Hypertension among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving axitinib or sorafenib: analysis from the randomized phase III AXIS trial

Role of endothelin ETA receptors in the hypertension induced by the VEGFR-2 kinase inhibitors axitinib and lenvatinib in conscious freely-moving rats

Receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKIs) suppress tumour growth by targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) which is an important mediator of angiogenesis. Here, we demonstrate that two potent RTKIs, axitinib and lenvatinib, are associated with hypertensive side effects. Doppler flowmetry was used to evaluate regional haemodynamic profiles of axitinib and lenvatinib. Male Sprague Dawley rats (350-500 g) were instrumented with Doppler flow probes (renal and mesenteric arteries and descending abdominal aorta) and catheters (jugular vein and distal abdominal aorta, via the caudal artery). Rats were dosed daily with axitinib (3 or 6 mg.kg-1) or lenvatinib (1 or 3 mg.kg-1) and regional haemodynamics were recorded over a maximum of 4 days. Both RTKIs caused significant (p < 0.05) increases in mean arterial pressure (MAP), which was accompanied by significant (p < 0.05) vasoconstriction in both the mesenteric and hindquarters vascular beds. To gain insight into the involvement of endothelin-1 (ET-1) in RTKI-mediated hypertension, we also monitored heart rate (HR) and MAP in response to axitinib or lenvatinib in animals treated with the ETA receptor selective antagonist sitaxentan (5 mg.kg-1) or the mixed ETA/ETB receptor antagonist bosentan (15 mg.kg-1) over two days. Co-treatment with bosentan or sitaxentan markedly reduced the MAP effects mediated by both RTKIs (p < 0.05). Bosentan, but not sitaxentan, also attenuated ET-1 mediated increases in HR. These data suggest that selective antagonists of ETA receptors may be appropriate to alleviate the hypertensive effects of axitinib and lenvatinib.

Anlotinib in patients with recurrent platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer: a prospective, single arm, phase II study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in patients with platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer.

METHODS

In this prospective, single arm, phase II study, patients with platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer received anlotinib (12 mg once daily; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or study withdrawal. The study was conducted between May 2019 and May 2021. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary endpoints were disease control rate, progression free survival, overall survival, and safety. An exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to evaluate the correlation of baseline TP53 mutation status with outcomes.

RESULTS

33 of 34 enrolled patients received at least one dose of anlotinib. The objective response rate was 31.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.1% to 50.0%), with 2 (6.3%) complete and 8 (25.0%) partial responses. In total, 14 (43.8%) patients achieved stable disease, resulting in a disease control rate of 75.0% (95% CI 56.6% to 88.5%). With a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range 0.5-17.2) at data cut-off (September 16, 2022), median progression free survival was 5.3 months (95% CI 4.04 to 6.56) and median overall survival was not reached. In a subgroup analysis, patients with a TP53 mutation showed a trend towards worse progression free survival than those with the wild-type TP53 (4.4 months vs 8.4 months; hazard ratio 2.48 (95% CI 0.91 to 6.76), p=0.067). Common adverse events were hypertension (42.4%), hand-foot syndrome (27.3%), and fatigue (24.2%). Grade 3 events were reported in 3 (9.1%) patients and no grade 4-5 events or deaths were observed.

CONCLUSION

Anlotinib showed antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer, and it might be a potential treatment in this population.

CDK4/6 inhibitors: basics, pros, and major cons in breast cancer treatment with specific regard to cardiotoxicity - a narrative review

Breast cancer is characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of breast cells, with a high incidence reported in 2020 to have affected over 2 million women. In recent years, the conventional methods of treating breast cancer have involved radiotherapy and chemotherapy. However, the emergence of CDK4/6 inhibitors has shown potential as a promising cancer therapy. Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) inhibitors are a class of molecules that impede the formation of an active kinase complex, thereby hindering its activity and consequently halting the progression of the cell cycle. It was discovered that they have a significant impact on impeding the progression of the cancer. This is evident with the Food and Drug Administration's approval of drugs such as palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in combination with specific endocrine therapies. In spite of enormous success in breast cancer treatment, certain obstacles have emerged, such as therapy resistance, side effects, and most of all, cardiotoxicity. Some of these drawbacks have been successfully overcome by dosage reduction, different combinations of the drugs, and the assessment of each patient's condition and suitability prior to treatment. Yet other drawbacks still require tenacious research, especially certain cases of cardiotoxicities. This article delves into the biological mechanisms of CDK4/6 in the cell cycle and cancer, as well as the clinical advantages and most common adverse events (AEs) associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. The primary objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive analysis of cardiotoxic AEs and elucidate the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the cardiotoxicity of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Cardiotoxicity Induced by Protein Kinase Inhibitors in Patients with Cancer

Kinase inhibitors (KIs) represent a growing class of drugs directed at various protein kinases and used in the treatment of both solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. It is a heterogeneous group of compounds that are widely applied not only in different types of tumors but also in tumors that are positive for a specific predictive factor. This review summarizes common cardiotoxic effects of KIs, including hypertension, arrhythmias with bradycardia and QTc prolongation, and cardiomyopathy that can lead to heart failure, as well as less common effects such as fluid retention, ischemic heart disease, and elevated risk of thromboembolic events. The guidelines for cardiac monitoring and management of the most common cardiotoxic effects of protein KIs are discussed. Potential signaling pathways affected by KIs and likely contributing to cardiac damage are also described. Finally, the need for further research into the molecular mechanisms underlying the cardiovascular toxicity of these drugs is indicated.

Arterial aneurysm and dissection with systemic vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors: A review of cases reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and published in the literature

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved multiple systemic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors since 2004 to treat various malignancies. Inhibition of the VEGF signaling pathway can result in impairment of vascular wall integrity through medial degeneration and endothelial dysfunction, potentially resulting in arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection. We performed a postmarketing review to evaluate arterial aneurysm/dissection as a potential safety risk for patients with cancer treated with VEGF inhibitors. We searched the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database and literature for reports of arterial (including aortic) aneurysm/dissection with VEGF inhibitors currently approved by the FDA for a cancer indication. We identified 240 cases of arterial aneurysm/dissection associated with VEGF inhibitors. The median time to onset of an arterial aneurysm/dissection event from the initiation of a VEGF inhibitor was 94 days (range 1-1955 days). Notably, 22% (53/240) of cases reported fatal outcomes related to arterial aneurysm/dissection. We determined the drug-event association as probable in 15 cases that lacked relevant confounding factors for arterial aneurysm/dissection, which is supported by unremarkable computed tomography (CT) findings prior to starting VEGF inhibitor therapy, despite nondrug-associated background arterial aneurysm/dissection generally demonstrating preexisting arterial abnormalities. FAERS and literature case-level evidence suggests that VEGF inhibitors may have contributed to arterial aneurysm/dissection, as a class effect, based on short onset relative to natural history of disease and biologic plausibility. Cardiovascular and oncology healthcare professionals should be aware of this rare, but life-threatening safety risk associated with VEGF inhibitors.

Magnusson N. Drug-Induced Hypertension Caused by Multikinase Inhibitors (Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Lenvatinib and Axitinib) in Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment

This paper reviews current treatments for renal cell carcinoma/cancer (RCC) with the multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) sorafenib, sunitinib, lenvatinib and axitinib. Furthermore, it compares these drugs regarding progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse effects (AE), with a focus on hypertension. Sorafenib and sunitinib, which are included in international clinical guidelines as first- and second-line therapy in metastatic RCC, are now being challenged by new-generation drugs like lenvatinib and axitinib. These drugs have shown significant clinical benefits for patients with RCC, but all four induce a variety of AEs. Hypertension is one of the most common AEs related to MKI treatment. Comparing sorafenib, sunitinib and lenvatinib revealed that sorafenib and sunitinib had the same efficacy, but sorafenib was safer to use. Lenvatinib showed better efficacy than sorafenib but worse safety. No trials have yet been completed that compare lenvatinib with sunitinib. Although axitinib promotes slightly higher hypertension rates compared to sunitinib, the overall discontinuation rate and cardiovascular complications are favourable. Although the mean rate of patients who develop hypertension is similar for each drug, some trials have shown large differences, which could indicate that lifestyle and/or genetic factors play an additional role.

Second line therapy with axitinib after only prior sunitinib in metastatic renal cell cancer: Italian multicenter real world SAX study final results

BACKGROUND

This multi-institutional retrospective real life study was conducted in 22 Italian Oncology Centers and evaluated the role of Axitinib in second line treatment in not selected mRCC patients.

METHODS

148 mRCC patients were evaluated. According to Heng score 15.5%, 60.1% and 24.4% of patients were at poor risk, intermediate and favorable risk, respectively.

RESULTS

PFS, OS, DCR and ORR were 7.14 months, 15.5 months, 70.6% and 16.6%, respectively. The duration of prior sunitinib treatment correlated with a longer significant mPFS, 8.8 vs 6.3 months, respectively. Axitinib therapy was safe, without grade 4 adverse events. The most frequent toxicities of all grades were: fatigue (50%), hypertension (26%), and hypothyroidism (18%). G3 blood pressure elevation significantly correlated with longer mPFS and mOS compared to G1-G2 or no toxicity. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg and 10 mg bid was feasible in 24% with no statistically significant differences in mPFS and mOS. The sunitinib-axitinib sequence was safe and effective, the mOS was 41.15 months. At multivariate analysis, gender, DCR to axitinib and to previous sunitinib correlated significantly with PFS; whereas DCR to axitinib, nephrectomy and Heng score independently affected overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib was effective and safe in a not selected real life mRCC population. Trial registration INT - Napoli - 11/16 oss. Registered 20 April 2016. http://www.istitutotumori.na.it.

Acute blood pressure elevation associated with biological therapies for cancer: a focus on VEGF signaling pathway inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with biological agents interfering with mechanisms of angiogenesis, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway (VSP) inhibitors, was associated with an enhanced risk of acute and severe blood pressure (BP) increase and development of hypertensive emergencies. Areas covered: The present article will review the scientific literature reporting hypertensive emergencies as a complication of biological treatment with VSP inhibitors. Hypertensive emergency is a life-threatening condition characterized by very high BP values (>180/110 mmHg) associated with acute organ damage. The exact mechanism of action is still incompletely clarified. Endothelial dysfunction following reduced bioavailability of nitric oxide has been hypothesized to play an important role in promoting hypertension and the occurrence of acute organ damage. Expert opinion: Prevention, prompt recognition and treatment of hypertensive emergencies associated with treatment with VSP-inhibitors are essential to reduce the risk of adverse events. Not infrequently, the occurrence of hypertensive emergency led to VSP treatment discontinuation, with potential negative consequences on patient overall survival. The present review aims at providing detailed knowledge for the clinician regarding this specific issue, which could be of high impact in usual clinical practice, given the increasing burden of indications to treatment with biological agents targeted to the VEGF pathway.

A study of axitinib, a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in children and adolescents with recurrent or refractory solid tumors: A Children's Oncology Group phase 1 and pilot consortium trial (ADVL1315)

BACKGROUND

Axitinib is an oral small molecule that inhibits receptor tyrosine kinases vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1 to 3. A phase 1 and pharmacokinetic (PK) trial evaluating axitinib was conducted in children with refractory solid tumors.

METHODS

Axitinib was administered orally twice daily in continuous 28-day cycles. Dose levels (2.4 mg/m2 /dose and 3.2 mg/m2 /dose) were evaluated using a rolling 6 design. Serial PKs (cycle 1, days 1 and 8) and exploratory biomarkers were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were enrolled; 1 patient was ineligible due to inadequate time having elapsed from prior therapy. The median age of the patients was 13.5 years (range, 5-17 years). Two of 5 patients who were treated at dose level 2 experienced dose-limiting toxicities (palmar-plantar erythryodysesthesia syndrome in 1 patient and intratumoral hemorrhage in 1 patient). Frequent (>20%) grade 1 to 2 toxicities during cycle 1 included anemia, anorexia, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and hypertension. Nonhematological toxicities of grade ≥3 in subsequent cycles included hypertension and elevated serum lipase. PK analysis demonstrated variability in axitinib exposure, the median time to peak plasma concentration was 2 hours, and the half-life ranged from 0.7 to 5.2 hours. Exposure and dose were not found to be significantly associated with hypertension. Five patients achieved stable disease for ≤6 cycles as their best response, including patients with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (1 patient), Ewing sarcoma (1 patient), hepatocellular carcinoma (1 patient), and osteosarcoma (2 patients). One patient with alveolar soft part sarcoma achieved a partial response. Kidney injury biomarkers were found to be elevated at baseline; no trends were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with refractory solid tumors, the maximum tolerated and recommended dose of axitinib appears to be 2.4 mg/m2 /dose, which provides PK exposures similar to those of adults.

Hypertension in malignancy-an underappreciated problem

Hypertension is one of the most common comorbidities in cancer patients with malignancy, in particular, in the elderly. On the other hand, hypertension is a long-term consequence of antineoplastic treatment, including both chemotherapy and targeted agents. Several chemotherapeutics and targeted drugs may be responsible for development or worsening of the hypertension. The most common side effect of anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) treatment is hypertension. However, pathogenesis of hypertension in patients receiving this therapy appears to be associated with multiple pathways and is not yet fully understood. Development of hypertension was associated with improved antitumor efficacy in patients treated with anti-antiangiogenic drugs in some but not in all studies. Drugs used commonly as adjuvants such as steroids, erythropoietin stimulating agents etc, may also cause rise in blood pressure or exacerbate preexisiting hypertension. Hypotensive therapy is crucial to manage hypertension during certain antineoplastic treatment. The choice and dose of antihypertensive drugs depend upon the presence of organ dysfunction, comorbidities, and/or adverse effects. In addition, severity of the hypertension and the urgency of blood pressure control should also be taken into consideration. As there are no specific guidelines on the hypertension treatment in cancer patients we should follow the available guidelines to obtain the best possible outcomes and pay the attention to the individualization of the therapy according to the actual situation.

Immune consequences of anti-angiogenic therapyin renal cell carcinoma

Current therapies of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a highly vascularised tumour, mostly rely on anti-angiogenic treatment options. These include tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and anti-VEGF monoclonal antibodies. Although these strategies aim at restraining vascularisation to control tumour growth, the effects of such therapies are much wider, as affecting the vessel structure deeply modifies the microenvironment of the tumour mass. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current knowledge on the global effects of anti-angiogenic treatment, mostly TKIs, on the shaping of the immune component of the RCC microenvironment. The data supporting the modification of immunity by anti-angiogenic therapies are collected to reveal the potential of angiogenesis modulation as a strategy for the adjuvant anti-cancer approach in immunotherapy.

Incidence and risk of hypertension associated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer patients: a comprehensive network meta-analysis of 72 randomized controlled trials involving 30013 patients

Background

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been developed during the last decade that target the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) are currently being evaluated as treatments for malignant tumors. The increased application of VEGFR-TKIs means that the probability of hypertension is a serious concern. However, the reported incidence varies markedly between clinical trials. Here, we undertook an up-to-date, comprehensive meta-analysis on clinical works to build the incidence of hypertension along with VEGFR-TKIs. The goal was to understand better of the overall venture of cancer patients’ hypertension treated with these drugs.

Methods

Databases (EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane library) and the abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and European Society of Medical Oncology were searched to identify related studies. 95% confidence intervals (CIs), summary incidences, and relative risk (RR) were calculated utilizing either fixed-effects models on the basis of the heterogeneity of the included studies or random-effects.

Results

Seventy-two randomized controlled trials (including 30013 patients) were involved. The total incidence of high-grade and all-grade hypertensive events along with VEGFR-TKIs was 23.0% (95% CI, 20.1–26.0%) and 4.4% (95% CI, 3.7–5.0%), respectively. The use of VEGFR-TKIs remarkably enhanced the venture of developing high-grade (RR, 4.60; 95% CI, 3.92–5.40; P < 0.001) and all-grade (RR, 3.85; 95% CI, 3.37–4.40; P < 0.001) hypertensive events. Subgroup analyses revealed that the risk of a hypertensive event varied significantly in accordance with tumor type, VEGFR-TKI, trial phase, VEGFR-TKIs-based regimen, control therapy, and chemotherapy regimen.

Conclusions

Patients with cancer that receive VEGFR-TKIs are at a remarkable venture of developing hypertension. Therefore, suitable treatment and monitoring should be introduced to avoid cardiovascular complications.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.

REVIEW METHODS

A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Axitinib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: design, development, and place in therapy

Since 2005, the approved first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists in tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Axitinib is an oral second-generation TKI and a potent VEGFR inhibitor with a half maximal inhibitory concentration for the VEGF family receptors 10-fold lower than other TKIs. Axitinib activity in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients has been studied in various settings and particularly as second-line treatment. In this setting, axitinib with clinically based dose escalation compared to sorafenib has demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival in a randomized Phase III trial leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval. In the first-line setting, axitinib failed to demonstrate improved efficacy over sorafenib, but the field of RCC treatment is rapidly changing with novel TKIs as cabozantinib or the emergence of check point inhibitors as nivolumab and the place of axitinib in therapy is therefore challenged. In this review, we focus on axitinib pharmacological and clinical properties in RCC patients and discuss its place in the treatment of patients with RCC.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: beyond the second-line setting

Treatment options for advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma have advanced considerably in the past decade with the approval of several targeted agents, including axitinib. Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of VEGFRs 1-3, and is well established as second-line treatment. This article summarizes factors to be considered when administering axitinib, such as individualized dose titration and axitinib-associated adverse events, in order to retain patients longer on treatment, which would likely lead to improved efficacy outcomes. In addition, potential clinical perspectives for axitinib beyond the second-line setting, including its role in the first-line setting, sequential therapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, and combination therapy with immunotherapy, in particular, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are discussed.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: patient characteristics and treatment patterns in US community oncology centers

AIM

To study patient characteristics and treatment patterns in real-world axitinib use for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS & METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of second- or third-line axitinib use between 1 January 2012 and 31 October 2014 in 135 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients using the US Oncology Network database.

RESULTS

Overall, 86.7% had clear cell histology, 57.8% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis and 55.6% were poor risk by Heng criteria. Median treatment duration was 4.6 months (range: 0.03-35.49); 80.7% initiated axitinib at 5 mg/day twice daily, and 67.4% maintained this dose. Overall, 77.8% discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression (50.5%) and toxicity (21.9%).

CONCLUSION

Axitinib usage patterns were consistent with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines^®. Ease of use among community oncologists and patient tolerance are key features of axitinib.

Axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: single center experience

Aim of the study

Due to the emergence of new therapeutic opportunities in the second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the choice of the appropriate medication requires consideration. Making the selection one should take into account the likelihood of response, the probability of toxicity, properties of the drug and the clinical characteristics of the patient. Aim of the work was to confirm antitumor efficacy of axitinib in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in the second line treatment remaining under the care of our institution. The primary objective was to determine antitumor activity, secondary – to evaluate progression free survival, safety of the treatment and to analyse clinical characteristics of treated population.

Results

Treatment records of 27 patients (9 females, 18 males) treated from October 2014 to the present (July 2016) were reviewed. The median duration of treatment which corresponds to the time to disease progression in observed population was 6 months (range: under 1 month – 16 months). 1 patient (3.7%) had got objective response (PR, partial remission). Clinical benefit rate (PR + SD (stable disease) was 66%. 9 patients (33.33%) experienced treatment toxicity only in the first degree of CTCAE (common toxicity criteria for adverse events), 11 patients (40.74%) presented the second degree toxicity and 5 patients (18.5%) – third degree. The most commonly reported treatment related adverse events were diarrhea (47%), fatigue (26%), hand-foot syndrome (26%), deterioration of blood pressure control (22.2%), abnormal liver function tests (18.5%), mucositis (11.1%). We observed 3 cases of unacceptable toxicity.

Conclusions

Axitinib confirms its effectiveness also in situation outside clinical trials, however, it is characterized by significant toxicity. Therefore, qualification for treatment should take into account the clinical patient characteristics. Effective diagnosis and treatment of side effects and dose optimization are the key skills of the attending physician.

Effects and Side Effects of Using Sorafenib and Sunitinib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

In recent years, targeted therapies have proven beneficial in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sorafenib and sunitinib are included in international clinical guidelines as first-line and second-line therapy in mRCC. Hypertension is an adverse effect of these drugs and the degree of hypertension associates with the anti-tumour effect. Studies have compared newer targeted drugs to sorafenib and sunitinib in terms of PFS, OS, quality of life and safety profiles. Phase III studies presented promising response rates and acceptable safety profiles of axitinib and tivozanib compared to sorafenib, and a phase II study reported greater efficacy using a combination of bevacizumab and IFN-α compared to sunitinib. Treatment with nintedanib exhibited a notably low prevalence of hypertension compared to sunitinib. The use of sorafenib and sunitinib are challenged by new drugs, but do not appear likely to be substituted in the near future. To clarify whether newer targeted drugs should replace sorafenib and sunitinib, more research is needed. This manuscript reviews the current utility and adverse effects of sorafenib and sunitinib and newer targeted therapies in the treatment of mRCC.

Molecular Subtypes Improve Prognostic Value of International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Model

INTRODUCTION

Gene-expression signatures for prognosis have been reported in localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of this study was to test the predictive power of two different signatures, ClearCode34, a 34-gene signature model [Eur Urol 2014;66:77-84], and an 8-gene signature model [Eur Urol 2015;67:17-20], in the setting of systemic therapy for metastatic disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients from five institutions who were part of TCGA were identified and clinical data were retrieved. We trained and implemented each gene model as described by the original study. The latter was demonstrated by faithful regeneration of a figure and results from the original study. mRCC patients were dichotomized to good or poor prognostic risk groups using each gene model. Cox proportional hazard regression and concordance index (C-Index) analysis were used to investigate an association between each prognostic risk model and overall survival (OS) from first-line therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 patients were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was OS. Applying the ClearCode34 model, median survival for the low-risk-ccA (n = 17)-and the high-risk-ccB (n = 37)-subtypes were 27.6 and 22.3 months (hazard ratio (HR): 2.33; p = .039), respectively. ClearCode34 ccA/ccB and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) classifications appear to represent distinct risk criteria in mRCC, and we observed no significant overlap in classification (p > .05, chi-square test). On multivariable analyses and adjusting for IMDC groups, ccB remained independently associated with a worse OS (p = .044); the joint model of ccA/ccB and IMDC was significantly more accurate in predicting OS than a model with IMDC alone (p = .045, F-test). This was also observed in C-Index analysis; a model with both ccA and ccB subtypes had higher accuracy (C-Index 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-0.75) and 95% CIs of the C-Index that did not include the null value of 0.5 in contrast to a model with IMDC alone (0.60, CI = 0.47-0.72). The 8-gene signature molecular subtype model was a weak but insignificant predictor of survival in this cohort (p = .13). A model that included both the 8-gene signature and IMDC (C-Index 0.62, CI = 0.49-0.76) was more prognostic than IMDC alone but did not reach significance, as the 95% CI included the null value of 0.5. These two genomic signatures share no genes in common and are enriched in different biological pathways. The ClearCode34 included genes ARNT and EPAS1 (also known as HIF2a), which are involved in regulation of gene expression by hypoxia-inducible factor.

CONCLUSION

The ClearCode34 but not the 8-gene molecular model improved the prognostic predictive power of the IMDC model in this cohort of 54 patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. The Oncologist 2017;22:286-292 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The clinical and laboratory factors included in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model provide prognostic information in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The present study shows that genomic signatures, originally validated in localized RCC, may add further complementary prognostic information in the metastatic setting. This study may provide new insights into the molecular basis of certain mRCC subgroups. The integration of clinical and molecular data has the potential to redefine mRCC classification, enhance the understanding of mRCC biology, and potentially predict response to treatment in the future.

MCPIP1 contributes to clear cell renal cell carcinomas development

Monocyte Chemoattractant protein-induced protein 1 (MCPIP1), also known as Regnase-1, is encoded by the ZC3H12a gene, and it mediates inflammatory processes by regulating the stability of transcripts coding for proinflammatory cytokines and controlling activity of transcription factors, such as NF-κB and AP1. We found that MCPIP1 transcript and protein levels are strongly downregulated in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) samples, which were derived from patients surgically treated for renal cancer compared to surrounded normal tissues. Using Caki-1 cells as a model, we analyzed the role of MCPIP1 in cancer development. We showed that MCPIP1 expression depends on the proteasome activity; however, hypoxia and hypoxia inducible factor 2 alfa (HIF2α) are key factors lowering MCPIP1 expression. Furthermore, we found that MCPIP1 negatively regulates HIF1α and HIF2α levels and in the case of the last one, the mechanism is based on the regulation of the half time of transcript coding for HIF2α. Enhanced expression of MCPIP1 in Caki-1 cells results in a downregulation of transcripts encoding VEGFA, GLUT1, and IL-6. Furthermore, MCPIP1 decreases the activity of mTOR and protein kinase B (Akt) in normoxic conditions. Taken together, MCPIP1 contributes to the ccRCC development.

Pharmacogenomic Markers of Targeted Therapy Toxicity in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapy (TT) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be associated with a high rate of toxicity that undermines treatment efficacy and patient quality of life. Polymorphisms in genes involved in the pharmacokinetic pathways of TTs may predict toxicity.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether selected single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in three core genes involved in the metabolism and transport of sunitinib and the mTOR inhibitors everolimus and temsirolimus are associated with adverse events (AEs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Germline DNA was extracted from blood or normal kidney tissue from mRCC patients of Caucasian ethnicity in two cohorts treated with either sunitinib (n=159) or mTOR inhibitors (n=62). Six SNPs in three candidate genes (CYP3A4: rs2242480, rs4646437, and rs2246709; CYP3A5: rs15524; and ABCB1: rs2032582 and rs1045642) were analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Primary endpoints were grade ≥3 AEs for all patients; grade ≥3 hypertension in the sunitinib cohort, and any grade pneumonitis in the mTOR inhibitors cohort. A logistic regression model was used to assess the association between SNPs and AEs, with adjustment for relevant clinical factors.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 221 samples were successfully genotyped for the selected SNPs. In the sunitinib cohort, the CYP3A4 rs464637 AG variant was associated with a lower risk of high-grade AEs (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.88; p=0.03), but no SNPs were associated with hypertension. In the mTOR inhibitor cohort, none of the selected SNPs was associated with analyzed toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an association between CYP3A4 polymorphisms and toxicity outcomes in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib, but not with everolimus or temsirolimus. Our findings are exploratory in nature, and further validation in independent and larger cohorts is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found that variants of CYP3A4, a gene involved in drug metabolism, are associated with sunitinib toxicity. This information may help in better selection of patients for targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Hypertension and Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Arterial hypertension (HTN) is a class effect of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies, including the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab. Data are conflicting regarding the role of the renin-angiotensin system on angiogenesis and recent data suggest that the use of angiotensin system inhibitors (ASIs; angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) is associated with improved survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), particularly when used with VEGF targeted therapies. The aim of this review is to discuss the available treatment options for mRCC and associated incidence of hypertension as well as summarize the known data about ASIs use and mRCC. Additionally, given that the optimal management of HTN remains unclear, we will focus on prevention strategies and propose potential therapeutic approaches.

Axitinib: a review in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Axitinib (Inlyta(®)) is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1, -2 and -3. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of axitinib in patients with previously-treated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. Axitinib was effective in the second-line treatment of advanced RCC, according to the results of the pivotal, phase III AXIS trial. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with axitinib versus sorafenib (primary endpoint; independent review committee assessment); this PFS benefit was seen in patients who had received prior treatment with cytokines or sunitinib. The objective response rate was also significantly higher with axitinib than with sorafenib, with no significant between-group difference in median overall survival. Axitinib had a manageable tolerability profile in the AXIS trial, with the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events including diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, dysphonia, hand-foot syndrome and hypothyroidism. In conclusion, axitinib is an important option in previously-treated patients with advanced RCC.

What links BRAF to the heart function? New insights from the cardiotoxicity of BRAF inhibitors in cancer treatment

The RAS-related signalling cascade has a fundamental role in cell. It activates differentiation and survival. It is particularly important one of its molecules, B-RAF. B-RAF has been a central point for research, especially in melanoma. Indeed, it lacked effective therapeutic weapons since the early years of its study. Molecules targeting B-RAF have been developed. Nowadays, two classes of molecules are approved by FDA. Multi-target molecules, such as Sorafenib and Regorafenib, and selective molecules, such as Vemurafenib and Dabrafenib. Many other molecules are still under investigation. Most of them are studied in phase 1 trials. Clinical studies correlate B-RAF inhibitors and QT prolongation. Though this cardiovascular side effect is not common using these drugs, it must be noticed early and recognize its signals. Indeed, Oncologists and Cardiologists should work in cooperation to prevent lethal events, such as fatal arrhythmias or sudden cardiac death. These events could originate from an uncontrolled QT prolongation.

Medical treatment of renal cancer: new horizons

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) makes up 2-3% of adult cancers. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in the mid-2000s radically changed the management of RCC. These targeted treatments superseded immunotherapy with interleukin-2 and interferon. The pendulum now appears to be shifting back towards immunotherapy, with the evidence of prolonged overall survival of patients with metastatic RCC on treatment with the anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand monoclonal antibody, nivolumab. Clinical prognostic criteria aid prediction of relapse risk for resected localised disease. Unfortunately, for patients at high risk of relapse, no adjuvant treatment has yet shown benefit, although further trials are yet to report. Clinical prognostic models also have a role in the management of advanced disease; now there is a pressing need for predictive biomarkers to direct therapy. Treatment selection for metastatic disease is currently based on histology, prognostic group and patient preference based on side effect profile. In this article, we review the current medical and surgical management of localised, oligometastatic and advanced RCC, including side effect management and the evidence base for management of poor-risk and non-clear cell disease. We discuss recent results from clinical trials and how these are likely to shape future practice and a renaissance of immunotherapy for renal cell cancer.

Hypertension in cancer patients treated with anti-angiogenic based regimens

New anti-cancer drugs that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway are highly effective in the treatment of solid tumors, however concerns remain regarding their cardiovascular safety. The most common side effect of VEGF signaling pathway (VSP) inhibition is the development of systemic hypertension. We review the incidence, possible mechanisms, significance and management of hypertension in patients treated with VSP inhibitors.

Optimizing systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma beyond the first-line setting

The introduction of molecularly targeted therapies (TTs) has transformed the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Within a relatively short period of time, systemic treatment of mRCC has evolved from a disease treated only by cytokines to a disease where TT is the cornerstone of patient management. Since the approval of sorafenib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), in December 2005, 7 drugs have been introduced that have provided a high level of clinical efficacy in patients with mRCC, with a median survival of ~30 months in an unselected patient population that generally fits trials eligibility. Despite such success, advancements in therapies have reached a plateau: different combinations of targeted agents have not demonstrated additional benefit mainly owing to toxicity concerns, and some novel agents have failed to show benefit over approved drugs in clinics. In this review, we aim to focus on optimizing selection of agents in mRCC after progression on first-line TT. We also review how new drugs may transform existing guidelines and break through the current plateau reached with approved agents.

Long-Term Safety With Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Axitinib is an approved treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure of 1 systemic therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Long-term safety with single-agent axitinib was analyzed using pooled data from clinical trials in 672 previously treated patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) and in 1304 patients with different advanced solid tumors. In all studies, except the phase I first-in-human, dose-finding study, the starting dose of oral axitinib was 5 mg twice daily continuously. Common long-term treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were identified in patients who received axitinib for ≥ 2 years, then evaluated in all patients, and assessed using interval, cumulative, and latency analyses.

RESULTS

In all, 108 (16%) previously treated patients with mRCC received axitinib for ≥ 2 years. In interval analysis, most AEs occurred during the first 6 months of treatment, with rates stable or decreased over time; rates increased for proteinuria, peripheral edema, and increased blood creatinine. Common Grade ≥ 3 AE rates declined or plateaued over time, except for increased amylase and myocardial infarction. Results were similar in cumulative analysis in this population, and in interval and cumulative analyses in all patients with mRCC and those with advanced solid tumors.

CONCLUSION

Declining or stable rates of most AEs support an acceptable long-term safety profile for axitinib in patients with mRCC. However, increases in the rates of some AEs warrant monitoring. This analysis is limited in that it was retrospective and included a relatively small patient population.

Therapeutic effects and associated adverse events of multikinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects and adverse events of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to assess the effects of multikinase inhibitors among patients with advanced RCC. The data of median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), progressive disease rate (PDR), objective response rate (ORR) and grade 3/4 adverse events were extracted to assess therapeutic effects and toxicity, respectively. It was found that multikinase inhibitors are more effective in extending PFS [hazard ratio (HR)=0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.74; P<0.0001), controlling tumor progression [relative risk (RR)=0.67; 95% CI: 0.55-0.83; P=0.0002) and ORR (RR=2.93; 95% CI: 1.40-6.14; P=0.004) compared with placebo or interferon-α. Patients treated with multikinase inhibitors had significantly higher rates of grade 3 or 4 hypertension (RR=6.00; 95% CI: 3.36-10.69; P<0.00001), diarrhea (RR=5.84; 95% CI: 3.06-11.16; P<0.00001), nausea (RR=2.30; 95% CI: 1.16-4.54; P=0.02), vomiting (RR=1.84; 95% CI: 1.00-3.41; P=0.05) and hand-foot skin reaction (RR=11.78; 95% CI: 5.16-26.93; P<0.00001). Multikinase inhibitors can significantly control disease progress and improve the ORR. However, they are also associated with a higher risk of grade 3 and 4 hypertension and gastrointestinal events. Proper management of these events is necessary to improve patient quality of life.

An update on current management of advanced renal cell cancer, biomarkers, and future directions

In the past decade, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment underwent significant advancement that resulted in an unprecedented improvement in the prognosis of this disease. This review will provide an updated review of currently approved treatment options, namely antiangiogenic and immunotherapy, as well as treatment guideline recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). We will summarize studies ongoing in determining prognostic and predictive biomarkers in maximizing therapeutic benefit in the treatment of this disease. Lastly, we will discuss promising agents in clinical testing.