Patient-reported outcomes for axitinib vs sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase III (AXIS) trial

Axitinib after Treatment Failure with Sunitinib or Cytokines in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma-Systematic Literature Review of Clinical and Real-World Evidence

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify clinical evidence on treatments in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Herein, we summarise the evidence for axitinib in aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines or sunitinib.

METHODS

This SLR was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023492931) and followed the 2020 PRISMA statement and the Cochrane guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase as well as for conference proceedings. Study eligibility was defined according to population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design.

RESULTS

Of 1252 titles/abstracts screened, 266 peer-reviewed publications were reviewed, of which 182 were included. In addition, 28 conference abstracts were eligible. Data on axitinib were reported in 55 publications, of which 16 provided efficacy and/or safety outcomes on axitinib after therapy with sunitinib or cytokines. In these patients, median progression-free and overall survival ranged between 5.5 and 8.7 months and 11.0 and 69.5 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib is commonly used in clinical practice and has a well-characterised safety and efficacy profile in the treatment of patients with aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with sunitinib or cytokines.

Exploring the multifaceted antitumor activity of axitinib in lung carcinoids

Introduction

Lung carcinoids (LCs) are a type of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) that originate in the bronchopulmonary tract. LCs account for 20-25% of all NETs and approximately 1-2% of lung cancers. Given the highly vascularized nature of NETs and their tendency to overexpress vascular growth factor receptors (VEGFR), inhibiting angiogenesis appears as a potential therapeutic target in slowing down tumor growth and spread. This study evaluated the long-term antitumor activity and related mechanisms of axitinib (AXI), a VEGFR-targeting drug, in LC cell lines.

Methods

Three LC cell lines (NCI-H727, UMC-11 and NCI-H835) were incubated with their respective EC50 AXI concentrations for 6 days. At the end of the incubation, FACS experiments and Western blot analyses were performed to examine changes in the cell cycle and the activation of apoptosis. Microscopy analyses were added to describe the mechanisms of senescence and mitotic catastrophe when present.

Results

The primary effect of AXI on LC cell lines is to arrest tumor growth through an indirect DNA damage. Notably, AXI triggers this response in diverse manners among the cell lines, such as inducing senescence or mitotic catastrophe. The drug seems to lose its efficacy when the DNA damage is mitigated, as observed in NCI-H835 cells.

Conclusion

The ability of AXI to affect cell viability and proliferation in LC tumor cells highlights its potential as a therapeutic agent. The role of DNA damage and the consequent activation of senescence seem to be a prerequisite for AXI to exert its function.

Current Options for Second-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Standard systemic therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) involves targeting angiogenesis, mainly through tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway and targeting the immune checkpoints, namely, programmed death-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4). With current strategies of combining these two approaches in the front-line setting, less is known about optimal selection of therapy upon development of resistance in the second and later lines of treatment for progressive disease. This review discusses currently available therapeutic options in patients who have progressive RCC after prior treatment with double immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) or ICI-TKI combinations.

Decoding the multicellular ecosystem of vena caval tumor thrombus in clear cell renal cell carcinoma by single-cell RNA sequencing

BACKGROUND

Vascular invasion with tumor thrombus frequently occurs in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Thrombectomy is one of the most challenging surgeries with high rate of perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, the mechanisms driving tumor thrombus formation are poorly understood which is required for designing effective therapy for eliminating tumor thrombus.

RESULTS

We perform single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of 19 surgical tissue specimens from 8 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients with tumor thrombus. We observe tumor thrombus has increased tissue resident CD8+ T cells with a progenitor exhausted phenotype compared with the matched primary tumors. Remarkably, macrophages, malignant cells, endothelial cells and myofibroblasts from TTs exhibit enhanced remodeling of the extracellular matrix. The macrophages and malignant cells from primary tumors represent proinflammatory states, but also increase the expression of immunosuppressive markers compared to tumor thrombus. Finally, differential gene expression and interaction analyses reveal that tumor-stroma interplay reshapes the extracellular matrix in tumor thrombus associated with poor survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comprehensive picture of the ecosystem of ccRCC with tumor thrombus provides deeper insights into the mechanisms of tumor thrombus formation, which may aid in the design of effective neoadjuvant therapy to promote downstaging of tumor thrombus and decrease the perioperative morbidity and mortality of thrombectomy.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

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

Real-world symptoms, disease burden, resource use and quality of life in US patients with advanced renal cell cancer

Aim: To assess symptoms, healthcare resource utilization and health-related quality of life in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) clinical practice. Materials & methods: The USA point-in-time survey of physicians and patients was conducted between February and September 2019. Results: Data were available for 227 patients. Mean (standard deviation) number of symptoms was 3.4 (3.2); differences were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories (p < 0.001), with fewer symptoms in favorable-risk patients. Disease burden, measured by greater healthcare resource utilization and worse health-related quality of life, was high, particularly in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium intermediate- or poor- versus favorable-risk patients. In total, 45 patients (21.6%) were hospitalized due to aRCC within a 6-month period, 35 (16.8%) had one hospitalization and ten (4.8%) experienced ≥2 hospitalizations due to aRCC. Mean (standard deviation) 19-Item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score was 53.6 (13.2) for this population, significantly lower than the reference value (59.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A clear need exists for improved disease management in patients with aRCC.

Individualizing Systemic Therapies in First Line Treatment and beyond for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Therapeutic options for treating advanced renal cell cancer (RCC) are rapidly evolving. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapy, predominantly VEGF receptor (VEGFr) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) had been the most effective first line treatment since 2005 irrespective of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk stratification. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have recently changed the treatment paradigm for advanced RCC particularly as the first-line systemic treatment modality. The combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab provides better disease control and long-term outcomes compared with the anti-VEGFr TKI Sunitinib for IMDC intermediate- to poor-risk patients and we now have the option of using ICI with TKI upfront for all IMDC risk groups. This poses a challenge for physicians, both to select the most suitable first line regimen and the most suitable subsequent therapy given the lack of data about sequencing in this setting. This treatment landscape is expected to become more complex with the emerging treatment options. Moreover, these therapeutic options cannot be generalized as significant variability exists between individual's disease biologies and their physiologies for handling treatment adverse effects. Notable efforts are being made to identify promising predictive biomarkers ranging from neo-antigen load to gene expression profiling. These biomarkers need prospective validation to justify their utility in clinical practice and in treatment decision making. This review article discusses various clinicopathological characteristics that should be carefully evaluated to help select appropriate treatment and discusses the current status of biomarker-based selection.

Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immunotherapies Have Demonstrated Overall Survival Benefits While Targeted Therapies Have Not

CONTEXT

Current guidelines suggest several targeted therapies (TTs) and immunotherapies (ITs) in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Ideal sequencing of these treatments is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) data of the treatments approved for mRCC. Secondary objectives included evaluating other signs of efficacy and adverse events.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We reviewed the current Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for mRCC. Trials associated with approval were reviewed. We also included pre- and postapproval publications when appropriate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There is minimal evidence supporting OS benefit for the nine approved TTs. They result in adverse events and are a considerable economic burden. For these reasons, their future role in mRCC treatment should be re-evaluated, given the emergence of IT that have demonstrated OS benefits. Accumulating long-term survival data with high-dose interleukin-2 treatment suggests that this older treatment could still be considered for eligible patients. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising OS and durable responses; as such, the high cost of treatment might be justified. However, the available evidence does not suggest that adding TT to IT would increase efficacy over IT alone, but would add toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial data supporting OS benefit are much stronger for ITs than for TTs. Combining checkpoint inhibitors with TTs has not been shown to produce better OS than checkpoint inhibitors alone, while more adverse events are present. Granting drug approvals based on efficacy without demonstrated OS benefit should be revisited.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Approved treatments for metastatic kidney cancer include targeted and immune-based therapies. The former commonly produces temporary tumour shrinkage, but survival benefits are unclear. All approved immunotherapies have increased survival, and a proportion of patients appear cured.

Pragmatic randomised clinical trial of proton versus photon therapy for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: the Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Consortium trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

A broad range of stakeholders have called for randomised evidence on the potential clinical benefits and harms of proton therapy, a type of radiation therapy, for patients with breast cancer. Radiation therapy is an important component of curative treatment, reducing cancer recurrence and extending survival. Compared with photon therapy, the international treatment standard, proton therapy reduces incidental radiation to the heart. Our overall objective is to evaluate whether the differences between proton and photon therapy cardiac radiation dose distributions lead to meaningful reductions in cardiac morbidity and mortality after treatment for breast cancer.

METHODS

We are conducting a large scale, multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial for patients with breast cancer who will be followed longitudinally for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and cancer control outcomes. A total of 1278 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer will be randomly allocated to receive either photon or proton therapy. The primary outcomes are major cardiovascular events, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for unstable angina, heart failure, valvular disease, arrhythmia or pericardial disease. Secondary endpoints are urgent or unanticipated outpatient or emergency room visits for heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease or pericardial disease. The Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RadComp) Clinical Events Centre will conduct centralised, blinded adjudication of primary outcome events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The RadComp trial has been approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites. Recruitment began in February 2016. Current version of the protocol is A3, dated 08 November 2018. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, stakeholder engagement efforts and presentation to the public via lay media outlets.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02603341.

Management of kidney cancer patients: 2018 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

In the past two decades, the treatment landscape for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has significantly changed thanks to the approval of several targeted molecular therapies (VEGF and mTOR inhibitors) and recently immune-checkpoint inhibitors. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Renal Cell Cancer (RCC) Guidelines Panel has developed clinical guidelines to provide evidence-based information and recommendations to oncologists, urologists and all professionals involved in the management of patients with renal cell cancer.

Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial

BACKGROUND

Axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

AXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors.

RESULTS

Of 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.

Best treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients: a Delphi consensus study

The introduction of targeted therapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved the outcome of these patients in the last decade. However, many patients still relapse. The aim of this consensus study was to establish common recommendations about the best treatment options in patients with RCC. A two-round Delphi methodology was used. A total of 25 statements were submitted to a panel of 30 specialists. If consensus was not obtained in the first round a second and last round was performed. Agreement was achieved for 19 of the proposed 25 statements (76%). When making a decision about the treatment option, considering the efficiency and response rate to previous treatment, drug's toxicity and the patients' clinical features are very relevant.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib (CheckMate 214): a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the ongoing phase 3, CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess whether health-related quality of life (HRQoL) could be used to further describe the benefit-risk profile of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib.

METHODS

In the phase 3, randomised, controlled, CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by risk status into favourable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), and EuroQol five dimensional three level (EQ-5D-3L) instruments. The coprimary endpoints of the trial, reported previously, were overall survival, progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients who had an objective response in those categorised as at intermediate or poor risk. PROs in all randomised participants were assessed as an exploratory endpoint; here we report this exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but is now closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 847 (77%) were at intermediate or poor risk and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=425) or sunitinib (n=422). Median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 23·0-27·4). PROs were more favourable with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than sunitinib throughout the first 103 weeks after baseline, with mean change from baseline at week 103 for FKSI-19 total score being 4·00 (95% CI 1·91 to 6·09) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -3·14 (-6·03 to -0·25) for sunitinib (p<0·0001), and for FACT-G total score being 4·77 (1·73 to 7·82) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus -4·32 (-8·54 to -0·11) for sunitinib (p=0·0005). Significant differences were also seen for four of five FKSI-19 domains (disease-related symptoms, physical disease-related symptoms, treatment side-effects, and functional wellbeing) and FACT-G physical and functional wellbeing domains. However, there was no significant difference between the treatment groups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baseline to week 103 of 10·07 (95% CI 4·35 to 15·80) for nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6·40 (-1·36 to 14·16) for sunitinib (p=0·45). Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab reduced risk of deterioration in FKSI-19 total score (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·46-0·63), FACT-G total score (0·63, 0·52-0·75), and EQ-5D-3L VAS score (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·89) and UK utility scores (0·67, 0·57-0·80).

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab leads to fewer symptoms and better HRQoL than sunitinib in patients at intermediate or poor risk with advanced renal cell carcinoma. These results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib comes with the additional benefit of improved HRQoL.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) is important to gauge clinical benefit in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate important difference (ID) in FKSI-DRS scores that is considered to be meaningful when comparing treatment effect between groups, using mRCC trial data.

METHODS

Data were derived from two pivotal phase III mRCC trials comparing sunitinib versus interferon alfa (N = 750) in first-line mRCC, and axitinib versus sorafenib (N = 723) in second-line mRCC. The change from baseline in FKSI-DRS score was examined as a function of a set of anchors using the repeated-measures model. Several anchors were evaluated: FKSI item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment," EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score, and adverse events.

RESULTS

When the "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" score was used as an anchor, the ID ranged between 1.2 and 1.3 points. When change in the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire utility score was used as an anchor, the FKSI-DRS ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.63 points. Selecting the adverse events that corresponded to a maximum worsening in the FKSI-DRS score in either trial, the ID ranged between 0.62 and 0.74 points.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing treatment for mRCC, between-group differences in FKSI-DRS scores as low as 1 point might be meaningful.

Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in urologic oncology using large administrative databases

OBJECTIVE

Urologic cancers are not only among the most common types of cancers, but also among the most expensive cancers to treat in the United States. This study aimed to review the use of CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases to better understand the value of management strategies of these cancers.

METHODS

A literature review on CEAs and other cost analyses in urologic oncology using large databases.

RESULTS

The options for and costs of diagnosing, treating, and following patients with urologic cancers can be expected to rise in the coming years. There are numerous opportunities in each urologic cancer to use CEAs to both lower costs and provide high-quality services. Improved cancer care must balance the integration of novelty with ensuring reasonable costs to patients and the health care system.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing focus cost containment, appreciating the value of competing strategies in caring for our patients is pivotal. Leveraging methods such as CEAs and harnessing large databases may help evaluate the merit of established or emerging strategies.

Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

The improving efficacy of cancer treatment has resulted in an increasing array of treatment-related symptoms and associated burdens imposed on individuals undergoing aggressive treatment of their disease. Often, clinical trials compare therapies that have different types, and severities, of adverse effects. Whether rated by clinicians or patients themselves, it can be difficult to know which side effect profile is more disruptive or bothersome to patients. A simple summary index of bother can help to adjudicate the variability in adverse effects across treatments being compared with each other.

METHODS

Across 4 studies, a total of 5765 patients enrolled in cooperative group studies and industry-sponsored clinical trials were the subjects of the current study. Patients were diagnosed with a range of primary cancer sites, including bladder, brain, breast, colon/rectum, head/neck, hepatobiliary, kidney, lung, ovary, pancreas, and prostate as well as leukemia and lymphoma. All patients were administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The single item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5), rated on a 5-point Likert scale, is part of the FACT-G. To determine its validity as a useful summary measure from the patient perspective, it was correlated with individual and aggregated clinician-rated adverse events and patient reports of their general ability to enjoy life.

RESULTS

Analyses of pharmaceutical trials demonstrated that mean GP5 scores ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") significantly differed by maximum adverse event grade (P<.001) in all trials, with a clear trend toward increasing GP5 scores with level of increasing adverse event grade. Effect sizes ranged from 0.13 to 0.46. Analyses of cooperative group trials demonstrated a significant correlation between GP5 and item GF3 ("I am able to enjoy life") in the predicted direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The single FACT-G item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" is significantly associated with clinician-reported adverse events and with patients' ability to enjoy their lives. It has promise as an overall summary measure of the burden of a given set of treatment toxicities compared with another. Future research can identify the contribution of individual side effects compared with one another in terms of how each may contribute to overall bother. Cancer 2018;124:991-7. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Second-Line Treatment Landscape for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review

The management of advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma has steadily improved over the past decade with the introduction of antiangiogenic and targeted therapies. Recently, three new therapies have been approved for use as second-line options that further advance the treatment armamentarium: nivolumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the programmed cell death receptor; cabozantinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), MET, and AXL; and lenvatinib, a small-molecule TKI of VEGF and fibroblast growth factor receptors that is used in combination with everolimus, an inhibitor of the mechanistic target of rapamycin. Together, these and previously approved second-line treatments offer clinicians the ability to better individualize treatment for patients after progression on first-line VEGFR-targeted therapies. In this comprehensive review, we discuss the efficacy and safety results from the pivotal trials of these newly approved therapies, including the quality of study design, the level of evidence, subgroup analyses, and how these data can help to guide clinicians to select the most appropriate second-line therapy for their patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This review article provides the reader with a comprehensive overview of current treatment options for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) whose disease has progressed after their first therapy. As many patients with RCC experience disease progression with initial treatments, effective second-line therapies are critical. Nivolumab, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib plus everolimus have recently been approved as second-line treatments. The new agents discussed in this review increase the therapeutic options available and provide physicians with opportunities to individualize treatments for their patients, with a view to improving disease control and survival outcomes.

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.

Comparison of efficacy, safety, and quality of life between sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy for Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

Sorafenib and sunitinib are widely used as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in China. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) in Chinese mRCC patients treated with sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy.

Methods

Clinical data of patients with mRCC who received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; 4 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg twice daily; on a schedule of 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off) were retrieved. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and QoL (SF-36 scores), and secondary outcomes were associations of clinical characteristics with QoL.

Results

Medical records of 184 patients (110 in the sorafenib group and 74 in the sunitinib group) were reviewed. PFS and OS were comparable between the sorafenib and sunitinib groups (both P > 0.05). The occurrence rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and hypothyroidism were higher in the sunitinib group (36.5% vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001; 40.5% vs. 10.9%, P < 0.001; 17.6% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.001), and that of diarrhea was higher in the sorafenib group (62.7% vs. 35.2%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in SF-36 scores between the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that role-physical and bodily pain scores were associated with the occurrence rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P = 0.017 and 0.005).

Conclusions

Sorafenib has comparable efficacy and lower toxicity profile than sunitinib as first-line therapy for mRCC. Both agents showed no significant impact on QoL of patients.

Potential health gains for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in daily clinical practice: A real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential first- and second-line treatments

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials have shown that targeted therapies like sunitinib are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about the current use of these therapies, and their associated costs and effects in daily clinical practice. We estimated the real-world cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies comprising one or more sequentially administered drugs.

METHODS

Analyses were performed using patient-level data from a Dutch population-based registry including patients diagnosed with primary mRCC from January 2008 to December 2010 (i.e., treated between 2008 and 2013). The full disease course of these patients was estimated using a patient-level simulation model based on regression analyses of the registry data. A healthcare sector perspective was adopted; total costs included healthcare costs related to mRCC. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in cost per life-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the overall uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In current daily practice, 54% (336/621) of all patients was treated with targeted therapies. Most patients (84%; 282/336) received sunitinib as first-line therapy. Of the patients receiving first-line therapy, 30% (101/336) also received second-line therapy; the majority was treated with everolimus (40%, 40/101) or sorafenib (28%, 28/101). Current treatment practice (including patients not receiving targeted therapy) led to 0.807 QALYs; mean costs were €58,912. This resulted in an additional €105,011 per QALY gained compared to not using targeted therapy at all. Forty-six percent of all patients received no targeted therapy; of these patients, 24% (69/285) was eligible for sunitinib. If these patients were treated with first-line sunitinib, mean QALYs would improve by 0.062-0.076 (where the range reflects the choice of second-line therapy). This improvement is completely driven by the health gain seen amongst patients eligible to receive sunitinib but did not receive it, who gain 0.558-0.684 QALYs from sunitinib. Since additional costs would be €7,072-9,913, incremental costs per QALY gained are €93,107-111,972 compared to current practice.

DISCUSSION

Health can be gained if more treatment-eligible patients receive targeted therapies. Moreover, it will be just as cost-effective to treat these patients with sunitinib as current treatment practice.

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.

Lenvatinib for use in combination with everolimus for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma following one prior anti-angiogenic therapy

INTRODUCTION

In patients with mRCC options for second line therapies, following progression on anti-angiogenic agents, that demonstrate a survival advantage in clinical trials have been limited. Recently a number of agents have demonstrated efficacy in this setting. Here in we profile one such therapy, the combination of lenvatinib and everolimus, and discuss the expanded options for therapy available in this setting. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss current algorithms for treatment of mRCC in both the first-line and second-line setting. We discuss the recent addition of cabozantinib and nivolumab, in the second line setting, to the market. Lenvatinib's pharmacology, clinical efficacy and toxicity profile is discussed. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PUBMED. Expert commentary: The current treatment algorithms for mRCC will likely see significant change in the coming years. The addition of immunotherapy to our treatment options in mRCC is of particular importance. Future trials examining the use of immunotherapy, both as monotherapy and in combination with VEGF targeted therapy, will likely be a dominant influence in the therapeutic landscape of mRCC. Progress in terms of the rapid expansion of available active therapies in mRCC needs to be balanced with current deficiencies in terms of predictive biomarkers.

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.

Impact of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on patient-reported outcomes: Methodology of clinical trials and clinical benefit

BACKGROUND

Molecular targeted therapies have improved progression-free survival (PFS) without translating systematically into overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this population, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become a significant outcome. We evaluated the methodological quality of the assessment of PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the clinical benefit of the different treatments including survival and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs published between January 2005 and July 2014. They were evaluated according to 11 items derived from the 2013 CONSORT PROs reporting guidelines. Survival outcomes and PROs main results were analyzed and the magnitude of clinical benefit was assessed with the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).

RESULTS

12 RCTs were included with a total of 22 publications. The mean CONSORT score for all items was 4.5 on an 11-point scale. No publication reported the power of the PROs analysis and only one reported a PRO hypothesis. 50% of studies did not interpret PROs in relation to clinical outcomes and only 18% discussed specific limitations of PROs and their implications for generalizability. By adding the QoL criterion to PFS, 4 trials (36.4%) obtained a high level of proven clinical benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS.

CONCLUSION

The methodology for assessing PROs in mRCC is not optimal. Efforts should focus on defining PROs endpoint and increasing the quality of reporting of QoL. New-generation therapies in mRCC should demonstrate a gain not only in survival but also in QoL to be included in the therapeutic arsenal.

Study of the Kidney Tumor-Parenchymal Interface after Neoadjuvant Treatment with Axitinib for Locally Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Matched Analysis from a Phase II Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate histological changes in the tumor-parenchymal interface in clear cell renal cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant axitinib treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained clinical and pathology materials from 23 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant axitinib in a phase II clinical trial and from 23 matched patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma who underwent upfront surgery. Histology of the tumor pseudocapsule and the peritumor kidney parenchymal change was evaluated and compared between the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

A tumor pseudocapsule was noted in all 23 patients who received neoadjuvant axitinib and in all 23 control patients. Most pseudocapsules were noncontinuous and only partially covered the tumor, including in 17 of 23 axitinib cases (74%) and 19 of 23 controls (83%). In axitinib cases the median thickness of the intrarenal and extrarenal pseudocapsule was 1.4 and 2.4 mm, respectively, which was significantly thicker than in control cases (intrarenal p = 0.0008 and extrarenal p <0.0001). The thickness of the pseudocapsule in axitinib treated cases was more frequently irregular compared to that in controls (16 of 23 or 70% and 9 of 23 or 39%, respectively, p = 0.0746). Inflammation, nephrosclerosis, glomerulosclerosis and arteriosclerosis decreased with increasing distance from the tumor edge in the neoadjuvant axitinib and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The tumor pseudocapsule becomes irregularly thick after neoadjuvant axitinib therapy. Although axitinib likely evokes a strong fibrous reaction in the tumor-parenchymal interface, it does not affect the frequency of infiltrative tumor invasion to the outside of the pseudocapsule or the degree of atrophic/inflammatory change in tissue surrounding the tumor. These findings support the notion that partial nephrectomy could be safely done in well selected patients after neoadjuvant axitinib.

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.

Clinical management of metastatic kidney cancer: the role of new molecular drugs

Over the last few years, the most recent advances of the molecular mechanisms involved in renal cell carcinoma have led to the use of new drugs targeting VEGF, such as bevacizumab plus interferon, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib, or the mTOR, such as temsirolimus and everolimus. The purpose of this review is to analyze the results of Phase III trial with these targeted agents, and on the management of the treatment and, in particular, when to start and to stop therapy and the use of alternative schedule of sunitinib. Recent developments in immunotherapy are also discussed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of axitinib through a probabilistic decision model

INTRODUCTION

The Oncology field is characterised by a steady increase in demand and a consistent launching of innovative and expensive products. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analysis can contribute as a significant decision-making tool by elucidating the most economically efficient ways to satisfy compelling health needs.

AREAS COVERED

The scope of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib, for the second-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma. A literature review for evidence synthesis was performed and a probabilistic Markov Model was employed to simulate disease progression. This study will also assess Value of Information.

EXPERT OPINION

Compared to sorafenib, axitinib resulted in an incremental cost of 87,936 euro per quality adjusted life year. The probability of axitinib to being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 60,000 euro was 13%, while the corresponding probability of being cost-effective at the highest recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of 100,000 euro was 69.9%. Uncertainty was primarily attributed to the price of the product, the utility values, the progression-free survival and to a lesser degree to the overall survival. Axitinib can be considered as a cost-effective therapeutic option for second-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

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.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a randomized registrational study

Background

This registrational trial evaluated the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of axitinib versus sorafenib as a second-line treatment in Asian patients with clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods

In this open-label, multicenter study, previously treated Asian patients with clear-cell mRCC were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior therapy and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by a masked independent review committee.

Results

A total of 204 Asian patients received axitinib (n=135) or sorafenib (n=69). Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 6.5 (4.7–9.1) months with axitinib versus 4.8 (3.0–6.5) months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.506–1.058; one-sided P=0.0531). The objective response rate (95% CI) was 23.7% (16.8%–31.8%) with axitinib versus 10.1% (4.2%–19.8%) with sorafenib. Common, grade ≥3, all-causality adverse events were hypertension (19.3%), weight decrease (5.2%), and proteinuria (5.2%) with axitinib and hypertension (8.7%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (7.2%) with sorafenib. In a time-to-deterioration composite end point of death, progression, and worsening of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index score, patients treated with axitinib demonstrated a 17%–24% risk reduction compared with sorafenib-treated patients.

Conclusion

Axitinib is clinically active and well tolerated in previously treated Asian patients with mRCC, consistent with the results from the global Phase III trial. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for Asian patients with mRCC.

Observations on Three Endpoint Properties and Their Relationship to Regulatory Outcomes of European Oncology Marketing Applications

BACKGROUND

Guidance and exploratory evidence indicate that the type of endpoints and the magnitude of their outcome can define a therapy's clinical activity; however, little empirical evidence relates specific endpoint properties with regulatory outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We explored the relationship of 3 endpoint properties to regulatory outcomes by assessing 50 oncology marketing authorization applications (MAAs; reviewed from 2009 to 2013).

RESULTS

Overall, 16 (32%) had a negative outcome. The most commonly used hard endpoints were overall survival (OS) and the duration of response or stable disease. OS was a component of 91% approved and 63% failed MAAs. The most commonly used surrogate endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and health-related quality of life assessments. There was no difference (p = .3801) between the approved and failed MAA cohorts in the proportion of hard endpoints used. A mean of slightly more than four surrogate endpoints were used per approved MAA compared with slightly more than two for failed MAAs. Longer OS and PFS duration outcomes were generally associated with approvals, often when not statistically significant. The approved cohort was associated with a preponderance of statistically significant (p < .05) improvements in primary endpoints (p < .0001 difference between the approved and failed groups).

CONCLUSION

Three key endpoint properties (type of endpoint [hard/surrogate], magnitude of an endpoint outcome, and its statistical significance) are consistent with the European Medicines Agency guidance and, notwithstanding the contribution of unique disease-specific circumstances, are associated with a predictable positive outcome for oncology MAAs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Regulatory decisions made by the European Medicines Agency determine which new medicines will be available to European prescribers and for which therapeutic indications. Regulatory success or failure can be influenced by many factors. This study assessed three key properties of endpoints used in preauthorization trials (type of endpoint [hard/surrogate], magnitude of endpoint outcome, and its statistical significance) and whether they are associated with a positive regulatory outcome. Clinicians can use these properties, which are described in the publicly available European public assessment reports, to help guide their understanding of the clinical effect of new oncologic therapies.

Clinically meaningful end points in the evolving treatment paradigm for radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

Radioactive iodine (RAI) is often used post-operatively for treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), but many patients develop RAI-refractory disease. Patients with RAI-refractory DTC may be asymptomatic and stable for long periods of time, so identifying tumors that are no longer likely to respond to RAI treatment and determining when to transition to systemic therapy are critical issues for optimal patient care. The purpose of this paper is to review and assess the end points used in studies of RAI-refractory DTC in relation to the issues facing clinicians in transitioning patients to systemic therapy. Our goals are to provide a framework to help evaluate whether study results are clinically meaningful in guiding treatment decisions and to make recommendations to better define these end points for RAI-refractory DTC.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety experience reported for sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the post-approval setting

BACKGROUND

Sorafenib was FDA approved in 2005 for treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, TARGET (Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial). Since that time, numerous clinical studies have been undertaken that substantially broaden our knowledge of the use of sorafenib for this indication.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for prospective clinical studies using single agent sorafenib in RCC and published since 2005. Primary endpoints of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews #CRD42014010765.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies in which 2182 patients were treated with sorafenib, including 1575 patients who participated in randomized controlled phase 3 trials. In these trials, sorafenib was administered as first-, second- or third-line treatment. Heterogeneity among trial designs and reporting of data precluded statistical comparisons among trials or with TARGET. The PFS appeared shorter in second- vs. first-line treatment, consistent with the more advanced tumor status in the second-line setting. In some trials, incidences of grade 3/4 hypertension or hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) were more than double that seen in TARGET (4% and 6%, respectively). These variances may be attributable to increased recognition of HFSR, or potentially differences in dose adjustments, that could be consequences of increased familiarity with sorafenib usage. Several small studies enrolled exclusively Asian patients. These studies reported notably longer PFS than was observed in TARGET. However, no obvious corresponding differences in disease control rate and overall survival were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, more recent experiences using sorafenib in RCC are consistent with results reported for TARGET with no marked changes of response endpoints or new safety signals observed.

Cyclophilin D-mediated apoptosis attributes to sorafenib-induced cytotoxicity in clear cell-renal cell carcinoma

Cyclophilin D (CypD) is an essential regulatory component of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (MPTP) and mediates cell necrosis. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the multi-target drug, sorafenib, on clear cell-renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) necrosis by regulating CypD expression and to explore whether this effect was related to the phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERKs). We used immunohistochemical analysis to compare CypD and p-ERK expression in human ccRCC tissues (n=53) and adjacent non-cancerous tissues (ANCT, n=34). CypD expression was localized to the cytoplasm of renal tubular epithelial cells and was lower in ccRCC samples while p-ERK expression was higher in ccRCC samples. In the in vitro assay, CypD was downregulated in ccRCC cell lines 786-O and A498 as compared with HK-2 which is a normal human renal tubular epithelial cell line. Overexpression of CypD induced the apoptosis of 786-O and A498 cells. Sorafenib induced the apoptosis of 786-O cells, which was coupled with the upregulation of CypD. Cyclosporin A (CsA, the inhibitor of CypD) and CypD siRNA inhibited the effect of sorafenib on apoptosis-induced 786-O and mitochondrial membrane potential depolarization. Epidermal growth factor (EGF, the activator of ERK) and ERK overexpression inhibited the effect of sorafenib on CypD expression, apoptosis-induced 786-O and mitochondrial membrane potential depolarization. In conclusion, our results suggested that CypD may represent a new therapeutic target for the treatment of ccRCC. Sorafenib induced apoptosis in ccRCC through CypD upregulation and this effect was related to the inhibition of p-ERK.

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of axitinib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Axitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α, and c-kit. Phase I studies demonstrated 5 mg twice daily as the recommended starting dose with notable effects seen in renal cell carcinoma, an observation confirmed in Phase II trials. The trial of comparative effectivess of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS) was an international randomized Phase III study designed for registration purposes, compared axitinib to sunitinib. This trial randomized 723 patients with metastatic kidney cancer to axitinib or sunitinib in the second-line setting and demonstrated a median progression-free survival of 6.7 months for axitinib versus 4.7 months for sorafenib (P<0.0001). Clinical benefit was detected regardless of prior therapy, but no overall survival benefit has been observed. Axitinib is well tolerated without a significant effect on quality of life. The most common grade 3 toxicities are hypertension (16%), diarrhea (11%), and fatigue (11%), with other notable side effects being anorexia, nausea, hand–foot syndrome, and rash. Patients who developed diastolic blood pressure >90 mmHg were noted to have significantly longer median overall survival and overall response rates when compared to normotensive patients. Therefore, the manufacturer recommends escalating the twice-daily dose to 7 mg and 10 mg, as tolerated, if there is no significant increase in blood pressure on treatment. Currently, axitinib is approved for use in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Research is ongoing in other disease settings.

Multitarget inhibitors derived from crosstalk mechanism involving VEGFR2

Seven VEGFR small-molecule inhibitors have been approved by the US FDA as anticancer drugs, which confirms the therapeutic value of angiogenesis inhibitors. However, much more evidence indicates that VEGFR inhibition alone is usually not sufficient to block the tumor progress. The potential of some agents targeting VEGFR owes partially to the simultaneous inhibition of additional targets in other signaling pathways. In this review, the crosstalk between VEGFR2 and the additional targets in other signaling pathways, such as EGFR, MET, FGFR, PDGFR, c-Kit, Raf, PI3K and HDAC, and the synergistic effects derived from multitarget activities against these crosstalks are discussed. We also briefly describe the multitarget inhibitors in clinical trials or reported in the literature and patents under the different multitarget categories involving VEGFR2.

Interpreting overall survival results when progression-free survival benefits exist in today's oncology landscape: a metastatic renal cell carcinoma case study

Background

The debate surrounding the acceptance of progression-free survival (PFS) as an intermediate endpoint to overall survival (OS) has grown in recent years, due to the challenges in demonstrating an OS benefit within clinical trials today. PFS is generally a good predictor of OS for cases where survival post-progression (SPP) is short, and less so when SPP is long. SPP depends on multiple factors, including residual effect from experimental treatment and effect from crossover or other subsequent therapies, posing unique challenges into the translation of PFS benefit into OS.

Methods

The objective of this analysis was to conduct simulations investigating how increasing SPP impacts PFS translation to OS, utilizing data from the AXIS (axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma) trial. The underlying assumption was a treatment benefit in PFS (the PFS distribution parameters were chosen to be equal to median PFS in the AXIS trial) but no treatment effect on SPP, implying that PFS improvement is directly reflected in OS improvement.

Results

The probability of a statistically significant difference between arms for OS decreased from 54.7% to 6.1% when median SPP was increased from one to 20 months. The probability of the hazard ratio of OS being ≥0.9 was similarly increased from 24.3% to 72.6%, even though the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.69.

Conclusion

The present study shows that when simulated SPP is added to trial PFS data, the existing PFS benefit is diluted. Knowing that the AXIS treatment arms are well balanced with respect to post-trial treatments, we conclude that the PFS to OS benefit translation is primarily obscured by random variability largely unrelated to the true outcomes. The implications for drug development are not insignificant, as there would be a need to include more patients in studies or utilize a longer follow-up time to overcome the SPP variability issue.

Emerging antiangiogenics for renal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Antiangiogenic therapy is considered to be the backbone of treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). New, more focused, targeted drugs are emerging, while other targeted drugs oriented toward resistance or alternative mechanisms are under development.

AREAS COVERED

Antiangiogenic agents include two types of agents: the monoclonal antibody, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents are reported. Differences between the first generation of TKIs, sunitinib, sorafenib, and the new generation, pazopanib, axitinib and tivozanib are also detailed. Most of these agents have been approved in the treatment of kidney cancer in specific settings of the disease.

EXPERT OPINION

The class of antiangiogenic drugs for treatment of mRCC is already relatively full. After 'me-too' drugs, more targeted drugs against VEGFR have been developed but have to demonstrate a benefit in first-line treatment. Another option for the development is to combine a known drug with an antiangiogenic inhibition profile and at least one additional target involved in resistance to an antiangiogenic or in an alternative pathway. The cost of approach with targeted drugs, including antiangiogenics, has led to a tremendous increase in the cost of care in mRCC.

Axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: subanalyses by prior therapy from a randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND

In the AXIS trial, axitinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) previously treated with sunitinib or cytokines.

METHODS

In post hoc analyses, patients were grouped by objective response to prior therapy (yes vs no), prior therapy duration (< vs ⩾median), and tumour burden (baseline sum of the longest diameter < vs ⩾median). PFS and overall survival (OS), and safety by type and duration of prior therapy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Response to prior therapy did not influence outcome with second-line axitinib or sorafenib. PFS was significantly longer in axitinib-treated patients who received longer prior cytokine treatment and sorafenib-treated patients with smaller tumour burden following sunitinib. Overall survival with the second-line therapy was longer in patients who received longer duration of prior therapy, although not significant in the sunitinib-to-axitinib sequence subgroup; OS was also longer in patients with smaller tumour burden, but not significant in the cytokine-to-axitinib sequence subgroup. Safety profiles differed modestly by type and duration of prior therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

AXIS data suggest that longer duration of the first-line therapy generally yields better outcome with the second-line therapy and that lack of response to first-line therapy does not preclude positive clinical outcomes with a second-line vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted agent in patients with advanced RCC.

Drug safety evaluation of sorafenib for treatment of solid tumors: consequences for the risk assessment and management of cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Sorafenib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Considerable clinical experience has been accumulated since its first Phase III clinical trial in metastatic renal cancer patients in 2007. The management of its early acute toxicity in fit patients is well known. The management of prolonged treatment becomes the new challenge.

AREAS COVERED

Using sorafenib as a key word for PubMed search, we review preclinical and clinical data and discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sorafenib, its acute and cumulative toxicities and their consequences for patient management.

EXPERT OPINION

The systematic multi-disciplinary risk assessment of cancer patients prior to TKI initiation reduces the risks of acute and late toxicity, especially drug-drug interactions and arterial risks. Sarcopenia is now identified as a major risk of severe toxicity. The very diverse clinical pictures of cumulative toxicity must be known. The monitoring of sorafenib systemic exposure is helpful especially in elderly patients. Moreover, at disease progression, it allows distinguishing between underexposure to sorafenib and truly acquired resistance to the drug. The optimal use of sorafenib should allow improving the reported results of flat-dose. Finally, most of this knowledge could be used for the development and optimal use of the other TKIs.

Mechanisms of Acquired Resistance to Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Clear - Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC)

Clear - cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is a histological subtype of renal cell carcinoma - the most prevalent adult kidney cancer. Causes of ccRCC are not completely understood and therefore number of available therapies is limited. As a consequence of tumor chemo- and radioresistance as well as restrictions in offered targeted therapies, overall response rate is still unsatisfactory. Moreover, a significant group of patients (circa 1/4) does not respond to the targeted first-line treatment, while in other cases, after an initial period of stable improvement, disease progression occurs. Owing to this, more data on resistance mechanisms are needed, especially those concerning widely used, relatively lately approved and more successful than previous therapies - tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Up to date, five TKIs have been licensed for ccRCC treatment: sunitinib (SUTENT^®, Pfizer Inc.), sorafenib (Nexavar^®, Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals), pazopanib (Votrient^®, GlaxoSmithKline), axitinib (Inlyta^®, Pfitzer Inc.) and tivozanib (AV-951^®, AVEO Pharmaceuticals).

Researchers have specified different subsets of tyrosine kinase inhibitors potential resistance mechanisms in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. In most papers published until now, drug resistance is divided into intrinsic and acquired, and typically multi-drug resistance (MDR) protein is described. Herein, the authors focus on molecular analysis concerning acquired, non-genetic resistance to TKIs, with insight into specific biological processes.

Targeted treatments in advanced renal cell carcinoma: focus on axitinib

Antiangiogenesis options have evolved rapidly in the last few years, with an increasing number of agents currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. Angiogenesis inhibitors have been shown to be very effective for the treatment of metastatic renal cancer cell. Axitinib is a third-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and is currently being developed for the treatment of various malignancies. The pharmacokinetic properties of axitinib may have a selective therapeutic effect, with minimal adverse reactions and enhanced safety. In a large Phase III study of previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, axitinib achieved a longer progression-free survival than sorafenib with an acceptable safety profile and good quality of life. This review focuses on the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of axitinib in the current treatment of renal cell carcinoma. The role of axitinib in the adjuvant and/or neoadjuvant setting needs to be evaluated in further clinical trials.

Controversies in renal cell carcinoma: treatment choice after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy

The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORI) everolimus and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib are the only two post-first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) licensed at present. Extrapolation of robust phase III studies suggests that median progression-free survival (PFS) is similar between agents. This presents a dilemma for the physician planning treatment for their patients with mRCC: should they be treated with a TKI-mTORI or a TKI-TKI sequence? The lack of direct comparison between axitinib and everolimus leaves the clinician without clear guidance on the optimal choice in second-line therapy. In phase III studies, both post first-line everolimus and axitinib have been shown to delay disease progression; however, cumulative toxicity with sequential use of TKIs may result in more treatment interruptions or dose reductions or increased likelihood of adverse events. While everolimus exerts a tolerability advantage, axitinib is associated with higher response rate and a similar PFS benefit. Proven superiority cannot be used to guide treatment sequence selection in mRCC. Instead, therapeutic planning requires us to take a long-term view of our patient's treatment that includes quality of life and a balance between symptom control, adverse event management and avoidance of unnecessary drug interruptions or dose reductions. In the absence of curative therapies, sustaining a patient's quality of life is a major goal throughout the course of treatment and choosing a second-line agent that is able to adequately achieve this by limiting adverse events should be a priority.

Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany

The German AMNOG healthcare reform includes a mandatory early-benefit-assessment (EBA) at launch. As per German social code, EBA is based on registration trials and includes evaluation of the patient-relevant effect of the new medicines compared to an appropriate comparator as defined by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Current EBA decisions released have unveiled issues regarding the acceptance of some patient-relevant endpoints as G-BA and IQWiG are grading the endpoints, focusing on overall survival as the preferred endpoint in oncology.A taskforce of experienced German outcomes research, medical, health-technology assessment and biostatistics researchers in industry was appointed. After agreement on core assumptions, a draft position was prepared. Input on iterative versions was solicited from a panel of reviewers from industry and external stakeholders.Distinctive features of registration trials in oncology need to be considered when these studies form basis for EBA, especially in cancer-indications with long post-progression survival; and with several consecutive therapeutic options available post-progression. Ethical committees, caregivers and patients often demand cross-over-designs diluting the treatment-effect on overall survival. Regulatory authorities require evaluation of morbidity-related study endpoints including survival of patients without their disease getting worse (i.e., progression-free survival). Also, progression requires treatment-changes, another strong indicator for its relevance to patients.Based on specific guidelines and clinical trial programs that were developed to be consistent with regulatory guidance, endpoints in oncology are thoroughly evaluated in terms of their patient-relevance. This extensive knowledge and experience should be fully acknowledged during EBA when assessing the patient-relevant benefit of innovative medicines in oncology.

JEL CODES

D61; H51; I18.