Sorafenib and sunitinib for elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundSunitinib and sorafenib are small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors with known antitumor activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively assess the response and tolerance of elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma to these two agents. Data of patients aged ≥ 70 years receiving sorafenib or sunitinib at the Centre Léon Bérard were analyzed. Forty-eight patients received sorafenib or sunitinib as a first line treatment, 8 received sorafenib followed by sunitinib and 4 received the reverse sequence. Objective responses (ORs), stable disease (SD), toxicity, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were reported.ResultsSorafenib and sunitinib achieved similar OR + SD rates (79% vs. 71% respectively). Median PFS was 6 months in first-line sorafenib treated patients and 5 months in the sunitinib group. Median OS was 16 months in first-line sorafenib-treated patients and 15 months in the sunitinib group. In patients receiving sorafenib followed by sunitinib, median PFS was 11.5 months, and median OS was 13.1 months. With the reverse sequence, median PFS was 8.1 months and median OS was 15 months. Treatment modifications were more frequent in sunitinib-treated patients, in first or second line (75% vs. 50%). Limitations are the retrospective design of the study and the small number of patients.ConclusionFirst-line sunitinib and sorafenib seem equally efficient in elderly patients treated for advanced renal carcinomas, but sunitinib is less well tolerated. Sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by sunitinib seems to be better tolerated. These results should be confirmed in a larger prospective study.     

A phase I–II study of everolimus (RAD001) in combination with imatinib in patients with imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Background: Imatinib is standard therapy for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), but most patients develop resistance. This phase I–II study assessed the safety and efficacy of coadministering everolimus with imatinib in imatinib-resistant GIST.Patients and methods: In phase I, patients received imatinib (600/800 mg/day) combined with weekly (20 mg) or daily (2.5/5.0 mg) everolimus to determine the optimal dose. In phase II, patients were divided into two strata (progression on imatinib only; progression after imatinib and sunitinib/other tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and received everolimus 2.5 mg plus imatinib 600 mg/day. Primary end point was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS).Results: Combination treatment was well tolerated. Common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and anemia. In phase II strata 1 and 2, 4 of 23 (17%) and 13 of 35 (37%) assessable patients, respectively, were progression free at 4 months; median PFS was 1.9 and 3.5 months, and median overall survival was 14.9 and 10.7 months, respectively. In stratum 1, 36% had stable disease (SD) and 54% progressive disease (PD), while in stratum 2, 2% had partial response, 43% SD, and 32% PD.Conclusion: Predetermined efficacy criteria were met in both strata. The combination of everolimus and imatinib after failure on imatinib and sunitinib merits further investigation in GIST.     

Comparison of performance of various tumour response criteria in assessment of regorafenib activity in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib

PurposeTo compare performance of various tumour response criteria (TRCs) in assessment of regorafenib activity in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) with prior failure of imatinib and sunitinib.MethodsTwenty participants in a phase II trial received oral regorafenib (median duration 47 weeks; interquartile range (IQR) 24–88) with computed tomography (CT) imaging at baseline and every two months thereafter. Tumour response was prospectively determined on using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1, and retrospectively reassessed for comparison per RECIST 1.0, World Health Organization (WHO) and Choi criteria, using the same target lesions. Clinical benefit rate [CBR; complete or partial response (CR or PR) or stable disease (SD) ⩾ 16 weeks] and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between various TRCs using kappa statistics. Performance of TRCs in predicting overall survival (OS) was compared by comparing OS in groups with progression-free intervals less than or greater than 20 weeks by each TRC using c-statistics.ResultsPR was more frequent by Choi (90%) than RECIST 1.1, RECIST 1.0 and WHO (20% each), however, CBR was similar between various TRCs (overall CBR 85–90%, 95–100% agreement between all TRC pairs). PFS per RECIST 1.0 was similar to RECIST 1.1 (median 44 weeks versus 58 weeks), and shorter for WHO (median 34 weeks) and Choi (median 24 weeks). With RECIST 1.1, RECIST 1.0 and WHO, there was moderate concordance between PFS and OS (c-statistics 0.596–0.679). Choi criteria had less favourable concordance (c-statistic 0.506).ConclusionsRECIST 1.1 and WHO performed somewhat better than Choi criteria as TRC for response evaluation in patients with advanced GIST after prior failure on imatinib and sunitinib.     

Relationship between imatinib trough concentration and outcomes in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours in a real-life setting

BackgroundImatinib has dramatically improved the prognosis of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Clinical trial data showed that patients with trough imatinib plasma concentrations (Cmin) below 1100 ng/ml (quartile 1) had shorter time to progression, but no threshold has been defined.The main objective of this study was to investigate in advanced GIST whether a Cmin threshold value associated with a longer progression-free survival (PFS) could be specified. This would be the first step leading to therapeutic drug monitoring of imatinib in GIST.Patients and methodsAdvanced GIST patients (n = 96) treated with imatinib 400 mg/d (41 stomach, 34 small bowel, and 21 other primary site localisations) were prospectively included in this real-life setting study. Routine plasma level testing imatinib (Cmin) and clinical data of were recorded prospectively.ResultsSmall bowel localisation was associated with an increased relative risk of progression of 3.09 versus stomach localisation (p = 0.0255). Mean Cmin (±standard deviation) was 868 (±536) ng/ml with 75% inter-individual and 26% intra-patient variability. A Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml defined by log-rank test was associated with longer PFS for the whole population (p = 0.0256) and for both stomach (p = 0.043) and small bowel (p = 0.049) localisations when analysed separately. Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that Cmin above 760 ng/ml was associated with 65% reduction risk of progression (p = 0.0271) in the whole population independently of the anatomical localisation.ConclusionConcentration of imatinib significantly influences duration of tumour control treatment in GIST patients with a Cmin threshold of 760 ng/ml associated with prolonged PFS in real-life setting.     

Post-imatinib surgery in advanced/metastatic GIST: is it worthwhile in all patients?

BackgroundSurgical indication for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with imatinib is not yet established.Materials and methodsWe analyzed 80 patients who underwent surgery for metastatic GIST after imatinib therapy from July 2002 to October 2007. Patients were divided into those with surgery at best clinical response (group A, n = 49) and those with surgery at focal progression (group B, n = 31). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).ResultsTwo-year postoperative PFS was 64.4% in group A and 9.7% in group B (P < 0.01). In group A, median PFS was not reached; in group B, it was 8 months. Median DSS from the time of imatinib onset was not reached in either group. Five-year DSS was 82.9% in group A and 67.6% in group B (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis confirmed a significantly shorter PFS and DSS in group B. Surgical morbidity occurred in 13 patients (16.3%).ConclusionsSurgery for focal progressive lesions could be considered as part of the second-line/third-line armamentarium in selected cases. Surgery of residual disease upon best clinical response seems associated with survival benefit compared with historical controls in similar patient collectives treated with imatinib alone. However, evidence from prospective randomized trials is needed to make definite recommendations.     

Phase II study of oral masitinib mesilate in imatinib-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastro-intestinal stromal tumour (GIST)

BackgroundMasitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with greater in vitro activity and selectivity for the wild-type c-Kit receptor and its juxtamembrane mutation than imatinib, without inhibiting kinases of known toxicities. This phase II study evaluated masitinib as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST.Patients and methodsImatinib-naïve patients with advanced GIST received oral masitinib at 7.5 mg/kg/d. Efficacy end-points included response rate (RR) at 2 months, best response according to RECIST, metabolic response rate, disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rate (OS).ResultsThirty patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 34 months. The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were rash (10%) and neutropaenia (7%). Two patients withdrew due to treatment-related adverse events. At 2 months, RR was 20% according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) and 86% according to FDG-PET response criteria. Best responses were a complete response in 1/30 patient (3.3%), partial response in 15/30 patients (50%), stable disease in 13/30 patients (43.3%) and progressive disease in 1/30 patient (3.3%); (DCR: 96.7%). Median time-to-response was 5.6 months (0.8–23.8 months). Estimated median PFS was 41.3 months with PFS rate of 59.7% [37.9; 76.0] and 55.4 [33.9; 72.5] at 2 and 3 years, respectively. The OS at 2 and 3 years was stable at 89.9% [71.8; 96.6].ConclusionsMasitinib appears to be effective as a first-line treatment of advanced GIST with comparable results to imatinib in terms of safety and response. PFS and in particular OS data show promise that masitinib may provide sustainable benefits. There is sufficient compelling evidence to warrant a phase III clinical trial.     

KIT and KIT: from biology to clinical use

Scientific knowledge on gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has highly progressed over the last 10 years. The molecular bases of oncogenic transformation, KIT activating mutations, were identified in 1998 by Hirota et al. The product of KIT proto-oncogene, KIT protein, is a transmembrane receptor with tyrosine kinase activity. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting these mutated activated kinases, namely imatinib and more recently sunitinib, nilotinib, masitinib or sorafenib, have deeply modified GIST prognosis. Molecular biology in GIST is now becoming a routine tool for treatment selection. In patients with advanced GIST, imatinib should be given until progression, and then, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting KIT should be used. In the adjuvant setting, the optimal duration of imatinib treatment remains unknown.     

Cytoreductive surgery for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors followed by sunitinib compared to followed by imatinib-a multi-center cohort study

BackgroundThe progression-free survival (PFS) is not optimal when imatinib was recommended for treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) undergoing surgery after tumor local or multifocal progression.MethodsWe evaluate PFS of patients undergoing R0 resection or optimal cytoreductive surgery followed by sunitinib therapy compared with imatinib after tumor unifocal or multifocal progression.ResultsFrom January 2006 to June 2017, ninety-seven patients from thirteen medical centers were enrolled. Fifty-six patients continued imatinib therapy and 41 patients switched sunitinib treatment directly after R0 resection or optimal cytoreductive surgery. The PFS of sunitinib group was longer than that of imatinib group (30.0 months vs 12.0 months, p = 0.009). In subgroup analysis, the PFS of the sunitinib and imatinib groups were 25.5 months and 12.0 months in patients with tumor multifocal progression (p = 0.008), and 39.0 months and 13.0 months in patients with unifocal progression (p = 0.156), respectively. PFS of postoperative sunitinib group was also superior to the total PFS of postoperative imatinib group (PFS of postoperative imatinib plus PFS of subsequent sunitinib therapy (30.0 months vs 21.0 months, p = 0.012). The overall survival in the sunitinib and imatinib groups were 37.0 months and 33.0 months, respectively (p = 0.794).ConclusionsSurgery followed by sunitinib in GIST patients with unifocal or multifocal progression on imatinib may improve PFS, compared with surgery followed by imatinib.     

Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: A randomized controlled open-label trial

BackgroundMasitinib is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against the main oncogenic drivers of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Masitinib was evaluated in patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure or intolerance.Patients and methodsProspective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with inoperable, advanced imatinib-resistant GIST were randomized (1 : 1) to receive masitinib (12 mg/kg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off) until progression, intolerance, or refusal. Primary efficacy analysis was noncomparative, testing whether masitinib attained a median progression-free survival (PFS) (blind centrally reviewed RECIST) threshold of >3 months according to the lower bound of the 90% unilateral confidence interval (CI). Secondary analyses on overall survival (OS) and PFS were comparative with results presented according to a two-sided 95% CI.ResultsForty-four patients were randomized to receive masitinib (n = 23) or sunitinib (n = 21). Median follow-up was 14 months. Patients receiving masitinib experienced less toxicity than those receiving sunitinib, with significantly lower occurrence of severe adverse events (52% versus 91%, respectively, P = 0.008). Median PFS (central RECIST) for the noncomparative primary analysis in the masitinib treatment arm was 3.71 months (90% CI 3.65). Secondary analyses showed that median OS was significantly longer for patients receiving masitinib followed by post-progression addition of sunitinib when compared against patients treated directly with sunitinib in second-line [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.85, P = 0.016]. This improvement was sustainable as evidenced by 26-month follow-up OS data (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.16–0.96, P = 0.033); an additional 12.4 months survival advantage being reported for the masitinib treatment arm. Risk of progression while under treatment with masitinib was in the same range as for sunitinib (HR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6–2.2, P = 0.833).ConclusionsPrimary efficacy analysis ensured the masitinib treatment arm could satisfy a prespecified PFS threshold. Secondary efficacy analysis showed that masitinib followed by the standard of care generated a statistically significant survival benefit over standard of care. Encouraging median OS and safety data from this well-controlled and appropriately designed randomized trial indicate a positive benefit–risk ratio. Further development of masitinib in imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients with advanced GIST is warranted.     

Sorafenib and bevacizumab combination targeted therapy in advanced neuroendocrine tumour: A phase II study of Spanish Neuroendocrine Tumour Group (GETNE0801)

BackgroundSorafenib and bevacizumab as single agents have shown efficacy and acceptable toxicity in NETs phase II trials. Sorafenib and bevacizumab combination has shown manageable toxicity in phase I trials in solid tumours. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours.MethodsOpen-label, uncontrolled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial. Eligibility criteria: age ? 18 years, histologically confirmed measurable advanced NETs; 1 prior chemotherapy allowed; ECOG-PS 0–2. Patients were treated during 6 months and followed up for an additional 6 months. Treatment: sorafenib 200 mg bid (days 1–5 of each week) and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (day 1, week 1). Tumour response was performed according to RECIST (v1.0) every 2 months during the treatment period. Adverse events were graded according to CTCAE (v3.0).Findings44 Patients enrolled, 59.1% men, median age 60 years (range 32–76). 70.5% carcinoid tumours, 29.5% pancreatic tumour. Baseline target lesions mainly in the liver (86.4%). Global PFSR was 90.9% (91.7% carcinoid tumours and 88.9% pancreatic tumours). Median PFS was 12.4 months, median TTP was 14.5 months, ORR was 9.4% and DCR was 95.1%. Most common grade 3–4 toxicities: asthenia (11.4%) and hand–foot skin reaction (15.9%).InterpretationSorafenib and bevacizumab combination showed clinical benefit but unfavourable safety results compared with drugs in monotherapy. Further development of this combination is not warranted and a sequential approach is recommended instead.     

Comparison of RECIST and Choi criteria for computed tomographic response evaluation in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with sunitinib

BackgroundControversies exist about computed tomography (CT) response evaluation criteria for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST).Patients and methodsFifty-one patients with advanced GIST treated second line with sunitinib were evaluated with contrast-enhanced CT every 3 months. Response was rated according to RECIST and Choi criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan–Meier analysis.ResultsAccording to RECIST, patients were categorized as complete response (CR; n = 0; 0%), partial remission (PR; n = 1; 2.0%), stable disease (SD; n = 37; 72.5%), and progressive disease (PD; n = 13; 25.5%) at 3 months. When Choi criteria were applied responses were CR (n = 0; 0%), PR (n = 16; 31.4%), SD (n = 21; 41.1%), and PD (n = 14; 27.5%). Despite these discrepancies, patients rated as SD with RECIST and PR as well as SD according to Choi criteria displayed similar PFS (41.3, 40.7, and 41.3 weeks, respectively) and OS (100.4, 91.6, and 108.0 weeks, respectively). Patients with PD had significantly shorter PFS (10.1 weeks for both criteria) and OS (29.1 weeks for RECIST; 28.9 weeks for Choi) regardless of the response classification applied.ConclusionIn contrast to absence of progression, discrimination of PR from SD with Choi criteria was of no predictive value.     

Phase II study of the HSP90-inhibitor BIIB021 in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BackgroundHSP90 inhibition leads to proteosomal degradation of activated KIT and has in vitro activity against gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). BIIB021 is an oral non-ansamycin HSP90 inhibitor. We carried out a phase II study of BIIB021 in patients with GIST refractory to imatinib and sunitinib.Patients and methodsThe primary end-point was metabolic partial response (mPR) as assessed by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). The secondary end-points were pharmacokinetic assessments of BIIB021 and pharmacodynamic assessments of HSP70. Twenty-three patients were treated on two schedules: 12 pts received 600 mg twice a week (BIW) and 11 patients received 400 mg three times a week (TIW). All had prior imatinib and sunitinib but stopped >14 days before starting BIIB021.ResultsThe median age was 59 years (33–88 years), 61% male, 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 1 (ECOG1). The best response was PR by FDG-PET for five patients (3/12 at 600 mg BIW and 2/9 at 400 TIW) for an overall response rate of 22%. The response duration was 25–138 days. Adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate. The mean C_max was 1.5 µmol and the mean AUC was 2.9 µmol h. C_max >1.5 µmol was associated with a decrease in standardized uptake value (SUV_max). HSP70 increased substantially following treatment.ConclusionsThis study met its primary end-point. BIIB021 leads to objective responses in refractory GIST patients. Pharmacodynamic studies confirmed HSP90 inhibition. Further evaluation of BIIB021 in GIST is warranted.     

Is there a role of surgery in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours responding to imatinib: A prospective randomised trial in China

ObjectivesFor advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients who are responding to imatinib mesylate, the role of surgery has not been formally demonstrated. This multicenter randomised controlled trial was designed to assess whether surgery to treat residual disease for patients with recurrent/metastatic GISTs responding to imatinib mesylate (IM) improved progression free survival (PFS) compared with IM treatment alone.MethodsBetween 3 and 12 months after starting IM for recurrent/metastatic GISTs, eligible patients were randomised to two arms: Arm A (surgery for residual disease) and Arm B (IM treatment alone). In Arm A (19 pts), surgery was performed to remove residual macroscopic lesions as completely as possible, and IM treatment continued after surgery. In Arm B (22 pts), IM was given alone at a dose of 400 mg per day until disease progression. The primary end-point was PFS measured from the date IM started. This study was registered in the ChiCTR registry with the ID number ChiCTR-TRC-00000244.ResultsThis randomised trial was closed early due to poor accrual. Only 41 patients were enrolled as opposed to 210 patients planned. 2-year PFS was 88.4% in the surgery arm and 57.7% in the IM-alone arm (P = 0.089). Median overall survival (mOS) was not reached in the surgery arm and 49 months in patients with IM-alone arm (P = 0.024).ConclusionsWhile no significant differences were observed in the two arms, this study suggests that surgical removal of the metastatic lesion may improve the outcome of advanced GIST patients and should stimulate additional research on this topic.     

Clinical evaluation of continuous daily dosing of sunitinib malate in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after imatinib failure

AimsTo assess the antitumour activity, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of continuous daily sunitinib dosing in patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) and to assess morning dosing versus evening dosing.Patients and methodsIn this open-label phase II study, patients were randomised to receive morning or evening dosing of sunitinib 37.5 mg/day. The primary end-point was clinical benefit rate (CBR; percent complete responses + partial responses [PRs] + stable disease [SD] ?24 weeks). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetic parameters and plasma biomarker levels.ResultsSixty of 61 planned patients received treatment (30 per dosing group); 26 completed the study. Overall, the CBR was 53% (95% exact CI, 40–66): eight patients (13%) achieved objective PRs; 24 (40%) achieved SD ?24 weeks. Median PFS was 34 weeks (95% CI, 24–49); median OS was 107 weeks (95% CI, 72 – not yet calculable). Most adverse events (AEs) were of grade 1 or 2 in severity, and were manageable through dose modification or standard interventions. No new AEs were apparent compared with the approved intermittent dosing schedule. Antitumour activity and safety were generally similar with morning and evening dosing. Continuous daily sunitinib dosing achieved and sustained effective drug concentrations without additional accumulation across cycles. Decreases from baseline in plasma levels of soluble KIT after 20 and 24 weeks of dosing correlated with longer OS.ConclusionFor patients with imatinib-resistant/intolerant GIST, continuous daily sunitinib dosing appears to be an active alternative dosing strategy with acceptable safety.     

Imatinib in advanced chordoma: A retrospective case series analysis

IntroductionImatinib showed activity in 50 chordoma patients treated within a Phase II study. In that study, 70% of patients remained with stable disease (SD), median progression free survival (PFS) was 9 months and median overall survival (OS) was 34 months. We now report on a retrospective series of PDGFB/PDGFRB positive advanced chordoma patients treated with imatinib as a single agent within a compassionate-use programme at Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy (INT) between August 2002 and November 2010, when the programme was closed.Methods48 patients were consecutively treated with imatinib 800 mg/d. All patients had inoperable and progressive disease before starting imatinib. Demographics, treatment duration, toxicity and response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were retrospectively recorded.ResultsThe median duration of therapy was 7 months (1–46.5). No patient is on therapy at present. 46 patients were evaluable for response. No partial responses were detected. Best response was: stable disease 34 (74%), progressive disease 12 (26%). At a median follow-up of 24.5 months (0.5–117), median PFS was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7–13). Eight patients (16.5%) remained on therapy >18 months and 10 patients (21%) remained progression-free >18 months. Median OS was 30 months (95% CI 20–40), with 24 (50%) patients dead at the time of the present analysis.ConclusionsWe confirm the activity of imatinib in locally advanced and metastatic chordoma, in terms of >70% tumour growth arrest in previously progressive patients. Median duration of response lasted almost 10 months, with >20% of patients progression-free at 18+ months.     

Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme

BackgroundSince sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study.Patients and methods102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0–2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² once weekly, first 7-weeks + 1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks + 1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsGemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P = 0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P = 0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P = 0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRβ expression correlated with longer PFS.ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.     

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

BackgroundPatients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with renal insufficiency are generally excluded from clinical trials, despite their increasing numbers. Thus, we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of sunitinib in such patients.Patients and methodsKorean patients with mRCC with renal insufficiency who had received sunitinib as first-line treatment between January 2008 and May 2012 were included. Patient characteristics, clinical outcomes and toxicities were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined according to the degree of renal impairment.ResultsThe median age of the 34 patients evaluated was 66 years, 90% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and the median glomerular filtration rate was 46.5 mL min⁻¹·1.73 m⁻² (range, 21.1–59.5). The starting sunitinib dose was 37.5 and 50 mg for 12 and 22 patients, respectively. A 4-weeks-on–2-weeks-off regimen was followed for 31 patients; a 2-weeks-on–2-weeks-off regimen, for one patient; and a daily regimen, for two patients. The best response was partial response in eight patients and stable disease in 12. Median OS and PFS times were 26.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.1–35.3) and 12.2 months (95% CI: 10.2–13.2), respectively. Common non-haematologic adverse events (AEs) were stomatitis, rash, general oedema and fatigue. The most common AEs of ⩾grade 3 severity were fatigue, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia.ConclusionsIn patients with mRCC with renal insufficiency, sunitinib was efficacious and did not cause increased toxicity. Thus, clinicians should not hesitate to treat patients with mRCC with renal insufficiency with sunitinib.     

Development and validation of prognostic nomograms for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour treated with imatinib

PurposeMetastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is generally an incurable disease with variable response to imatinib. We aimed to develop prognostic nomograms to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with imatinib.MethodsNomograms were developed in a training cohort (n = 330) of patients treated in a randomised trial (EORTC-ISG-AGITG 62005 phase III study) using Cox regression models, and validated in patients (n = 236) treated in routine clinical care from six referral centres. Nomogram performance was assessed by calculating the c statistic. A classification based on the nomograms’ scores was generated to group patients according to risk.ResultsNomogram risk factors for OS and PFS were size of the largest metastasis, tumour genotype, primary tumour mitotic count, haemoglobin and blood neutrophil count at commencement of imatinib. The nomograms predicted survival with a c statistic of 0.75 (training) and 0.62 (validation) for OS, and 0.69 (training) and 0.62 (validation) for PFS. When tested in the validation cohort, the nomograms discriminated well the high and intermediate risk from low risk patients (hazard ratio [HR] for OS 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71–8.56; and 2.48, 95% CI 1.12–5.50; for PFS 2.84, 95% CI 1.66–4.87; and 1.45, 95% CI 0.87–2.41, respectively).ConclusionThe nomograms predicted the risk of GIST progression and death with good discrimination of risk groups, and may be of value for patient counselling and risk stratification.     

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.