Uveal melanoma: In the era of new treatments.

Uveal melanoma (UM), also known as choroidal melanoma, is the leading adult intraocular tumor worldwide, affecting mainly Caucasian populations. The last decade has seen an improvement in the outcome of these tumors at the localized stage, in favor of conservative treatment of the eye, notably with new radioactive treatment techniques. Despite optimal management, half of the patients will become metastatic, with liver involvement in 90% of cases. The prognosis is pejorative and considers clinical, tumor anatomy, histological and molecular parameters. This review provides a broad overview of the different therapeutic options for the management of localized or metastatic UM disease, with recently updated data. Despite the known limited efficacy of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we discuss the first results of combined immunotherapies, the arrival of a new first-in-class immunomodulatory treatment Tebentafusp, in HLA-A*02:01 patients, avenues of research into targeted anti-tyrosine kinase therapies, and the growing use of ctDNA to guide treatment prescription.

TiNivo: safety and efficacy of tivozanib-nivolumab combination therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naïve; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6-22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4-not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naïve or previously treated metastatic RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03136627.

Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: does higher risk for recurrence improve the chance for success?

The success of targeted therapies, including inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway or the mammalian target of rapamycin, in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma led to interest in testing their efficacy in the adjuvant setting. Results from the first trials are now available, with other studies due to report imminently. This review provides an overview of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma, including interpretation of currently available conflicting data and future direction of research. We discuss the key differences between the completed targeted therapy adjuvant trials, and highlight the importance of accurately identifying patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment. We also consider reasons why blinded independent radiology review and treatment dose may prove critical for adjuvant treatment success. The implications of using disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival from the patient perspective and measurement of health benefit have recently been brought into focus and are discussed. Finally, we discuss how the ongoing adjuvant trials with targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors may improve our understanding and ability to prevent tumor recurrence after nephrectomy in the future.

Guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in renal cell cancer clinical trials: results of the DATECAN project†.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.

Assessment of progression-free survival as a surrogate end-point for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To determine suitability of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate end-point for overall survival (OS), we evaluated the relationship between PFS and OS in 750 treatment-naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who received sunitinib or interferon-alpha (IFN-α) in a phase III study. METHODS: The relationship between PFS and post-progression survival (PPS; the difference between PFS and OS) was studied, which correctly removes inherent dependencies between PFS and OS, to properly estimate whether and to what extent PFS can serve as a surrogate for OS. A Weibull parametric model to failure time data was fit to determine whether longer PFS was significantly and meaningfully predictive of longer PPS. In a sensitivity analysis by Kaplan-Meier non-parametric method, PPS curves for three approximately equal numbered groups of patients categorised by PFS were compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: In the Weibull parametric model, longer PFS was significantly predictive of longer PPS (P<0.001). The model also allowed prediction of estimated median PPS duration from actual PFS times. In the Kaplan-Meier (non-parametric) analysis, incrementally longer PFS was also associated with longer PPS, and the PPS curves for the three PFS groups were significantly different (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A positive relationship was found between PFS and PPS duration in individual mRCC patients randomised to first-line treatment with sunitinib or IFN-α. These results indicate that PFS can act as a surrogate end-point for OS in the first-line mRCC setting and provide clinical researchers with a potentially useful approach to estimate median PPS based on PFS.

Hepatic intra-arterial versus intravenous fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma (EORTC 18021): a multicentric randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In uveal melanoma (UM) with metastatic disease limited to the liver, the effect of an intrahepatic treatment on survival is unknown. We investigated prospectively the efficacy and toxicity of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) versus systemic (IV) fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from UM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IV or HIA fotemustine at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 (and 22 in HIA arm only) as induction, and after a 5-week rest period every 3 weeks as maintenance. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: Accrual was stopped after randomization of 171 patients based on the results of a futility OS analysis. A total of 155 patients died and 16 were still alive [median follow-up 1.6 years (range 0.25-6 years)]. HIA did not improve OS (median 14.6 months) when compared with the IV arm (median 13.8 months), hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.50, log-rank P = 0.59. However, there was a significant benefit on PFS for HIA compared with IV with a median of 4.5 versus 3.5 months, respectively (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84, log-rank P = 0.002). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% in the HIA arm versus 8% in the IV arm. An improved RR was seen in the HIA (10.5%) compared with IV treatment (2.4%). In the IV arm, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (42.1%) and neutropenia (62.6%), compared with 21.2% and 28.7% in the HIA arm. The main grade ≥3 toxicity related to HIA was catheter complications (12%) and liver toxicity (4.5%) apart from two toxic deaths. CONCLUSION: HIA treatment with fotemustine did not translate into an improved OS compared with IV treatment, despite better RR and PFS. Intrahepatic treatment should still be considered as experimental. EUDRACT NUMBER AND CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: 2004-002245-12 and NCT00110123.

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: There are no validated markers that predict response in metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) patients treated with sunitinib. We aim to study the impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that have recently been proposed as predictors of outcome to anti-VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic RCC in an independent cohort of patients. METHODS: We genotyped 16 key SNPs in 10 genes involved in sunitinib pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and VEGF-independent angiogenesis in patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC treated with sunitinib as the first-line targeted therapy. Association between SNPs, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied by multivariate Cox regression using relevant clinical factors associated with PFS and OS as covariates. RESULTS: In a series of 88 patients, both PFS and OS were associated significantly with SNP rs1128503 in ABCB1 (P=0.027 and P=0.025), rs4073054 in NR1/3 (P=0.025 and P=0.035) and rs307821 in VEGFR3 (P=0.032 and P=0.011). Progression-free survival alone was associated with rs2981582 in FGFR2 (P=0.031) and rs2276707 in NR1/2 (P=0.047), whereas OS alone was associated with rs2307424 in NR1/3 (P=0.048) and rs307826 in VEGFR3 (P=0.013). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm former communications regarding the association between SNPs in ABCB1, NR1/2, NR1/3 and VEGFR3 and sunitinib outcome in clear-cell RCC. Prospective validation of these SNPs is now required.

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.

Cisplatin alone or combined with gemcitabine in carcinomas of unknown primary: results of the randomised GEFCAPI 02 trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the overall survival rates of good-prognosis carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUPS) patients treated with cisplatin alone (C) or in combination with gemcitabine (CG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Good prognosis was defined according to the GEFCAPI (Groupe d'Etude Français des Carcinomes de site Primitif Inconnu) classification by PS (Performance Status) ≤ 1 and LDH (Lactate Deshydrogenase) within the normal range. Patients were randomly assigned to receive C or CG. Patients in the C arm received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) repeated every 3 weeks. In the CG arm, chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) IV on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks. The original plan was to accrue 192 patients in order to detect a 20% difference in overall survival. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled (arm A: 25; arm B: 27). The trial was stopped early due to insufficient accrual. The median overall survival (OS) rate was 11 months [95% confidence interval: 9-20] and 8 months [95%CI: 6-12], in the CG arm and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 46% [95%CI: 28-64] in the combination arm and 35% [95%CI: 19-56] in the C arm (log rank test: p=0.73). The median progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 5 [95%CI: 3-11] and 3 [95%CI: 1-8] months in the CG and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year PFS rate was 29% [95%CI: 15-48] in the combination arm and 15% [95%CI: 5-35] in the C arm (log rank test: p=0.27). No toxic deaths occurred. Grade 3-4 neutropenia (63% versus 12%) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (37% versus 4%) were more frequent in the CG arm than in the C arm. CONCLUSION: A non-significantly better outcome was observed with CG as compared to C in patients with CUP and a non-unfavourable prognosis. The toxicity profile of the combined arm was represented by haematologic toxicity with thrombocytopenia and leuconeutropenia. International collaboration is required to conduct phase III trials in patients with CUP.

Acceleration of clear cell renal cell carcinoma growth in mice following bevacizumab/Avastin treatment: the role of CXCL cytokines.

The anti-VEGF targeted antibody bevacizumab (BVZ) has been approved for treating renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). Although BVZ increases the progression-free survival of patients with metastatic RCC, the effect on overall survival is poor. To gain insight into the limited efficacy of BVZ on overall survival, we analyzed patient samples of RCC for angiogenic factors that may participate in escape from anti-VEGF therapy. Our study shows that the level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in tumors was increased compared with normal tissue. The level of interleukin-8/CXCL8, a pro-angiogenic member of the CXCL family of cytokines, was also increased in tumors. These observations gave us a good reason to analyze the combined effects of BVZ and anti-CXCL8 antibodies on tumor growth. Surprisingly, we report that BVZ accelerates the growth of RCC in nude mice with in vivo selection of tumor cells with an increased growth capacity. Downregulation of receptor tyrosine phosphatase-κ, a phosphatase implicated in EGF receptor regulation, may partly explain this phenomenon. Modification of the vascular network and development of lymphatic vessels through VEGF-C production and compensatory production of pro-angiogenic CXCL cytokines were also observed. The apparent normalization of the vascular network prompted us to associate BVZ with the chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel. While efficient in vitro, paclitaxel did not reverse the anti-VEGF effects in vivo. Anti-CXCL8-targeting antibodies were promising as they decreased intra-tumor VEGF production; decreased the pro-angiogenic CXCL/anti-angiogenic CXCL ratio and did not induce lymphangiogenesis. These observations hold clinical implication as they highlight putative markers implicated in escape from BVZ treatment. They also recommend proceeding with caution in the use of anti-VEGF therapy alone for treatment of RCC.

Addition of bevacizumab to temsirolimus in kidney cancer patients.

Treatment of metastatic kidney cancer has changed dramatically in the past years with the use of VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. However, resistance occurs. We report here two cases of patients who benefited, both on disease control and side effects, from the addition of bevacizumab to temsirolimus, after progression on the mTOR inhibitor alone.

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies.

METHOD: The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study. RESULTS: In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m(-2) dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37%; median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0). CONCLUSION: Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.

Final results of the European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study: a large open-label study in diverse community settings.

BACKGROUND: The European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study provided sorafenib to advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in whom previous systemic therapy had failed. The study assessed the safety and use of sorafenib for the treatment of advanced RCC in a large community-based patient population across 11 countries in Europe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EU-ARCCS was a single-arm, open-label trial of sorafenib in advanced RCC patients. End points included safety, time to progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Subgroup analyses included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, prior therapy, and number and sites of metastases. RESULTS: About 1159 advanced RCC patients were enrolled. Most patients (94%) experienced drug-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade, with the most common grade ≥3 AEs including hand-foot skin reaction (13%), diarrhea (7%), fatigue (7%), hypertension (6%), and rash/desquamation (5%). The incidence of AEs in the subgroups was similar to that in the overall population. Median PFS was 6.6 months; DCR at ≥8 and ≥12 weeks was 85% and 78%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The sorafenib safety profile in European community-based practice settings was similar to that reported in clinical trials. The heterogeneous advanced RCC patient population in EU-ARCCS permitted assessment of sorafenib in important subpopulations of advanced RCC patients.

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.

A phase I/II study of siltuximab (CNTO 328), an anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody, in metastatic renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: Serum interleukin (IL)-6 levels correlate with disease outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. Siltuximab, a chimeric, murine-human mAb against IL-6, was evaluated in a three-part phase I/II study in patients with progressive metastatic RCC. METHODS: In part 1, 11 patients received 1, 3, 6, or 12mgkg-¹ at weeks 1, 4 and q2w × 2 thereafter; in part 2, 37 patients randomly received 3 or 6 mgkg-¹ q3w × 4; in part 3, 20 low-risk patients received 6mgkg-¹ q2w × 6. Modified WHO response criteria were assessed at weeks 7, 11, the 6-week follow-up, and when clinically indicated. RESULTS: Siltuximab was well tolerated overall, with no maximum tolerated dose or immune response observed. In all, 5 out of 11, 17 out of 37, and 9 out of 20 patients in parts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, received extended treatment beyond 4-6 initial infusions. In part 2, stable disease (SD) (≥11weeks) or better was achieved by 11 out of 17 (65%) 3 mgkg-¹ treated patients (one partial response (PR) ~8 months, 10 SD) and 10 out of 20 (50%) 6mgkg-¹ treated patients (10 SD). In part 3, documented complete or PR was not observed, but 13 out of 20 (65%) patients achieved SD. CONCLUSION: Siltuximab stabilised disease in >50% of progressive metastatic RCC patients. One PR was observed. Given the favourable safety profile of siltuximab and poor correlation of tumour shrinkage with clinical benefit demonstrated for other non-cytotoxic therapies, further evaluation of dose-escalation strategies and/or combination therapy may be considered for patients with RCC.

[Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: pretherapeutic approach before antiangiogenic treatment. A case report]. / Cancer du rein métastatique: bilan préthérapeutique, instauration et suivi d'un traitement anti-angiogénique. A propos d'un cas.

Antiangiogenic treatment initiation justifies a clinical and biological pretherapeutic assessment and a close follow-up of side effects according to each drug. Because of potential healing complications, a deadline of 4 weeks after surgery is recommended before starting antiangiogenic treatment. The optimal sequence and the potential role of neo-adjuvant therapies remain to define. In the absence of prospective data, nephrectomy is still recommended in renal cell carcinoma management.

[The French clinical trials ongoing (GETUG and AFU) on urothelial carcinomas, kidney and prostate cancers]. / Les essais cliniques français GETUG et AFU en cours concernant les carcinomes urothéliaux et les cancers du rein et de prostate.

The collaboration of the Association Française d'Urologie (AFU) and of the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genital (GETUG) has lead to increase more and more the credibility of French clinical trials in onco-urology. These trials are on the same level ast North American or European studies. The involvement of urologists is essential. Therefore it seemed necessary to do an update on ongoing trials to further increase recruitment from all practitioners involved in onco-urology.

[Management of side effects associated with antiangiogenic treatment in renal cell carcinoma]. / Gestion des toxicités des antiangiogéniques dans le traitement des cancers du rein.

The recent development of antiangiogenic agents has revolutionized the management of renal cell carcinoma. In less than two-years, the French health authorities have approved the use of four drugs (sorafenib, sunitinib bevacizumab, temsirolimus) for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A fifth drug (everolimus) should be on the market some time. Clinicians have changed their practice and are faced with a number of new adverse events. The management of toxic effects is essential to ensure treatment compliance and patient quality of life. The present report describes in detail the adverse events associated with each therapeutic class and the management of side effects.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with and without prior cytokine therapy, a subanalysis of TARGET.

Before the development of targeted therapies, administration of cytokines (e.g., interleukin-2, interferon-alpha) was the primary systemic treatment option for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sorafenib, an oral targeted, multikinase inhibitor, significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET), a large (N = 903) phase III, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma resistant to standard therapy. This analysis of a patient subgroup from TARGET evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients who had received prior cytokine therapy (sorafenib: n = 374; placebo: n = 368) and in patients who were cytokine-naïve (sorafenib: n = 77; placebo: n = 84). Progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with sorafenib therapy compared with placebo among patients with and without prior cytokine therapy (respectively 5.5 vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64 and 5.8 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73). Clinical benefit rates for sorafenib-treated patients compared with placebo patients were also higher (cytokine-treated: 83 vs. 54.3%; cytokine-naïve: 85.7 vs. 56.0%). Sorafenib was well tolerated in both subgroups (grade 3/4: 20 and 22%, respectively). Sorafenib demonstrated a consistent, significant clinical benefit against advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a twofold improvement in progression-free survival and disease control rate, with similar toxicities in patients with or without prior cytokine treatment.

Sequential sorafenib and sunitinib for renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib and sunitinib are 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors that were recently approved for renal cell carcinoma. In many patients sequential administration of the 2 drugs occurs because of the lack of sustained efficacy of the first agent. We determined the efficacy and safety of sequential administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine whether cross-resistance occurs between these 2 drugs we analyzed the outcome in 90 consecutive patients with renal cell carcinoma from 4 sites in France who had received the 2 drugs sequentially. All patients received sorafenib followed by sunitinib or vice versa. From 2003 to 2006, 68 patients received sorafenib, while 22 received sunitinib first. RESULTS: In the sorafenib-sunitinib group median progression-free survival was 26 weeks with sorafenib and 28 with sunitinib. In the sunitinib-sorafenib group median progression-free survival was 22 weeks with sunitinib and 17 with sorafenib. Median overall survival was 135 weeks in the sorafenib-sunitinib group and 82 weeks in the sunitinib-sorafenib group (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96, p = 0.04). The average duration of sequential administration was 61 and 49 weeks, respectively, in the sorafenib-sunitinib and sunitinib-sorafenib groups. Each sequence was well tolerated and no increase in grade 3-4 toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall this retrospective study supports the conclusion of the lack of absolute cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In this renal cell carcinoma population sorafenib followed by sunitinib was associated with longer survival than sunitinib followed by sorafenib. However, this observation needs further confirmation.