Sequential use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma following failure of tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Prevalence of acute oral mucosal damage secondary to the use of systemic antineoplastics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of acute oral mucosal toxicities in non-irradiated patients treated with systemic antineoplastics agents. The secondary objective was to find out differences in its prevalence among the different types of systemic antineoplastics.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Articles from 2010 to July 2022 were retrieved and included if patients were adults undergoing oral assessment after administration of commercially available systemic antineoplastics. Data was extracted and pooled proportions were estimated using random-effect model method (Der Simonian and Lair).

RESULTS

Eighty-two articles were included in the study. The overall prevalence of acute oral mucosal damage across studies was 38.2% (95% CI: 33.1%-43.3%). The prevalence was 42.9% (95% CI: 32.8%-53%) in patients treated with chemotherapy alone, 38% (95% CI: 29.1%-47%) in patients treated with a combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapies, and 32.1% (95% CI: 26.8%-37.5%) in targeted therapies alone-treated patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the prevalence of oral mucosal toxicities between the different types of systemic antineoplastic treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral mucosal toxicity is a major side effect in non-irradiated cancer patients undergoing systemic antineoplastics.

Stomatitis And Everolimus: A Review Of Current Literature On 8,201 Patients

Background

Oral toxicities, such as mucositis and stomatitis, are some of the most significant and unavoidable side effects associated with anticancer therapies. In past decades, research has focused on newer targeted agents with the aim of decreasing the rates of side effects on healthy cells. Unfortunately, even targeted anticancer therapies show significant rates of toxicity on healthy tissue. mTOR inhibitors display some adverse events, such as hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, hypophosphatemia, hematologic toxicities, and mucocutaneous eruption, but the most important are still stomatitis and skin rash, which are often dose-limiting side effects.

Aim

This review was performed to answer the question “What is the incidence of stomatitis in patients treated with everolimus?”

Methods

We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed and Medline online databases using a combination of MESH terms and free text: “everolimus” (MESH) AND “side effects” OR “toxicities” OR “adverse events”. Only studies fulfilling the following inclusion criteria were considered eligible for inclusion in this study: performed on human subjects, reporting on the use of everolimus (even if in combination with other drugs or ionizing radiation), written in the English language, and reporting the incidence of side effects.

Results

The analysis of literature revealed that the overall incidence of stomatitis after treatment with everolimus was 42.6% (3,493) and that of stomatitis grade G1/2 84.02% (2,935), while G3/4 was 15.97% (558).

Conclusion

Results of the analysis showed that the incidence of stomatitis of grade 1 or 2 is higher than grade 3 or 4. However, it must be taken into account that it is not possible to say if side effects are entirely due to everolimus therapy or combinations with other drugs.

Oral stomatitis and mTOR inhibitors: A review of current evidence in 20,915 patients

BACKGROUND

Traditional treatment of malignancies with chemotherapeutic agents is often affected by the damage inflicted on non-cancerous cells. Toxicities of the oral cavity, such as mucositis and stomatitis, are some of the most significant and unavoidable toxicities associated with anti-cancer therapies. For such reason, in the last decades, newer targeted agents have been developed aiming to decrease the rates of side effects on healthy cells. Unfortunately, targeted anti-cancer therapies also showed significant rate of toxicity on healthy tissues. mTOR inhibitors showed some adverse events, such as hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, hypophosphatemia, hematologic toxicities, and mucocutaneous eruption, but the most important are still stomatitis and skin rash, often reported as dose-limiting side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A search of the literature was performed by authors on the PubMed online database using the following key words: "sirolimus" OR "everolimus" OR "temsirolimus" OR "deforolimus" OR "ridaforolimus" combined with the Boolean operator AND with the terms: "stomatitis" OR "mucositis" OR "oral pain." Titles and abstracts of 382 potentially relevant studies were screened; of these, 114 studies were excluded because they did not report the inclusion criteria. In the second round, 268 studies were read full-text, but only 135 reported the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Of the included studies, 95 referred to everolimus use, 16 to ridaforolimus, and 26 to temsirolimus (two studies referred to both everolimus and temsirolimus).

RESULTS

The incidence rate of stomatitis according to the agent used was 25.07% (3,959/15,787) for everolimus, 27.02% (724/2,679) for temsirolimus, and 54.76% (598/1,092) for ridaforolimus. All the three agents analyzed showed high rates of low-grade stomatitis (G1-G2), while the onset of severe stomatitis (G3-G4) was rare.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the reports with patients treated with everolimus, temsirolimus, and ridaforolimus showed a clear prevalence of stomatitis grade 1 or 2. These data differ from that of patients treated with conventional chemotherapy in which mucositis is predominantly of grade 3 or 4.

Survival outcomes of double- and triple-sequential targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparison

Objective

To evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with double- and triple-sequence targeted therapy (TT) using tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi).

Materials and Methods

Records of 292 patients with mRCC, treated with TT between January 2005 and July 2015, were analyzed retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses were used to calculate and compare the total PFS (tPFS) and OS when patients underwent double- or triple-TT using TKIs or mTORi.

Results

Eighty-one (27.7%) patients who underwent second-line TT were enrolled; 30 (10.3%) of whom underwent third-line TT. The tPFS and OS of double-TT using TKI-mTORi (5.4 and 30 months, respectively) were significantly better compared with TKI-TKI (0.3 and 2 months) or mTORi-TKI (2 and 6 months) (p <0.001). For triple-TT, the tPFS and OS of TKI-mTORi-TKI (22.8 and 25 months, respectively) were significantly superior compared with those for TKI-TKI-mTORi (4 and 9 months) (p <0.05).

For patients with intermediate-risk according to the Heng or Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk models, TKI-mTORi was associated with a significantly longer tPFS and OS compared with TKI-TKI [expect for OS in the Heng group (p = 0.086)]. For the triple TT group, TKI-mTORi-TKI resulted in improved tPFS and OS compared with TKI-TKI-TKI or TKI-TKI-mTORi (p <0.05).

Conclusion

In patients with mRCC, sequential administration of TKI-mTORi led to a significantly superior tPFS compared with any other TT sequence. By contrast, OS did not differ significantly according to TT sequence.

Targeted therapy for renal cell carcinoma: focus on 2nd and 3rd line

INTRODUCTION

Second- and third-line treatments are more and more frequently administered to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients.

AREAS COVERED

Here we discuss the various levels of evidence supporting presently available recommendations, trying to address a number of as yet unanswered issues, and also to take a glowing glance at the future. To do this, we interrogated the Medline database, as well as the proceedings of the main Oncological and Urological conferences for relevant studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Until recently, with regard to choosing the second line treatment after the failure of therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs), the continued inhibition of the VEGF/VEGR pathway, or else the switch to an mTOR inhibitor, is recommended. These two options are characterized by partly different targets, completely different toxicity profiles, but a comparable efficacy. This scenario will change soon, after the publication of two randomized, controlled, phase III trials in which cabozantinib and nivolumab proved to be superior as compared to everolimus. As regards third line treatment, where a sequence of two VEGFR-TKIs has been used beforehand, the choice is represented by the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, whilst if a VEGFR-TKI followed by everolimus has been chosen, a return to VEGF pathway inhibition is suggested.

Pharmacotherapies for renal cell carcinoma in Japan

The standard treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma has changed dramatically in the past decade, from cytokine therapy to targeted therapy. Since sorafenib was approved in April 2008, four tyrosine kinase inhibitors and two mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors have become available in Japan. Most Japanese renal cell carcinoma patients are treated by urologists who are involved in not only kidney surgeries, but also targeted therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. Optimal treatment methods are selected from theoretically-based global recommendations, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines; however, real-world clinical practice might be different from that in non-Asian countries. This might be because of different practical conditions; for example, different adverse events and efficacy profiles, different healthcare system, and so on. In the present review, we examine current pharmacotherapy for renal cell carcinoma from evidence-based global data, and compare the reality of Japanese clinical practice to explore the importance of individualized patient therapy.

Prognostic Role of C-Reactive Protein In Urological Cancers: A Meta-Analysis

Growing evidence suggests serum C-reactive protein (CRP) can serve as a prognostic marker in urological cancers. However, some studies yield contradictory results. Our objective was to determine the relationship between baseline serum CRP and survival outcome in urological cancers. We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases until October 2014 without language restrictions. 44 independent studies investigating the association between baseline serum CRP and cancer-specific survival (CSS) or overall survival (OS) were selected. High CRP yielded a worse survival in renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, and upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Combined results of meta-analyses indicated that CRP was a prognostic factor in urological cancers (CSS: p < 0.01; OS: p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses confirmed the significant association between CRP and prognosis, regardless of race and cutoff value of CRP. Specifically, prognostic impact of CRP was also noted in patients with localized RCC treated with nephrectomy (CSS: p < 0.01) and metastatic RCC treated with molecular-targeted therapy (OS: p < 0.01). In conclusion, serum CRP is an independent prognostic factor in urological cancers and risk stratification by serum CRP level could be helpful for prognostic assessment.

Sunitinib resistance in renal cell carcinoma

Of the many targeted therapies introduced since 2006, sunitinib has carved its way to become the most commonly used first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite significant improvements in progression-free survival, 30% of the patients are intrinsically resistant to sunitinib and the remaining 70% who respond initially will eventually become resistant in 6-15 months. While the molecular mechanisms of acquired resistance to sunitinib have been unravelling at a rapid rate, the mechanisms of intrinsic resistance remain elusive. Combination therapy, sunitinib rechallenge and sequential therapy have been investigated as means to overcome resistance to sunitinib. Of these, sequential therapy appears to be the most promising strategy. This mini review summarises our emerging understanding of the molecular mechanisms, and the strategies employed to overcome sunitinib resistance.