Irinotecan in patients with relapsed or cisplatin-refractory germ cell cancer: a phase II study of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group

Despite generally high cure rates in patients with metastatic germ cell cancer, patients with progressive disease on first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy or with relapsed disease following high-dose salvage therapy exhibit a very poor prognosis. Irinotecan has shown antitumour activity in human testicular tumour xenografts in nude mice. We have performed a phase II study examining the single agent activity of irinotecan in patients with metastatic relapsed or cisplatin-refractory germ cell cancer. Refractory disease was defined as progression or relapse within 4 weeks after cisplatin-based chemotherapy or relapse after salvage high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell support. Irinotecan was administered at a dose of 300 (−350) mg m−2 every 3 weeks. Response was evaluated every 4 weeks. Fifteen patients have been enrolled. Median age was 35 (19–53) years. Primary tumour localisation was gonadal/mediastinal in 12/3 patients. Patients had been pretreated with a median of six (4–12) cisplatin-containing cycles and 13 out of 15 patients had previously failed high-dose chemotherapy with blood stem cell support. Median number of irinotecan applications was two (1–3). Fourteen patients are assessable for response and all for toxicity. In one patient, no adequate response evaluation was performed. Toxicity was generally acceptable and consisted mainly of haematological side effects with common toxicity criteria 3° anaemia (two patients), common toxicity criteria 3° leukocytopenia (one patient) and common toxicity criteria 3° thrombocytopenia (three patients). Common toxicity criteria 3/4° non-haematological toxicity occurred in five patients (33%): 1×diarrhoea, 2×alopecia, 1×fever and in one patient worsening of pre-existing peripheral polyneuropathy from 1° to 4°. No response was observed to irinotecan therapy. Currently, 13 patients have died of the disease and two patients are alive with the disease. The patients included in our study exhibit similar prognostic characteristics as patients treated in previous trials evaluating new drugs in this setting. Irinotecan at a dose of 300–350 mg m−2 every 3 weeks appears to have no antitumour activity in patients with cisplatin-refractory germ cell cancer and, thus, further investigation in this disease is not justified

Outcomes based on prior therapy in the phase 3 METEOR trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Altres ajuts: We thank the patients, their families, the investigators and site staff, and the study teams who participated in the METEOR trial. This study was funded by Exelixis, Inc. Patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were supported in part by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Editorial support was provided by Fishawack Communications (Conshohocken, PA, USA) and funded by Exelixis.In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), after prior antiangiogenic therapy. Outcomes were evaluated for subgroups defined by prior therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib as the only prior VEGFR inhibitor, or prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. For the prior sunitinib subgroup (N = 267), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 9.1 versus 3.7 months (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32-0.59), ORR was 16% versus 3%, and median OS was 21.4 versus 16.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.93). For the prior pazopanib subgroup (N = 171), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 7.4 versus 5.1 months (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.99), ORR was 19% versus 4%, and median OS was 22.0 versus 17.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.04). For prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy (N = 32), median PFS was not reached for cabozantinib versus 4.1 months for everolimus (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.65), ORR was 22% versus 0%, and median OS was not reached versus 16.3 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21-1.52). Cabozantinib was associated with improved clinical outcomes versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC, irrespective of prior therapy, including checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status <80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p <  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p <  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p <  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p <  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome

The co-presence of deletion 7q, 20q and inversion 16 in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia developed secondary to treatment of breast cancer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and radiotherapy: a case report

Introduction. Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia occurs as a complication of treatment with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunosuppressive agents or exposure to environmental carcinogens. Case presentation. We report a case of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia in a 37-year-old Turkish woman in complete remission from breast cancer. Our patient presented to our facility with fatigue, fever, sore throat, peripheral lymphadenopathy, and moderate hepatosplenomegaly. On peripheral blood and bone marrow aspirate smears, monoblasts were present. Immunophenotypic analysis of the bone marrow showed expression of CD11b, CD13, CD14, CD15, CD33, CD34, CD45 and human leukocyte antigen-DR, findings compatible with the diagnosis of acute monoblastic leukemia (French-American-British classification M5a). Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia developed three years after adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of an alkylating agent, cyclophosphamide and DNA topoisomerase II inhibitor, doxorubicin and adjuvant radiotherapy. Cytogenetic analysis revealed a 46, XX, deletion 7 (q22q34), deletion 20 (q11.2q13.1) karyotype in five out of 20 metaphases and inversion 16 was detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. There was no response to chemotherapy (cytarabine and idarubicin, FLAG-IDA protocol, azacitidine) and our patient died in the 11th month after diagnosis. Conclusions: The median survival in therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia is shorter compared to de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Also, the response to therapy is poor. In therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia, complex karyotypes have been associated with abnormalities of chromosome 5, rather than 7. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia showing the co-presence of deletion 7q, 20q and the inversion 16 signal. © 2012 Yonal et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Experimental evidence for Zeeman spin–orbit coupling in layered antiferromagnetic conductors

Most of solid-state spin physics arising from spin–orbit coupling, from fundamental phenomena to industrial applications, relies on symmetry-protected degeneracies. So does the Zeeman spin–orbit coupling, expected to manifest itself in a wide range of antiferromagnetic conductors. Yet, experimental proof of this phenomenon has been lacking. Here we demonstrate that the Néel state of the layered organic superconductor κ-(BETS)2FeBr4 shows no spin modulation of the Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations, contrary to its paramagnetic state. This is unambiguous evidence for the spin degeneracy of Landau levels, a direct manifestation of the Zeeman spin–orbit coupling. Likewise, we show that spin modulation is absent in electron-doped Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4, which evidences the presence of Néel order in this cuprate superconductor even at optimal doping. Obtained on two very different materials, our results demonstrate the generic character of the Zeeman spin–orbit coupling

Anti-VEGF therapy in mRCC: differences between Asian and non-Asian patients

Background: Several reports suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be more toxic in Asian vs non-Asian populations. Comparative efficacy of these agents with respect to ethnicity is not well characterised. Methods: A multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using Asian and non-Asian centres which collected data on ethnicity, dose reductions and outcomes using the International mRCC Database Consortium. Results: This study included 1024 (464 Asian, 560 non-Asian) patients with a 29.4 months median follow-up. The percentage of dose modifications/reductions between non-Asians and Asians was similar (55% vs 61% P=0.1197). When adjusted for risk groups, there was no difference in overall or progression-free survival between non-Asians and Asians. Patients with dose reductions due to toxicity had longer treatment durations and overall survival than those who did not in both non-Asian (10.6 vs 5.0 months, P<0.0001; 22.6 vs 16.1 months, P=0.0016, respectively) and Asian populations (8.9 vs 5.4 months, P=0.0028; 28.0 vs 18.7 months, P=0.0069, respectively). Conclusions: Adjusting for risk groups, there appears to be no difference in outcome between Asian vs non-Asian patients with mRCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy. Judicious dose reductions may allow for better outcomes in both populations due to longer treatment durations, but direct comparisons are needed

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P&lt;0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P&lt;0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P = 0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

This randomised phase III trial compared standard of care Everolimus with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody Nivolumab in previously treated patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic clear cell renal cancer. 810 patients were randomised to receive either Everolimus 10 mg orally daily or 3 mg/kg of Nivolumab intravenously every two weeks. Patients were treated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients could be treated beyond progression if the investigator believed that the patient was gaining clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 25 months for Nivolumab and 19.8 months for Everolimus (p=0.002). The objective response rate was higher for Nivolumab (25 versus 5%; p=&#60;0.001).The median progression free survivals were 4.6 & 4.4 months (p=0.11). Grade 3 & 4 treatment related toxicities were observed in 19 & 37% of patients on Nivolumab or Everolimus respectively. In patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma Nivolumab produced superior survival and more tolerable treatment than Everolimus

Survival of patients with nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: a review of the IGCC classification by Cox regression and recursive partitioning

The International Germ Cell Consensus (IGCC) classification identifies good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups among patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT). It uses the risk factors primary site, presence of nonpulmonary visceral metastases and tumour markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH). The IGCC classification is easy to use and remember, but lacks flexibility. We aimed to examine the extent of any loss in discrimination within the IGCC classification in comparison with alternative modelling by formal weighing of the risk factors. We analysed survival of 3048 NSGCT patients with Cox regression and recursive partitioning for alternative classifications. Good, intermediate and poor prognosis groups were based on predicted 5-year survival. Classifications were further refined by subgrouping within the poor prognosis group. Performance was measured primarily by a bootstrap corrected c-statistic to indicate discriminative ability for future patients. The weights of the risk factors in the alternative classifications differed slightly from the implicit weights in the IGCC classification. Discriminative ability, however, did not increase clearly (IGCC classification, c=0.732; Cox classification, c=0.730; Recursive partitioning classification, c=0.709). Three subgroups could be identified within the poor prognosis groups, resulting in classifications with five prognostic groups and slightly better discriminative ability (c = 0.740). In conclusion, the IGCC classification in three prognostic groups is largely supported by Cox regression and recursive partitioning. Cox regression was the most promising tool to define a more refined classification