索拉菲尼与舒尼替尼对转移性肾细胞癌患者的近远期疗效及预后影响因素分析

目的探讨索拉菲尼与舒尼替尼对转移性肾细胞癌患者的近远期疗效及其预后影响因素。方法选取2015年1月至2018年1月间榆林市第一医院收治的79例转移性肾细胞癌患者,根据治疗方法不同分为舒尼替尼组(39例)和索拉非尼组(40例)。索拉非尼组患者口服索拉非尼,舒尼替尼组患者口服舒尼替尼,比较两组患者的中位无进展生存时间、总生存时间、疾病控制率及不良反应发生情况,分析转移性肾细胞癌患者无进展生存时间及总生存时间的影响因素。结果索拉非尼组患者中位无进展生存时间为12个月,总生存时间为24个月;舒尼替尼组患者中位无进展生存时间为12个月,总生存时间为23个月。两组比较,差异均无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。索拉非尼组患者疾病控制率为62. 5%(25/40),低于舒尼替尼组患者的84. 6%(33/39),差异有统计学意义(P <0. 05)。索拉非尼组患者腹泻发生率高于舒尼替尼组,血小板下降低于舒尼替尼组,差异均有统计学意义(均P <0. 05)。两组患者手足综合征、乏力、高血压、皮疹、中性粒细胞下降、肝功能异常、贫血和脱发发生情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P> 0. 05)。单因素及Cox回归分析结果表明,Fuhrman和IMDC分级是转移性肾细胞癌患者无进展生存时间和总生存时间的独立影响因素,差异均有统计学意义(均P <0. 05)。结论与索拉非尼相比,舒尼替尼对转移性肾癌的疾病控制率更好,两种药物不良反应分布不同,但均可控制。Fuhrman和IMDC分级是影响转移性肾癌预后的独立影响因素。     

替西罗莫司治疗转移性肾细胞癌初探

目的探讨替西罗莫司治疗转移性肾细胞癌的效果。方法 2008年6月4日至2008年12月18日共入组12例转移性肾细胞癌患者,接受替西罗莫司单药治疗,25mg,静脉滴注30～50分钟,每周1次,直至肿瘤进展或出现不可耐受的毒副作用。结果 12例患者中,按MSKCC评分中高危占75%(9/12),其中10例为多程治疗失败。最佳疗效:PR 2例(16.7%),另有6(50%)例患者出现不同程度的肿瘤缩小,PD 2例(16.7%)。临床受益率(CR+PR+SD≥24周)为41.7%(5/12)。中位PFS为8.4个月,中位OS 16.4个月。4例索拉非尼失败的患者的PFS分别为9个月、15个月、2.2个月和18.8个月。主要不良反应包括:皮疹、瘙痒、指甲改变、发热、口腔溃疡、高血糖、胆固醇和甘油三酯升高等。1例患者发生了V度间质性肺炎。结论替西罗莫司治疗转移性肾癌有效,对索拉非尼或舒尼替尼失败的患者的疗效值得进一步研究。代谢异常和间质性肺炎是需要重视的不良反应。     

《中国肿瘤生物治疗杂志》“转化医学”栏目征稿启事

近年来,在世界范围内肾细胞癌(renal cell carcinoma,RCC)的发生率逐年上升.约20％的肾癌患者在疾病诊断时已经发生肿瘤的进展转移,而且近30％的局限性肾癌患者在肿瘤切除后会发生复发转移.受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂舒尼替尼(Sunitinib,Sutent(R))被作为进展性肾癌患者的一线治疗方案.但是10％～20％的进展性肾癌患者在初次治疗时就对舒尼替尼先天耐药,其余的患者往往在接受舒尼替尼治疗6至15个月后出现耐药和疾病进展,这些现状使得舒尼替尼并不能有效延长肾癌患者的生存期.许多研究提出信号转导旁路的活化可能是肾癌舒尼替尼耐药的潜在原因,然而其生物学机制尚待阐明.另一方面,目前尚缺乏预测舒尼替尼治疗疗效的生物学标志物.因此,探索肾癌舒尼替尼耐药的生物学机制以及寻找预测舒尼替尼治疗疗效的生物学标志物十分迫切.LncRNA可多水平调节基因表达,与miRNA、mRNA或蛋白质结合发挥转录后水平的调控.LncRNA参与调节肿瘤的多种生物学特性,包括增殖、凋亡、转移、代谢等,然而IncRNA在肿瘤耐药尤其是舒尼替尼耐药中的作用尚未见报道.第二军医大学长征医院泌尿外科王林辉教授团队探讨IncRNA在肾癌舒尼替尼耐药中的生物学作用及分子机制,为舒尼替尼抵抗的肾癌患者提供新的联合治疗靶点,并寻找可预测肾癌患者对舒尼替尼治疗反应性的组织学和血清学标志物,为肾癌的个性化治疗提供重要参考.该成果发表于Cancer Cell杂志[2016,29(5):653-668].     

阿昔替尼与索拉非尼一线治疗晚期肾癌的临床疗效

目的:比较阿昔替尼与索拉非尼一线治疗晚期肾癌的临床疗效,探讨分子靶向药物阿昔替尼能否作为一线治疗晚期肾癌的优选药物.方法:选取海口市人民医院肿瘤科60例晚期肾癌患者,以数字表法随机分为试验组和对照组,每组30例.实验组给予阿昔替尼,对照组给予索拉非尼治疗,比较两组患者的DCR、ORR、PFS、OS及不良反应的差异.结果:两组患者均能完成试验并进行结果评价.试验组和对照组的DCR分别为83.33％和80.00％、ORR分别为20.00％和20.00％,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);试验组和对照组的中位PFS分别为12.8个月和10.1个月,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);中位OS分别为22.2个月和22.8个月,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组患者不良反应发生率相近,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),主要表现在高血压、全身反应、手足皮肤综合征、消化道反应、肝功能损害,未见严重不良反应.结论:分子靶向药物阿昔替尼较索拉非尼一线治疗晚期肾癌更能延长患者中位PFS,两药治疗后患者的DCR、ORR、OS及不良反应相似,阿昔替尼可以作为一线治疗晚期肾癌的优选.     

不同基因型伊马替尼耐药的胃肠间质瘤二线靶向治疗选择

胃肠间质瘤（gastrointestinal stromal tumor ,GIST）是胃肠道最常见的间叶组织来源肿瘤。伊马替尼是转移或不可切除GIST的标准一线治疗药物。但随着临床应用时间的延长,伊马替尼耐药病例在逐渐增加。对于这组伊马替尼耐药的GIST患者二线如何选择合理的诊疗策略,是临床亟待解决的问题。目前,指南推荐二线可选择增加伊马替尼剂量和直接换用舒尼替尼治疗。针对患者个体时,是选择伊马替尼加量,还是直接换用舒尼替尼治疗,这是临床医生关注的焦点。该文对一线标准剂量伊马替尼治疗失败的不同基因型GIST患者二线靶向治疗选择进行综述。     

舒尼替尼一线治疗转移性肾细胞癌临床疗效分析

目的:观察舒尼替尼一线治疗转移性肾细胞癌疗效及安全性。 方法:2010年4月-2012年4月我科收治转移性肾细胞癌患者31例,采用舒尼替尼行靶向治疗（50mg,pd,4/2方案）。服药期间进行不良事件管理及随访,每间隔2周期行疗效评价,随访截止至2013年8月,Kaplan-Meier分析总体生存期及无进展生存期。结果:随访8-35个月,平均22.3个月,可评价31例,PR 9例(29.0%),SD 14例(45.2%),PD 8例（25.8%）,疾病控制率为74.2%,客观反应率为29%。中位无进展生存期12个月（95%CI:9.2-14.8个月）,中位总生存期21个月(95%CI:17.9-24.1个月)。不良事件多为Ⅰ/Ⅱ级,Ⅲ/Ⅳ级少见,常见的为腹泻、乏力、高血压及造血系统毒性等。41.9%的患者需调整给药剂量或暂时停药,不良事件经管理后可缓解。结论:舒尼替尼治疗转移性肾细胞癌疗效好,安全性较高,是转移性肾细胞癌较好的治疗选择之一。     

信息动态

近年来,在世界范围内肾细胞癌(renal cell carcinoma,RCC)的发生率逐年上升.约20％的肾癌患者在疾病诊断时已经发生肿瘤的进展转移,而且近30％的局限性肾癌患者在肿瘤切除后会发生复发转移.受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂舒尼替尼(Sunitinib,Sutent(R))被作为进展性肾癌患者的一线治疗方案.但是10％～20％的进展性肾癌患者在初次治疗时就对舒尼替尼先天耐药,其余的患者往往在接受舒尼替尼治疗6至15个月后出现耐药和疾病进展,这些现状使得舒尼替尼并不能有效延长肾癌患者的生存期.许多研究提出信号转导旁路的活化可能是肾癌舒尼替尼耐药的潜在原因,然而其生物学机制尚待阐明.     

肾癌的药物治疗

肾癌的药物治疗目前仍以免疫化学治疗为主,单纯化疗也有效,吉西他滨联合顺铂是目前的标准化疗方案.靶向治疗药物的出现使肾癌的治疗发生了改变,多靶点受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(如舒尼替尼和索拉非尼)、哺乳动物雷帕霉素靶蛋白抑制剂(temsirolimus)和抗肿瘤单克隆抗体(如贝伐单抗)等已成为肾癌的一线治疗选择.     

信息动态

近年来,在世界范围内肾细胞癌(renal cell carcinoma,RCC)的发生率逐年上升.约20％的肾癌患者在疾病诊断时已经发生肿瘤的进展转移,而且近30％的局限性肾癌患者在肿瘤切除后会发生复发转移.受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂舒尼替尼(Sunitinib,Sutent(R))被作为进展性肾癌患者的一线治疗方案.但是10％～20％的进展性肾癌患者在初次治疗时就对舒尼替尼先天耐药,其余的患者往往在接受舒尼替尼治疗6至15个月后出现耐药和疾病进展,这些现状使得舒尼替尼并不能有效延长肾癌患者的生存期.     

苹果酸舒尼替尼二线治疗国人晚期胃肠间质瘤的临床观察

的 探讨苹果酸舒尼替尼二线治疗甲磺酸伊马替尼治疗失败的国内胃肠间质瘤（GIST）患者的疗效和安全性,并初步分析后续治疗对生存的影响。方法 回顾性分析2008年11月至2009年12月应用舒尼替尼二线治疗伊马替尼失败的24例GIST患者资料,口服舒尼替尼50mg／日,连续4周,停药2周,6周为1周期。按照RECIST 1.1版进行疗效评价,根据NCI CTC 3.0版进行毒性评价。结果 24例患者共接受治疗232个周期,平均9.7个周期（2～29个周期）。获PR 6例,SD 12例,PD 6例,有效率为 25％,疾病控制率为75％。舒尼替尼二线治疗进展后有8例接受后续治疗。中位随访时间为378天（190～1554天）,中位无进展生存时间（PFS）为336天（95％CI：223.2～448.8天）,中位总生存时间（OS）为655天（95％CI：359.7～950.3天）。其中未接受后续治疗组的中位OS为392天（95％CI： 190.1～593.9天）,接受后续治疗组的中位OS为1303天（95％CI：661.2～1544.8天）,两组差异有统计学意义（P=0.000）。毒副反应多为1～2级,未发生治疗相关性死亡。结论 舒尼替尼二线治疗伊马替尼失败的国内GIST患者有效,不良反应轻微,安全可控;对于二线治疗失败的患者采取后续治疗可能有生存获益。     

Treatment selection in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: expert consensus

In metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), many factors influence clinical decisions, including histology, tumour burden, prognostic factors, comorbidities, and the ability of the patient to tolerate treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) durations reported from randomized trials of targeted therapies vary considerably, in part because of differences in patient characteristics. For first-line therapy, an estimate of PFS with sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon, or sorafenib in a 'general' population is 8-9 months, but each regimen is suitable for different patient categories. For example, sunitinib is suitable for all-prognosis groups, particularly younger, fitter patients; pazopanib for patients with a good or intermediate prognosis; bevacizumab plus interferon for good-prognosis patients or those with indolent disease; and sorafenib for patients at all prognostic risk levels, particularly the elderly and those with comorbidities. Sequential therapy with targeted agents provides significant benefit, and should be considered in all patients who can tolerate such treatment. Level 1 evidence supports sequential use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as these agents followed by everolimus. We consider how patient characteristics have influenced the results of studies of first-line therapy, and we provide expert opinion on the most appropriate treatment choices for particular patient groups receiving first-line and second-line therapy.     

Sequential treatment with sorafenib and sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical outcomes from a retrospective clinical study

Sorafenib and sunitinib are inhibitors of receptor protein tyrosine kinases (TKIs) and are approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although the mTOR inhibitor everolimus is effective for the treatment of patients who have failed TKI therapy, it is important to consider all available treatment options before switching therapy mode of action. Herein, we report outcomes in patients with mRCC switched to sorafenib following disease progression on sunitinib treatment. The medical records of 35 patients treated between November 2006 and November 2009 at two large referral centers in Greece were retrospectively analyzed for time-to-progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and tolerability of sorafenib after sunitinib. Median TTP and OS on sorafenib were 4.9 and 11.5 months, respectively. Among 33 patients evaluable for tumor response, three had a partial response and 17 achieved disease stabilization (objective response rate 8.5%; total clinical benefit rate 57%). Sorafenib was well tolerated, with mostly grade 1/2 adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. Sorafenib was effective and well tolerated in this group of patients. The TTP with sorafenib following sunitinib was comparable to outcomes reported previously, providing further support that TKIs should be used in sequence before switching to an mTOR inhibitor.     

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。     

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.     

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Sunitinib Followed by Immuno-oncology Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundThe present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and MethodsA total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months.ResultsThe 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62).ConclusionsWe found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.     

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.     

Sequential therapy with targeted agents in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Optimizing patient benefit

Multiple targeted agents are now available for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although targeted agents offer improvements over previous treatments and significantly prolong progression-free survival, most patients eventually experience disease progression. For these patients, sequential treatment with multiple lines of therapy may afford sustained clinical benefit. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) are recommended as first-line therapy for most patients with mRCC. Current clinical practice guidelines uniformly recommend treatment with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus after initial VEGFr-TKI failure. Recent results of the AXIS phase 3 trial demonstrated improved efficacy with second-line axitinib compared with sorafenib in patients who progressed on a variety of first-line therapies, including the VEGFr-TKI sunitinib. Available clinical evidence, individual patient profile, and toxicity concerns should be carefully evaluated when deciding whether to administer an mTOR inhibitor or a second VEGFr-TKI after progression on a first-line VEGFr-TKI. In patients who progress on a VEGFr-TKI and an mTOR inhibitor, retrospective analyses indicate that treatment with a second VEGFr-TKI in the third-line setting provides additional clinical benefit. Recent results from a prospective phase 1/2 trial indicate that third-line therapy with the investigational TKI, dovitinib, may have promising efficacy in patients who progress on a VEGFr-TKI and an mTOR inhibitor; a phase 3 trial of dovitinib versus sorafenib in this patient population is ongoing. This review discusses and evaluates current clinical evidence for sequential therapy with targeted agents in patients with mRCC.     

Comparison of efficacy,safety, and quality of life between sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy for Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background: Sorafenib and sunitinib are widely used as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in China. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in Chinese mRCC patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. Methods: Clinical data of patients with mRCC who received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; 4 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg twice daily; on a schedule of 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off) were retrieved. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and QoL (SF-36 scores), and secondary outcomes were associations of clinical characteristics with QoL. Results: Medical records of 184 patients (110 in the sorafenib group and 74 in the sunitinib group) were reviewed. PFS and OS were comparable between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (bothP > 0.05). The occurrence rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and hypothyroidism were higher in the sunitinib group (36.5％ vs. 10.9％, P < 0.001; 40.5％ vs. 10.9％,P < 0.001; 17.6％ vs. 3.6％,P= 0.001), and that of diarrhea was higher in the sorafenib group (62.7％ vs. 35.2％,P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in SF-36 scores between the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that role-physical and bodily pain scores were associated with the occurrence rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P= 0.017 and 0.005). Conclusions: Sorafenib has comparable efficacy and lower toxicity profile than sunitinib as first-line therapy for mRCC. Both agents showed no significant impact on QoL of patients.