A 2 weeks on and 1 week off schedule of sunitinib is associated with decreased toxicity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

Background

The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands.

Methods

For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Adaptive therapy to circumvent drug resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer: is it clinically relevant?

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is highly adaptable and is constantly evolving against current targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Despite advances in recent decades, the emergence of drug resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors constantly hampers therapeutic efficacy of cancer treatment. Continuous therapy versus intermittent clinical regimen has been a debate in drug administration of cancer patients. An ecologically-inspired shift in cancer treatment known as 'adaptive therapy' intends to improve the drug administration of drugs to cancer patients that can delay emergence of drug resistance.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss improved understanding of the concept of drug resistance, the basis of continuous therapy, intermittent clinical regimens, and adaptive therapy will be reviewed. In addition, we discuss how adaptive therapy provides guidance for future cancer treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

The current understanding of drug resistance in cancer leads to poor prognosis and limited treatment options in patients. Fighting drug resistance mutants is constantly followed by new forms of resistance. In most reported cases, continuous therapy leads to drug resistance and an intermittent clinical regimen vaguely delays it. However, adaptive therapy, conceptually, exploits multiple parameters that can suppress the growth of drug resistance and provides safe treatment for cancer patients in the future.

Dose Individualization of Oral Multi-Kinase Inhibitors for the Implementation of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Oral multi-kinase inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for various cancer types and provided significant improvements in clinical outcomes. These agents are mainly approved at fixed doses, but the large inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (efficacy and safety) has been an unsolved clinical issue. For example, certain patients treated with oral multi-kinase inhibitors at standard doses have severe adverse effects and require dose reduction and discontinuation, yet other patients have a suboptimal response to these drugs. Consequently, optimizing the dosing of oral multi-kinase inhibitors is important to prevent over-dosing or under-dosing. To date, multiple studies on the exposure-efficacy/toxicity relationship of molecular targeted therapy have been attempted for the implementation of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) strategies. In this milieu, we recently conducted research on several multi-kinase inhibitors, such as sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib, with the aim to optimize their treatment efficacy using a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approach. Among them, sunitinib use is an example of successful TDM implementation. Sunitinib demonstrated a significant correlation between drug exposure and treatment efficacy or toxicities. As a result, TDM services for sunitinib has been covered by the National Health Insurance program in Japan since April 2018. Additionally, other multi-kinase targeted anticancer drugs have promising data regarding the exposure-efficacy/toxicity relationship, suggesting the possibility of personalization of drug dosage. In this review, we provide a comprehensive summary of the clinical evidence for dose individualization of multi-kinase inhibitors and discuss the utility of TDM of multi-kinase inhibitors, especially sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib.

Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Alternate Schedule (AS) of Sunitinib in Asian and Non-Asian Patient Population for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer (mRCC): A Meta-Analysis

Background: Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using traditional schedule (TS, 4/2) of Sunitinib is associated with higher adverse effects compared to the alternate schedule (AS, 2/1 upfront or when switched from TS). Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety, efficacy, and percentage of patients requiring dose reduction or dose interruption between Asian (AP) and non-Asian population (NAP) receiving AS of sunitinib. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies published in the English language between May 2009- May 2019, which included patients (>18 years) with mRCC receiving AS of sunitinib. Data were analyzed using the random effect model and t-test. P <  0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Of 1922, 16 studies were included (eight AP, eight NAP). Among all grade AEs, mucositis (RR:0.22; 95% CI:0.12–0.40), cardiotoxicity (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.31–0.88), nausea (RR:0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.44), hand-foot syndrome (RR:0.33; 95% CI:0.13–0.83), rash (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34–0.79), and aspartate transaminase (RR:0.57; 95% CI:0.33–0.98) were more common in AP. Leukopenia (RR:2.57; 95% CI:1.47–4.49), proteinemia (RR:4.45; 95% CI:2.12–9.33), and stomatitis (RR:4.33; 95% CI:2.6–7.23) occurred more commonly in NAP. Further, PFS was significantly longer in NAP, while longer OS was observed in AP (p <  0.001). Dose reduction was significantly higher in AP than NAP (52.08% vs. 40.6%, p = 0.0088). Conclusion: Safety profile of AS of sunitinib was similar with variations in the efficacy, dose reduction between AP and NAP. Sunitinib dose or schedule modification may mitigate AEs and enhance efficacy outcomes in mRCC by extending the treatment duration.

Prognostic Impact of Early Treatment Interruption of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Due to Immune-Related Adverse Events as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multi-Institution Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear how early treatment interruption of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to immune-related adverse events affects the outcome of previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prognostic impact of the early interruption of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, used as first-line therapy for mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 59 intermediate- or poor-risk mRCC patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy. Based on whether early treatment interruption was implemented within the initial four treatment cycles (i.e., 3 months) or not, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were compared. The prognostic association was further compared with that of 186 patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) as first-line therapy.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of the 59 patients (39%) experienced interruption of nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy. The patients with interruption had longer PFS (p = 0.0055), similar OS (p = 0.366), and likely higher ORR (p = 0.0660) than those without interruption. Of the patients treated with TKIs, 60 of 186 (32%) experienced interruption, with shorter PFS (p = 0.0121), similar OS (p = 0.378), and similar ORR (p = 0.738) than those without interruption. In the 23 patients with nivolumab plus ipilimumab interruption, high-dose corticosteroids were administered in seven patients (30%). PFS (p = 0.638), OS (p = 0.968), or ORR (p = 0.760) did not differ based on corticosteroid administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment interruption, which exerted a negative effect for TKIs, was a preferable event for nivolumab plus ipilimumab when considering PFS. Furthermore, early administration of high-dose corticosteroids did not diminish the anti-tumor effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Tolerability and outcome of sunitinib by giving 4/2 schedule versus 2/1 schedule in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: a prospective randomized multi-centric Egyptian study

Introduction

Sunitinib is a standard of care first line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Sunitinib standard dose is 50 mg once daily for 4 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks' off (4/2 schedule). Long-term and high exposure to this medication lead to severe adverse events (AEs); therefore, this trial was done to find the best schedule which gives the best outcome with minimal toxicity.

Materials and methods

Seventy patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups, then received 50 mg/day of sunitinib. Group 1 (40 patients) received sunitinib for 4 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks off (4/2 schedule) while 30 patients were admitted to group 2 with 2 weeks on and 1 week off (2/1 schedule).

Results

All patients (100%) had significantly higher AEs on schedule 4/2 vs. 73.3% on schedule 2/1 (p = 0.001). Furthermore, the grade 3 AEs on schedule 2/1 were significantly lower than those on schedule 4/2 (26.7% vs. 82.5%) respectively (p = 0.001), such as fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, hand foot syndrome (HFS) and mucositis. Progression-free survival (PFS) rate was significantly higher in 2/1 schedule (60.9% vs. 38.6%) than in 4/2 schedule (p < 0.008). Multivariate analysis suggested that: age > 60 years, poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, tumor size > 10 cm and treatment schedule (group 1) were poor prognostic factors of PFS.

Conclusions

Our study supported the use of 2/1 schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic RCC because of lower toxicity profile and better efficacy with improved PFS in comparison to 4/2 schedule.

Tolerability of Alternative Dosing Schedules for Sunitinib: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The standard schedule for sunitinib treatment is 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (4/2) in first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Schedule modifications, including 2 weeks on and 1 week off (2/1), appear to reduce the total number of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) without compromising efficacy. Even though TRAEs can qualitatively differ from each other, it is not clear as to what effects a 2/1 schedule has on individual TRAEs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This meta-analysis included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and four non-randomized controlled studies (non-RCTs) that compared the two schedules in parallel. The primary objective was to estimate risk of individual adverse events (AEs) with a sunitinib 2/1 schedule versus a 4/2 schedule. Seven representative AEs were evaluated as standard data for the RCT and as weighted pooling data of the non-RCTs. Random effects modelling with Review Manager v5.3 was used to pool study-level data using the inverse-variance of each study as the weight.

RESULTS

The five selected studies included a total of 484 patients with mRCC. Risk ratios for fatigue for a 2/1 schedule were significantly lower than those for a 4/2 schedule {0.69 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.51, 0.95] in the RCT and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63, 0.94) in the non-RCTs}. Other TRAEs, except diarrhea and anorexia, also tended to decrease in both sets. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between 2/1 and standard schedules.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that a 2/1 schedule of sunitinib lowers the risk of fatigue and the occurrence other AEs without compromising efficacy.

Palbociclib use with grade 3 neutropenia in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Neutropenia is the most common toxicity of CDK4/6 inhibitors, causing frequent dose interruptions. However, CDK4/6 inhibitor-induced neutropenia shows a benign clinical course in contrast to that caused by chemotherapy. Here, we investigated the safety of a new dose scheme for palbociclib, which avoids dose delays or reductions due to afebrile grade 3 neutropenia.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of ER( +)/HER2( -) advanced breast cancer patients who received palbociclib between 2017 and 2018 was analyzed. The patients were classified into Group 1 (patients who maintained palbociclib dose with afebrile grade 3 neutropenia), Group 2 (patients who experienced any dose modification with afebrile grade 3 neutropenia), and Group 3 (patients without afebrile grade 3 neutropenia). The primary endpoint was febrile neutropenia incidence; other toxicities were compared with those of the PALOMA-2 trial.

RESULTS

Among the 107 patients, 54.2%, 22.4%, and 23.4% were classified into Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was no febrile neutropenia in Groups 1 and 2 during palbociclib treatment. Group 1 showed higher incidence of thrombocytopenia (all-grade, 32.8%; grade 3-4, 8.6%) than Group 2 and the PALOMA-2 data, but there was no bleeding related to thrombocytopenia. Group 1 showed higher incidence of all-grade non-hematologic adverse events than Group 2; only one grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity was observed in Group 1. There were no treatment-related hospitalizations or deaths in Group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, omitting palbociclib dose modification with afebrile grade 3 neutropenia is safe and tolerable without febrile neutropenia events. This scheme could be useful to avoid unnecessary reductions in palbociclib doses in future practice.

Negative Effect of Immediate Sunitinib Interruption on Survival in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Treatment modification due to adverse events reduces the dose intensity in cancer treatment. The prognostic impact of sunitinib treatment interruption within the initial period of therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 97 patients with mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib treatment. The patients were classified into two groups according to the presence of treatment interruption (TI) within the initial two cycles. The prognostic impact of TI was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients (39.2%) experienced an immediate TI. The median progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival were significantly shorter in patients with a TI than in those without (PFS= 6.54 vs. 11.3 months, p=0.0246; OS=16.9 vs. 30.0 months, p=0.0420). Multivariate analyses for PFS and OS showed that TI was an independent factor predicting poorer PFS (hazard ratio(HR)=1.93, p=0.0141) and OS (HR=2.09, p=0.0102). In addition, the relative dose intensity within the initial two cycles was significantly lower in patients with a TI than in those without (52.7% vs. 75.0%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed the significantly negative effect of immediate TI on survival of patients under sunitinib treatment for mRCC. Therefore, the careful monitoring of patient tolerability is required in order to maintain therapeutic efficacy in the early phase of sunitinib treatment.

A 2/1 Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Provides Superior Antitumor Effectiveness and Less Toxicity Than a 4/2 Schedule for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse events (AEs) in patients on this schedule. An alternative schedule, 2 weeks on/1 week off (2/1), may overcome this issue. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness and toxicity between the 2/1 and 4/2 sunitinib dosing schedules.

Methods: We acquired relevant studies by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our main endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and AEs.

Results: We identified 9 medium- and high-quality studies. Both schedules were effective for mRCC, with comparable OS and similar ORR. However, the 2/1 schedule had better PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.99, P = 0.04), higher DCR [risk rate (RR) = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01–1.47, P = 0.04] and fewer dosage interruptions (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43–0.84, P = 0.003). Additionally, the 2/1 schedule elicited fewer specific severe AEs, including thrombocytopenia/platelet disorder, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and fatigue. In our subanalysis, PFS was better among East Asians using the 2/1 schedule than among other populations (HR= 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.98, P = 0.03), and patients administered an initial dosage of 50 mg/d on the 2/1 schedule had superior PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.97, P = 0.03) than those others.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the 2/1 schedule is more suitable for mRCC than 4/2, due to superior PFS, better DCR and fewer AEs. Nevertheless, more large-scale studies with good quality are needed.

Thyroid profile during the alternative Sunitinib dosing 2/1 schedule in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Hypothyroidism is a common side effect of Sunitinib (SUN) treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. We aimed to evaluate thyroid profile during the alternative 2/1 SUN treatment schedule and to assess the predictive value of hypothyroidism in terms of survival.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study enrolling 42 consecutive mRCC patients starting first-line alternative SUN dosing 2/1 schedule. Thyroid function was assessed at baseline and during the first three SUN cycles (1 cycle = 6 weeks = 2 ON/1 OFF + 2 ON/1 OFF), and then after 6 and 12 months. Thyroid ultrasound was performed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Subclinical hypothyroidism developed in 24% of patients during the first cycle; in other 24% in the second cycle and in 14% in the third cycle. The highest TSH values were reached during the second cycle, ON phase (6.58 ± 5.74 μI U/l). We observed a reduction in thyroid size, in echogenicity and in parenchymal perfusion in all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) tended to be longer in patients with TSH ≥ 5 μI U/ml during the second cycle (p = 0.069). TSH level was an independent risk factor for PFS in men (p = 0.009) but not in women (p = 0.285).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study investigating functional and morphological effects on thyroid during the alternative 2/1 SUN schedule in mRCC patients. We detected an early onset of subclinical hypothyroidism, observing the association between TSH ≥ 5 μI U/ml and: (i) longer PFS in men; (ii) progressive decrease of thyroid size in absence of significant changes in autoimmune thyroid profile.

Sunitinib versus pazopanib for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: 2 Turkish hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

Sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ) are 2 oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors against vascular endothelial growth factor. Their efficacy and safety in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has been proven with phase iii studies. However, real world data is limited. The objective of this study is to assess the clinical benefit of SUN and PAZ in routine practice.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 79 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with SUN (50mg/day on 4/2-schedule) or PAZ (800mg/day continuously). Patients were assessed retrospectively at 2 Turkish hospitals between 2006 and 2016.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort median age of patients was 60 (28-87) years and 70% of them were male. The objective response rate and disease control rate in SUN/PAZ groups were 34/37% (P=.96) and 78/87% (P=.046), respectively. With a median follow up duration of 15 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival in SUN/PAZ groups were 8/8 months (P=.83) and 22/21 months (P=.53), respectively. The common all grade toxicities for SUN vs. PAZ were fatigue (59 vs. 74%), skin changes (44 vs. 44%), anemia (35 vs. 42%), hypothyroidism (37 vs. 19%; P=.02) and hypertension (33 vs. 50%). In patients treated with SUN, total grade 3-4 toxicities (mean number of toxic events per patients) were 0.71, whereas in patients treated with PAZ, total grade 3-4 toxicities were 0.11 (P<.001). SUN was associated with an increased incidence of grade 3-4 fatigue (P=.007), anemia (P=.001) and hypothyroidism that needed therapy (P=.02). Dose reduction in 49 and 24% of patients (P=.02), and treatment cessation in 37 and 26% of patients (P=.37) were required in the SUN and PAZ groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, there was no difference in terms of survival outcomes between 2 agents. However, patients treated with SUN had more grade 3-4 adverse events which prompted dose reduction.

Does an Alternative Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Really Improve Survival Outcomes over a Conventional Dosing Schedule in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) can obfuscate the maintenance of a conventional schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, alternative schedules seeking to improve the safety profile of sunitinib have been tested. Recently, two meta-analyses similarly described improved safety profiles favoring a two weeks on and one week off (2/1) schedule, but with conflicting results for survival outcomes. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, including all recently published studies and using complementary statistical methods. Endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and AEs of 15 types. Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis. Using adjusted findings, we noted statistically better results in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.005), but no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.04; p = 0.08). Moreover, the 2/1 schedule was beneficial for reducing the incidence of several AEs. Conclusively, our meta-analysis suggests that the 2/1 schedule holds promise as an alternative means of reducing AEs and maintaining patient quality of life. While the survival outcomes of the 2/1 schedule seem also to be favorable, the level of evidence for this was low, and the interpretation of these findings should warrant caution. Large scale randomized trials are needed to support these results.

Therapy Management Using Modified 2-Weeks-On/1-Week-Off Dosing Schedule in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib: A Hypothetical, Illustrative Case Scenario

This patient case is fictional and does not represent events or a response from an actual patient. The authors developed this fictional case for educational purposes only.

Brady, a 54-year-old white male, was diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Two and a half years prior, he had undergone a complete left nephrectomy for clear-cell RCC, with clean margins and negative lymph nodes. Post nephrectomy, he was routinely surveyed (every 3–6 months) by radiologic imaging. After 15 months of monitoring, a CT scan revealed small nodules in the left lung. Repeated scans were ordered to be taken in 6 weeks to assess growth kinetics, wherein an increase in the size of a number of nodules was detected. Of particular concern was the location of one of the larger nodules very close to a bronchus. Consequently, a needle biopsy was performed, which recovered malignant cells consistent with mRCC. It was then decided to begin systemic treatment for mRCC. Prior to starting treatment, Brady’s Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was 0, and he had a Karnofsky score of 90, as he had only slightly diminished stamina that was considered disease related. Accordingly, he was classified as favorable risk by both Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria (Table 1).

Brady is married and lives with his wife. He drinks alcohol occasionally but does not have a history of smoking. For the past 22 years, he has been employed full time as a factory assembly line worker, performing skilled, light assembly. In this capacity, Brady works with his hands and must remain on his feet approximately 30% of the working day. As Brady is eligible for early retirement in 11 months, he intends to continue working full time during treatment, if possible. Brady’s medical history includes nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, which is treated with apixaban; hypertension that is adequately controlled (blood pressure 137/79 mm Hg) with lisinopril at 20 mg/day; coronary artery disease; and hyperlipidemia that is treated with atorvastatin at 20 mg/day. He is also taking daily low-dose aspirin (81 mg).

Clinical Efficacy and Complication Rate of Sunitinib 2/1 Versus 4/2 Schedule for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The treatment of renal cell carcinoma has achieved certain curative effects with the innovation of clinical drugs, such as sunitinib. However, the clinical efficacy and complication rate of the sunitinib 2/1 and 4/2 schedule in metastatic renal cell cancer remain unclear. In this study we aimed to resolve this issue by using meta-analysis to provide more theoretical guidance for clinical use. Several outcome measurements were included in this study to compare the 2 schedules such as complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease, progression-free survival, overall survival, and complications. In the contrast analysis, the sunitinib 2/1 and 4/2 schedule resulted in significant improvements in prognosis. However, the sunitinib 2/1 schedule was superior to the 4/2 schedule in terms of controlling stable disease and causing fewer complications.

Pazopanib has equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower Total costs than Sunitinib for treating metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background

Sunitinib and pazopanib are extensively used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We performed this meta-analysis to assess the anti-tumor effectiveness, toxicity, and total costs of the two drugs among patients with mRCC/advanced RCC (aRCC).

Materials and Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain eligible articles. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results

We included 14 medium- to high-quality studies. Both drugs were valid for mRCC/aRCC, with equivalent PFS (hazard ratio (HR) =1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98–1.15, P = 0.13), OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79–1.07, P = 0.29), objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio (RR) =1.03, 95% CI: 0.93–1.13, p = 0.58), and disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94–1.22, P = 0.54). Sunitinib had more dosage reductions and higher PPPM (weighted mean difference = − 1.50 thousand US dollars, 95% CI: − 2.27 to − 0.72, P = 0.0002). Furthermore, more incidences of severe fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were recorded for sunitinib, but pazopanib had more liver toxicity. In subgroup analysis, studies from the US reported longer OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77–0.95, P = 0.004) and higher ORR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03–1.51, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Pazopanib provides equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower PPPM as compared with sunitinib for mRCC/aRCC. Great care should be given to pazopanib-treated patients with abnormal liver function. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5704-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Alternative 2/1 Schedule of Sunitinib is Superior to the Traditional 4/2 Schedule in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis

Alternate sunitinib schedules attracted the interest of oncologists recently owing to their superior safety profile. This meta-analysis compared the tolerability and efficacy of a new alternative dosing schedule (2 weeks on/1 week off) of sunitinib with the traditional 4/2 schedule in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Studies were retrieved from Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Data were extracted and pooled as hazard ratio (HR: survival data) or odds ratio (OR: dichotomous data) using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Based on data of 1173 patients, the progression-free survival (HR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.95; P < .0001), overall survival (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85; P < .0001), and stable disease rates (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.76; P = .006) were significantly improved on the alternative 2/1 schedule, compared with the traditional 4/2 schedule. However, the complete response (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.34-5.22; P = .69) and partial response (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.44-4.14; P = .61) rates were comparable between the 2 regimens. The tolerability of the alternative 2/1 schedule was superior to the traditional one as investigated adverse events like fatigue (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.89-4.46; P < .0001), hypertension (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.56-2.75; P < .0001), and diarrhea (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.19-3.98; P = .012) were significantly less common. In conclusion, the alternative 2/1 sunitinib schedule provides improved tolerability and survival in patients with mRCC. Large randomized trials with long follow-up periods are required to validate and confirm these findings.

Safety and effectiveness of classical and alternative sunitinib dosing schedules for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis

The optimal dosing schedule to maintain the effectiveness of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma - while reducing toxicity - remains an important clinical question. A meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the relative treatment effects of 4/2, 2/1 and transitional-2/1 schedules on outcomes and adverse events using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Treatment with 2/1 reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 25% and had lower odds of hand-and-foot syndrome compared with the 4/2. A numerical but not 'statistical' benefit in progression-free survival was observed with the transitional-2/1 compared with 4/2. Alternative schedules with the 2/1 and transitional-2/1 may be more clinically beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma than the 4/2 schedule.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Sweden: a population-based retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies (TTs) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a real-world context using a nationwide population-based approach.

METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2002 and 2012 were extracted from Swedish national health data registers. To facilitate comparisons of patients diagnosed before and after TT introduction to the market, three cohorts were derived: pre-TT introduction (preTT), patients diagnosed 2002-2005; early TT introduction (TTi), patients diagnosed 2006-2008; and late TT introduction (TTii), which was limited to patients diagnosed 2009-2010 to ensure availability of total health care resource utilization (HCRU) data. Patients were followed until end of 2012. The value of TTs across cohorts was estimated using mean HCRU costs per life-year (LY) gained. Data on HCRU were obtained through national health registers for dispensed medication and inpatient and outpatient care, and the associated costs were estimated using the Lin method to account for censoring. LYs gained were defined as the difference in mean survival over the study period.

RESULTS

The preTT, TTi, and TTii cohorts consisted of 1,366, 1,158, and 806 patients, respectively. Mean survival in years from mRCC diagnosis was 1.45 in the preTT cohort, 1.62 in the TTi cohort, and 1.83 in the TTii cohort. The respective mean total HCRU cost per patient over the study period was US$16,894, US$29,922, and US$30,037. The cost per LY gained per cohort was US$78,656 for TTi vs preTT, US$34,132 for TTii vs preTT, and US$523 for TTii vs TTi.

CONCLUSION

Given common willingness-to-pay per LY gained thresholds, this study in a real-world population suggests the use of TTs in the Swedish mRCC population is increasingly cost-effective over time.

Developments in the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is among the most commonly diagnosed solid malignancies, but until recently there were few systemic treatment options for advanced disease. Since 2005, the treatment landscape has been transformed by the development of several novel systemic therapies. In particular, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway have been instrumental in improving outcomes in patients with metastatic disease. Areas covered: The armamentarium of TKIs available for the treatment of RCC has expanded in recent years. The most active area of research at this time is the development of treatment regimens combining newer-generation TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Emerging data point to a role for combination therapy in the frontline management of advanced RCC. Other ongoing areas of research include the use of TKIs in the adjuvant setting and the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy within a changing treatment landscape. Expert opinion: Although TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors have incrementally improved outcomes for patients with advanced RCC, long-term survival remains poor. The development of regimens combining these agents represents the next step in the evolution of the field. For the clinician, this will offer exciting possibilities and novel challenges.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective.

RESULTS

The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

Results of weekday-on and weekend-off administration schedule of sunitinib therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib is widely prescribed as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. To reduce the ratio of severe adverse events and improve the relative dose intensity, we prospectively tried our own alternative medication schedule, which we called the "weekday-on and weekend-off regimen". Here we report the results of this regimen compared to the conventional medication schedule.

METHODS

In total, 58 patients were enrolled in this study. Twenty patients were treated under the alternative schedule (group I: weekday-on and weekend-off regimen) and 38 patients were treated using the conventional schedule (group II: 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off regimen). The relative dose intensity (6W-RDI) and prognoses were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Median 6W-RDI of all the patients was 75.0%. Group I patients demonstrated significantly higher 6W-RDI compared to group II (77.2 vs. 70.4%) (p = 0.019). Multivariate analysis showed that the alternative sunitinib administration schedule was significantly associated with maintaining 6W-RDI above 75% for RCC patients treated with sunitinib (OR 3.592, 95% CI 1.042-12.383, p = 0.043). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between 2 groups regarding occurrence rate of severe adverse events and prognosis by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the results of an alternative medication schedule, the "weekday-on and weekend-off regimen", as a means of increasing 6W-RDI for metastatic RCC patients.

Improved Long-Term Clinical Outcomes And Safety Profile Of Sunitinib Dosing Schedule With 4/2 Switched To 2/1 In Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the survival benefit and safety of alternative dosage schedules for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic and survival data of patients treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: a standard dosing schedule (4/2 schedule), alternative dosing schedule (2/1 schedule), and switched dosing schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule).

Results: Ninety-nine patients were retrospectively included. Seventy-five (75.8%) patients were initially administrated with a 4/2 schedule of sunitinib, while 24 were started with the 2/1 schedule. During treatment, 45 (60.0%) patients with an initial 4/2 schedule switched to a 2/1 schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule) due to severe adverse events (AEs) or poor tolerance. Compared to that with a 4/2 schedule, patients with a 2/1 schedule had a much lower incidence of grade 3/4 AEs (69.6% vs. 40.6%, p=0.001). Overall, the 4/2-2/1 schedule was associated with the best survival benefits. Among the 4/2, 2/1, and 4/2-2/1 schedule groups, the median PFS was 12.5, 11.0, and 25.0 months, respectively (p=0.003), and the median OS was 21.0, 28.0, and 52.0 months, respectively (p=0.03). Multivariate analysis identified the 4/2-2/1 schedule as an independent factor predicting favorable PFS. Although without statistical significance, 4/2-2/1 schedule could decrease 55% risk of death. Furthermore, patients with unfavorable IMDC risk seemed to have more opportunity to achieve better survival from the 4/2-2/1 dosing schedule.

Conclusion: Patients with a 4/2-2/1 schedule could minimize treatment-related toxicities; more importantly, patients with 4/2-2/1 schedule could achieve a superior survival benefit.

Significance of introduction of alternative dosing schedule for sunitinib during first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The objective of this study was to investigate the significance of an alternative dosing schedule for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. This study included 154 patients treated with sunitinib as first-line systemic therapy for mRCC, consisting of 62, 47, and 45 receiving sunitinib based on a traditional schedule (TS, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off) alone (TS group), alternative schedule (AS, 2 weeks on and 1 week off) alone (AS group), and TS followed by AS after the development of dose-limiting toxicities (TS-to-AS group), respectively. There were no significant differences in the major clinicopathological characteristics among these three groups. The progression-free survival in the TS group was significantly shorter than in the other two groups, while no significant differences in the overall survival were noted among the three groups. Adverse events (AEs) ≥ grade 3 in the TS and TS-to-AS groups occurred more frequently than in the AS group. Furthermore, there were significant differences in the incidences of AEs, including diarrhea, fatigue, and hypertension, among the three groups, favoring the AS compared with the other two groups. Despite the lack of a significant difference in the incidence of dose reduction among the three groups, the incidences of the interruption and discontinuation of sunitinib in the AS group were significantly lower than in the other two groups. These findings suggest that the introduction of AS for sunitinib during first-line treatment for mRCC patients may promote favorable clinical outcomes regarding the prognosis as well as tolerability compared with treatment on TS alone.

Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of an Alternative Schedule of Sunitinib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

Background

Standard treatment with sunitinib for patients with metastatic renal cancer provides an ‘on-off’ schedule (daily administration of a 50-mg capsule for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week break; consecutive 6-week cycles). We developed an alternative intermittent schedule to reduce the toxicity and symptoms of tumor regrowth during the rest period and to allow prolonged continuation of therapy, maintaining dose intensity.

Objective

The objective of this study was to provide a retrospective evaluation of the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of an alternative schedule of sunitinib in patients who did not tolerate classical treatment.

Methods

Patients treated with the classical schedule with at least grade 2 toxicity or recurrence of symptoms during the rest period were switched to an alternative schedule (the same daily dose 5 consecutive days per week for 5 weeks and then the same daily dose on days 1, 3, and 5 in the sixth week; consecutive 6-week cycles).

Results

Twenty-five patients were enrolled. The median time from sunitinib initiation to schedule switch was 2.9 months. After the switch, the median therapy duration was 9.2 months. Rate of delay, corrected by cycle number, was 10% for both schedules. After the switch, 48.7% of patients obtained a toxicity reduction (hypertension −82%, stomatitis −71%, cutaneous toxicity −69%). A reduction in ‘on-off symptoms’ (−86%) was achieved. Overall response rate was 40% and the disease control rate was 80%. Median progression-free survival was 16.4 months and median overall survival was 41.3 months.

Conclusions

Despite the small sample size and retrospective nature, we demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the alternative schedule, allowing prolonged treatment and better quality of life.

Evaluation of relative dose intensity during the early phase of first-line sunitinib treatment using a 2-week-on/1-week-off regimen for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib treatment with a 2-week-on/1-week-off schedule (Schedule 2/1) is a common alternative regimen with high relative dose intensity (RDI) and superior tolerability for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic impact of RDI is reported only in 4-week-on/2-week-off or mixed regimens. Herein, we evaluated the prognostic impact of RDI during early-phase sunitinib treatment using Schedule 2/1. Seventy-four patients who received first-line sunitinib treatment using Schedule 2/1 were evaluated. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We assessed RDI within the initial two cycles (2c-RDI), and its prognostic impact. Predictive factors for 2c-RDI deterioration were also evaluated. The cut-off value of 2c-RDI was set at 65%. Based on this cut-off, 31 patients (42.0%) were classified into the low 2c-RDI group (< 65%). PFS and OS were significantly shorter in the low-2c-RDI patients, compared with the high 2c-RDI patients (median PFS: 6.15 vs. 18.4 months, p = 0.0005; OS 11.0 vs. 39.3 months, p = 0.0002). Furthermore, multivariate analyses showed that the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) within the initial two cycles, as well as low initial dose, were independent factors for low 2c-RDI (DLTs: OR 18.6, 95% CI 3.27-105.30, p = 0.0010; initial dose: OR 9.26, 95% CI 1.42-60.40, p = 0.020). The most common adverse event was thrombocytopenia (any grade: 24.3%; grade ≥ 3: 8.1%). More than 65% of 2c-RDI should be maintained for optimal therapeutic effect of sunitinib treatment using Schedule 2/1. To achieve the appropriate 2c-RDI, careful follow-up for patient tolerability is needed to avoid early DLT development.

Open-label, randomized multicentre phase II study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib by dose administration regimen (dose modification or dose interruptions) in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: study protocol of the SURF trial

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in the first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) setting at the dose of 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by a pause of 2 weeks. Due to toxicity, this standard schedule (50 mg daily 4/2) can induce up to 50% of sunitinib dose modification (reduction and/or interruption). The current recommendation in such case is to reduce the dose to 37.5 mg per day (standard schedule 4/2). Recent data highlight an alternative schedule: 2 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week of pause (experimental schedule 2/1). The SURF trial is set up to evaluate prospectively experimental schedule 2/1 when toxicity occurs. This article displays the key elements of the study protocol.

METHODS/DESIGN

SURF [NCT02689167] is a prospective, randomized, open-label phase IIb study. Patients are included at sunitinib initiation while receiving standard schedule 4/2 (50 mg daily) according to the marketing authorization indication. When a dose adjustment of sunitinib is required, patients are randomized between standard schedule 4/2 (37.5 mg daily) and experimental schedule 2/1 (50 mg daily). Key eligibility criteria are the following: patients with locally advanced inoperable or MRCC who are starting first-line treatment with sunitinib, with histologically or cytologically confirmed renal cancer clear cell variant or with a clear cell component, and with Karnofsky performance status ≥70%. The primary objective is to assess the median duration of sunitinib treatment (DOT) in each group. The key secondary objectives are progression-free survival, overall survival, time to randomization, objective response rate, safety, sunitinib dose intensity, health-related quality of life, and the description of main drivers triggering randomization. We hypothesized that experimental schedule 2/1 would result in an improvement in median DOT from 6 to 8.5 months. It was estimated that 112 patients would be needed in each arm during 24 months. In order to take into account the possibility of treatment discontinuation before randomization, 248 patients are necessary.

DISCUSSION

The SURF trial is asking a pragmatic question adapted to the current practice on what is the best way to adapt sunitinib when treatment-related adverse events occur. The results of the SURF trial will bring high-value data to support the use of an alternative schedule in sunitinib treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02689167 . Registered on 26 February 2016.

Phase II Study of Two Weeks on, One Week off Sunitinib Scheduling in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose Standard frontline treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma currently includes sunitinib. A barrier to long-term treatment with sunitinib includes the development of significant adverse effects, including diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and fatigue. This trial assessed the effect of an alternate 2 weeks on, 1 week off (2/1) schedule of sunitinib on toxicity and efficacy in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods Patients started with oral administration of 50 mg sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule and underwent schedule and dose alterations if toxicity developed. The primary end point was < 15% grade ≥ 3 fatigue, diarrhea, or HFS. With 60 patients, the upper bound of the CI would fall below the published 4/2 schedule grade ≥ 3 toxicity rate of 25% to 30%. Results Fifty-nine patients were treated between August 2014 and March 2016. Seventy-seven percent were intermediate or poor risk per Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria. With a median follow-up of 17 months, 25% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, HFS, or diarrhea; 37% required a dose reduction, and 10% discontinued because of toxicity. The overall response rate was 57%, median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. At 12 weeks, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores dropped between 0% and 10% from baseline, with less reduction in patients who continued treatment longer. Conclusion The primary end point of decreased grade 3 toxicity was not met; however, treatment with a 2/1 sunitinib schedule is associated with a lack of grade 4 toxicity, a low patient discontinuation rate, and high efficacy.

Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Markers For Anti-angiogenic Cancer Therapy: Implications for Dosing and Selection of Patients

Angiogenesis is integral to tumour growth and invasion, and is a key target for cancer therapeutics. However, for many of the licensed indications, only a modest clinical benefit has been observed for both monoclonal antibody and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor anti-angiogenic therapy. Pre-clinical and clinical studies have attempted to evaluate circulating, imaging, genomic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic markers that may aid both the selection of patients for treatment and define dosing. Correct dosing is likely to be critical in the context of vascular normalization to allow better delivery of concomitant anti-cancer therapy and novel imaging techniques hold much promise in the early evaluation of pharmacodynamic response to improve efficacy.

Drug Holiday in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) is noncurative and may be associated with significant toxicities. Some patients may receive treatment breaks as a result of TKI-related adverse effects or planned drug holidays.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, mRCC patients who underwent drug holidays during TKI therapy at 2 different institutions were analyzed. A drug holiday was defined as a period of drug cessation for ≥ 3 months for reasons other than progressive disease.

RESULTS

Of the 112 patients, the median duration of the first drug holiday for the overall cohort was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval, 12.5-26.4), and 40 patients (36%) remain on the first drug holiday. Overall, patients received a median of 2 lines of treatment. Complete response before the initial drug holiday (n = 14) was associated with a longer surveillance period (P = .0004). The observed median survival of this cohort was 71.7 months (range, 1.3 to 93+ months).

CONCLUSION

Some selected mRCC patients with a favorable response to TKIs may be eligible for drug holidays. The cohort evaluated in this retrospective study represents a highly selected group of patients with indolent disease biology.

Dose and schedule modification are required for long-term continuation of sunitinib in Japanese patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in Japanese patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), especially by focusing on dose and schedule modification.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with advanced PNET treated with sunitinib were reviewed retrospectively. Efficacy was evaluated by progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumor response. Toxicity profile was assessed regularly. Correlation between relative dose intensity (RDI) and treatment period was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The median PFS was 25.8 months, and the probability of PFS at 1-year was 92%. The objective response rate and clinical benefit rate were 44% and 69%, respectively. The common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were hand-foot syndrome (88%), neutropenia (75%), leucopenia (75%), and diarrhea (63%). Due to the development of severe ADRs, 81% required dose reduction and 31% discontinued sunitinib treatment, respectively. Prolonged treatment period was significantly correlated with decreased RDI (Spearman r = - 0.57, P = 0.022). The median RDI among 9 patients whom continued sunitinib more than 1 year was 49%.

CONCLUSIONS

Sunitinib showed significant clinical benefit in Japanese patients with advanced PNET in the real-world clinical setting. Successful management of ADRs with appropriate dose reduction and interruption can enable long-term continuation of sunitinib.

Genitourinary tumours in the targeted therapies era: new advances in clinical practice and future perspectives

Genitourinary cancers represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from genitourinary tract, and are responsible for almost 359 000 newly diagnosed cases and 58 420 related deaths in USA. Continuous advances in cancer genetics and genomics have contributed towards changing the management paradigms of these neoplasms. Neoangiogenesis, through the activation of the tyrosine-kinase receptors signalling pathways, represents the key mediator event in promoting tumour proliferation, differentiation, invasiveness and motility. In the last decade, several treatments have been developed with the specific aim of targeting different cell pathways that have been recognized to drive tumour progression. The following review attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature, focusing on new advances in targeted therapies for genitourinary tumours. Furthermore, the promising results of the latest clinical trials and future perspectives will be discussed.

Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Sunitinib by Dosing Schedule in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma or Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor

Background

Sunitinib is a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and imatinib-resistant/intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).

Methods

A meta-analysis of 10 prospective clinical studies in advanced RCC and GIST was performed to support the development of pharmacokinetic (PK) and PK/pharmacodynamic (PD) models that account for the effects of important covariates. These models were used to make predictions with respect to the PK, safety, and efficacy of sunitinib when administered on the traditional 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off schedule (Schedule 4/2) versus an alternative schedule of 2 weeks on/1 week off (Schedule 2/1).

Results

The covariates found to have a significant effect on one or more of the PK or PD parameter studies included, age, sex, body weight, race, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor type, and dosing schedule. The models predicted that, in both RCC and GIST patients, Schedule 2/1 would have comparable efficacy to Schedule 4/2, despite some differences in PK profiles. The models also predicted that, in both indications, sunitinib-related thrombocytopenia would be less severe when sunitinib was administered on Schedule 2/1 dosing compared with Schedule 4/2.

Conclusion

These findings support the use of sunitinib on Schedule 2/1 as a potential alternative to Schedule 4/2 because it allows for the management of toxicity without loss of efficacy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-016-0404-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Real-world experience of the feasibility and tolerability of the 2/1 dosing schedule with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Australia

AIM

Sunitinib is a first-line treatment option for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) funded by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Toxicities are common with the standard schedule leading to alternative dosing schedules to be suggested. We reviewed Australian treatment practices to evaluate the safety and outcomes of patients on a 2 weeks on, 1 week off treatment schedule (2/1).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 63 patients with mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule at four Australian centers.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (73%) initiated sunitinib on the 2/1 schedule whereas 17 (27%) switched from the 4/2 schedule due to toxicity. Three progressing on a 4/2 schedule tolerated up-titration of their dose with a clinical and radiological response on the 2/1 schedule. The median duration of treatment was 31.9 months; median duration of treatment on the 2/1 schedule in patients changing from 4/2 was 11.5 months. Few (6.3%) ceased due to toxicity. Median overall survival was 37.2 months.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective review of the 2/1 sunitinib schedule, time on treatment with clinical benefit exceeded the overall survival times seen in the phase III trials utilizing the 4/2 schedule. Overall survival also exceeded that seen in these trials. Few patients ceased due to toxicity. The 2/1 schedule appears to be an acceptable schedule to use in selected patients with mRCC both at initiation of first-line treatment and in those intolerant to the 4/2 schedule.

First-line sunitinib or pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Canadian experience

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting.

METHODS

Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.

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.

Sunitinib in kidney cancer: 10 years of experience and development

INTRODUCTION

Sunitinib is a multi-target, anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Since it first demonstrated its efficacy ten years ago, overall survival of mRCC has more than doubled, in part due to sunitinib. In most recent years, progress has been made in the comprehension of its mechanism of action and resistance. Areas Covered: In this article, clinical trials involving sunitinib in kidney cancer have been reviewed, defining its different indications in metastatic and localized RCC. The rationale of sunitinib's efficacy, preclinical trials, past-clinical trials and ongoing clinical trials are summarized. Dose and scheme base are discussed, as the recommended dosage is frequently not well tolerated. Combination therapies appear to be toxic. Novel immunotherapies are changing the landscape of mRCC treatment and challenging sunitinib. Special attention has been paid towards cancer cell biology and immunity involved in treatment response. Expert Commentary: Sunitinib's place in the therapeutic arsenal is being redefined with the arrival of major challengers. Dosage and scheduling of sunitinib remains a major challenge.

Sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets various receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Sunitinib received approval in 2006 and became a standard treatment option in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) after a phase III trial showed superiority compared with interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sunitinib has also shown activity in second-line treatment in several trials. Most of the combination trials with sunitinib with various agents have led to considerable toxicity without improving efficacy. Sunitinib alone causes significant side effects and has a distinct profile with diarrhoea, hypertension, skin effects hypothyroidism, fatigue and nausea of special interest. The recommended dose of sunitinib in mRCC is 50 mg orally daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment (4/2 schedule). An alternative 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule (2/1 schedule) seems to be of similar efficacy and better tolerability and could be more widely used in the future. An intermittent treatment strategy with a stop in remission and re-induction after progression showed efficacy in smaller trials and is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Direct comparison of sunitinib with pazopanib in first-line treatment showed a similar efficacy for both TKIs with a distinct toxicity profile. Data from two phase II trials showed that sunitinib has also activity in non-clear cell cancer and is an option due to a lack of better alternatives. Currently, after immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown very promising results in the second-line treatment of RCC, they are being tested in a number of phase III trials in the first-line setting. The future will show the position of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of RCC in the era of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Sunitinib: Ten Years of Successful Clinical Use and Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

The oral multikinase inhibitor sunitinib malate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January 2006 for use in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Since then, it has been approved globally for this indication and for patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors and advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. As we mark the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the era of targeted therapy, and specifically the approval of sunitinib, it is worthwhile to highlight the progress that has been made in advanced RCC as it relates to the study of sunitinib. We present the key trials and data for sunitinib that established it as a reference standard of care for first-line advanced RCC therapy and, along with other targeted agents, significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Moreover, we discuss the research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers, plus the extent to which this research has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. We also explore the key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and how these findings and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for successful development of other agents. Finally, ongoing research into the continued and future role of sunitinib in RCC management is discussed.

THE ONCOLOGIST

2017;22:41-52 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Approved globally, sunitinib is established as a standard of care for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) therapy and, along with other targeted agents, has significantly altered the treatment landscape in RCC. Research with sunitinib that has sought to refine its role via patient selection and prognostic markers, improve dosing and adverse event management, and identify predictive efficacy biomarkers has contributed to the overall understanding and management of RCC. Key learnings regarding study design and data interpretation from the sunitinib studies and the sunitinib development program, in general, can be a model for the successful development of other agents.

Clinical use of cabozantinib in the treatment of advanced kidney cancer: efficacy, safety, and patient selection

Clear cell (cc) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of cancer found in the kidney accounting for ~90% of all kidney cancers. In 2012, there were ~337,000 new cases of RCC diagnosed worldwide with an estimated 143,000 deaths, with the highest incidence and mortality in Western countries. Despite improvements in cancer control achieved with VEGF- and mTOR-targeted therapy for RCC, progression remains virtually universal and additional therapies are needed. The pivotal results of the METEOR trial led to cabozantinib's designation as a breakthrough drug by the US Food and Drug Administration and its approval for treatment of advanced RCC in 2016. Subsequent data from the CABOSUN trial, where caboxantinib is compared with sunitinib, will provide information on the relative activity of cabozantinib as first-line therapy for ccRCC. We review the development of cabozantinib in advanced RCC and its role in the treatment landscape for advanced RCC.