Clinical Factors Associated With Long-Term Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Axitinib: Real-World AXILONG Study.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib monotherapy obtained approval in pre-treated mRCC patients and recently in combination with pembrolizumab or avelumab in the first-line setting. However, patient profiles that may obtain increased benefit from this drug and its combinations still need to be identified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective multicentre analysis describing clinical characteristics associated with axitinib long-responder (LR) population by comparing two extreme-response sub-groups (progression-free survival [PFS] ≥9 months vs. disease progression/refractory patients [RP]). A multivariate logistic-regression model was used to analyse clinical factors. Efficacy and safety were also analysed. RESULTS: In total, 157 patients who received axitinib in second or subsequent line were evaluated (91 LR and 66 RP). Older age at start of axitinib and haemoglobin levels > LLN were independent predictive factors for LR in multivariate analyses. In LR patients, median (m) PFS was 18.1 months, median overall survival was 36.0 months and objective response rate (ORR) was 45.5%. In 59 LR patients receiving axitinib in second-line, mPFS was 18.7 months, mOS was 44.8 months and ORR was 43.9%. mOS was significantly longer in second line compared to subsequent lines (44.8 vs. 26.5 months; P = .009). In LR vs. RP, mPFS with sunitinib in first-line was correlated with mPFS with axitinib in second-line (27.2 vs. 10.9 months P < .001). The safety profile was manageable and consistent with known data. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the long-term benefits of axitinib in a selected population, helping clinicians to select the best sequential approach and patients who could obtain a greater benefit from axitinib.

Gemcitabine-erlotinib versus gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a phase IIb randomised study from the Spanish TTD Collaborative Group.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine and erlotinib have shown a survival benefit in the first-line setting in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). The aim of this study was to assess whether combining capecitabine (C) with gemcitabine + erlotinib (GE) was safe and effective versus GE in patients with mPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated mPC patients were randomised to receive G (1000 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15) + E (100 mg/day, days 1-28) + C (1660 mg/m2, days 1-21) or GE, q4 weeks, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point: progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points: overall survival (OS), response rate, relationship of rash with PFS/OS and safety. RESULTS: 120 patients were randomised, median age 63 years, ECOG status 0/1/2 33%/58%/8%; median follow-up 16.5 months. Median PFS in the gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine (GEC) and GE arms was 4.3 and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.31; p = 0.52). Median OS in the GEC and GE arms was 6.8 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.72-1.63; p = 0.69). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (GEC 43% versus GE 15%; p = 0.0008) and mucositis (GEC 9% versus GE 0%; p = 0.03) were the only statistically significant differences in grade 3/4 adverse events. PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients with rash (grade ≥1) versus no rash (grade = 0): PFS 5.5 versus 2.0 months (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.26-0.6; p < 0.0001) and OS: 9.5 versus 4.0 months (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; p = 0.0014). CONCLUSION: PFS with GEC was not significantly different to that with GE in patients with mPC. Skin rash strongly predicted erlotinib efficacy. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01303029.

Impact on clinical practice of the implementation of guidelines for the toxicity management of targeted therapies in kidney cancer. The protect-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of such recommendations after their implementation of guidelines has not usually been evaluated. Herein, we assessed the impact and compliance with the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) Guidelines for toxicity management of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Data on 407 mRCC patients who initiated first-line targeted therapy during the year before and the year after publication and implementation of the SOGUG guideline program were available from 34 Spanish Hospitals. Adherence to SOGUG Guidelines was assessed in every cycle. RESULTS: Adverse event (AE) management was consistent with the Guidelines as a whole for 28.7% out of 966 post-implementation cycles compared with 23.1% out of 892 pre-implementation cycles (p = 0.006). Analysis of adherence by AE in non-compliant cycles showed significant changes in appropriate management of hypertension (33% pre-implementation vs. 44.5% post-implementation cycles; p < 0.0001), diarrhea (74.0% vs. 80.5%; p = 0.011) and dyslipemia (25.0% vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Slight but significant improvements in AE management were detected following the implementation of SOGUG recommendations. However, room for improvement in the management of AEs due to targeted agents still remains and could be the focus for further programs in this direction.

Management of adverse events of targeted therapies in normal and special patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have evolved very rapidly, as reflected by the approval of the many drugs that have shown efficacy in phase III studies. Approved drugs include tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) such as sunitinib, sorafenib and pazopanib, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors such as bevacizumab, and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors such as temsirolimus and everolimus. These biological agents have toxicity profiles that differ from those accompanying current chemotherapeutic agents, but their novelty leads to a lack of exhaustive clinical data regarding related adverse events (AEs), whose symptoms may overlap with those of the chronic illnesses of patients with mRCC such as hypertension, hyperglycemia, and pneumonitis. Hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, and fatigue are AEs frequently associated with TKIs; whereas immunosuppression, stomatitis, metabolic alterations, and non-infectious pneumonitis are AEs of mTOR inhibitors. Recommendations for treating these adverse events in patients with mRCC are usually the same as those for the general population. Mild to moderate toxicities may be managed with supportive and pharmacologic interventions, but higher-grade toxicities usually require external specialist consultation, dose reductions, and treatment interruption or discontinuation. Some groups of patients with mRCC, such as frail, elderly patients, and patients with renal or liver dysfunction, require special management of AEs.

Tumour molecular subtyping according to hormone receptors and HER2 status defines different pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To study the role of breast cancer molecular subtypes according to hormone receptors and HER2 status as a predictive factor for pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received one of the two chemotherapy schedules every two weeks with prophylactic growth factor support; schedule A: epirubicin 90 mg/m2-cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 d1 for 3 cycles followed by a second sequence with paclitaxel (P) 150 mg/ m2-gemcitabine (G) 2500 mg/m2 d1+/-trastuzumab (T) 2 mg/kg/week according to HER2 status (n=73); schedule B: adriamycin (40 mg/m2) d1 plus P (150 mg/m2)-G (2000 mg/m2) d2 for 6 cycles (n=54). Subsequently, patients underwent surgery, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant hormonal therapy according to standard practice. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients were evaluated. Forty-three patients (33.9%) achieved a pCR (50% in patients with HER2+tumours treated with T). Patients treated with che - motherapy alone (n=107, 18 HER2+) had a pCR of 32% (p=0.068). The pCR rate for patients with triple negative (HR and HER2-) cancers was 58.3%, 39.5% for HER2+ and 5.4% for ER/PR+ and HER2- (p<0.001). No differences in disease-free survival (DFS) were noted as a function of pCR, HER2 and HR status or treatment received (+/-T). However, statistical differences in DFS were observed as a function of whether patients had + or - axillar lymph nodes. Patients with + lymph node disease did worse (3 years DFS of 53.7% vs. 81.5%, p=0.025). Breast-conserving surgery was performed in 77 patients (60.6%). CONCLUSION: Tumour molecular subtyping defines different pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) but has no impact over DFS in patients with LABC. Although no significant correlation between HER2 status and trastuzumab therapy with pCR was found, probably due to the small number of patients, a favourable trend was observed in the group of HER2+ tumours treated with T.