Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 173
Filtrar
1.
Expert Opin Biol Ther ; : 1-8, 2020 Apr 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32245328

RESUMO

Introduction: The therapeutic landscape of renal cell cancer has evolved rapidly over the past 2 years with nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with metastatic disease and an intermediate or poor prognosis, in the first line setting. More recently, data from trials combining antiangiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated a major benefit of this treatment approach for all patients.Areas covered: One of three recent trials evaluated the combination of atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody, with bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody. In this manuscript, we summarize the preclinical, clinical, and safety data on atezolizumab for treatment of renal cell carcinoma and describe ongoing trials.Expert opinion: Atezolizumab was evaluated in combination with an antiangiogenic agent. These trials were designed based on the hypothesis that selecting patients according to the expression of programmed death ligand 1 would increase the benefit of the treatment combination. Despite positive effects on the primary endpoints progression-free survival and response rate in this selected population, overall survival in the global population did not meet the criteria for significance at the time of the intermediate analysis. The major information was a proposed tumor gene expression signature. The signature was predictive of the sensitivity to anti-angiogenic and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

2.
BJU Int ; 2020 Mar 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32233107

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

3.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 2020 Mar 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227355

RESUMO

AIMS: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI.

6.
Eur J Cancer ; 129: 107-116, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32146304

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC) represents 10%-15% of renal carcinomas. No standard treatments exist for metastatic PRCC (mPRCC) patients. Axitinib is indicated as second-line treatment in metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma, and we aim to assess the efficacy of this vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor in front line for mPRCC. METHODS: This French multicentre phase II study AXIPAP enrolled untreated mPRCC patients, with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1 and adequate organ functions. PRCC had to be confirmed by histology expert central review. Axitinib was administered orally 5 mg twice daily. Primary end-point was progression-free rate at 24 weeks (24w-PFR) by central review. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were screened, and 44 included (13 type 1, 30 type 2 and 1 non-specified). The median follow-up was 32.0 (13.1-39.9) months. The 24w-PFR was 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.6% to +∞), the objective response rate was 28.6% (95% CI, 15.7%-44.6%) (type 1: 7.7%; type 2: 35.7%). The overall median progression free survival was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.2), 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.2) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-9.2) for type 1 and 2, respectively. Median overall survival was 18.9 months (95% CI, 12.8-not reached). Adverse events were as expected; grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were rare except hypertension (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy in mPRCC patients, especially in type 2 PRCC. Toxicity was manageable. Axitinib appears as an interesting option for first-line treatment and to be worth further investigation in combination with immunotherapy in these patients. Expert pathology review should be recommended in this setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02489695.

8.
Support Care Cancer ; 28(3): 1325-1333, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31243586

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: In the last decades, the number of cancer patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs) for septic shock has dramatically increased. However, prognosis data remain scarce. METHODS: To assess the 180-day mortality rate in cancer patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock, a 5-year prospective study was performed. All adult patients admitted for septic shock were included and categorized into the following two groups and four subgroups: cancer patients (solid tumor or hematological malignancy) and non-cancer patients (immunocompromised or not). Data were collected and compared between the groups. Upon early ICU admission, the decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy (DFLST) or not was made by consultation among hematologists, oncologists, and the patients or their relatives. RESULTS: During the study period, 496 patients were admitted for septic shock: 252 cancer patients (119 hematological malignancies and 133 solid tumors) and 244 non-cancer patients. A DFLST was made for 39% of the non-cancer patients and 52% of the cancer patients. The 180-day mortality rate among the cancer patients was 51% and 68% for those with hematological malignancies and solid cancers, respectively. The mortality rate among the non-cancer patients was 44%. In a multivariate analysis, the performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, simplified acute physiology score 2, sequential organ failure assessment score, and DFLST were independent predictors of 180-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite early admission to the ICU, the 180-day mortality rate due to septic shock was higher in cancer patients compared with non-cancer patients, due to excess mortality in the patients with solid tumors. The long-term prognosis of cancer patients with septic shock is modulated by their general state, severity of organ failure, and DFLST.

9.
Eur Urol ; 77(2): 269-276, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31699525

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017. INTERVENTION: Post-PD management as per standard practice. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.51, p <  0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.36, p <  0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0-8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9-3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p =  0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p =  0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p =  0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p =  0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p <  0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy PATIENT SUMMARY: Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy.

10.
Eur J Surg Oncol ; 46(3): 470-475, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31866109

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is often complex and requires multidisciplinary input whereas only few patients are referred to a specialist centre. The aim of this study was to design a regional referral pathway for LRRC, in Nouvelle Aquitaine (South-West, France). METHODS: In 2016, we conducted with a Study Steering Committee (SC) a three phase mixed-methods study including identification of key factors, identification of key stakeholders and Delphi voting consensus. During three rounds of Delphi voting, a consensus was defined as favorable, if at least 80% of participating experts rate the factor, below or equal to 3/10 using a Likert scale, or consider it as "useful" using a binary scale (third round only). Finally, the SC drafted guidelines. RESULTS: Among the 423 physicians involved in 29 regional digestive Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting, 59 participants (from 26 MDT meeting) completed all three rounds of Delphi voting. Thirteen out of twenty initially selected factors reached a favorable consensus. All patients with a LRRC need to be included into a referral pathway. Patients with a central pelvic recurrence offered curative treatment in their local hospital and patients with unresectable metastatic disease were excluded of the referral. Key performance indicators were also agreed including the time to referral and completion of pelvic MRI-, CT-, PET-scan prior to MDT referral. CONCLUSION: The development of this referral pathway represents an innovative health service, which will improve the management of patients with LRRC in France.

11.
BMC Cancer ; 19(1): 1182, 2019 Dec 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31795959

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To determine safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for local treatment of lung metastases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sequenced or combined with systemic treatments. METHODS: Retrospectively, we studied 53 patients treated by RFA for a maximum of six lung metastases of RCC. The endpoints were local efficacy, overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), pulmonary progression-free (PPFS) and systemic treatment-free (STFS) survivals, complications graded by the CTCAE classification and factors associated with survivals. Potential factors analysed were: clinical and pathological data, tumoral staging of TNM classification, primary tumor histology, Fuhrman's grade, age, number and size of lung metastases and extra-pulmonary metastases pre-RFA. RESULTS: One hundred metastases were treated by RFA. Median follow-up time was 61 months (interquartile range 90-34). Five-year OS was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): 44-75). Median DFS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 6-16). PPFS at 1 and 3 years was 58.9% (95%CI: 44.1-70.9) and 35.2% (95%CI: 21.6-49.1), respectively. We observed 3% major complications (grade 3 and 4 of CTCAE classification). Local efficacy was 91%. Median STFS was 28.3 months. Thirteen patients (25%) with lung recurrence could be treated by another RFA. T3/T4 tumors had significantly worse OS, PPFS and STFS. Having two or more lung metastases increased the risk of pulmonary progression more than threefold. CONCLUSION: Integrated to systemic treatment strategy, RFA is safe and effective for the treatment strategy of lung metastasis from RCC with good OS and long systemic treatment-free survival. RFA offers the possibility of repeat procedures, with low morbidity.

12.
Nat Med ; 25(11): 1706-1714, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31686036

RESUMO

Antibodies targeting PD-1 or its ligand 1 PD-L1 such as atezolizumab, have great efficacy in a proportion of metastatic urothelial cancers1,2. Biomarkers may facilitate identification of these responding tumors3. Neoadjuvant use of these agents is associated with pathological complete response in a spectrum of tumors, including urothelial cancer4-7. Sequential tissue sampling from these studies allowed for detailed on-treatment biomarker analysis. Here, we present a single-arm phase 2 study, investigating two cycles of atezolizumab before cystectomy in 95 patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02662309). Pathological complete response was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints focused on safety, relapse-free survival and biomarker analysis. The pathological complete response rate was 31% (95% confidence interval: 21-41%), achieving the primary efficacy endpoint. Baseline biomarkers showed that the presence of preexisting activated T cells was more prominent than expected and correlated with outcome. Other established biomarkers, such as tumor mutational burden, did not predict outcome, differentiating this from the metastatic setting. Dynamic changes to gene expression signatures and protein biomarkers occurred with therapy, whereas changes in DNA alterations with treatment were uncommon. Responding tumors showed predominant expression of genes related to tissue repair after treatment, making tumor biomarker interpretation challenging in this group. Stromal factors such as transforming growth factor-ß and fibroblast activation protein were linked to resistance, as was high expression of cell cycle gene signatures after treatment.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/administração & dosagem , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Carcinoma de Células de Transição/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Urológicas/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma de Células de Transição/genética , Carcinoma de Células de Transição/patologia , Reparo do DNA/efeitos dos fármacos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Feminino , Regulação Neoplásica da Expressão Gênica/efeitos dos fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia Neoadjuvante/efeitos adversos , Invasividade Neoplásica/genética , Invasividade Neoplásica/patologia , Transcriptoma/genética , Fator de Crescimento Transformador beta/genética , Neoplasias Urológicas/genética , Neoplasias Urológicas/imunologia , Neoplasias Urológicas/patologia , Urotélio/efeitos dos fármacos , Urotélio/patologia
13.
J Immunother Cancer ; 7(1): 275, 2019 Oct 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31651359

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Antibodies targeting programmed death-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown clinical activity in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This phase Ib cohort of the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy in patients with mRCC as either first-line (1 L) or second-line (2 L) treatment. METHODS: Patients with mRCC with a clear-cell component who were treatment naive (1 L subgroup) or had disease progression after one prior line of therapy (2 L subgroup) received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. Endpoints included confirmed best overall response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), PD-L1 expression, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the 1 L subgroup, and 20 patients were enrolled in the 2 L subgroup. In the 1 L and 2 L subgroups, confirmed objective response rates were 16.1 and 10.0%, median DOR was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-not evaluable) and not evaluable (95% CI, 6.9-not evaluable), median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.5) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.3-9.6), and median OS was not evaluable (95% CI, not evaluable) and 16.9 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 51 patients in the 1 L subgroup (82.3%) and 14 patients in the 2 L subgroup (70.0%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in eight patients in the 1 L subgroup (12.9%) and one patient in the 2 L subgroup (5.0%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in both the 1 L and 2 L treatment setting in patients with mRCC. These data support the use of avelumab in combination with other agents in mRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01772004 ; registered 21 January, 2013.

14.
Expert Opin Biol Ther ; 19(9): 863-870, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31286802

RESUMO

Introduction: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) has a poor prognosis, with the only standard first-line metastatic treatment being platinum-based chemotherapy. Until 2018, there was no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug for second-line setting, and only vinflunine was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in Europe. However, targeting the programmed cell-death 1 (PD-1)/PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents has shown encouraging results. Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 antibody that is currently being investigated in several trials. Areas covered: In this review article, we summarise preclinical, clinical, and safety data on avelumab for UC, and describeongoing trials that are evaluating avelumab for local or advanced diseases. We also compare its place in the management of UC. Expert opinion: Avelumab has shown clinical efficacy for metastatic and advanced UC in phase I studies after the failure of platinum-based therapy with a well-tolerated safety profile. This anti-PD-L1 targeting agent has the capacity to induce antibody-dependant cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC)-mediated tumor cell lysis compared to other ICI. These results led to FDA approval of avelumab as a second-line treatment for locally advanced and metastatic UC. Avelumab is also investigated in phase II and in a randomized phase III trial as a maintenance therapy in UC as well for combination use with chemotherapy.

15.
Eur Urol Oncol ; 2019 Jul 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31331862

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: From 10% to 26% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) experience rapidly progressive disease (PD) on treatment with sunitinib. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of subsequent treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in such primary refractory patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 150 mRCC patients with rapidly PD on first-line sunitinib (within two cycles, n=93, or four cycles, n=57) were identified: median age 59yr; nephrectomy 86%; histological subtypes: clear cell (77.8%), papillary (14%), and sarcomatoid features (18%); according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and French classifications: good risk (11% and 7%, respectively), intermediate (68% and 63%, respectively), and poor (21% and 29%, respectively). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were retrospectively collected by a questionnaire from 19 European oncology centers between March 2005 and March 2011. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated (Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median OS from the start of first-line treatment was 7.4mo. Second-line treatment was administered to 86 (57%) patients (44 mTOR inhibitors: 23 everolimus and 21 temsirolimus; 39 TKIs alone or in combination; three chemotherapy). Second-line PFS was not significantly different between TKIs and mTOR inhibitors (2.0 vs 0.9mo; p=0.536). Median OS from the start of second-line treatment was 5.0mo for mTOR inhibitors and 6.6mo for TKIs (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with further TKIs or mTOR inhibitors for mRCC patients primarily refractory to first-line sunitinib in the observed time period achieved very minimal benefit, suggesting avoiding TKI rechallenge and possibly preferring alternative strategies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, after PD to a treatment line including a TKI in this setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: The present work collected data about 150 patients affected by metastatic renal cell carcinoma, who received one of the current standard of care as first-line treatment, namely, the antiangiogenic drug sunitinib, and experienced rapid worsening of the disease. We investigated and described the subsequent outcome of such patients treated with two different types of drug, administered as second-line therapy, to better understand the best strategy to adopt for patients who got no benefit from sunitinib and to describe the current therapeutic approach in such cases.

18.
Lancet ; 393(10189): 2404-2415, 2019 06 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31079938

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Bevacizumab/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Sunitinibe/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Carcinoma de Células Renais/mortalidade , Carcinoma de Células Renais/secundário , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias Renais/mortalidade , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Taxa de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento
19.
Clin Genitourin Cancer ; 17(3): 169-176.e1, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30837208

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Long-term responders (LTRs) are defined by at least 18 months of response to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Well-described by clinical studies, the phenotype of these tumors has never been explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective and multicenter study, 90 ccRCCs of patients with metastatic disease were analyzed. Immunohistochemistry (carbonic anhydrase IX, vascular endothelial growth factor, c-MET, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1], and PD-1) and VHL status were performed. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated from sunitinib introduction and from progression. LTRs and their corresponding tumors were compared with others using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were LTRs. They had a median progression-free survival of 28 months versus 4 months for other patients (P < .001). Similarly, LTRs had a median overall survival of 49 months versus 14 months (P < .001), even from progression (median, 21 vs. 7 months; P = .029). They were associated with a favorable or intermediate risk (International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model) (P = .007) and less liver metastasis (P = .036). They experienced more frequent complete or partial responses at the first radiologic evaluation (P = .035). The corresponding ccRCCs were associated with less nucleolar International Society for Urological Pathology grade 4 (P = .037) and hilar fat infiltration (P = .006). They were also associated with low PD-L1 expression (P = .02). Only the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model and PD-L1 expression remained significant after multivariate analysis (P = .014 and P = .029, respectively). CONCLUSION: Primary tumor characteristics of LTRs were studied for the first time and demonstrated a different phenotype. Interestingly, they were characterized by low expression of PD-L1, suggesting a potentially lower impact of targeted immunotherapy in these patients.

20.
Clin Pharmacokinet ; 58(9): 1165-1174, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30877569

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially renally cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This phase I open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single-dose, oral 300-mg olaparib tablets in adults (aged 18-75 years) with solid tumours. Patients had normal renal function, or mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 81, 51-80 or 31-50 mL/min, respectively). Blood was collected for 96 h, and urine samples collected for 24 h post-dose. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for a long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients received one or more doses of olaparib and 38 were included in the pharmacokinetic assessment. Patients with mild renal impairment had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean ratio of 1.24 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.47) and a geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.27) vs. those with normal renal function. In patients with moderate renal impairment, the geometric least-squares mean ratio for the area under the curve was 1.44 (90% confidence interval 1.10-1.89) and for the maximum plasma concentration was 1.26 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.48) vs. those with normal renal function. No new safety signals were detected in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild renal impairment, the small increase in exposure to olaparib was not considered clinically relevant. In patients with moderate renal impairment, exposure to olaparib increased by 44%; thus, these patients should be carefully monitored and the tablet dose should be adjusted to 200 mg twice daily. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01894256.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA