Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Rapidly Progressive to Sunitinib: What to Do Next?

Background: From 10% to 26% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) experience rapidly progressive disease (PD) on treatment with sunitinib. Objective: To investigate the benefit of subsequent treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in such primary refractory patients. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 150 mRCC patients with rapidly PD on first- line sunitinib (within two cycles, n = 93, or four cycles, n = 57) were identified: median age 59 yr; nephrectomy 86%; histological subtypes: clear cell (77.8%), papillary (14%), and sarco- matoid features (18%); according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and French classifications: good risk (11% and 7%, respectively), intermediate (68% and 63%, respectively), and poor (21% and 29%, respectively). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Data were retrospectively collected by a questionnaire from 19 European oncology centers between March 2005 and March 2011. Pro- gression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated (Kaplan-Meier method). Results and limitations: Median OS from the start of first-line treatment was 7.4 mo. Second-line treatment was administered to 86 (57%) patients (44 mTOR inhibitors: 23 ever- olimus and 21 temsirolimus; 39 TKIs alone or in combination; three chemotherapy). Second- line PFS was not significantly different between TKIs and mTOR inhibitors (2.0 vs 0.9 mo; p = 0.536). Median OS from the start of second-line treatment was 5.0 mo for mTOR inhibitors and 6.6 mo for TKIs (p = 0.15). Conclusions: Treatment with further TKIs or mTOR inhibitors for mRCC patients primarily refractory to first-line sunitinib in the observed time period achieved very minimal benefit, suggesting avoiding TKI rechallenge and possibly preferring alternative strategies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, after PD to a treatment line including a TKI in this setting. Patient summary: The present work collected data about 150 patients affected by meta- static renal cell carcinoma, who received one of the current standard of care as first-line treatment, namely, the antiangiogenic drug sunitinib, and experienced rapid worsening of the disease. We investigated and described the subsequent outcome of such patients treated with two different types of drug, administered as second-line therapy, to better understand the best strategy to adopt for patients who got no benefit from sunitinib and to describe the current therapeutic approach in such cases

Computational modeling of ovarian cancer dynamics suggests optimal strategies for therapy and screening

High-grade serous tubo-ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) is a major cause of cancer-related death. Treatment is not uniform, with some patients undergoing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy (PDS) and others being treated directly with chemotherapy and only having surgery after three to four cycles (NACT). Which strategy is optimal remains controversial. We developed a mathematical framework that simulates hierarchical or stochastic models of tumor initiation and reproduces the clinical course of HGSC. After estimating parameter values, we infer that most patients harbor chemoresistant HGSC cells at diagnosis and that, if the tumor burden is not too large and complete debulking can be achieved, PDS is superior to NACT due to better depletion of resistant cells. We further predict that earlier diagnosis of primary HGSC, followed by complete debulking, could improve survival, but its benefit in relapsed patients is likely to be limited. These predictions are supported by primary clinical data from multiple cohorts. Our results have clear implications for these key issues in HGSC management

Disclosure of cancer diagnosis and quality of life in cancer patients: should it be the same everywhere?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence suggests that truth telling and honest disclosure of cancer diagnosis could lead to improved outcomes in cancer patients. To examine such findings in Iran, this trial aimed to study the various dimensions of quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal cancer and to compare these variables among those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A consecutive sample of patients with gastrointestinal cancer being treated in Cancer Institute in Tehran, Iran was prospectively evaluated. A psychologist interviewed patients using the Iranian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Patients were categorized into two groups: those who knew their diagnosis and those who did not. Independent sample t-test was used for group comparisons.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all 142 patients were interviewed. A significant proportion (52%) of patients did not know their cancer diagnosis and 48% of patients were aware that they had cancer. They were quite similar in most characteristics. The comparison of quality of life between two groups indicated that those knew their diagnosis showed a significant lower degree of physical (P = 0.001), emotional (P = 0.01) and social functioning (P < 0.001), whereas the global quality of life and other functional scales including role functioning and cognitive functioning did not show significant result. There were no statistically significant differences between symptoms scores between two groups, except for fatigue suggesting a higher score in patients who knew their diagnosis (P = 0.01). The financial difficulties were also significantly higher in patients who knew their cancer diagnosis (P = 0.005). Performing analysis of variance while controlling for age, educational status, cancer site, and knowledge of cancer diagnosis, the results showed that the knowledge of cancer diagnosis independently still contributed to the significant differences observed between two groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Contrary to expectation the findings indicated that patients who did not know their cancer diagnosis had a better physical, social and emotional quality of life. It seems that due to cultural differences between countries cancer disclosure guidelines perhaps should be differing.</p

Long-term responders on olaparib maintenance in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: Clinical and molecular characterization

Purpose: Maintenance therapy with olaparib has improved progression-free survival in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. The objective of this study was to characterize long-term (LT) versus short-term (ST) responders to olaparib. Experimental Design: A comparative molecular analysis of Study 19 (NCT00753545), a randomized phase II trial assessing olaparib maintenance after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in HGSOC, was conducted. LT response was defined as response to olaparib/placebo > 2 years, ST as < 3 months. Molecular analyses included germline BRCA1/2 status, three-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, BRCA1 methylation, and mutational profiling. Another olaparib maintenance study (Study 41; NCT01081951) was used as an additional cohort. Results: Thirty-seven LT (32 olaparib) and 61 ST (21 olaparib) patients were identified. Treatment was significantly associated with outcome (P < 0.0001), with more LT patients on olaparib (60.4%) than placebo (11.1%). LT sensitivity to olaparib correlated with complete response to chemotherapy (P < 0.05). In the olaparib LT group, 244 genetic alterations were detected, with TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2 mutations being most common (90%, 25%, and 35%, respectively). BRCA2 mutations were enriched among the LT responders. BRCA methylation was not associated with response duration. High myriad HRD score (>42) and/or BRCA1/2 mutation was associated with LT response to olaparib. Study 41 confirmed the correlation of LT response with olaparib and BRCA1/2 mutation. Conclusions: Findings show that LT response to olaparib may be multifactorial and related to homologous recombination repair deficiency, particularly BRCA1/2 defects. The type of BRCA1/2 mutation warrants further investigation. (C) 2017 AACR

Candidate biomarkers of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in ovarian cancer beyond the BRCA genes

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (Lynparza™) is a PARP inhibitor approved for advanced BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors may benefit patients whose tumours are dysfunctional in DNA repair mechanisms unrelated to BRCA1/2. We report exploratory analyses, including the long-term outcome of candidate biomarkers of sensitivity to olaparib in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) tumours. METHODS: Tumour samples from an olaparib maintenance monotherapy trial (Study 19, D0810C00019; NCT00753545) were analysed. Analyses included classification of mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), BRCA1 promoter methylation status, measurement of BRCA1 protein and Myriad HRD score. RESULTS: Patients with BRCAm tumours gained most benefit from olaparib; a similar treatment benefit was also observed in 21/95 patients whose tumours were BRCAwt but had loss-of-function HRR mutations compared to patients with no detectable HRR mutations (58/95). A higher median Myriad MyChoice® HRD score was observed in BRCAm and BRCAwt tumours with BRCA1 methylation. Patients without BRCAm tumours derived benefit from olaparib treatment vs placebo although to a lesser extent than BRCAm patients.CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients with tumours harbouring loss-of-function mutations in HRR genes other than BRCA1/2 may constitute a small, molecularly identifiable and clinically relevant population who derive treatment benefit from olaparib similar to patients with BRCAm