Evidence and experience for the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Aims and scope The last 7 years have seen the treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) dramatically change as the understanding of the molecular background of the disease has grown. With the increase in treatment options, however, comes the question of how best to maximise patient benefits based on the available medicines. This topic was the key focus of a Pfizer meeting held at the 8th European International Kidney Cancer Symposium (EIKCS) in Budapest, Hungary (3–4 May 2013), where leading oncology experts reviewed the latest clinical trial evidence and discussed the importance of real world experience in treating patients with mRCC. This report offers an overview of the discussion on how best to integrate clinical trial data, guideline recommendations and real world experience in order to make treatment decisions that will provide the maximum benefit for each individual patient

mRCC management: past, present and future

Aims and scope Over the last six years, the use of targeted agents has revolutionised the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and dramatically improved outcomes for patients. Multiple effective first-and second-line agents are now available or are in development, raising key questions and new challenges around the long-term management of mRCC. These topics were the focus of a Pfizer meeting held at the 7 th European International Kidney Cancer Symposium (EIKCS) in Vienna (4–5 May 2012), where leading European oncology experts discussed recent advances and ongoing issues in mRCC clinical practice. 'It is important for clinicians who see large numbers of patients with this rare disease to get together and share their experience and observations, for the benefit of those who only see few patients in their practice', said Professor Manuela Schmidinger, Chair of the meeting. This report offers an overview of the critical evidence and the issues of long-term mRCC management debated at the meeting. It also presents key conclusions from the recently launched report 'Europe 2012: is kidney cancer management at a crossroad?', written by a selected panel of European kidney cancer experts to highlight current barriers to the optimal treatment of mRCC patients and the development of solutions to address these

real world experience with sunitinib treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma clinical outcome according to risk score

Abstract Background ADONIS is an ongoing observational study in 9 European countries, designed to evaluate treatment patterns/outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line sunitinib and/or second-line axitinib post sunitinib. We present an evaluation of sunitinib efficacy by risk group, in the real-world setting examined in ADONIS. Methods Patients were enrolled at the start of first-line sunitinib treatment or second-line axitinib post sunitinib treatment. Evaluation of sunitinib efficacy was assessed by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk criteria. Results For all patients in this analysis (N = 467), median progression-free survival was 23.8 (95% CI 16.5-28.5), 11.8 (8.1-17.4), and 4.6 (2.5-7.7) months for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively. Median overall survival was 97.1 (46.3-not evaluable [NE]), 33.5 (20.5-46.6), and 10.0 (4.5-19.8) months for the respective risk groups. Data on individual risk factors were available for a subgroup of patients, allowing analysis by intermediate risk by 1 versus 2 risk factors. When including this subgroup (n = 120), median overall survival for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-1, and intermediate-2 risk factors was 21.6 (16.3-NE), 20.5 (15.5-NE), and 15.1 (4.1-NE) months, respectively. Conclusions For patients overall and by risk-group stratification, survival estimates were aligned with improvements in clinical practice over the past decade. In patients with intermediate-1 risk, overall survival was very similar to patients with favorable risk. However, further exploration is needed to confirm these observations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0218441

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19. FINDINGS: For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both. CONCLUSION: mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy

Extracerebral metastases determine the outcome of patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the era of cytokines, patients with brain metastases (BM) from renal cell carcinoma had a significantly shorter survival than patients without. Targeted agents (TA) have improved the outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) however, their impact on patients with BM is less clear. The aim of this analysis was to compare the outcome of patients with and without BM in the era of targeted agents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from 114 consecutive patients who had access to targeted agent were analyzed for response rates (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All patients diagnosed with BM underwent local, BM-specific treatment before initiation of medical treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Data of 114 consecutive patients who had access to at least one type of targeted agents were analyzed. Twelve out of 114 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients (10.5%) were diagnosed with BM. Systemic treatment consisted of sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus or bevacizumab. The median PFS was 8.7 months (95% CI 5.1 - 12.3) and 11.4 months (95% CI 8.7 - 14.1) for BM-patients and non-BM-patients, respectively (p = 0.232). The median overall survival for patients with and without BM was 13.4 (95% CI 1- 43.9) and 33.3 months (95% CI 18.6 - 47.0) (p = 0.358), respectively. No patient died from cerebral disease progression. ECOG Performance status and the time from primary tumor to metastases (TDM) were independent risk factors for short survival (HR 2.74, p = 0.001; HR: 0.552, p = 0.034).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although extracerebral metastases determine the outcome of patients with BM, the benefit from targeted agents still appears to be limited when compared to patients without BM.</p

Management of Adverse Events Associated with Cabozantinib Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cabozantinib was recently approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy. Cabozantinib is a multikinase inhibitor targeting VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 2, mesenchymal-epithelial transition receptor, and "anexelekto" receptor tyrosine kinase. A 60-mg daily dose led to improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) versus everolimus in advanced RCC patients as a second- or later-line treatment in the METEOR trial. Improved PFS with cabozantinib versus sunitinib has also been demonstrated in the first-line setting in CABOSUN. However, cabozantinib, like other VEGFR inhibitors, is associated with toxicity that may affect the patient's quality of life. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) are diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, weight loss, nausea, and stomatitis. This article summarizes the safety profile of cabozantinib in RCC patients and offers guidance for the management of these AEs. We discuss the underlying mechanisms of these AEs and, based on our experiences with cabozantinib and other multikinase inhibitors, we present approaches to manage toxicity. Prophylactic and therapeutic solutions are available to help with the management of toxicity associated with cabozantinib, and adequate interventions can ensure optimum adherence and maximize patient outcomes

Experience with sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Following approval of the oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib malate for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Europe and the USA in 2006, the agent has had a substantial impact on the treatment landscape in this setting. Sunitinib is now recommended in international treatment guidelines for the first-line treatment of favourable- or intermediate-risk mRCC and as an alternative option in poor-risk mRCC. In the 6 years since the approval of sunitinib, the range of agents available for the treatment of mRCC has expanded substantially, and this, together with a number of additional therapies in late-stage development, has increased the treatment options available to patients. Results from a phase III trial and a global expanded access study have provided robust data to support the efficacy of sunitinib in mRCC, including in real-world populations. Data also suggest a significant quality of life benefit with sunitinib, with superior patient-reported outcomes observed with this agent compared with interferon-α therapy. Both clinical and real-world study data also support the safety profile of sunitinib; most treatment-associated adverse events are mild to moderate in severity and can be managed effectively with close monitoring and proactive management. Clinical experience with sunitinib has demonstrated that therapy management, involving optimal dosing, maximum treatment duration and prompt and effective adverse event management, supports optimal patient outcomes with sunitinib. In this review we discuss clinical experience with sunitinib in mRCC, with an emphasis on real-world data, and utilize clinical case studies to examine the successful implementation of therapy management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. An increasing body of evidence suggests that side effects associated with sunitinib therapy, including hypertension, hand–foot syndrome and hypothyroidism, may represent effective markers of treatment response, and these will also be discussed

Characterization of VHL missense mutations in sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: hotspots, affected binding domains, functional impact on pVHL and therapeutic relevance

BACKGROUND The VHL protein (pVHL) is a multiadaptor protein that interacts with more than 30 different binding partners involved in many oncogenic processes. About 70 % of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) have VHL mutations with varying impact on pVHL function. Loss of pVHL function leads to the accumulation of Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF), which is targeted by current targeted treatments. In contrast to nonsense and frameshift mutations that highly likely nullify pVHL multipurpose functions, missense mutations may rather specifically influence the binding capability of pVHL to its partners. The affected pathways may offer predictive clues to therapy and response to treatment. In this study we focused on the VHL missense mutation pattern in ccRCC, and studied their potential effects on pVHL protein stability and binding partners and discussed treatment options. METHODS We sequenced VHL in 360 sporadic ccRCC FFPE samples and compared observed and expected frequency of missense mutations in 32 different binding domains. The prediction of the impact of those mutations on protein stability and function was assessed in silico. The response to HIF-related, anti-angiogenic treatment of 30 patients with known VHL mutation status was also investigated. RESULTS We identified 254 VHL mutations (68.3 % of the cases) including 89 missense mutations (35 %). Codons Ser65, Asn78, Ser80, Trp117 and Leu184 represented hotspots and missense mutations in Trp117 and Leu 184 were predicted to highly destabilize pVHL. About 40 % of VHL missense mutations were predicted to cause severe protein malfunction. The pVHL binding domains for HIF1AN, BCL2L11, HIF1/2α, RPB1, PRKCZ, aPKC-λ/ι, EEF1A1, CCT-ζ-2, and Cullin2 were preferentially affected. These binding partners are mainly acting in transcriptional regulation, apoptosis and ubiquitin ligation. There was no correlation between VHL mutation status and response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS VHL missense mutations may exert mild, moderate or strong impact on pVHL stability. Besides the HIF binding domain, other pVHL binding sites seem to be non-randomly altered by missense mutations. In contrast to LOF mutations that affect all the different pathways normally controlled by pVHL, missense mutations may be rather appropriate for designing tailor-made treatment strategies for ccRCC