Capecitabine as third-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failing immunotherapy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of capecitabine as third-line treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma for whom immunotherapy had failed. Twenty-one patients with metastatic clear renal cell carcinoma were enrolled. Capecitabine was administered orally twice daily at a dosage of 2500 mg/m(2) for 14 days, followed by 7 days of rest. The median number of administered cycles was five (1-13). One patient (4.8%) achieved a remission after eight treatment cycles. Stable disease was observed in nine patients (42.8%), whereas 11 progressed (52.4%). The estimated median time to progression was 3.6 months (confidence interval: 1.4 to 5.2). The estimated median overall survival was 7.2 months (confidence interval: 4.6 to 8.8). The regimen was well tolerated and no unexpected toxic effects were observed. Capecitabine as third-line treatment showed a favourable toxicity profile, but exhibited low activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma after failing immunotherapy.     

Novel treatment strategies in clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) is highly resistant to cytotoxic agents or hormones and is currently mainly treated with cytokine-based therapy. Transient responses and moderate survival advantages have been achieved in a subset of patients with these aspecific biological response modifiers. Side-effects are considerable, especially with high-dose interleukin (IL)-2. Efforts made in the field of specific immunotherapy have focused on optimization of dendritic cell vaccination and on administration of monoclonal antibodies, either cold (unconjugated) or hot (radioactively labeled). Furthermore, allogeneic bone marrow transplantation is able to induce remissions but, regrettably, is related to substantial morbidity and mortality. Neutralization of the biological activity of some immunosuppressive cytokines produced by RCC (IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) with monoclonal antibodies is currently under investigation. Insights gained into the processes and pathways underlying carcinogenesis have led to the development of new treatment strategies. These treatments can be used for clear cell RCC, since they focus on blocking gene products that are upregulated by mutations in the von Hippel-Lindau gene. Specific strategies include anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody (bevacizumab) or inhibition of its receptor kinases (oral SU11248 or PTK787), or targeting the Raf kinase pathway (by BAY 43-9006) or the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway (by CCI-779). Early clinical results are promising, but their place in the treatment of RCC has to be determined.     

分子靶向治疗新药在临床转移性肾癌治疗中的应用

肾细胞癌(RCC)对化疗、放疗以及激素治疗均不敏感。细胞因子治疗是其主要方法,但有效率低且毒副作用明显,尤其转移性肾癌(mRCC)患者很少能从中获益。近些年,随着肿瘤分子生物学的不断发展,分子靶向治疗成为mRCC治疗新策略。本文重点针对血管内皮生长因子通路和雷帕霉素靶蛋白通路综述几种新型分子靶向治疗药物的临床应用。     

Role of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The role of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is reviewed. SUMMARY: Sunitinib malate is a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), c-KIT, and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), which give the drug its direct antitumor and antiangiogenic properties. Sunitinib is currently approved as a second-line treatment of mRCC in patients who have either not responded to or who are not eligible to receive interleukin-2. Clinical trials of sunitinib have found similar rates of partial response, disease stabilization, and progression-free survival. Sorafenib inhibits VEGF receptors, PDGF receptors, FLT3, RAF-1, and BRAF in vitro and has been shown to prevent the growth of tumors but not to reduce tumor size. Sorafenib has been proven to improve survival in a novel randomized discontinuation trial and a Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial. No studies have directly compared the effectiveness of sunitinib to sorafenib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sunitinib and sorafenib share a similar mechanism of action and primarily target tumor angiogenesis by inhibiting a variety of tyrosine kinases; the agents have similar toxicity, with the exception of an increased risk of hypertension associated with the use of sorafenib. Sorafenib does not result in tumor shrinkage, but sunitinib significantly reduces tumor size. CONCLUSION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib offer improved outcomes for patients with mRCC, but they are far short of a cure. Despite the introduction of sorafenib and sunitinib, palliative care is still an acceptable treatment option for mRCC because of the disease's extremely poor prognosis.     

Optimizing treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the central and Eastern European region

Introduction: Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine represent a collection of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in which the epidemiology and treatment of cancer varies greatly between and within countries. Current challenges include non-adherence to current treatment guidelines, restrictions in access and reimbursement for new therapies, and a lack of basic oncology programs. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a malignancy with historically poor prognosis. In CEE countries, the incidence and mortality rates of mRCC are among the highest in the world. Fortunately, mRCC represents a cancer for which a number of new targeted therapies have recently demonstrated benefit, resulting in new evidence-based treatment guidelines. Incorporating these mRCC treatment recommendations into the routine care of patients with mRCC in CEE countries would represent a major step forward for cancer care in this region.

Areas covered: This review discusses the unique challenges faced by the aforementioned Eastern European countries in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer, in an attempt to assist health-care providers in providing the best care possible for their European patients.

Expert opinion: Despite a wealth of clinical trial data supporting the use of targeted therapies for first-line treatment of mRCC, cytokine-based immunotherapy is still used in some of these European countries. With implementation and adherence to existing guidelines, treatment can be clinically and economically optimized in patients with mRCC from this region.     

Optimizing treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the Central and Eastern European region

INTRODUCTION: Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine represent a collection of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in which the epidemiology and treatment of cancer varies greatly between and within countries. Current challenges include non-adherence to current treatment guidelines, restrictions in access and reimbursement for new therapies, and a lack of basic oncology programs. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a malignancy with historically poor prognosis. In CEE countries, the incidence and mortality rates of mRCC are among the highest in the world. Fortunately, mRCC represents a cancer for which a number of new targeted therapies have recently demonstrated benefit, resulting in new evidence-based treatment guidelines. Incorporating these mRCC treatment recommendations into the routine care of patients with mRCC in CEE countries would represent a major step forward for cancer care in this region. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the unique challenges faced by the aforementioned Eastern European countries in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer, in an attempt to assist health-care providers in providing the best care possible for their European patients. EXPERT OPINION: Despite a wealth of clinical trial data supporting the use of targeted therapies for first-line treatment of mRCC, cytokine-based immunotherapy is still used in some of these European countries. With implementation and adherence to existing guidelines, treatment can be clinically and economically optimized in patients with mRCC from this region.     

索拉非尼治疗转移性肾细胞癌的疗效及安全性研究

目的 评价索拉非尼治疗转移性肾癌的疗效及安全性.方法 转移性肾癌40例患者,均给予甲基磺酸索拉非尼片治疗,初始剂量为800 mg/d,2次/d,连续给药21 d,停药7d,观察疗效和不良反应,以及免疫组织化学检测结果.结果 40例患者中未见完全缓解（CR）和部分缓解（PR）;疾病稳定（SD） 32例（80.0％）和疾病进展（PD）8例（20.0％）;消化系统不良反应发生28例（70.0％）;间隙连接蛋白32（ Cx32）在局限性肾癌中表达阳性率为30.5％,明显低于转移性肾癌组织的1.2％（x2=8.123,P＜0.01）,Cx32表达与临床分期呈负相关（r=-0.419,P＜0.05）;肾癌组织中血管内皮生长因子（VEGF）蛋白表达的阳性率75.5％,明显高于正常肾组织的18.5％ （x2 =8.723,P＜0.01）;VEGF在局限性肾癌阳性表达率72.0％与转移性肾癌的89.1％差异无统计学意义（x2=1.978,P＞0.05）.结论 索拉非尼对晚期肾癌病情控制有较好的效果,是治疗转移性肾癌的新选择.     

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with interferon-alpha in Japanese patients with unresectable or metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background We investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, tumor response, and immunological parameters of sorafenib plus interferon α-2a (IFN) in Japanese patients with advanced RCC. Patients and methods After 2 weeks of IFN-alone treatment, eligible patients received 28-day cycles of continuous sorafenib 200 mg (Cohort 1) or 400 mg (Cohorts 2 and 3) twice daily combined with intramuscular IFN 6 (Cohorts 1 and 2) or 9 (Cohort 3) million international units (MIU) three times a week. Results A total of 18 patients received at least one dose of sorafenib plus IFN. Five patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The most common DLT was fatigue, experienced in four DLT patients. All 18 patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common treatment-emergent AEs included fatigue, fever, platelets, leukocytes, hemoglobin, weight loss and anorexia. Five patients had confirmed partial response and 11 had stable disease, a response rate of 27.8%. IFN had no relevant impact on the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib. Conclusions Sorafenib administered in combination with IFN was well tolerated, with promising results in efficacy. Continuous sorafenib 400 mg twice daily in combination with IFN 6 MIU three times a week is recommended in Japanese patients with advanced RCC.     

转移性肾细胞癌药物治疗方法的研究

肾细胞癌在我国的发病率逐年升高,且对于放化疗不敏感,免疫治疗效果有限,尤其是转移性肾细胞癌的预后较差。该文就转移性肾细胞癌的药物治疗方案的作用机制、现状及展望进行综述。     

Emerging targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Insights into renal cell carcinoma (RCC) biology have greatly expanded the treatment armamentarium for metastatic RCC (mRCC). Since 2005, six targeted agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the management of mRCC, and many new targeted therapies are in development. A number of novel VEGF Inhibitors/Multi-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors are currently in various stages of development. New targeted agents with novel mechanisms of action are also being studied, including Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors, Angiopoietin/TIE-2 inhibitors, Carbonic anhydrase IX inhibitors, vaccines, and others. In addition to combining currently available immunologic therapies with emerging agents, researchers are also developing novel immunologic therapies to treat mRCC, including those that block Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 (CTLA4). Several trials evaluating combinations and sequential therapy of targeted agents have been published, and several others are underway. Trials of special mRCC populations, including poor-risk disease, non-clear cell RCC (NCC-RCC), and papillary type RCC are further refining the use of targeted treatments. As new targeted agents emerge and therapies with novel mechanisms of action are developed, the treatments options available for metastatic RCC are expected to increase. New therapies will likely have fewer detrimental side effects and better efficacy, leading to better quality of life for patients.     

Pharmacokinetics,pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy of nivolumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: Nivolumab is a recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody that binds PD-1. The binding of PD-1 with PD-L1, expressed on antigen-presenting cells and tumor cells, suppresses the ability of T-lymphocytes to recognize and destroy tumor cells. Nivolumab reverts this inhibitory signal and has led to a significant prolongation of overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Areas covered: The rationale for immunotherapy in metastatic RCC, key immune checkpoint pathways, nivolumab pharmacodynamics, results from the main clinical trials, and predictors of response are discussed.

Expert opinion: Nivolumab demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over everolimus in overall survival in metastatic RCC patients after first-line antiangiogenic therapy. Nevertheless, a number of issues remain to be resolved regarding the use of this drug in RCC. It is now imperative to identify which patients can benefit most from immunotherapy and studies are ongoing to define its role in other settings and/or in combinations with antiCTLA4 or antiangiogenic drugs.     

Axitinib for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

In recent years, targeted agents have changed the treatment landscape for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), greatly improving treatment outcomes. Several targeted agents are now licensed for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), and a number of new agents are under investigation. Axitinib, a small molecule indazole derivative is an oral, potent multitargeted tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor, which selectively inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 at subnanomolar concentrations, in vitro. In various nonclinical models, axitinib has demonstrated in vivo target modulation and antiangiogenesis. In pharmacokinetic studies, axitinib administered orally with food at the proposed regimen of 5mg twice daily continuous daily dosing, is rapidly absorbed, reaching peak concentrations within 2–6 hours. Axitinib is metabolized primarily in the liver via the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system with less than 1% of the administered drug passing unchanged in the urine. The pharmacokinetics of axitinib do not appear to be altered by coadministered chemotherapies, and antacids do not have a clinically significant effect. However, coadministration with CYP3A4 and 1A2 inducers is contraindicated. In addition, proton pump inhibitors reduce the rate of axitinib absorption. Increased axitinib exposure is associated with higher efficacy indicated by decreased tumor perfusion and volume. In three phase II clinical trials in patients with advancedRCCpreviously treated with cytokines, chemotherapy or targeted agents, axitinib has demonstrated antitumor activity with a favorable noncumulative toxicity profile. In one study of Western patients with cytokine-refractory mRCC, an objective response rate (ORR) of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5, 58.7) was achieved. The median time to progression was 15.7 months (95%CI 8.4, 23.4) and the median overall survival (OS) was 29.9 months (95%CI 20.3, not estimable). In the second study of patients with sorafenib-refractory mRCC, ORR was 22.6% (95% CI 12.9, 35.0). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.7, 11.0) and a median OS of 13.6 months (95% CI 8.4, 18.8) was achieved. Results from the third study in Japanese patients with cytokine-refractory mRCC reported an ORR of 55% and median PFS of 12.9 months (95% CI 9.8, 15.6).In the three studies, themost common adverse events reported were fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and gastrointestinal toxicity, which were generally manageable with standard medical intervention. Of note, the incidence of HFS and proteinuria in the Japanese study was higher than that reported in the Western study in cytokine-refractory mRCC patients.An observed association between diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg and increased efficacy suggests potential use as a prognostic biomarker. However, this requires further investigation. Two randomized phase III clinical trials are ongoing to determine the efficacy of axitinib in patients with mRCC in the first- and second-line setting. These results will help to determine the place of axitinib in the mRCC treatment algorithm.     

索拉非尼和舒尼替尼在转移性肾癌患者中的应用效果对比

目的：比较索拉非尼和舒尼替尼在转移性肾癌患者中的应用效果。方法：选取2013年1月至2016年1月期间某院收治的132例转移性肾癌患者为研究对象,将患者依据随机数字表法分为A组和B组,各66例。A组患者给予索拉菲尼治疗,B组患者给予舒尼替尼治疗。比较2组患者的疾病控制、血液学毒性、不良反应和生存状况。结果：A组与B组患者的疾病控制率分别为87.88%和86.37%,差异无显著性（P > 0.05）。B组患者的白细胞减少、中性粒细胞减少、血小板减少、贫血、肌酸激酶升高、转氨酶升高发生率均高于A组患者,差异具有显著性（P < 0.05）。A组与B组患者高血压、皮疹、食欲不振、手足综合征、脱发的发生率比较差异无显著性（P > 0.05）。B组患者腹泻和疲乏发生率均高于A组患者,差异具有显著性（P < 0.05）。治疗后对患者随访2年,A组和B组患者疾病进展率分别为45.45%和40.90%,两组患者的疾病进展率、6个月、12个月和24个月生存率比较差异无显著性（P > 0.05）。结论：索拉非尼和舒尼替尼治疗转移性肾癌患者疾病控制率和生存率差异无显著性,给予患者索拉菲尼治疗血液学毒性较小,给予患者舒尼替尼治疗腹泻发生率较高,但均无严重不良反应。     

The prospects for combination therapy with capecitabine in the rapidly evolving treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: Although significant advances have been made in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), patients still develop resistance to standard therapies and require the administration of subsequent lines of treatment. New therapeutic approaches are thus imperative to improve the prognosis for patients with RCC.

Areas covered: Based on the current literature, we summarize the treatment of metastatic RCC, including the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, in this review article. We also review the existing scientific literature regarding the role of capecitabine in the treatment of RCC.

Expert opinion: Currently, targeted therapies including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are widely used in the treatment of metastatic RCC. More recently, the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors has been established in the treatment of advanced RCC. Traditionally, the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of RCC is limited. However, cytotoxic chemotherapy may have benefit in different types of RCC, such as variant histology. Furthermore, new combinations of chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors may provide new treatment options for our patients.     

肾癌靶向治疗及联合用药的研究进展

分子靶向治疗能特异性地作用于病变部位,凭借其高效低毒的优势,成为肾癌治疗方案的新宠,然而因肾癌存在多种耐药基因,易对单一靶向药物产生耐药,大大降低其疗效,因此研究者们试图将不同靶点的药物联合应用,以期进一步提高治疗效果。文中归纳总结了肾癌的发病机制、靶向治疗的主要靶点以及联合用药的研究进展,以期为肾癌的临床用药提供参考。     

Pharmacotherapy for treating metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Introduction: Over the past decade metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment landscape has dramatically evolved from the era of cytokines-based immunotherapy (which benefited very few patients, at the expenses of high toxicities) to the present era of targeted agents and novel immunotherapeutics, greatly improving the prognosis of our patients.

Areas covered: Here we have reviewed the present status of the medical treatment of metastatic RCC. To do this, we interrogated the Medline database, as well as the proceedings of the main Oncological and Urological conferences for the relevant trials coducted so far.

Expert opinion: Despite all the advances made in these relatively few years, further improvements are needed, since none of the available agents proved able to cure even a sigle metastatic RCC patient. In particular, advances are awaited from the results of ongoing trial of combinations of different immune checkpoint inhibitors and of immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-VEGF/VEGFRs agents. Furthermore, a better understanding of the molecular escape pathways used by the tumor to overcome VEGFR blockade or immune activation will hopefully bring soon to the clinic more active, tailored treatments, to be used in second line and beyond.     

Phase II study of vinflunine in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Summary Purpose: An open-label, multicentre, non-comparative phase II trial to determine the response rate of intravenous vinflunine as first line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic RCC were treated with vinflunine 350 mg/m² (n = 11) or 320 mg/m² (n = 22) administered intravenously every 21 days. Results: Out of 33 patients included in this study, one partial response was observed in the group treated at 350 mg/m² and none in the group receiving 320 mg/m² resulting in a response rate in this population of 9.1% (95% CI: 0.2–41.3). Median progression free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI: 2.8–14.4) for patients treated at 350 mg/m², and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.6–6.4) for those treated at 320 mg/m².The median survival time was 10.4 months (95% CI: 6.8–12.4) for the whole study population. The principal toxicities were grade 3/4 neutropaenia —90.9% at 350 mg/m² and 68.1% at 320 mg/m², febrile neutropaenia was recorded in 3 patients (27.3%) at 350 mg/m² and in 5 patients (22.7%) at 320 mg/m². One episode of thromboembolic event was reported in 1 patient at each dose level. Conclusion: Vinflunine given intravenously once every 3 weeks has not shown any clinically relevant activity in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma; tolerance of the treatment was better at a dose of 320 mg/m² than at 350 mg/m². Supported by Institute de Recherche Pierre Fabre Oncologie, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.     

Phase II trial of lenalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Summary Lenalidomide (CC-5013) is a structural derivative of thalidomide, with antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory effects. Fourteen patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were enrolled on a phase 2 trial of lenalidomide administered orally at 25 mg daily for 21 days followed by a rest period of 7 days. The best response was stable disease in eight patients (57%) of the 14 evaluable patients. Toxicities included fatigue, hyperglycemia, dyspnea, and myelosuppression with decreased hemoglobin, lymphopenia, and neutropenia. Lenalidomide is tolerable, but no objective responses were observed in this clinical trial.