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

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 sarcomatoid 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. Progression-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 everolimus 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 metastatic 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

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy.Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1: 1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614.Findings From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11.2 months (95% CI 9.5-12.7) with ipilimumab and 10.0 months (8.3-11.0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 0.72-1.00; p=0.053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0.0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1.46 (95% CI 1.10-1.95), for 5-12 months was 0.65 (0.50-0.85), and beyond 12 months was 0.60 (0.43-0.86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group.Interpretation Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd