Efficacy of Targeted Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Elderly Patient Population

Introduction/BackgroundTargeted therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for mRCC. The efficacy of this therapy in the older population is poorly understood.Patients and MethodsData from patients with mRCC treated with first-line anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. Patient characteristics, data on second-line therapy, and outcomes including treatment duration and overall survival, were evaluated using summary statistics and multivariate analysis.ResultsAll patients (n = 1381) were treated with front-line targeted therapy; 144 (10%) were 75 years old or older. Six patients (4%) were favorable risk, 99 patients (69%) intermediate risk, and 39 patients (27%) poor risk according to Heng Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 prognostic factors. The initial treatment for those ≥ 75 years of age was sunitinib (n = 98), sorafenib (n = 35), bevacizumab (n = 7), and AZD217 (n = 4). Twenty-three percent of older patients and 39% of the younger patients went on to receive second-line therapy (P < .0001). The overall response rate, median treatment duration, and overall survival for the older versus younger group were 18% versus 25% (P = .0975), 5.5 months versus 7.5 months (P = .1388), and 16.8 months versus 19.7 months (P = .3321), respectively. When adjusted for poor prognostic factors, age 75 years and older was not found to be associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.781-1.285) or shorter treatment duration (HR, 1.018; 95% CI, 0.827-1.252). The retrospective study design was the primary limitation.ConclusionThe use of advanced age as a selection criterion for targeted therapy requires further study, with data suggesting no clinically meaningful differences in overall response rate, treatment duration, and overall survival between older and younger age groups.     

A Population-Based Overview of Sequences of Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundSeveral TTs are available to treat mRCC; however, the optimal sequence of therapy remains unknown.Patients and MethodsConsecutive population-based samples of patients with mRCC treated with TT were collected from 12 cancer centers via the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Patient characteristics, first-line and second-line progression-free survival rates and overall survival data were collected based on sequencing of TT. Multivariable analysis was performed when there were significant differences on univariable analysis.ResultsA total of 2106 patients were included with a median follow-up of 36 months; 907 (43%) and 318 (15%) patients received subsequent second-line and third-line TT, respectively. Baseline characteristics were well matched among different sequences apart from more patients with non–clear-cell histology in the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) group compared with the VEGF to VEGF group sequence. When adjusting for the Heng risk criteria and non–clear-cell histology, the hazard ratio for death for the VEGF to mTOR group versus the VEGF to VEGF group was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.669-1.037; P = .1016). More specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio for death for the sunitinib to everolimus versus sunitinib to temsirolimus sequences was 0.774 (95% CI, 0.52-1.153; P = .2086).ConclusionIn this large multicenter analysis evaluating different sequences of TT in mRCC, no substantial effect on outcome based on sequence of TT was identified.     

Nivolumab VERSUS Cabozantinib as Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Comparison

BackgroundTyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) still represent a first-line option for selected patients with metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to compare the real-world efficacy of nivolumab or cabozantinib as second-line therapy in specific mRCC subpopulations.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively collected data from 11 centers from Italy, Spain and US. Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox proportional models were used at univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsWe collected data from 343 patients with mRCC, 123 (36%) treated with cabozantinib and 220 (64%) with nivolumab. The median OS resulted longer, but not statistically significant, with nivolumab in patients aged >70 years (21.4 vs. 15.4 months, P = .746), treated with first-line pazopanib (26.8 vs. 11.6 months, P = .450), or with good (47.0 vs. 15.5 months, P = .285) or intermediate-risk criteria (14.4 vs. 11.0 months, P = .357), while it was longer, but even not statistically significant, for cabozantinib in patients who received previous sunitinib (25.7 vs. 21.7 months, P = .638) or with bone metastases (28.4 vs. 24.4 months, P = .871). The median PFS was significantly longer with cabozantinib in patients with clear cell histology (7.8 vs. 5.4 months, P = .026) and in patients with good risk features (12.3 vs. 5.7 months, P = .022).ConclusionsNivolumab and cabozantinib resulted active in mRCC patients, showing distinct results when stratified into clinico-pathological features.     

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study

BackgroundLimited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings.MethodsA retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported.ResultsAmong 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%.ConclusionDespite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.     

Standard vs Adapted Sunitinib Regimen in Elderly Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: Results From a Large Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundThere are no data on the patterns of care and outcome of elderly patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib. In a retrospective study, we assessed the routine use of first-line sunitinib in mRCC patients aged ≥ 70 years.Patients and MethodsWe reviewed the clinical files of 185 patients aged ≥ 70 years with mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib in 17 Italian oncology units from February 2006 to September 2011. One hundred twenty-three patients (66.5%) received a standard 50 mg/d for a 4 weeks on/2 weeks off regimen (SR), and 62 patients (33.5%) received an AR consisting of 37.5 mg/d for a 4 weeks on/2 weeks off in 67.7% of cases.ResultsMedian age was 74 years. Patients treated with an AR were older than those treated with the SR (P < .0001). In the overall population, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 25.5 months. Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 87 of 123 SR (70.7%) and 32 of 62 AR (51.6%), respectively; dose reductions were required in 82 SR (66.7%) and 26 AR (41.9%), respectively; discontinuations because of therapy-related adverse events occurred in 25 SR (20.3%) and 15 AR (24.2%), respectively. In multivariate analysis, only performance status and the Heng score were predictors of either PFS or OS.ConclusionSunitinib is active and feasible in elderly patients with mRCC. A sunitinib AR could be considered as an option in selected older mRCC patients. The optimal treatment of frail patients with mRCC remains to be established.     

Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial

BackgroundAxitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting.Patients and MethodsAXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors.ResultsOf 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.     

Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC

BackgroundRECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points.Patients and methodsPatients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored.ResultsAt final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1–26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0–29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)_{EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE}, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9–1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6–33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8–33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HR_{EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE}, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9–1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences.ConclusionsResults of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals.Clinical Trials numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175     

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and MethodsWe used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts.ResultsA total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71).ConclusionsBased on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.     

Sequential Targeted Therapy After Pazopanib Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: Efficacy and Toxicity

Introduction/BackgroundPatients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in whom first-line therapies have failed might derive clinical benefit with sequential targeted agents. Limited data are available on the efficacy and toxicity of subsequent therapies after disease progression during pazopanib therapy.Patients and MethodsPatients with mRCC who received subsequent systemic treatment after pazopanib treatment failure were identified across 7 institutions. Pazopanib was given as first-line therapy in 28 patients and after cytokines therapy in 7 patients. Clinical outcome and toxicity analyses of 2 sequential treatment options (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi]) is presented.ResultsSubsequent therapy was anti-VEGF in 22 patients and mTORi in 13. One patient who received bevacizumab and temsirolimus combination was excluded. VEGF-targeted therapies included sorafenib (n = 10), sunitinib (n = 3), bevacizumab (n = 2), cediranib (n = 4) and cabozantinib (n = 3). Patients treated with mTORi received everolimus. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months from the start of subsequent therapy with anti-VEGF and 2.4 months with mTORi (P = .009). Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different (P = .68). Clinical benefit (including partial response and stable disease) on subsequent therapy was observed in 15 patients (64%) and 4 patients (31%) of anti–VEGF- and everolimus-treated patients, respectively (P = .021).ConclusionIn this retrospective study, targeting VEGF was an effective strategy after disease progression during pazopanib treatment, although OS was not different among patients treated with VEGF or mTORi.     

Skin toxicity and efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a national registry-based study

BackgroundA retrospective, registry-based analysis to assess the outcomes of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib who developed dermatologic adverse events was performed.Patients and MethodsData on mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or sorafenib were obtained from the Czech Clinical Registry of Renal Cell Cancer Patients. Outcomes of patients who developed hand–foot syndrome (HFS) of any grade and/or grade 3/4 rash during the treatment were compared with patients without HFS and no, mild, or moderate rash.ResultsThe cohort included 705 patients treated with sunitinib and 365 patients treated with sorafenib. For sunitinib, the median overall survival (OS) was 43.0 months versus 31.0 months (P = 0.027) and median progression-free survival (PFS) 20.8 months versus 11.1 months (P = 0.007) for patients with versus without dermatologic toxicity, respectively. For sorafenib, the median OS and PFS were 27.9 and 24.6 months (P = 0.244), and 12.2 and 8.8 months (P = 0.050), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the skin toxicity was significantly associated with longer OS in the sunitinib cohort.ConclusionThe presence of skin toxicity is associated with improved OS and PFS in patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib.     

Real-world Experience With Sunitinib Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical Outcome According to Risk Score

BackgroundADONIS is an ongoing observational study in 9 European countries, designed to evaluate treatment patterns/outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line sunitinib and/or second-line axitinib post sunitinib. We present an evaluation of sunitinib efficacy by risk group, in the real-world setting examined in ADONIS.Patients and MethodsPatients were enrolled at the start of first-line sunitinib treatment or second-line axitinib post sunitinib treatment. Evaluation of sunitinib efficacy was assessed by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk criteria.ResultsFor all patients in this analysis (N = 467), the median progression-free survival was 23.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5-28.5 months), 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-17.4 months), and 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5-7.7 months) for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively. The median overall survival was 97.1 months (95% CI, 46.3 months-not evaluable [NE]), 33.5 months (95% CI, 20.5-46.6 months), and 10.0 months (95% CI, 4.5-19.8 months) for the respective risk groups. Data on individual risk factors were available for a subgroup of patients, allowing analysis by intermediate risk by 1 versus 2 risk factors. When including this subgroup (n = 120), the median overall survival for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-1, and intermediate-2 risk factors was 21.6 months (95% CI, 16.3 months-NE), 20.5 months (15.5 months-NE), and 15.1 months (4.1 months-NE), respectively.ConclusionsFor patients overall and by risk-group stratification, survival estimates were aligned with previously published data. In patients with intermediate-1 risk, overall survival was very similar to patients with favorable risk. However, further exploration of outcome data from different sources is needed to confirm these observations.     

Phase II trial of second-line everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RECORD-4)

BackgroundRECORD-1 demonstrated clinical benefit of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib, sorafenib, or both; prior treatment with cytokines, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy was also permitted. RECORD-4 prospectively assessed everolimus in a purely second-line setting.MethodsPatients with clear-cell mRCC were enrolled into one of three cohorts based on first-line therapy with sunitinib, other anti-VEGF agents, or cytokines. Patients were treated with everolimus 10 mg/day until progression (RECIST, v1.0) or intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator review. Data cutoff was 1 September 2014, for the primary analysis and 26 June 2015, for the final overall survival (OS) analysis.ResultsEnrolled patients (N = 134) previously received sunitinib (n = 58), other anti-VEGF therapy (n = 62; sorafenib, 23; bevacizumab, 16; pazopanib, 13; tivozanib, 5; and axitinib, 3), or cytokines (n = 14). Overall median age was 59 years, and most patients were men (68%) and of favorable/intermediate MSKCC risk (52/37%). Overall median PFS was 7.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7–11.0]; in the cohorts, it was 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7–11.3) with previous sunitinib, 7.8 months (95% CI 5.7–11.0) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and 12.9 months [95% CI 2.6–not estimable (NE)] with previous cytokines. Overall, 67% of patients achieved stable disease as their best objective response. At final OS analysis, total median OS was 23.8 months (95% CI 17.0–NE) and, in the cohorts, it was 23.8 months (95% CI 13.7–NE) with previous sunitinib, 17.2 months (95% CI 11.9–NE) with other previous anti-VEGF therapy, and NE (95% CI 15.9–NE) with previous cytokine-based therapy. Overall, 56% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events (regardless of relationship to study drug).ConclusionsThese results confirm the PFS benefit of second-line everolimus after first-line sunitinib or other anti-VEGF therapies. The safety profile of everolimus was consistent with previous experience.Clinical trial name and identifierEverolimus as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RECORD-4), ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01491672.     

Prognostic Significance of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients With Synchronous Metastases From Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With First-Line Sunitinib: A European Multiinstitutional Study

Introduction/BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic role of CN in patients with mRCC and synchronous metastases treated with the VEGF receptor TKI, sunitinib.Patients and MethodsPatients with a diagnosis of metastases before, at the time of, or within 3 months from the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and first-line treatment with sunitinib were included. Baseline characteristics were correlated with overall survival (OS) according to hazard ratios estimated from univariate Cox proportional hazards models. Significant factors were then included in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsOne hundred eighty-six patients treated between January 2006 and March 2012 were selected. Thirty-six (19%) had not undergone CN. CN was offered to younger patients with better prognoses. Patients who underwent CN lived significantly longer than patients without CN (median OS, 23.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 20.8-28.8] vs. 9 [95% CI, 4-16.4] months; P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that CN had an independent prognostic significance. No specific subgroup benefiting from CN was identified.ConclusionCN was an independent favorable prognostic factor in patients with synchronous metastases from RCC, treated with sunitinib. Information regarding the selection of mRCC patients likely to benefit from CN might be derived by ongoing phase III trials.     

Multicenter Experience of Nonpegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin Use in the Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the use of nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD) in the management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) within routine UK clinical practice and to assess its efficacy and tolerability.Patients and MethodsAll patients that received NPLD for MBC at 5 institutions were identified. Clinicopathologic details, echocardiographic data, and toxicities were documented. Response to treatment, outcome, cardiotoxicity, and safety were assessed.Results63 patients (median age at NPLD therapy, 53.5 years) who had received NPLD were identified; 18 (29%) were anthracycline-naïve, and 42 (67%) were anthracycline-pretreated (median cumulative dose of epirubicin, 450 mg/m²). In 3 cases, prior treatment history was not available. NPLD was most frequently (16 [25%] of 63 patients) administered as first-line chemotherapy (median, third-line; range, 1-9), although it was given later in anthracycline-pretreated patients (median, fourth-line; range, 1-9). Overall, 14 (29%) of 49 evaluable patients achieved an objective response, which increased to 10 (71%) of 14 when NPLD was given first-line (anthracycline-naïve, 8 [100%] of 8; anthracycline-pretreated, 2 [50%] of 4; adjuvant treatment unknown, 2). Median progression-free survival was 7 months (first-line, 18 months, vs. ≥ second-line, 6 months; P = .0066), and median overall survival was 10 months (first-line, 18 months, vs. ≥ second-line, 10 months; P = .0971). Toxicities tended to be grade 1 or 2. Three patients had cardiotoxicity (left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or a fall of ≥ 10% from baseline), which resolved during treatment.ConclusionNPLD was used in both anthracycline-naïve patients and those with prior exposure. There is evidence of clinical activity in those with prior exposure to anthracyclines, with a low incidence of cardiotoxicity.     

Second-Line Treatment Outcomes After First-Line Sunitinib Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

This study was conducted to evaluate the treatment outcomes associated with common second-line targeted therapies given after first-line sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The sample comprised patients with mRCC (n = 257) who were receiving second-line everolimus, sorafenib, or temsirolimus between April 1, 2008, and February 29, 2011, after first-line sunitinib treatment. The patients were followed-up from the start of second-line treatment until treatment failure (defined as advancement to a third-line therapy or to mortality) or the last observation in the medical and pharmacy databases. Treatment failure was observed in 38.5% (n = 99) of cases: 20.2% of patients (n = 52) advanced a line of treatment; and 18.3% of patients (n = 47) died. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a statistical difference in time to treatment failure among the 3 second-line targeted therapies (log-rank test, P = .045). The estimated 1-year cumulative probabilities of treatment failure were 49.9% for everolimus, 68.4% for sorafenib, and 71.4% for temsirolimus. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, a higher adjusted risk of treatment failure vs. everolimus was observed for both temsirolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.26-3.35]; P = .004) and sorafenib (HR 1.77 [95% CI, 1.02-3.07]; P = .043). The results of this real-world data analysis suggest that the risk of second-line treatment failure after first-line sunitinib was significantly higher with temsirolimus and sorafenib compared with everolimus.     

Efficacy of sunitinib in patients with metastatic or unresectable renal cell carcinoma and renal insufficiency

AimThe aim of this retrospective, registry-based study was to analyse treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib and renal insufficiency (RI).MethodsThe cohort included 790 patients treated with sunitinib between 2006 and 2013. At the start of sunitinib therapy 22, 234, and 534 patients had severe (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <30 ml/min/1.73 m²), moderate (GFR 30–60 ml/min/1.73 m²) or mild RI/normal renal function (GFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m²), respectively.ResultsFor the three groups defined above, median progression-free survival (PFS) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 5.3 months (0.1–18.5), 8.1 months (6.2–9.9) and 11.3 months (9.4–13.2) (p = 0.244), and median overall survival (OS) was 26.3 months (1.2–51.4), 21.2 months (13.2–29.1) and 26.3 months (22.6–29.9) (p = 0.443), respectively. The disease control rates were 45.5%, 56.4% and 59.2%, respectively (p = 0.374). No unexpected toxicity was reported in the patients with RI, but the treatment was more frequently discontinued because of adverse events and the duration of therapy was significantly shorter in these patients (p = 0.007).ConclusionsDuration of first-line targeted treatment for mRCC was significantly shorter for patients with RI, and may have translated into a trend to shorter PFS. These results highlight the need for optimal management of side-effects in patients with mRCC and RI.     

Sunitinib followed by sorafenib or vice versa for metastatic renal cell carcinoma—data from the Czech registry

BackgroundSequential therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), sunitinib and sorafenib, is a common treatment choice for patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) despite lack of randomised trials. The aim of this retrospective registry-based study was to analyse the outcomes of RCC patients treated with sunitinib–sorafenib or sorafenib–sunitinib sequence.Patients and methodsThe Czech database containing information on patients treated for mRCC using targeted agents was used as a source of data for retrospective analysis. There were 138 patients treated with sunitinib–sorafenib sequence and 122 patients treated with sorafenib–sunitinib sequence.ResultsProgression-free survival (PFS) was 17.7 months for patients treated with sunitinib–sorafenib sequence and 18.8 months for those receiving sorafenib followed by sunitinib (P = 0.47). Overall survival (OS) at 1 year was 83% [95% confidence interval (CI) 77% to 90%] for patients treated with sunitinib–sorafenib and 84% (95% CI 77% to 91%) for sorafenib–sunitinib patients (P = 0.99). Treatment toxic effects were predictable but a significant proportion of patients (up to 14%–25% for different lines of therapy and used TKI) switched between TKIs or discontinued TKI therapy because of toxicity.ConclusionsIn contrast to most of the previously published reports, we have not observed improved PFS or OS for mRCC patients treated with the sorafenib–sunitinib sequence as compared to the sunitinib-sorafenib sequence.     

舒尼替尼与索拉非尼交替应用治疗肾癌1例并文献复习

目的:探讨舒尼替尼与索拉非尼交替应用治疗转移性肾癌的疗效。方法:报道舒尼替尼与索拉非尼交替应用治疗转移性肾癌1例并结合文献讨论。结果:该患者一线舒尼替尼治疗疾病进展时间（TTP）为6个月。二线索拉非尼治疗TTP为5个月。二线治疗失败后改变舒尼替尼给药方式（37.5mg 每日1次,连续口服）继续治疗,三线TTP为8个月。结论:患者一线应用舒尼替尼和二线应用索拉非尼的治疗疗效与文献报道相符。二线治疗失败后改变舒尼替尼给药方式继续治疗仍获得较好的疗效。     

Impact of Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Patients With Synchronous and Metachronous Brain Metastases

BackgroundModern radiation techniques have led to significant improvements in intracranial disease control and overall survival (OS) for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients diagnosed with brain metastases (BM). The impact of systemic therapy in patients developing mRCC BM remains undercharacterized.Patients and MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of mRCC patients diagnosed with BM. Patients were grouped as having either metachronous BM (ie, ≥ 3 months from mRCC diagnosis) or synchronous BM (ie, < 3 months from mRCC diagnosis). Details of patient demographics, BM, systemic therapy, and outcomes were extracted. Statistical analysis comprised chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier method to characterize survival outcomes.ResultsSeventy-four patients were identified (40 at ≥ 3 months from mRCC diagnosis and 34 at < 3 months from mRCC diagnosis) of which 72 (97%) received local therapy for their BM. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration while first line treatment was longer at 7.8 (3.6-17.0) versus 5.1 (3.3-12.6) in patients with metachronous BM versus patients with synchronous BM (P = 0.6), respectively. After BM diagnosis, the metachronous BM cohort continued to receive the same systemic therapy for a median (IQR) duration of 1.9 (0.4-5.5) months, with eventual change most commonly the result of extracranial disease progression. Median (IQR) OS from mRCC diagnosis favored metachronous BM patients versus synchronous BM patients, at 64.2 (31.4-not yet reached) versus 22.4 (9.7-34.1) months (P = .003), respectively. However, this was not significantly different from the time of BM diagnosis, with median (IQR) survival of 20.6 (9.2-31.2) versus 15.7 (11.6-not yet reached) months (P = .95), respectively.ConclusionProlonged OS was found for mRCC patients with BM that presented either metachronously or synchronously. For patients diagnosed with metachronous BM, the development of BM may be an early sign of systemic therapy failure.     

Folic Acid Reduces Mucositis in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Retrospective Study

BackgroundMucositis is often experienced in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with targeted therapies. This might impair daily quality of life and lead to dose reduction, discontinuation, or treatment shift. We assessed the effect of folic acid to reduce mucositis.Patients and MethodsPatients treated with systemic therapy for mRCC who developed Grade ≥2 mucositis according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE) received oral folic acid to reduce mucositis. The medical charts were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsA total of 77 patients had Grade ≥2 mucositis during therapy with sunitinib (n = 29), pazopanib (n = 24), everolimus (n = 10), axitinib (n = 4), temsirolimus (n = 3), interleukin-2/interferon-α (n = 3), cabozantinib (n = 2), bevacizumab (n = 1), and nivolumab (n = 1). Given in doses of 1 to 5 mg daily, folic acid significantly reduced mucositis, mean CTCAE grade 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-1.03) versus 2.38 (95% CI, 2.26-2.54; P < .0001). Stratified according to treatment, folic acid significantly reduced mucositis grade for sunitinib (0.97 [95% CI, 0.75-1.18] vs. 2.45 [95% CI, 2.23-2.67], P < .0001), pazopanib (0.96 [95% CI, 0.67-1.25] vs. 2.20 [2.03-2.38], P < .0001), everolimus (0.60 [95% CI, 0.10-1.10] vs. 2.60 [95% CI, 2.23-2.97], P < .0001), and other treatments (0.79 [95% CI, 0.38-1.19] vs. 2.36 [95% CI, 2.07-2.64], P < .0001). Of the 77 patients, 8 (10%) patients received dose reduction. Overall progression-free survival was 14 months and overall survival was 31 months.ConclusionFolic acid reduced mucositis in mRCC patients receiving systemic therapy. This finding needs prospective validation. A double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective evaluation of folic acid is ongoing (NCT03581773).