Outcomes from second-line therapy in long-term responders to first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma

In a comparison of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received a 1st-line TKI for at least 6 months, the TKI-TKI sequence was favored over the TKI-mTORi. Long-term 2nd-line responders were more likely to have received a second TKI and to have been long-term responders to a 1st-line TKI.BackgroundAlthough sequential targeted therapy is standard in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC), the choice of drugs and optimal administration sequence have yet to be established. The objective of this study was to explore whether it is preferable to rechallenge a long-term responder to a first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with a TKI or whether to switch to a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi); to determine whether second-line treatment response depends on duration of first-line response (TD1).Patients and methodsRetrospective multicenter study (2004–2011) of 241 consecutive mRCC patients (clear-cell histology) who received a first-line TKI for ≥6 months followed by a second-line TKI (n = 118) or mTORi (n = 123). End points: Progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-treatment failure (TTF) on second-line therapy. Multivariable full-model: second-line drug, TD1, ECOG-PS before first- and second-line, best objective response (first-line), Fuhrman grade, number of metastatic sites, and presence of bone metastases. Adjustment covariable: International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score. Multiple propensity score and missing data methods were used. Any correlation between first-line and second-line PFS was investigated using censored quantile regression models (CQRM).ResultsSequence effect in the overall cohort was in favor of the TKI–TKI sequence over the TKI–mTORi sequence on using TD1 as continuous covariable (HR ≈ 0.75 for PFS and TTF). TKI–TKI superiority was attributed in large part to the 11–22 month (TD1) subgroup of patients which displayed significantly better outcomes [HR ≈ 0.5; median PFS (months): 9.4 (5.9–12.2) versus 3.9 (3.0–5.5), P = 0.003; TTF(months): 8.0 (5.5–11.0) versus 3.6 (3.0–4.6), P = 0.009]. Upon full CQRM, long-term second-line responders were more likely to have received a second TKI than an mTORi and to have been long-term responders to first-line TKI.Conclusionsm-ccRCC patients who remained on first-line TKI between 11 and 22 months benefited from a TKI rechallenge rather than from second-line mTORi.     

Pooled analysis of individual patient data from capecitabine monotherapy clinical trials in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

We assessed the efficacy and safety of capecitabine across treatment lines, and the impact of patient and disease characteristics on outcomes using data from phase II/III trials. Individual patient data were pooled from seven Roche/Genentech-led trials conducted from 1996 to 2008 where single-agent capecitabine was the test or control regimen for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data were analyzed from 805 patients: 268 in the first-line metastatic setting and 537 in the second-line or later setting. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment lines. Patients receiving second-line or later versus first-line capecitabine had lower objective response rates (ORR: 19.0 vs. 25.0?%, respectively, odds ratio 0.70; 95?% CI: 0.5?C1.0) and significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS: median 112.0?days [3.7?months] vs. 150.0?days [4.9?months]; p?<?0.0001) and overall survival (OS: median 396.0?days [13.0?months] vs. 666.0?days [21.9?months]; p?<?0.0001). In multivariate analysis by backward elimination, significantly improved ORR (p?=?0.0036), PFS (p?<?0.0001) and OS (p?<?0.0001) with capecitabine were demonstrated in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus both ER and PgR-negative tumors. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was the most common adverse event (AE) in 63?% of patients. Overall, 7?% of patients discontinued and two patients (<1?%) died from treatment-related AEs. Significantly improved survival was observed in patients developing capecitabine-related HFS (p?<?0.0001 PFS/OS) or diarrhea (p?=?0.004 OS; p?=?0.0045 PFS) versus patients without these events. In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, first-line capecitabine was associated with improved ORR, PFS, and OS versus second or later lines. Multivariate analyses identified greater ORR, PFS, and OS with capecitabine in patients with ER and/or PgR-positive versus ER/PgR-negative tumors. Safety was in-line with previous phase III trials in MBC.     

Is the Pretreatment Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio an Important Prognostic Parameter in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma?

BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitor is a standard treatment for mRCC. The NLR, an index of systemic inflammation, is associated with outcome in several cancer types. To study the association of pretreatment NLR with PFS and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with VEGF-targeted therapy.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively studied an unselected cohort of patients with mRCC, who were treated with TKIs. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses were employed on PFS and OS and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyzed clinical parameters for their prognostic relevance.ResultsA total of 100 patients with mRCC who had early progressed after first-line therapy with interferon-α were included in this retrospective multicenter study conducted at 4 centers between February 2008 and December 2011. The median of the NLR was 3.04 and patients were divided into 2 higher and lower NLR groups according to median of NLR. Median PFS was 9 versus 11 months in patients with baseline NLR > 3.04 versus ≤ 3.04 (P = .009). The median OS was 16 months versus 29 months, in patients with NLR > 3.04 versus ≤ 3.04, respectively (P = .004). In the whole group OS was independently associated with higher NLR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.406; P = .004), PFS more than 6 months (HR, 4.081; P = .0001), and sex (HR, 2.342; P = .040). On the other hand in the higher NLR group (HR, 1.107; P = .009) Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center score (HR, 3.398; P = .0001) was associated with PFS.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, pretreatment NLR, the duration of PFS might be associated with OS. This should be investigated prospectively.     

Safety and clinical activity of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitors after programmed cell death 1 inhibitor treatment in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundEmerging agents blocking the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway show activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy after PD-1 inhibition.Patients and methodsPatients with mRCC treated with anti-PD-1 antibody (aPD-1) monotherapy or in combination (with VEGFR-TKI or ipilimumab) that subsequently received VEGFR-TKI were retrospectively reviewed. The efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) stratified by the type of prior PD-1 regimen. Safety by the type and PD-1 exposure was also evaluated.ResultsSeventy patients were included. Forty-nine patients received prior therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) alone and 21 had combination therapy of aPD-1 and VEGFR-TKI. Overall, ORR to VEGFR-TKI after PD-1 inhibition was 28% (19/68) and the median PFS was 6.4 months (mo) (4.3–9.5). ORR to VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI was lower than that in patients treated with VEGFR-TKI after CPI alone (ORR 10% versus 36%, P = 0.039). In the multivariable analysis, patients treated with prior CPI alone were more likely to achieve an objective response than those treated with aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (OR = 5.38; 95% CI 1.12–26.0, P = 0.03). There was a trend toward numerically longer median PFS in the VEGFR-TKI after the CPI alone group, 8.4 mo (3.2–12.4) compared with 5.5 mo (2.9–8.3) for those who had VEGFR-TKI after aPD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI (P = 0.15). The most common adverse events (AEs) were asthenia, hypertension, and diarrhea.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of VEGFR-TKIs after PD-1 inhibition were demonstrated in this retrospective study. The response rate was lower and the median progression-free survival was shorter in those patients who received prior PD-1 in combination with VEGFR-TKI. PD-1 exposure does not seem to significantly influence the safety of subsequent VEGFR-TKI treatment.     

索拉非尼治疗转移性肾癌的疗效与安全性观察

目的:评估63例转移性肾细胞癌（metastatic renal cell carcinoma,mRCC）患者服用索拉非尼的疗效及安全性。方法:前瞻性观察2010年6月至2018年6月就诊于西安交通大学第一附属医院肿瘤内科及中华慈善总会索拉非尼援助赠药项目mRCC患者共计71例,其中63例可评价疗效及安全性。使用SPSS 18.0 软件进行K-M单因素生存分析,所得阳性因素导入COX回归模型进行多因素分析,明确影响索拉非尼治疗mRCC疗效的因素。结果:63例可评价mRCC患者中,无CR患者,PR 18例,SD 22例,PD 23例,ORR为28.57%（18/63）,DCR为63.49%（40/63）;中位PFS为14月（3~51月）,中位OS为29月（6~69月）;所有不良反应均可控或随剂量减少而降低。索拉非尼作为mRCC一线治疗者39例,二线及以上治疗者24例。一线和二线及以上治疗的ORR及DCR均无统计学差异,且中位PFS分别为24月（4~51月）和13月（3~42月）（P=0.021）。COX回归分析示,索拉菲尼是否为一线治疗是影响PFS的独立危险因素（P=0.030）。结论:索拉非尼治疗mRCC疗效确切,不良反应较少,并且是否为一线治疗是影响患者中位PFS的独立预测因素。     

Activity of Single-Agent Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Previously Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

PurposeThe activity of systemic agents after progression when using vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is poorly characterized. The anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has a broad US Food and Drug Administration label and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline level 2b recommendation in this setting; we thus explored our institutional experience in this population.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who were treated with bevacizumab in the second- and/or third-line settings; the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-one patients were treated with bevacizumab: the median age was 63 years old; 80% were white and 14% were black; 80% had clear cell histology. All the patients had prior VEGFR TKI therapy; 43% had prior mTOR inhibitor; the median number of prior therapies was 3. The median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.6 months), and the median OS was 19.4 months (95% CI, 9.9-NR months). ORR was 9.5%; 52% of subjects had stable disease as best response, and 52% had disease progression. For subjects treated with prior VEGF and mTOR inhibitors, median PFS and OS were 4.4 and 13.2 months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities included fatigue (29%), dehydration (24%), failure to thrive (10%), constipation (10%), and muscle weakness (10%).ConclusionsSingle-agent bevacizumab has acceptable toxicity and moderate disease-stabilizing activity in selected patients with mRCC who have failed prior VEGFR TKI and mTOR inhibitors. These data support clinical benefit to continued ongoing VEGF inhibition. Further prospective studies of bevacizumab alone or with alternative targeted agents in previously treated populations with mRCC are warranted.     

The Efficacy of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Exhibiting Primary Resistance to Front-Line Targeted Therapy or Immunotherapy

BackgroundPatients with primary refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have a dismal prognosis and poor response to subsequent treatments. While there are several approved second-line therapies, it remains critical to choose the most effective treatment regimen.Patients and MethodsWe identified 7 patients with clear cell mRCC who had primary resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy. The patients were treated with lenvatinib (a multitargeted TKI) plus everolimus (a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor). Among these 7 patients, 2 had prior TKI therapy, 3 had prior ICI therapy, and 2 had prior TKI and ICI therapy. We collected the patients' clinical characteristics, molecular profiles, treatment durations, and toxicity outcomes.ResultsThe median time to progression on prior therapies was 1.5 months. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was used either as a second-line (n = 4) or third-line (n = 3) therapy. As best responses, 3 patients had partial responses and 3 achieved stable disease. Patients were followed for ≥17 months; progression-free survival ranged from 3 to 15 months, and overall survival ranged from 4 to 17 months.ConclusionThese 7 cases provide real-world data for the use of lenvatinib plus everolimus in patients with mRCC with primary resistance to first-line VEGF-targeted TKIs or ICI combination therapy.     

Comparative efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after the failure of first-line VEGF TKI

Sequential therapy is a standard strategy used to overcome the limitations of targeted agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. It remains unclear whether a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor is a more effective second-line therapy after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF TKI) has failed than the alternative, VEGF TKI. A clinical database was used to identify all patients with renal cell carcinoma who failed at first-line VEGF TKI and then treated with second-line VEGF TKI or mTOR inhibitors in the Asan Medical Center. Patient medical characteristics, radiological response and survival status were assessed. Of the 83 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 41 received second-line VEGF TKI [sunitinib (n?=?16) and sorafenib (n?=?25)] and 42 were treated with mTOR inhibitors [temsirolimus (n?=?11) and everolimus (n?=?31)]. After a median follow-up duration of 23.9?months (95?% CI, 17.8?C30.0), progression-free survival was 3.0?months for both groups [hazard ratio (HR, VEGF TKI vs. mTOR inhibitor)?=?0.97, 95?% CI 0.59?C1.62, P?=?0.92]. Overall survival was 10.6?months for the VEGF TKI group and 8.2?months for the mTOR inhibitor group (HR?=?0.98, 95?% CI 0.57?C1.68, P?=?0.94). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of disease control rate (51?% for VEGF TKI and 59?% for mTOR inhibitor, P?=?0.75). Second-line VEGF TKI seems to be as effective as mTOR inhibitors and may be a viable option as a second-line agent after first-line anti-VEGF agents have failed.     

Long-Term Response to Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Pooled Analysis of Clinical Trials

Background

We characterized clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib who were long-term responders (LTRs), defined as patients having progression-free survival (PFS) > 18 months.

Clinical outcome of panitumumab for metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS status: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Panitumumab is a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that has a favorable effect on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring wild-type (WT) KRAS gene. This meta-analysis was planned to quantify the benefit and assess safety. Selected for the analysis were randomized clinical studies that have used panitumumab-based therapy (PBT) for patients with mCRC and where the outcome of patients with WT KRAS was reported. Four eligible studies were analyzed including 1,010 and 1,105 patients who received PBT and the control intervention, respectively. Used in subsequent-line setting, PBT was associated with 42% improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36–0.93; P = 0.02), a non-significant overall survival (OS) benefit (HR = 0.90; [95% CI, 0.76–1.05]; P = 0.18), and a significant increase in objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.67 [95% CI, 1.15–77.98]; P = 0.04). PBT showed no benefit in the first-line setting. Restricted analysis to two studies (first- and second-line setting), where the treatment effect of PBT was prospectively analyzed according to tumor KRAS status, showed significant PFS (HR = 0.77), OS (HR = 0.84), and ORR (OR = 2.06) advantage. Almost all patients’ subgroups attained clinical benefit. PBT-related adverse events were similar across comparisons with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. This meta-analysis showed significant clinical benefit for PBT for patients with WT KRAS mCRC predominantly when used following prior chemotherapy exposure. The benefit was demonstrated in most subgroup analyses. Further research to better define potential responders is needed.

     

Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical Outcome According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Risk Group

Background

Sunitinib malate, a targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and serves as the active comparator in several ongoing mRCC clinical trials. In this analysis we report benchmarks for clinical outcomes on the basis of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups for patients treated with sunitinib for mRCC in a first-line setting.

Progression free survival of first line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy is an important prognostic parameter in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PurposeIntrinsic resistance in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was recently associated with poor overall survival (OS), suggesting that VEGF inhibitor sensitivity may represent a valuable prognostic marker. We explored the duration of progression free survival (PFS) in first-line treatment and other variables as prognostic markers in mRCC.MethodsMedical records from 119 mRCC patients receiving first line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) were retrieved retrospectively. Kaplan–Meier and log-rank analyses were employed on PFS and OS and multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analysed clinical parameters for their prognostic relevance.ResultsThe median PFS of first line treatment was 8.4 months (95% confidence interval 5.8–11) associated with a median OS of 28.2 months (95% CI 20.9–35.4). Second line therapy with another TKI or mTOR-inhibitor was applied to 81 patients (68%). PFS of any second line therapy was 5.1 and 3.7 months in first line treatment responders and non-responders (p = 0.3), respectively. Univariate analyses revealed bone metastases, prior cytokine treatment, Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer centre (MSKCC) score, objective response rate, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, first line PFS with 6 months taken as cut-off parameter and second line treatment as prognostic variables. Multivariate analyses proved first line PFS above 6 months (95% CI 0.154–0.641; HR 0.314), second line treatment (95% CI 0.162–0.657; HR 0.326), MSKCC score (95% CI 1.07–3.392; HR 1.905) and objective response rate (95% CI 0.358–0.989; HR 0.595) to be independent prognostic markers.ConclusionsThe duration of first line PFS is an independent prognostic variable but not predictive for subsequent therapy.     

Phase 2 study of eribulin mesylate as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Eribulin mesylate, a novel non-taxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor, is approved for treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in patients who have previously received at least 2 chemotherapeutic regimens for MBC that should have included an anthracycline and a taxane in the adjuvant or metastatic setting. This phase 2 study evaluated efficacy and safety of eribulin as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) MBC. Patients with measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent breast cancer or MBC with ≥12 months since prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant (neo/adjuvant) chemotherapy received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle. Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 (primary), safety, progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (ORR + stable disease ≥6 months; CBR), and duration of response (DOR). Fifty-six patients were enrolled and received eribulin; 38 (68 %) had prior neo/adjuvant therapy, including 33 who had anthracycline and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy; 41 (73 %) had estrogen receptor-positive disease, and 12 (21 %) had estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, and HER2-negative (triple-negative) disease. Patients received a median of 7 cycles (range 1–43); 6 (11 %) received treatment for ≥12 months. ORR was 29 % (95 % CI 17.3–42.2), CBR was 52 %, and median DOR was 5.8 months. Median PFS was 6.8 months. Thirty-six patients (64 %) had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events; most common were neutropenia (50 %), leukopenia (21 %), and peripheral neuropathy (21 %). These results demonstrate that eribulin has substantial antitumor activity as first-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC with acceptable safety.     

Second-line bevacizumab-containing therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: subgroup analysis of the RIBBON-2 trial

Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) typically have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. To determine the impact of combining bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic TNBC, we performed an exploratory subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 RIBBON-2 trial. RIBBON-2 enrolled patients with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on first-line non-bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. After selection of chemotherapy (taxane, gemcitabine, capecitabine, or vinorelbine), patients were randomized 2:1 to receive chemotherapy with either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Of 684 patients treated in RIBBON-2, 159 (23%) had TNBC. Baseline characteristics were reasonably balanced in the two treatment groups. The majority received taxane chemotherapy. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.494 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.74; P = 0.0006]. Median PFS was 6.0 months with bevacizumab-chemotherapy versus 2.7 months with chemotherapy alone. Median OS was 17.9 versus 12.6 months, respectively (HR 0.624, 95% CI 0.39-1.007; P = 0.0534). ORR was 41 versus 18%, respectively (P = 0.0078). The safety profile was consistent with the overall study population and previous phase 3 trials of bevacizumab. Patients with metastatic TNBC derived significant PFS and response benefits from the combination of bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy. Despite the small sample size and immature data, there was a trend toward improved OS.     

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with VEGF-targeted agents

The medical treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone a paradigm shift during the last decade with the approval of five drugs targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or its receptors (bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib and axitinib) and of two drugs inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway (temsirolimus and everolimus). Median survival has now reached 2 years in mRCC patients receiving first-line targeted treatment. A considerable body of work was conducted on the identification of prognostic factors of survival in the earlier era of immunotherapy of mRCC. The current challenge is to pursue this work on biomarkers of prognosis for targeted therapy and, even more importantly, to identify predictive factors of response to such therapy. This review provides an overview of recent key work on prognostic and predictive factors in patients with advanced clear cell RCC treated with VEGF-targeted agents.     

Is there any predictor for clinical outcome in EGFR mutant NSCLC patients treated with EGFR TKIs?

Background

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have demonstrated some dramatic response rate and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating EGFR mutation. However, PFS and overall survival (OS) among those patients who were treated with EGFR TKIs are inconsistent and unpredictable. In this study, we evaluated predictors of clinical outcome in EGFR mutant NSCLC patients treated with EGFR TKIs.

Methods

A total of 148 patients who had metastatic or recurrent NSCLC with activating EGFR mutation treated with either erlotinib or gefitinib as a first-line (n = 10) and a second-line or more treatment (n = 138) were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

The median follow-up duration was 21.9 months (range, 1.1–62.5). The median PFS and OS for a total 148 patients were 10.6 months (95 % CI 9.0–12.2) and 21.8 months (95 % CI 18.5–25.1), respectively. The survival outcomes were similar between the first-line and second-line or more line of treatment of EGFR TKIs (P = 0.512 for PFS, P = 0.699 for OS). Although a high number of metastasis sites (3–6 vs. 1–2) were associated with shorter PFS and OS (median PFS 9.9 vs. 11.9 months, P = 0.019; median OS 16.4 vs. 22.2 months, P = 0.021, respectively) in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. According to the clinical and molecular markers by multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences in PFS. When PFS was dichotomized by median 11 months for 105 patients treated with EGFR TKIs as second-line therapy, no significant differences in any clinical or molecular features were found between longer PFS and shorter PFS groups.

Conclusions

Despite the inconsistencies in PFS among EGFR mutant patients treated with EGFR TKIs, no significant differences of clinical features were noted, thereby suggesting a need for more understanding of the heterogeneity of underlying biology.     

Predicting outcome to VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: data from recent studies

Attempts to predict outcome in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have conventionally been based on pretherapy clinical factors such as performance status, disease-free interval, number of metastatic sites and several laboratory variables. These factors were developed before the era of VEGF-targeted therapy. Recent analysis from trials with anti-VEGF agents indicate that these factors continue to be of major importance in patient prognostication. Additionally, several serum and molecular markers, many of which relate to certain alterations of the von Hippel-Lindau pathway, are currently being investigated. Responses to VEGF-targeted agents appear to be related to a greater modulation of serum VEGF and soluble VEGF receptor levels. The impact of von Hippel-Lindau gene status on response to VEGF-targeted therapy was tested in a large study and was not found to predict a higher response rate to these agents. However, a subset of von Hippel-Lindau mutations that predict a 'loss of function' of the von Hippel-Lindau gene seem to have the best response to these agents. Future prognostic models will incorporate molecular markers with clinical variables to refine prognosis and prediction in metastatic clear-cell RCC patients treated with novel VEGF-targeted agents. These models, if externally and prospectively validated, will culminate in the rational selection of patients for specific VEGF-directed therapeutics.     

Randomized phase III trial of 2nd line gemcitabine and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with advanced bladder cancer: short-term versus prolonged treatment [German Association of Urological Oncology (AUO) trial AB 20/99]

BackgroundThe second-line chemotherapeutic treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) after failure of cisplatin-based first-line therapy needs to be improved. Based on encouraging phase II data of gemcitabine and paclitaxel (Taxol) (GP), this trial was designed to compare a short-term (arm A) versus a prolonged (arm B) second-line combination chemotherapy of GP.Patients and methodsOf 102 randomized patients, 96 were eligible for analysis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR) and toxicity.ResultsNeither OS [arm A: 7.8 (95% CI: 4.2–11.4), arm B: 8.0 (95% CI: 4.9–11.1) months] and PFS [arm A: 4.0 (95% CI: 0–8.0), arm B: 3.1 (95% CI: 1.9–4.2) months] nor ORR (arm A: 37.5%, arm B: 41.5%) were significantly different. On prolonged treatment, more patients experienced severe anemia (arm A: 6.7% versus arm B: 26.7% grade III/IV anemia; P = 0.011). In six patients, treatment was stopped during the first cycle due to disease progression or toxicity. Two patients died due to treatment-related toxic effects.ConclusionDue to rapid tumor progression and toxicity at this dosage and schedule in a multicenter setting, it was not feasible to deliver a prolonged regimen. However, a high response rate of ∼40% makes GP a promising second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic UC.     

Third-line sunitinib following sequential use of cytokine therapy and sorafenib in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of sunitinib as third-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods

This study included a total of 35 consecutive Japanese patients with mRCC who were treated with third-line sunitinib after sequential use of cytokine therapy (interferon-α and/or interleukin-2) and sorafenib between September 2008 and December 2010. The clinical outcomes of third-line sunitinib in these patients were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Of the 35 patients, 3 (8.6%), 28 (80.0%) and 4 (11.4%) were judged to have a partial response, stable disease and progressive disease, respectively, as the best response to sunitinib. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of these patients following the introduction of sunitinib were 10.9 and 14.2 months, respectively. Of several factors examined, response to sorafenib and performance status appeared to be independently associated with PFS and OS, respectively, on multivariate analyses. The common grade 3–4 adverse events related to third-line sunitinib were thrombocytopenia (51.4%), neutropenia (42.9%) and hypertension (14.3%).

Conclusion

Despite the low response rate, third-line sunitinib is well tolerated and could provide comparatively favorable prognostic outcomes in Japanese patients with mRCC after first-line cytokine therapy and second-line sorafenib; therefore, treatment with sunitinib could be one on the therapeutic options for patients with mRCC even after the failure of sequentially performed systemic therapies, such as cytokine therapy and sorafenib.     

S-1-based therapy versus S-1 monotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

This study aimed to derive a more precise estimate of the prognostic significance of S-1-based therapy over S-1 monotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), including overall survival (OS) time, progression-free survival (PFS) time, objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Studies stratifying OS, PFS, ORR, and AEs in AGC patients in an S-1-based therapy versus an S-1 monotherapy setting were eligible for analysis by systematic computerized PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library searches. Data from these studies were pooled using STATA package version 11.0. Six studies that investigated outcomes in a total of 913 AGC cases, of which 443 (48.5 %) received S-1-based therapy and 470 (51.5 %) received S-1 monotherapy, were included in the meta-analysis. Median OS and median PFS were significantly prolonged in AGC patients receiving S-1-based therapy compared with those receiving S-1 monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.96, P?=?0.015, and HR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.60–0.80, P?=?0.000, respectively). The ORR favored patients with S-1-based therapy (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.34–2.06, P?=?0.000). Higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia was found in patients with S-1-based therapy (P?=?0.000). For the Asian population, S-1-based therapy significantly improved OS and PFS and enhanced ORR in comparison to S-1 monotherapy. The safety profile was poorer in patients with S-1-based therapy, but could be considerable between the S-1-based therapy and S-1 monotherapy group. Our conclusion needs to be confirmed via high-quality trials and the results need to be reproduced in other regions and populations.