Sunitinib and bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness

Background: Two new agents have recently been licensed for use in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe. This paper aims to systematically review the evidence from all available randomised clinical trials of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with interferon-? (IFN-?)) in the treatment of advanced metastatic RCC.Methods: Systematic literature searches were performed in six electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies were searched for further relevant studies. Individual conference proceedings were searched using their online interfaces. Studies were selected according to the predefined criteria. All randomised clinical trials of sunitinib or bevacizumab in combination with IFN for treating advanced metastatic RCC in accordance with the European licensed indication were included. Study selection, data extraction, validation and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers with disagreements being settled by discussion. The effects of sunitinib and bevacizumab (in combination with IFN-?) on progression-free survival were compared indirectly using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) sampling in Win BUGS, with IFN as a common comparator.Results: Three studies were included. Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with both interventions (from approximately 5 months to between 8 and 11 months) compared with IFN. Overall survival was also prolonged, compared with IFN, although the published data are not fully mature. Indirect comparison suggests that sunitinib is superior to bevacizumab plus IFN in terms of progression-free survival (hazard ratios 0.796; 95% CI 0.63–1.0; P=0.0272).Conclusion: There is evidence to suggest that treatment with sunitinib and treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC

Cabozantinib versus everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib and best supportive care: A network meta-analysis of progression-free survival and overall survival in second line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background Relative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Methodology & findings Systematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year’s treatment and then decreased over time to zero. Conclusion With all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months

Increased interferon alpha receptor 2 mRNA levels is associated with renal cell carcinoma metastasis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Interferon-α (IFN-α) is one of the central agents in immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and binds to the IFN-α receptor (IFNAR). We investigated the role of IFNAR in RCC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We quantified IFNAR mRNA expression in paired tumor and non-tumor samples from the surgical specimens of 103 consecutive patients with RCC using a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and IFNAR2 protein using Western blotting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The absolute level of IFNAR1 and IFNAR2 mRNAs in tumor and non-tumor tissues did not correlate with the malignant and metastatic profiles. The relative yields of the PCR product from the tumor tissue to that from the corresponding non-tumor tissue (T/N) for the expression of IFNAR mRNAs were calculated. While the T/N ratio of IFNAR1 did not correlate with any factor, a high T/N ratio of IFNAR2 correlated with poor differentiation (<it>P </it>< 0.05), local invasion (<it>P </it>< 0.001), and metastasis (<it>P </it>< 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, a high T/N ratio of IFNAR2 predicted a shortened overall survival in all cases (<it>P </it>< 0.05) and a shorter disease-free survival in those without metastasis (M0; 68 cases, <it>P </it>< 0.05). Impressively, patients with a poorer response to IFN-α treatment had a higher IFNAR2 T/N ratio than those who had a good response (P < 0.05). IFNAR2c protein expression was higher in the primary tumors in patients with metastases (M1; 35 cases) compared to those without ( P < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>IFNAR2 is associated with the progression of RCC.</p

Predictive factors for severe toxicity of sunitinib in unselected patients with advanced renal cell cancer

Sunitinib has been registered for the treatment of advanced renal cell cancer (RCC). As patient inclusion was highly selective in previous studies, experience with sunitinib in general oncological practice remains to be reported. We determined the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced RCC included in an expanded access programme. ECOG performance status >1, histology other than clear cell and presence of brain metastases were no exclusion criteria. Eighty-two patients were treated: 23% reached a partial response, 50% had stable disease, 20% progressed and six patients were not evaluable. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months and median overall survival (OS) was 15 months. Importantly, 47 patients (57%) needed a dose reduction, 35 (43%) because of treatment-related adverse events, 10 (12%) because of continuous dosing, and two because of both. Stomatitis, fatigue, hand–foot syndrome and a combination of grade 1–2 adverse events were the most frequent reasons for dose reduction. In 40 patients (49%), there was severe toxicity, defined as dose reduction or permanent discontinuation, which was highly correlated with low body surface area, high age and female gender. On the basis of age and gender, a model was developed that could predict the probability of severe toxicity

Effects of preset sequential administrations of sunitinib and everolimus on tumour differentiation in Caki-1 renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor) and everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) are both approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as first-line and second-line therapy, respectively. In the clinics, sunitinib treatment is limited by the emergence of acquired resistance, leading to a switch to second-line treatment at progression, often based on everolimus. No data have been yet generated on programmed alternating sequential strategies combining alternative use of sunitinib and everolimus before progression. Such strategy is expected to delay the emergence of acquired resistance and improve tumour control. The aim of our study was to assess the changes in tumours induced by three different sequences administration of sunitinib and everolimus. METHODS: In human Caki-1 RCC xenograft model, sunitinib was alternated with everolimus every week, every 2 weeks, or every 3 weeks. Effects on necrosis, hypoxia, angiogenesis, and EMT status were assessed by immunohisochemistry and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus programmed sequential regimens before progression yielded longer median time to tumour progression than sunitinib and everolimus monotherapies. In each group of treatment, tumour growth control was associated with inhibition of mTOR pathway and changes from a mesenchymal towards an epithelial phenotype, with a decrease in vimentin and an increase in E-cadherin expression. The sequential combinations of these two agents in a RCC mouse clinical trial induced antiangiogenic effects, leading to tumour necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our study showed that alternate sequence of sunitinib and everolimus mitigated the development of mesenchymal phenotype compared with sunitinib as single agent