75 years). METHODS: Dosing patterns, and incidence, prevalence and cumulative incidence of drug-related adverse events (DRAEs) and fatal DRAEs were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4684 patients were evaluable (<55 years, n=1126; 55-<65, n=1579; 65-<75, n=1382; ≥ 75, n=559). Treatment patterns were generally similar across subgroups, although sorafenib treatment duration was ∼30% shorter in the ≥ 75-years subgroup. There were no substantial differences in any-grade DRAEs with sorafenib between subgroups. Drug-related adverse events and dose modifications due to DRAEs tended to occur in months 0-3 and declined thereafter; there was no evidence of cumulative toxicity. Fatal DRAEs were rare (0.7% overall; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-1.0%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib was well tolerated regardless of age in a heterogeneous population of RCC patients.

Q-TWiST analysis to estimate overall benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-α.

BACKGROUND: In a randomised phase III trial of treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with interferon (IFN)-α. We assessed between-treatment differences in overall benefit using a quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (TWiST; Gelber and Goldhirsch) analysis. METHODS: In this analysis, in which only grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were included, overall survival was partitioned into three health states: toxicity (time with toxicity after randomisation and before progression), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and time from progression until death. Between-treatment differences in the mean duration of each state were calculated. A threshold utility analysis was used to assess quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) outcomes. RESULTS: Q-TWiST scores showed that quality-adjusted survival time was greater with sunitinib than with IFN-α, even though certain grade 3/4 toxicities occurred more frequently with sunitinib. For both treatments, the mean number of days with toxicity was small compared with PFS. This effect was more pronounced with sunitinib in which time spent without progression or toxicity was 151 days greater than with IFN-α. CONCLUSION: Patients randomised to sunitinib had longer clinical benefit, defined as Q-TWiST scores, than patients randomised to IFN-α.

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients intolerant to previous VEGFr-TKI therapy: a RECORD-1 subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: A relevant percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma develop intolerance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) and require careful selection of subsequent treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients enrolled in the phase-III RECORD-1 trial who discontinued previous VEGFr-TKI therapy because of toxicity. METHODS: Patients with an adverse event (AE) as their primary reason for discontinuation of previous VEGFr-TKI therapy were included. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients in each arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and effect on PFS (hazard ratio (HR)) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: In VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients (n=58, 14%), median PFS was 5.4 months with everolimus and 1.9 months with placebo (HR: 0.32; P=0.004). In sunitinib-intolerant patients (n=26), median PFS was 5.1 months with everolimus and 2.8 months with placebo (HR: 0.28; P=0.033). Grade 3/4 AEs reported with everolimus in VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients included infections (16%), fatigue (7%) and stomatitis (4%). The toxicity profile of everolimus was similar in the VEGFr-TKI-intolerant and overall study populations. CONCLUSION: Everolimus is well tolerated and efficacious with no increased toxicity in patients intolerant to VEGFr-TKI therapy.

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Subgroup analysis of patients with 1 or 2 previous vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies enrolled in the phase III RECORD-1 study.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase III RECORD-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00410124), patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who progressed on previous vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy were randomised 2:1 to everolimus 10mg once daily (n=277) or placebo (n=139). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.9months with everolimus and 1.9months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P<.001). This preplanned, prospective sub-analysis evaluated PFS benefit of everolimus versus placebo in patients who had previously received 1 or 2 VEGFr-TKIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Median PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyse differences in PFS. RESULTS: All patients (100%) received ⩾1 previous VEGFr-TKI; 26% of patients received 2 previous VEGFr-TKIs. Among patients who received 1 previous VEGFr-TKI, median PFS was 5.4months with everolimus and 1.9months with placebo (HR, 0.32; 95%confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.43; P<.001). Among patients who received 2 previous VEGFr-TKIs, median PFS was 4.0months with everolimus and 1.8months with placebo (HR, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.19-0.54; P<.001). The everolimus safety profile was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus was associated with prolonged PFS relative to placebo in patients who received 1 or 2 previous VEGFr-TKIs. Patients who received only 1 previous VEGFr-TKI had apparently longer PFS with everolimus in reference to those who received 2 previous VEGFr-TKIs. These results support the use of everolimus as the standard of care in patients who fail initial VEGFr-TKI therapy.

Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus prednisone in combination with placebo or AT-101, an oral small molecule Bcl-2 family antagonist, as first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: AT-101 (A), a small molecule oral inhibitor of the Bcl-2 family, has activity alone and in combination with docetaxel (Taxotere) and prednisone (DP) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial compared DP combined with either AT-101 (A) or placebo in chemonaive mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with progressive mCRPC despite androgen deprivation were eligible and randomized 1:1. Patients received docetaxel (75 mg/m2 day 1) and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily every 21 days with either AT-101 (40 mg) or placebo twice daily orally on days 1-3. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-one patients were randomly assigned. Median OS for AT-101 plus docetaxel-prednisone (ADP) and placebo-DP was 18.1 versus 17.8 months [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.55, P=0.63]. Secondary end points were also not statistically different. Grade 3/4 toxic effects for ADP versus placebo-DP were cardiac events (5% versus 2%), lymphopenia (23% versus 16%), neutropenia (47% versus 40%), ileus (2% versus 0%) and pulmonary embolism (6% versus 2%). In a subgroup of high-risk mCRPC (n=34), outcomes appeared to favor ADP (median OS 19 versus 14 months). CONCLUSIONS: AT-101 was tolerable but did not extend OS when combined with DP in mCRPC; a potential benefit was observed in high-risk patients.

Sunitinib in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1/2 study assessed sunitinib combined with docetaxel (Taxotere) and prednisone in chemotherapy-naive metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), 25 patients in four dose escalation cohorts received 3-week cycles of sunitinib (2 weeks on, 1 week off), docetaxel and prednisone, preceded by a 4-week sunitinib 50 mg/day lead in. RP2D was evaluated in 55 additional patients. The primary end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. RESULTS: One phase 1 dose-limiting toxicity occurred (grade 3 hyponatremia). The RP2D was sunitinib 37.5 mg/day, docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and prednisone 5 mg b.i.d. During phase 2, confirmed PSA responses occurred in 31 patients [56.4% (95% confidence interval 42.3-69.7)]. Median time to PSA progression was 9.8 months. Forty-one patients (75%) were treated >3 months, 12 (22%) completed the study (16 cycles) and 43 (78%) discontinued (36% for disease progression and 27% adverse events). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (53%; 15% febrile) and fatigue/asthenia (16%). Among 33 assessable patients, 14 (42.4%) had confirmed partial response. Median progression-free and overall survivals were 12.6 and 21.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: This combination was moderately well tolerated, with promising response rate and survival benefit, justifying further investigation in mCRPC.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival with sunitinib targeted therapy and with cytokine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was performed using final data from a randomized phase III trial of sunitinib versus interferon-α (IFN-α) as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) therapy. DESIGN: A multivariate Cox regression model analyzed baseline variables for prognostic significance. Each variable was investigated univariately and then multivariately using a stepwise algorithm. RESULTS: Each treatment arm comprised 375 patients. For sunitinib, multivariate analysis of PFS identified five independent predictors, including serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, presence of ≥2 metastatic sites, no prior nephrectomy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and baseline platelet count, while multivariate analysis of OS identified serum LDH level, corrected serum calcium level, time from diagnosis to treatment, hemoglobin level, ECOG performance status, and presence of bone metastasis as predictors. For IFN-α, LDH level and presence of ≥2 metastatic sites were common predictors of PFS to those for sunitinib, as were all predictors of OS except ECOG status. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified prognostic factors for PFS and OS with sunitinib as first-line metastatic RCC therapy and confirmed that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center model is applicable in the era of targeted therapy.

Sunitinib malate for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy options are limited for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients who progress following docetaxel (Taxotere). This phase II trial evaluated sunitinib malate in patients with progressing metastatic CRPC following prior docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic CRPC progressing following one to two chemotherapy regimens including docetaxel were included. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per radiographic and clinical evaluations. Oral sunitinib was administered 50 mg/day 4-weeks on followed by 2-weeks off per cycle up to a maximum of eight cycles or until clinical progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with a median age of 69.5 years were accrued. The median PFS was 19.4 weeks with a 12-week PFS of 75.8%. Four patients (12.1%) had a > or =50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline and seven (21.2%) had a > or =30% PSA decline. Two of 18 patients (11.1%) with measurable disease demonstrated 30% declines by RECIST and eight (44.4%) displayed some shrinkage. A decline in pain score > or =2 points occurred in 13.6% of 22 assessable patients. Drug discontinuation due to toxic effects occurred in 52.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib malate demonstrated promising activity in metastatic CRPC progressing after prior docetaxel.

Phase I trial of phenoxodiol delivered by continuous intravenous infusion in patients with solid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Phenoxodiol is a multi-pathway initiator of apoptosis with broad anti-tumor activity and high specificity for tumor cells. Its biochemical effects are particularly suited to reversal of chemo-resistance, and the drug is being developed as a chemo-sensitizer of standard chemotherapeutics in solid cancers. This phase I, single-center trial was conducted to test a continuous intravenous dosing regimen of phenoxodiol in patients with late-stage, solid tumors to determine toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: Phenoxodiol given by intravenous infusion continuously for 7 days on 14-day cycles was dose-escalated on an inter-patient basis at dosages of 0.65,1.3, 3.3, 20.0, and 27.0 mg/kg/day (three to four patients per stratum). Treatment cycles continued until disease progression. Toxicity was based on standard criteria; efficacy was based on changes in tumor burden (WHO); pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted on plasma samples at specified time points during treatment cycles. RESULTS: Nineteen heavily-pre-treated patients with solid tumors received a median of three cycles of treatment (range 1-13); two patients received >or= 12 cycles. No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered, with emesis and fatigue (one patient) and rash (one patient) the only significant toxicities. Stabilized disease was the best efficacy outcome, with one patient showing stable disease at 24 weeks. Pharmacokinetics suggested a linear relationship between dosage and mean steady-state plasma concentrations of phenoxodiol. CONCLUSION: A 7-day continuous infusion of phenoxodiol given every 2 weeks is well tolerated up to a dose of 27.0 mg/kg/day.

Temporal concurrence of vasculitis and cancer: a report of 12 cases.

OBJECTIVE: Vasculitis has been associated with solid organ and hematologic cancer. The rarity of these associations, and in many reports the lack of temporal relationships, has led to skepticism about vasculitis being a paraneoplastic syndrome. The objective of the present study was to review cases of concurrent vasculitis and cancer at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation over an 18.5-year period and explore evidence that would support the notion of vasculitis being a type of paraneoplastic disease. METHODS: Retrospective review of the records of all patients diagnosed with vasculitis and cancer within 12 months of each other was performed using an ICD-9 diagnostic data base at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Patients with known chronic autoimmune disease or serologic evidence of hepatitis B or C infection were excluded. A standardized data collection instrument was used to document information about presentation, treatment, and course of illness. RESULTS: During the 18.5 years of our study, more than 15 million inpatients and outpatients were seen at the Cleveland Clinic. Of these, 2,800 patients had vasculitis independent of cancer, more than 69,000 patients had cancer, and 69 patients had been identified who had both malignancies and systemic vasculitis. Only 12 patients were identified in whom both vasculitis and cancer occurred within the same 12 months. Mean age was 65 years (range 45-79). There was no gender preference (M = F). In 8 of the 12 cases, diagnoses were made within 3 months of each other. In 6 of the patients, the diagnoses of both processes were made within 1 month. Ten of the 12 patients had vasculitis 1 to 3 months prior to or concurrent with the diagnosis of cancer. Six of the 12 patients had solid organ tumors, 4 had lymphoma, 1 had leukemia, and 1 had multiple myeloma. The most common vasculitis was cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV), which occurred in 7 cases. Four cases of LCV were associated with solid organ tumors. Other vasculitides included giant cell arteritis (n = 2), polyarteritis nodosa (n = 2), and Wegener's granulomatosis (n = 1). The response of the vasculitis to glucocorticoid and cytotoxic therapy varied. Complete remission of vasculitis occurred in 4 of the patients, partial improvement occurred in 4 patients, and no improvement was noted in 4 patients. Complete remission occurred in 3 of the 4 patients in whom vasculitis and cancer were treated concurrently. Eight of 10 patients in whom followup was greater than 2 months demonstrated concordance of disease activity and treatment response for both cancer and vasculitis. CONCLUSION: The close temporal relationship of cancer and vasculitis in our patients adds to circumstantial evidence of vasculitis at times being a paraneoplastic condition. Failure of a vasculitis to respond to conventional therapy should raise questions about underlying malignancy. Effective treatment of the cancer enhances the likelihood of improvement in vasculitis.