-
1.
Phase IB study of sorafenib and evofosfamide in patients with advanced hepatocellular and renal cell carcinomas (NCCTG N1135, Alliance).
Tran, NH, Foster, NR, Mahipal, A, Byrne, T, Hubbard, J, Silva, A, Mody, K, Alberts, S, Borad, MJ
Investigational new drugs. 2021;(4):1072-1080
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Background Sorafenib (Sor) remains a first-line option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or refractory renal cell carcinomas (RCC). PLC/PRF/5 HCC model showed upregulation of hypoxia with enhanced efficacy when Sor is combined with hypoxia-activated prodrug evofosfamide (Evo). Methods This phase IB 3 + 3 design investigated 3 Evo dose levels (240, 340, 480 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, 22), combined with Sor 200 mg orally twice daily (po bid) on days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle. Primary objectives included determining maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of Sor + Evo. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled (median age 62.5 years; 17 male /1 female; 12 HCC/6 RCC) across three dose levels (DL0: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 240 mg/m2 [n = 6], DL1:Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 480 mg/m2 [n = 5], DL1a: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 340 mg/m2 [n = 7]). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported with Evo 480 mg/m2 (grade 3 mucositis, grade 4 hepatic failure). Grade 3 rash DLT was observed in one patient at Evo 240 mg/m2. No DLTs were observed at Evo 340 mg/m2. MTD and RP2D were established as Sor 200 mg/Evo 340 mg/m2 and Sor 200/Evo 240 mg/m2, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and nausea/vomiting. Two partial responses were observed, one each at DL0 and DL1a.; disease control rate was 55%. Conclusions RP2D was established as sorafenib 200 mg bid + Evo 240 mg/m2. While preliminary anti-tumor activity was observed, future development must account for advances in immunotherapy in HCC/RCC.
-
2.
Pegilodecakin as monotherapy or in combination with anti-PD-1 or tyrosine kinase inhibitor in heavily pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Final results of cohorts A, G, H and I of IVY Phase I study.
Tannir, NM, Papadopoulos, KP, Wong, DJ, Aljumaily, R, Hung, A, Afable, M, Kim, JS, Ferry, D, Drakaki, A, Bendell, J, et al
International journal of cancer. 2021;(2):403-408
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Interleukin (IL)-10 has anti-inflammatory and CD8+ T-cell-stimulating properties. Pegilodecakin (pegylated recombinant human IL-10) induces intratumoral antigen-specific CD8 + T-cells and upregulates IFNγ and major histocompatibility complexes (MHC) I and II. Pegilodecakin has single-agent activity with manageable toxicity in advanced renal cell carcinama (aRCC) (data cutoff 24 March 2016). Pegilodecakin with pembrolizumab or nivolumab revealed clinical activity in aRCC (data cutoff 1 July 2018). Here, we report for the first time the results of pegilodecakin+ pazopanib, and final results for monotherapy and long-term follow-up with pegilodecakin + anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) inhibitors (data cutoff 19 February 2019). Phase 1/1b multi-cohort dose escalation IVY study enrolled 353 patients. Sixty-six patients with aRCC were treated with pegilodecakin alone or with pazopanib or anti-PD-1 inhibitor in cohorts A, G, H and I (data cutoff 19 February 2019). Primary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoint was tumor response by immune-related response criteria (irRC). Pegilodecakin plus nivolumab or pembrolizumab yielded median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 13.9 months and 6-month PFS probability of 60%, 76% 1-year overall survival (OS) probability and 61% 2-year OS probability. Pegilodecakin monotherapy produced mPFS of 1.8 months, 6-month PFS probability 25%, 1-year OS 50%, and 2-year OS 17%. Median OS was not reached in both combinations. Objective response rates (ORRs) were 33% with pazopanib and 43% with anti-PD-1. Most common Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events included anemia, thrombocytopenia and hypertriglyceridemia. In these heavily pretreated renal cell carcinama cohorts of IVY, pegilodecakin+anti-PD-1 inhibitor showed promising clinical activity. Safety profile of pegilodecakin alone and with anti-PD-1 inhibitors was consistent as previously reported.
-
3.
Sorafenib Versus Observation Following Radical Metastasectomy for Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 2 Randomized Open-label RESORT Study.
Procopio, G, Apollonio, G, Cognetti, F, Miceli, R, Milella, M, Mosca, A, Chiuri, VE, Bearz, A, Morelli, F, Ortega, C, et al
European urology oncology. 2019;(6):699-707
Abstract
BACKGROUND In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy. OBJECTIVE To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20-not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11-NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.
-
4.
Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial.
Bracarda, S, Bamias, A, Casper, J, Negrier, S, Sella, A, Staehler, M, Tarazi, J, Felici, A, Rosbrook, B, Jardinaud-Lopez, M, et al
Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2019;(3):e689-e703
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Axitinib 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 METHODS AXIS 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. RESULTS Of 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. CONCLUSION In 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.
-
5.
Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.
Molina, AM, Hutson, TE, Nosov, D, Tomczak, P, Lipatov, O, Sternberg, CN, Motzer, R, Eisen, T
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2018;:87-94
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.
-
6.
Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.
Hutson, TE, Al-Shukri, S, Stus, VP, Lipatov, ON, Shparyk, Y, Bair, AH, Rosbrook, B, Andrews, GI, Vogelzang, NJ
Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2017;(1):72-76
Abstract
BACKGROUND In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). RESULTS Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.
-
7.
Patterns of Care and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma-Results From a Tertiary Cancer Center in India.
Ramaswamy, A, Joshi, A, Noronha, V, Patil, VM, Kothari, R, Sahu, A, Kannan, RA, Sable, N, Popat, P, Menon, S, et al
Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2017;(3):e345-e355
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The current treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) revolves around targeted agents, which have resulted in a median overall survival of 22 to 26 months in registration trials. However, the outcomes in a non-trial, real-world Indian population have not yet been evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was a part of a prospective Clinical Trials Registry-India-registered study, the Kidney Cancer Registry, a prospectively maintained kidney cancer registry. The data of patients with a diagnosis of mRCC from February 2007 to August 2015 who were potential candidates for systemic therapy were extracted from the database and analyzed for treatment patterns and outcomes. RESULTS The data from 212 patients were eligible for analysis. Of these 212 patients, 204 (96.2%) received first-line systemic treatment with sunitinib (40.6%), sorafenib (37.7%), pazopanib (2.8%), temsirolimus (2.8%), or everolimus (1.9%). The risk status of 91% of the patients could be stratified using the Heng criteria into favorable (18.9%), intermediate (43.9%), and poor risk (28.3%) categories. The response rate, clinical benefit rate, median progression-free survival, and median overall survival with first-line targeted therapy were 22.5%, 60.7%, 7.09 months, and 12.87 months, respectively. The common adverse events seen included skin rash (31.7%), hypertension (29.4%), grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (27.4%), mucositis (26.4%), dyslipidemia (20%), and hyperglycemia (17.6%). Patients receiving second-line therapy (22.6%) had superior overall survival to patients who had not (16.46 vs. 10.67 months; P = .032). CONCLUSION The present registry-based study is the first, to the best of our knowledge, of its type from India and showed that the overall outcomes in this real-world cohort appear comparable to non-trial data worldwide. An increased incidence of metabolic adverse events that require monitoring during treatment was also found.
-
8.
Effects of Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib on Cardiac Function in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients without Overt Metastases: Results from ASSURE, ECOG 2805.
Haas, NB, Manola, J, Ky, B, Flaherty, KT, Uzzo, RG, Kane, CJ, Jewett, M, Wood, L, Wood, CG, Atkins, MB, et al
Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2015;(18):4048-54
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Sunitinib and sorafenib are used widely in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These agents are associated with a significant incidence of cardiovascular (CV) dysfunction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) declines, observed largely in the metastatic setting. However, in the adjuvant population, the CV effects of these agents remain unknown. We prospectively defined the incidence of cardiotoxicity among resected, high-risk RCC patients treated with these agents. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo was administered for up to 12 months in patients with high-risk, resected RCC. LVEF was measured by multigated acquisition (MUGA) scans at standard intervals. Additional CV adverse events were reported according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). RESULTS Among 1,943 patients randomized, 1,599 had at least 1 post-baseline MUGA. Within 6 months, 21 patients (1.3%) experienced a cardiac event, defined as an LVEF decline from baseline that was >15% and below the institutional lower limit of normal. Nine of 513 patients (1.8%) were on sunitinib, 7 of 508 (1.4%) on sorafenib, and 5 of 578 (0.9%) on placebo (P = 0.28 and 0.56 comparing sunitinib and sorafenib to placebo, respectively). With dose interruption or adjustment, 16 of the 21 recovered their LVEF to >50%. The incidence of symptomatic heart failure, arrhythmia, or myocardial ischemia did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS In the adjuvant setting, we prospectively define low incidence of cardiotoxicity with sunitinib and sorafenib. These findings may be related to close CV monitoring, or potentially to fewer CV comorbidities in our nonmetastatic population.
-
9.
Hypertension among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving axitinib or sorafenib: analysis from the randomized phase III AXIS trial.
Rini, BI, Quinn, DI, Baum, M, Wood, LS, Tarazi, J, Rosbrook, B, Arruda, LS, Cisar, L, Roberts, WG, Kim, S, et al
Targeted oncology. 2015;(1):45-53
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway frequently induce hypertension when used to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis characterizes hypertension and hypertension-related events in patients treated with the VEGF pathway inhibitors axitinib or sorafenib in the AXIS trial. AXIS was a randomized phase III study of axitinib versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic RCC following failure of one prior systemic regimen. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were excluded, but patients with hypertension controlled with antihypertensive medication were allowed to participate. Guidelines for hypertension management included adjustment or addition of antihypertensive medications and/or axitinib or sorafenib dose reductions, interruptions, or discontinuations. Treatment-emergent all-causality hypertension occurred in 145 (40.4 %) axitinib-treated patients (N = 359) and 103 (29.0 %) sorafenib-treated patients (N = 355), with grade 3 hypertension reported in 55 (15.3 %) and 38 (10.7 %) patients, respectively, and grade 4 hypertension reported in one (0.3 %) patient in each arm. Hypertension-related events led to axitinib dose interruptions (n = 46; 12.8 %), dose reductions (n = 16; 4.5 %), or discontinuations (n = 1; 0.3 %). Approximately 50 % of axitinib-treated patients with grade 3 or 4 hypertension continued treatment for ≥ 9 months. Hypertension-related sequelae occurred in <1 % of axitinib-treated patients. Hypertension was more frequently observed during treatment with axitinib than sorafenib in patients with RCC, but axitinib-induced hypertension rarely led to treatment discontinuation or cardiovascular sequelae. Recommendations for monitoring blood pressure and managing hypertension during axitinib therapy are presented.
-
10.
Phase I/II study of S-1 in combination with sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Naito, S, Sakai, H, Hashine, K, Tomita, Y, Shinohara, N, Fujisawa, M, Eto, M, Ozono, S, Akaza, H
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2015;(9):1871-1876
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The potential of S-1 for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been shown in two phase II studies. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerance, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of S-1 combined with sorafenib in patients with mRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II study of S-1 plus sorafenib, we recruited patients with clear-cell or papillary renal cell carcinoma who had received a maximum of one prior cytokine-based regimen. The phase I primary end points were the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). S-1 was administered orally at 60, 80, 100 or 120 mg/day on days 1-28 of a 42-day cycle in combination with sorafenib (400 or 800 mg/day), given daily with dose adjustment. In phase II, the primary end point was to assess the overall response rate (ORR) at the RD. RESULTS Nine patients were enrolled into phase I and 21 (including 6 patients who received the RD in the phase I portion) were enrolled into phase II. In the phase I portion, the MTD could not be determined, and the RD was defined as S-1 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-28 + sorafenib 800 mg/day on days 1-42. In the phase II portion, 21 patients were fully assessable for efficacy and safety. The confirmed ORR was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-74.3], including one complete response (5%) and 10 partial responses (48%). The median progression-free survival was 9.9 (95% CI 6.5-17.1) months. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event for all grades was hand-foot skin reaction (100%). The major reasons for dose reduction were hand-foot skin reaction (38%) and rash (14%). CONCLUSION Combination therapy with S-1 plus sorafenib is effective and tolerable for patients with mRCC. However, skin events management is important in S-1 plus sorafenib combination therapy.