RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Imunológicos , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/administração & dosagem , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/administração & dosagem , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/mortalidade , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Método Duplo-Cego , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/mortalidade , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Terapia Combinada , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).
Assuntos
Antagonistas de Androgênios , Antineoplásicos , Leuprolida , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Neoplasias da Próstata , Humanos , Masculino , Antagonistas de Androgênios/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Leuprolida/efeitos adversos , Leuprolida/uso terapêutico , Nitrilas/efeitos adversos , Nitrilas/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Qualidade de Vida , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/sangue , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Quimioterapia CombinadaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (nâ =â 496) or placebo (nâ =â 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (-2.5; 95% CI -5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (-0.87; 95% CI -2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo PacienteRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Nefrectomia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/mortalidade , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Quimioterapia Adjuvante/efeitos adversos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Neoplasias Renais/mortalidade , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recidiva , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Renais , Hipertensão , Neoplasias Renais , Adulto , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Método Duplo-Cego , Seguimentos , Humanos , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/etiologia , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Nefrectomia/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: We investigated the first-line activity of vinflunine in patients with penis cancer. Cisplatin-based combinations are commonly used, but survival is not prolonged; many patients are unfit for such treatment or experience toxicity that outweighs clinical benefit. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with inoperable squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited to a single-arm, Fleming-A'Hern exact phase II trial. Treatment comprised 4 cycles of vinflunine 320 mg/m2, given every 21 days. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR: objective responses plus stable disease) assessed after 4 cycles. Seven or more objective responses or disease stabilisations observed in 22 evaluable participants would exclude a CBR of <15%, with a true CBR of >40% being probable. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants were evaluable. Ten objective responses or disease stabilisations were confirmed. CBR was 45.5%, meeting the primary endpoint; partial response rate was 27.3%. Seven patients received >4 cycles of vinflunine. Dose reduction or treatment delay was required for 20% of cycles. In all, 68% of patients experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event. Two deaths on treatment were not caused by disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-specified clinical activity threshold was exceeded. Toxicity was in keeping with experience in other tumours. Vinflunine merits further study in this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02057913.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/tratamento farmacológico , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Penianas/tratamento farmacológico , Vimblastina/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/secundário , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Metástase Neoplásica , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , Segurança do Paciente , Neoplasias Penianas/patologia , Taxa de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento , Moduladores de Tubulina/uso terapêutico , Vimblastina/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumour thrombus (VTT) extension into the renal vein (RV) and/or inferior vena cava (IVC) has high peri-surgical morbidity/mortality. NAXIVA assessed the response of VTT to axitinib, a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: NAXIVA was a single-arm, multi-centre, Phase 2 study. In total, 20 patients with resectable clear cell RCC and VTT received upto 8 weeks of pre-surgical axitinib. The primary endpoint was percentage of evaluable patients with VTT improvement by Mayo level on MRI. Secondary endpoints were percentage change in surgical approach and VTT length, response rate (RECISTv1.1) and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: In all, 35% (7/20) patients with VTT had a reduction in Mayo level with axitinib: 37.5% (6/16) with IVC VTT and 25% (1/4) with RV-only VTT. No patients had an increase in Mayo level. In total, 75% (15/20) of patients had a reduction in VTT length. Overall, 41.2% (7/17) of patients who underwent surgery had less invasive surgery than originally planned. Non-responders exhibited lower baseline microvessel density (CD31), higher Ki67 and exhausted or regulatory T-cell phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: NAXIVA provides the first Level II evidence that axitinib downstages VTT in a significant proportion of patients leading to reduction in the extent of surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03494816.
Assuntos
Axitinibe , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Trombose , Axitinibe/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/cirurgia , Humanos , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/cirurgia , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Nefrectomia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Trombose/prevenção & controleRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Axitinibe/administração & dosagem , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor de Morte Celular Programada 1/antagonistas & inibidores , Sunitinibe/uso terapêutico , Administração Intravenosa , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais/efeitos adversos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Axitinibe/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias Renais/mortalidade , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Método Simples-Cego , Sunitinibe/efeitos adversos , Taxa de SobrevidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Window-of-opportunity trials, evaluating the engagement of drugs with their biological target in the time period between diagnosis and standard-of-care treatment, can help prioritise promising new systemic treatments for later-phase clinical trials. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the 7th commonest solid cancer in the UK, exhibits targets for multiple new systemic anti-cancer agents including DNA damage response inhibitors, agents targeting vascular pathways and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here we present the trial protocol for the WIndow-of-opportunity clinical trial platform for evaluation of novel treatment strategies in REnal cell cancer (WIRE). METHODS: WIRE is a Phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-mechanism (single and combination investigational medicinal product [IMP]), platform trial using a Bayesian adaptive design. The Bayesian adaptive design leverages outcome information from initial participants during pre-specified interim analyses to determine and minimise the number of participants required to demonstrate efficacy or futility. Patients with biopsy-proven, surgically resectable, cT1b+, cN0-1, cM0-1 clear cell RCC and no contraindications to the IMPs are eligible to participate. Participants undergo diagnostic staging CT and renal mass biopsy followed by treatment in one of the treatment arms for at least 14 days. Initially, the trial includes five treatment arms with cediranib, cediranib + olaparib, olaparib, durvalumab and durvalumab + olaparib. Participants undergo a multiparametric MRI before and after treatment. Vascularised and de-vascularised tissue is collected at surgery. A ≥ 30% increase in CD8+ T-cells on immunohistochemistry between the screening and nephrectomy is the primary endpoint for durvalumab-containing arms. Meanwhile, a reduction in tumour vascular permeability measured by Ktrans on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI by ≥30% is the primary endpoint for other arms. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and tumour size change. Exploratory outcomes include biomarkers of drug mechanism and treatment effects in blood, urine, tissue and imaging. DISCUSSION: WIRE is the first trial using a window-of-opportunity design to demonstrate pharmacological activity of novel single and combination treatments in RCC in the pre-surgical space. It will provide rationale for prioritising promising treatments for later phase trials and support the development of new biomarkers of treatment effect with its extensive translational agenda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03741426 / EudraCT: 2018-003056-21 .
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Teorema de Bayes , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Biópsia , Permeabilidade Capilar/efeitos dos fármacos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/irrigação sanguínea , Carcinoma de Células Renais/diagnóstico por imagem , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Humanos , Rim/patologia , Neoplasias Renais/irrigação sanguínea , Neoplasias Renais/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Linfócitos do Interstício Tumoral , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Futilidade Médica , Nefrectomia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto , Ftalazinas/uso terapêutico , Piperazinas/uso terapêutico , Estudo de Prova de Conceito , Quinazolinas/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento , Carga TumoralRESUMO
"MK," a man aged 67 years, presented with fatigue and nausea to his primary care physician. Routine blood tests showed a stage III acute kidney injury and the patient was admitted urgently into the hospital for investigation. On initial assessment by the nursing staff, with urine dip and bladder scan, he was found to have a large fungating mass on his penis. Upon further questioning, MK reported having had trouble with urination for a number of years and that he had been concealing the mass for at least 1 year due to embarrassment. He required a suprapubic catheter as the mass had completely obstructed his urethra. Clinical examination revealed that the external component on the penile shaft was entirely destroyed by the tumor, with extension deep into the entirety of the scrotum, and perineal soft-tissue invasion was also apparent. CT staging scans confirmed the primary tumor and a suspicious left 1.2-cm inguinal lymph node but no distant metastases. MRI of the pelvis revealed complete replacement of the penis with tumor as well as invasion into the scrotum and bilateral groin soft tissue; additionally, early pubic bone invasion was present, with left groin lymphadenopathy. Biopsy verified squamous cell carcinoma of the penis, and discussion with the multidisciplinary team uroradiologist confirmed bony invasion.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patologia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Neoplasias Penianas/patologia , Neoplasias Penianas/terapia , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Invasividade NeoplásicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Notch pathway is frequently activated in cancer. Pathway inhibition by γ-secretase inhibitors has been shown to be effective in pre-clinical models of pancreatic cancer, in combination with gemcitabine. METHODS: A multi-centre, non-randomised Bayesian adaptive design study of MK-0752, administered per os weekly, in combination with gemcitabine administered intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 (28 day cycle) at 800 or 1000 mg m-2, was performed to determine the safety of combination treatment and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary and tertiary objectives included tumour response, plasma and tumour MK-0752 concentration, and inhibition of the Notch pathway in hair follicles and tumour. RESULTS: Overall, 44 eligible patients (performance status 0 or 1 with adequate organ function) received gemcitabine and MK-0752 as first or second line treatment for pancreatic cancer. RP2Ds of MK-0752 and gemcitabine as single agents could be combined safely. The Bayesian algorithm allowed further dose escalation, but pharmacokinetic analysis showed no increase in MK-0752 AUC (area under the curve) beyond 1800 mg once weekly. Tumour response evaluation was available in 19 patients; 13 achieved stable disease and 1 patient achieved a confirmed partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and a γ-secretase inhibitor (MK-0752) can be combined at their full, single-agent RP2Ds.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Secretases da Proteína Precursora do Amiloide/antagonistas & inibidores , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/farmacocinética , Teorema de Bayes , Derivados de Benzeno/administração & dosagem , Derivados de Benzeno/efeitos adversos , Derivados de Benzeno/farmacocinética , Carcinoma Ductal Pancreático/metabolismo , Desoxicitidina/administração & dosagem , Desoxicitidina/efeitos adversos , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Desoxicitidina/farmacocinética , Esquema de Medicação , Feminino , Humanos , Infusões Intravenosas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/metabolismo , Propionatos/administração & dosagem , Propionatos/efeitos adversos , Propionatos/farmacocinética , Receptores Notch/antagonistas & inibidores , Receptores Notch/metabolismo , Transdução de Sinais/efeitos dos fármacos , Sulfonas/administração & dosagem , Sulfonas/efeitos adversos , Sulfonas/farmacocinética , GencitabinaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the uptake, safety and efficacy of docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in the first year of use outside of a clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the West of Scotland Cancer Network with newly diagnosed mPC were identified from the regional multidisciplinary team meetings and their treatment details were collected from electronic patient records. The rate of febrile neutropenia, hospitalisations, time to progression, and overall survival were compared between those patients who received docetaxel and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), or ADT alone using survival analysis. RESULTS: Of the 270 eligible patients, 103 received docetaxel (38.1%). 35 patients (34%) were hospitalised and there were 17 episodes of febrile neutropenia (16.5%). Two patients (1.9%) died within 30 days of chemotherapy. Patients who received ADT alone had an increased risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-3.25; log-rank test, P = 0.002) and had an increased risk of death (HR 5.88, 95% CI: 2.52-13.72; log-rank test, P = 0.001) compared to the docetaxel group. The risk of febrile neutropenia was nine-times greater if chemotherapy was started within 3 weeks of ADT initiation (95% CI: 1.22-77.72; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve mPC has significant toxicities, but has a similar effect on time to progression and overall survival as seen in randomised trials. Chemotherapy should be started at ≥3 weeks after ADT.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias da Próstata/tratamento farmacológico , Taxoides/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antagonistas de Androgênios/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Docetaxel , Neutropenia Febril/induzido quimicamente , Hormônio Liberador de Gonadotropina/agonistas , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Metástase Neoplásica , Prednisolona/administração & dosagem , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/sangue , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Taxa de Sobrevida , Taxoides/administração & dosagem , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
Background: Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFIs) has improved cancer outcomes and is increasingly used. These drug classes are associated with cardiovascular toxicities when used alone, but heterogeneity in trial design and reporting may limit knowledge of toxicities in patients receiving these in combination. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess consistency and clarity in definitions and reporting of cardiovascular eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and cardiovascular adverse events in ICI and VEGFI combination trials. Methods: A scoping review was conducted of phase 2 to 4 randomized controlled trials of ICI and VEGFI combination therapy for solid tumors. Trial cardiovascular eligibility criteria and baseline cardiovascular characteristic reporting in trial publications was assessed, and cardiovascular adverse event definitions and reporting criteria were also examined. Results: Seventeen trials (N = 10,313; published 2018-2022) were included. There were multiple cardiovascular exclusion criteria in 15 trials. No primary trial publication reported baseline cardiovascular characteristics. Thirteen trials excluded patients with prior heart failure, myocardial infarction, hypertension, or stroke. There was heterogeneity in defining cardiovascular conditions. "Grade 1 to 4" cardiovascular adverse events were reported when incidence was ≥5% to 25% in 15 trials. Incident hypertension was recorded in all trials, but other cardiovascular events were not consistently reported. No trial specifically noted the absence of cardiovascular events. Conclusions: In ICI and VEGFI combination trials, there is heterogeneity in cardiovascular exclusion criteria, reporting of baseline characteristics, and reporting of cardiovascular adverse events. This limits an optimal understanding of the incidence and severity of events relating to these combinations. Better standardization of these elements should be pursued. (Exclusions and Representation of Patients With Kidney Disease and Cardiovascular Disease in Drug Trials of the Novel Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapies VEGF-Signalling Pathway Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; CRD42022337942).
RESUMO
Real-world cabozantinib use has increased since its approval to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in 2016. We reviewed cabozantinib use in real-world clinical practice and compared outcomes with pivotal cabozantinib randomized control trials (RCTs). This PRISMA-standard systematic literature review evaluated real-world effectiveness and tolerability of cabozantinib in patients with RCC (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021245854). Systematic MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database searches were conducted on November 2, 2022. Eligible publications included ≥ 20 patients with RCC receiving cabozantinib. After double-screening for eligibility, standardized data were abstracted, qualitatively summarized, and assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 353 screened publications, 41 were included, representing approximately 11,000 real-world patients. Most publications reported cabozantinib monotherapy cohort studies (40/41) of retrospective (39/41) and multicenter (32/41) design; most included patients from North America and/or Europe (30/41). Baseline characteristics were demographically similar between real-world and pivotal RCT populations, but real-world populations showed greater variation in prevalence of prior nephrectomy, multiple-site/brain metastasis, and nonclear-cell RCC histology. Cabozantinib activity was reported across real-world treatment lines and tumor types. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate values from pivotal RCTs were within the ranges reported for equivalent outcomes across real-world studies. Common real-world grade ≥ 3 adverse events were consistent with those in pivotal RCTs (fatigue, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, diarrhea, hypertension), but less frequent. No new tolerability concerns were identified. Real-world RCC survival outcomes for cabozantinib monotherapy were broadly consistent with pivotal RCTs, despite greater heterogeneity in real-world populations.
Assuntos
Anilidas , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Piridinas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Anilidas/uso terapêutico , Anilidas/efeitos adversos , Anilidas/administração & dosagem , Piridinas/uso terapêutico , Piridinas/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify clinical evidence on treatments in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Herein, we summarise the evidence for axitinib in aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines or sunitinib. METHODS: This SLR was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023492931) and followed the 2020 PRISMA statement and the Cochrane guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase as well as for conference proceedings. Study eligibility was defined according to population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design. RESULTS: Of 1252 titles/abstracts screened, 266 peer-reviewed publications were reviewed, of which 182 were included. In addition, 28 conference abstracts were eligible. Data on axitinib were reported in 55 publications, of which 16 provided efficacy and/or safety outcomes on axitinib after therapy with sunitinib or cytokines. In these patients, median progression-free and overall survival ranged between 5.5 and 8.7 months and 11.0 and 69.5 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib is commonly used in clinical practice and has a well-characterised safety and efficacy profile in the treatment of patients with aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with sunitinib or cytokines.
RESUMO
Background: Anthracyclines, such as doxorubicin, are important anti-cancer therapies but are associated with arterial injury. Histopathological insights have been limited to small animal models and the role of inflammation in the arterial toxic effects of anthracycline is unclear in humans. Our aims were: 1) To evaluate aortic media fibrosis and injury in non-human primates treated with anthracyclines; 2) To assess the effect of anthracycline on aortic inflammation in patients treated for lymphoma. Methods: 1) African Green monkeys (AGM) received doxorubicin (30-60 mg/m2/biweekly IV, cumulative dose: 240 mg/m2). Blinded histopathologic analyses of collagen deposition and cell vacuolization in the ascending aorta were performed 15 weeks after the last doxorubicin dose and compared to 5 age- and gender-matched healthy, untreated AGMs. 2) Analysis of the thoracic aorta of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), at baseline and after doxorubicin exposure, was performed using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in this observational study. The primary outcome was change in maximal tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmax) of the thoracic aorta from baseline to their end-of-treatment clinical PET/CT. Results: In AGMs, doxorubicin exposure was associated with greater aortic fibrosis (collagen deposition: doxorubicin cohort 6.23±0.88% vs. controls 4.67±0.54%; p=0.01) and increased intracellular vacuolization (doxorubicin 66.3 ± 10.1 vs controls 11.5 ± 4.2 vacuoles/field, p<0.0001) than untreated controls.In 101 patients with DLBCL, there was no change in aortic TBRmax after anthracycline exposure (pre-doxorubicin TBRmax 1.46±0.16 vs post-doxorubicin TBRmax 1.44±0.14, p=0.14). The absence of change in TBRmax was consistent across all univariate analyses. Conclusions: In a large animal model, anthracycline exposure was associated with aortic fibrosis. In patients with lymphoma, anthracycline exposure was not associated with aortic inflammation.Further research is required to elucidate the mechanisms of anthracycline-related vascular harm.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Real-world data are limited on treatment sequencing and outcomes after first-line (1L) immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based combination treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this real-world, UK-based, retrospective study (CARINA; NCT04957160), data were obtained from hospital and electronic prescribing records. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years at aRCC diagnosis and had received 1L CPI-CPI or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-CPI combination therapy before second-line (2L) therapy including cabozantinib. We describe treatment outcomes including 1L and 2L durations of treatment (DoT) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Data from April 2015 to June 2022 were collected on 281 patients from nine UK centres. Median 1L DoT was 2.3 months for CPI-CPI therapy (n = 171) and 5.0 months for TKI-CPI therapy (n = 58). After 1L CPI-CPI or TKI-CPI therapy, median 2L DoT was 5.8 versus 4.2 months, respectively, for cabozantinib (n = 163), and 3.8 versus 2.4 months for other therapies (n = 118); median 2L OS was 15.2 and 15.3 months, respectively, for cabozantinib, and 14.6 and 24.2 months for other therapies. CONCLUSION: DoT for 2L treatment was numerically better for cabozantinib than for other therapies, and after 1L CPI-CPI therapy than after 1L TKI-CPI therapy. Median OS was similar for 2L cabozantinib and other 2L therapies, and median OS for 2L cabozantinib was similar after both 1L therapy types. These results demonstrate the antitumour effect of 2L therapies, including cabozantinib, after 1L CPI-based combination treatment, regardless of whether 1L CPI-CPI or TKI-CPI therapy is used.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.
Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Nivolumabe/uso terapêutico , Ipilimumab , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a histopathologically and molecularly heterogeneous disease with the chromophobe subtype (chRCC) accounting for approximately 5% of all cases. The median overall survival of advanced RCC has improved significantly since the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. However, high-quality evidence for the use of new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced chRCC is lacking. Few published case reports have highlighted the use of temsirolimus in chRCC. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we report the case of a 36-year-old Caucasian woman with metastatic chRCC with predominantly skeletal metastases who was refractory to sunitinib who demonstrated a durable clinical response to temsirolimus lasting 20 months. We review the available evidence pertaining to the use of new generation molecularly targeted agents, in particular mTOR inhibitors in chRCC and discuss their emerging role in the management of this disease which would aid the oncologists faced with the challenge of treating this rare type of RCC. CONCLUSION: Conducting randomised clinical trials in this rarer sub-group of patients would be challenging and our case report and the evidence reviewed would guide the physicians to make informed decision regarding the management of these patients.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Ósseas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Ósseas/secundário , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/secundário , Neoplasias Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Sirolimo/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Ósseas/patologia , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Feminino , Humanos , Sirolimo/uso terapêutico , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
COVID-19 has impacted the healthcare system across the globe. The study will span three pandemic waves in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The goal is to learn how the pandemic affects antenatal care (ANC) and emergency delivery care for pregnant women in Tamil Nadu, India, and how medical services respond. The study employs counterfactual analysis to evaluate the causal impact of the pandemic. A feedforward in combination with a simple auto-regressive neural network (AR-Net) is used to predict the daily number of calls for ambulance services (CAS). Three categories of the daily CAS count between January 2016 and December 2022 are utilised. The total CAS includes all types of medical emergencies; the second group pertains to planned ANC for high-risk pregnant women and the third group comprises CAS from pregnant women for medical emergencies. The second wave's infection and mortality rates were up to six times higher than the first. The phases in wave-II, post-wave-II, wave-III, and post-wave-III experienced a significant increase in both total IFT (inter-facility transfer) and total non-IFT calls covering all emergencies relative to the counterfactual, as evidenced by reported effect sizes of 1 and a range of 0.65 to 0.85, respectively. This highlights overwhelmed health services. In Tamil Nadu, neither emergency prenatal care nor planned prenatal care was affected by the pandemic. In contrast, the increase in actual emergency-related IFT calls during wave-II, post-wave-II, wave-III, and post-wave-III was 62%, 160%, 141%, and 165%, respectively, relative to the counterfactual. During the same time periods, the mean daily CAS related to prenatal care increased by 47%, 51%, 38%, and 38%, respectively, compared to pre-pandemic levels. The expansion of ambulance services and increased awareness of these services during wave II and the ensuing phases of Covid-19 pandemic have enhanced emergency care delivery for all, including obstetric and neonatal cohorts.