Real-world Experience With Sunitinib Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Clinical Outcome According to Risk Score.

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. PATIENTS AND 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), the median progression-free survival was 23.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5-28.5 months), 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-17.4 months), and 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5-7.7 months) for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively. The median overall survival was 97.1 months (95% CI, 46.3 months-not evaluable [NE]), 33.5 months (95% CI, 20.5-46.6 months), and 10.0 months (95% CI, 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), the median overall survival for IMDC favorable-, intermediate-1, and intermediate-2 risk factors was 21.6 months (95% CI, 16.3 months-NE), 20.5 months (15.5 months-NE), and 15.1 months (4.1 months-NE), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients overall and by risk-group stratification, survival estimates were aligned with previously published data. In patients with intermediate-1 risk, overall survival was very similar to patients with favorable risk. However, further exploration of outcome data from different sources is needed to confirm these observations

Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

N

How clinical practice is changing the rules: the sunitinib 2/1 schedule in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Introduction Currently, sunitinib is a standard of care in first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, with the standard 4/2 schedule (sunitinib 50 mg/day; 4 consecutive weeks on treatment; 2 weeks' rest), 50% of patients require dose reductions to mitigate toxicity, highlighting the need to investigate alternative dosing schedules that improve tolerability without compromising efficacy. Areas covered: We present a concise critical review of published studies comparing the efficacy and safety of the 4/2 and 2/1 schedule (2 weeks on treatment; 1 week rest) for sunitinib. While all studies evaluating the 2/1 schedule have a low level of evidence, the results indicate that the 2/1 schedule improves tolerability compared with the 4/2 schedule, including significant reductions in the incidence of specific adverse events. It was not possible to make any definitive conclusions regarding efficacy due to methodologic limitations of these studies. Expert commentary: In the absence of strong evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the 2/1 schedule, we recommend that patients should be initiated on sunitinib therapy with the standard 4/2 schedule and only be switched to the 2/1 schedule after the development of dose-limiting toxicities from weeks 3-4 (cycle 1) of the 4/2 schedule cycle

First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts

Background: The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. Materials and methods: We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. Results: Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. Conclusion: A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice

Renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) denotes cancer originated from the renal epithelium and accounts for >90% of cancers in the kidney. The disease encompasses >10 histological and molecular subtypes, of which clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is most common and accounts for most cancer-related deaths. Although somatic VHL mutations have been described for some time, more-recent cancer genomic studies have identified mutations in epigenetic regulatory genes and demonstrated marked intra-tumour heterogeneity, which could have prognostic, predictive and therapeutic relevance. Localized RCC can be successfully managed with surgery, whereas metastatic RCC is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. However, over the past decade, marked advances in the treatment of metastatic RCC have been made, with targeted agents including sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab, pazopanib and axitinib, which inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR), and everolimus and temsirolimus, which inhibit mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), being approved. Since 2015, agents with additional targets aside from VEGFR have been approved, such as cabozantinib and lenvatinib; immunotherapies, such as nivolumab, have also been added to the armamentarium for metastatic RCC. Here, we provide an overview of the biology of RCC, with a focus on ccRCC, as well as updates to complement the current clinical guidelines and an outline of potential future directions for RCC research and therapy

Renal cell carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) denotes cancer originated from the renal epithelium and accounts for >90% of cancers in the kidney. The disease encompasses >10 histological and molecular subtypes, of which clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is most common and accounts for most cancer-related deaths. Although somatic VHL mutations have been described for some time, more-recent cancer genomic studies have identified mutations in epigenetic regulatory genes and demonstrated marked intra-tumour heterogeneity, which could have prognostic, predictive and therapeutic relevance. Localized RCC can be successfully managed with surgery, whereas metastatic RCC is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. However, over the past decade, marked advances in the treatment of metastatic RCC have been made, with targeted agents including sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab, pazopanib and axitinib, which inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR), and everolimus and temsirolimus, which inhibit mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), being approved. Since 2015, agents with additional targets aside from VEGFR have been approved, such as cabozantinib and lenvatinib; immunotherapies, such as nivolumab, have also been added to the armamentarium for metastatic RCC. Here, we provide an overview of the biology of RCC, with a focus on ccRCC, as well as updates to complement the current clinical guidelines and an outline of potential future directions for RCC research and therapy

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of renal cell carcinoma was published in 2019 with an update planned for 2021. It was therefore decided by both the ESMO and the Singapore Society of Oncology (SSO) to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in May 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2019 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of renal cell carcinomas in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate

Ongoing under-reporting of clinically relevant safety data in phase II studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors

status: publishe

A phase I open-label study evaluating the cardiovascular safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose: To characterize the cardiovascular profile of sorafenib, a multitargeted kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Fifty-three patients with advanced cancer received oral sorafenib 400 mg bid in continuous 28-day cycles in this open-label study. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was evaluated using multigated acquisition scanning at baseline and after 2 and 4 cycles of sorafenib. QT/QTc interval on the electrocardiograph (ECG) was measured in triplicate with a Holter 12-lead ECG at baseline and after 1 cycle of sorafenib. Heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were obtained in duplicate at baseline and after 1 and 4 cycles of sorafenib. Plasma pharmacokinetic data were obtained for sorafenib and its 3 main metabolites after 1 and 4 cycles of sorafenib. Results: LVEF (SD) mean change from baseline was -0.8 ($\pm$8.6) LVEF(%) after 2 cycles (n=31) and -1.2 $\pm$7.8) LVEF(%) after 4 cycles of sorafenib (n=24). The QT/QTc mean changes from baseline observed at maximum sorafenib concentrations ($t_{max}$) after 1 cycle (n=31) were small (QTcB: 4.2 ms; QTcF: 9.0 ms). Mean changes observed after 1 cycle in BP (n=31) and HR (n=30) at maximum sorafenib concentrations ($t_{max}$) were moderate (up to 11.7 mm Hg and -6.6 bpm, respectively). No correlation was found between the AUC and ($C_{max}$) of sorafenib and its main metabolites and any cardiovascular parameters. Conclusions: The effects of sorafenib on changes in QT/QTc interval on the ECG, LVEF, BP, and HR were modest and unlikely to be of clinical significance in the setting of advanced cancer treatment