SWITCH : A randomised, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer

Background Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. Objectives To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. Design, setting, and participants The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). Intervention Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results and limitations In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n = 182; Su-So, n = 183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.27; p = 0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77–1.30; p = 0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. Conclusions Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC

Lesser nobility in the region of Kostelec nad Černými lesy in the era of early modern period

This study should help to recognize the social and economic conditions of life of the lesser nobility in Bohemian Kingdom in the era 1500-1728(1739) shown on the example of lesser nobility in historical region of Kostelec nad Černými lesy near Prague. The common developmental trends, problems and first of all reasons of the dying out of this social group were observed there. Those conclusions were compared with analogical researches from other Bohemian regions. Herewith in present Czech historiography there are very few studies about the pauperisation of bohemian nobility in the late 17th and first of all in 18th century. Finally this study surveys local history of the named region and the micro-historical relationships of the environment of typical aristocratic dominion and its officers. Our observed lesser nobility could be divided into two quality levels - the clerical nobility and the landed nobility

Efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in 1st-line treatment of older patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: an analysis of the randomised trial FIRE-3

Background The evidence on the efficacy of anticancer therapy is limited in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This retrospective analysis of phase III FIRE-3 trial assesses the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab according to the patients' age and sidedness of primary tumour. Methods The study endpoints overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between younger (= 65 years) patients, followed by stratification according to primary tumour sidedness. ORR was compared using Fisher ' s exact test, OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox regression analyses assessed hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for OS and PFS. Results Overall, older patients with RAS WT tumours had a significantly shorter OS when compared to younger patients (25.9 months vs 29.3 months, HR 1.29;P = 0.02). Also the proportion of right-sided tumours was significantly greater in older patients (27.1% vs 17.9%;P = 0.029). Secondary resection rates were numerically higher in younger patients (25.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.068) than in older patients. This was primarily seen in the Cetuximab arm, where older patients underwent less likely resection (13.1% vs. 26%;P = 0.02). Older patients with left-sided tumours showed only a trend towards greater efficacy of cetuximab (HR 0.86;P = 0.38). In patients with right-sided primary tumours, older patients did not appear to benefit from cetuximab in contrast to younger patients (>= 65 years: 16.6 months vs 23.6 months, HR 1.1;P = 0.87;P = 0.31). Conclusions In FIRE-3, OS was generally shorter in older patients in comparison to younger patients. This could be explained by the overrepresentation of right-sided tumours and a lower secondary resection rate in older patients. The efficacy of targeted therapy was dependent on tumour sidedness in older patients with RAS WT mCRC