A phase II trial of weekly intravenous gemcitabine and cisplatin with continuous infusion fluorouracil in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Nucleotide excision repair deficiency is a targetable therapeutic vulnerability in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Due to a demonstrated lack of DNA repair deficiencies, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has not benefitted from targeted synthetic lethality-based therapies. We investigated whether nucleotide excision repair (NER) deficiency is present in an identifiable subset of ccRCC cases that would render those tumors sensitive to therapy targeting this specific DNA repair pathway aberration. We used functional assays that detect UV-induced 6-4 pyrimidine-pyrimidone photoproducts to quantify NER deficiency in ccRCC cell lines. We also measured sensitivity to irofulven, an experimental cancer therapeutic agent that specifically targets cells with inactivated transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER). In order to detect NER deficiency in clinical biopsies, we assessed whole exome sequencing data for the presence of an NER deficiency associated mutational signature previously identified in ERCC2 mutant bladder cancer. Functional assays showed NER deficiency in ccRCC cells. Some cell lines showed irofulven sensitivity at a concentration that is well tolerated by patients. Prostaglandin reductase 1 (PTGR1), which activates irofulven, was also associated with this sensitivity. Next generation sequencing data of the cell lines showed NER deficiency-associated mutational signatures. A significant subset of ccRCC patients had the same signature and high PTGR1 expression. ccRCC cell line-based analysis showed that NER deficiency is likely present in this cancer type. Approximately 10% of ccRCC patients in the TCGA cohort showed mutational signatures consistent with ERCC2 inactivation associated NER deficiency and also substantial levels of PTGR1 expression. These patients may be responsive to irofulven, a previously abandoned anticancer agent that has minimal activity in NER-proficient cells.

Nucleotide excision repair deficiency is a targetable therapeutic vulnerability in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Purpose

Due to a demonstrated lack of DNA repair deficiencies, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has not benefitted from targeted synthetic lethality-based therapies. We investigated whether nucleotide excision repair (NER) deficiency is present in an identifiable subset of ccRCC cases that would render those tumors sensitive to therapy targeting this specific DNA repair pathway aberration.

Experimental Design

We used functional assays that detect UV-induced 6-4 pyrimidine-pyrimidone photoproducts to quantify NER deficiency in ccRCC cell lines. We also measured sensitivity to irofulven, an experimental cancer therapeutic agent that specifically targets cells with inactivated transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER). In order to detect NER deficiency in clinical biopsies, we assessed whole exome sequencing data for the presence of an NER deficiency associated mutational signature previously identified in ERCC2 mutant bladder cancer.

Results

Functional assays showed NER deficiency in ccRCC cells. Irofulven sensitivity increased in some cell lines. Prostaglandin reductase 1 (PTGR1), which activates irofulven, was also associated with this sensitivity. Next generation sequencing data of the cell lines showed NER deficiency-associated mutational signatures. A significant subset of ccRCC patients had the same signature and high PTGR1 expression.

Conclusions

ccRCC cell line based analysis showed that NER deficiency is likely present in this cancer type. Approximately 10% of ccRCC patients in the TCGA cohort showed mutational signatures consistent with ERCC2 inactivation associated NER deficiency and also substantial levels of PTGR1 expression. These patients may be responsive to irofulven, a previously abandoned anticancer agent that has minimal activity in NER-proficient cells.

Current Management Options in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Renal cancer accounts for 2.4% of all cancers. Localised disease accounts for the majority of renal cancers (70-75%), however 20-25% of these ultimately develop distant metastasis. The median overall survival of un treated metastatic disease is 5 months with 1-year survival of only 29%. The management of metastatic renal cell cancers traditionally relied on systemic immunotherapy with attendant high morbidity but after the year 2005 the use of effective targeted therapy with tolerable side effect profile has improved the survival from 10.2 months in the cytokine era to 17.7 months. This article reviews the past, present and future options in the management of metastatic renal cancer.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogeneous disease with regards to histology, progression, and response to treatment. Cytotoxic chemotherapy has been extensively studied in metastatic RCC (mRCC). Responses in most studies are modest and the mechanisms of resistance remain poorly understood. Targeted therapies have significantly improved outcomes in mRCC; however, most patients eventually relapse and die of their disease. Early clinical data suggest that combinations of chemotherapy and targeted agents are clinically active and are well tolerated.

METHODS

We reviewed the available literature for published clinical trials incorporating traditional chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of mRCC. These papers were identified through a Medline search and were included if they employed at least one chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of mRCC. The literature was also reviewed for information regarding mechanisms of chemotherapy resistance.

RESULTS

The data regarding the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in mRCC consist of small, non-randomized phase I and II studies. The major response proportions with single agent chemotherapies are low but combination regimens either with other cytotoxic agents, cytokines, or targeted agents have demonstrated moderate activity. Disparate trial designs and lack of head to head clinical trials make it difficult to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy with that of immunotherapy or targeted agents. Chemotherapy is particularly useful in patients with collecting duct histology and predominantly sarcomatoid differentiation. Chemotherapy resistance may be mediated by overexpression of p-glycoprotein efflux pumps and the dysregulation of the microtubule-hypoxia inducible factor signaling axis.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment for clear cell RCC remains poorly defined. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is considered a standard of care in patients with mRCC with predominantly sarcomatoid differentiation and collecting duct RCC variants (Motzer et al., 2014). Early trials combining chemotherapy with targeted therapies are generally well tolerated and show clinical activity. A better understanding of the biology of aggressive subsets of RCC and mechanisms of resistance will help elucidate the role of cytotoxic agents in the current treatment paradigm of RCC.

Immunologics and chemotherapeutics for renal cell carcinoma

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma remains a challenge for clinicians. Traditional chemotherapy is ineffective and immunotherapy with interleukin-2 is only occasionally beneficial. The development of numerous agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin signaling pathways that have been studied in phase III trials have resulted in significant improvement in survival for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Currently available U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved first line targeted agents include sunitinib, pazopanib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab (with interferon), while axitinib, everolimus, and sorafenib are most extensively used following progression as second- or third line therapy. Attempts to augment the activity of these agents by combining them together or with chemotherapy or immunotherapy have not yet proven to improve outcomes. As a result, the sequential use of single agents remains the current standard of care.

Thymidylate synthetase allelic imbalance in clear cell renal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the allelic status of the thymidylate synthetase (TYMS) gene, located at chromosome band 18p11.32, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). TYMS is a key target of the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based class of drugs, frequently considered in combination therapies in advanced RCC. TYMS variants, such as the TYMS polymorphic 5'-untranslated region variable number tandem repeat sequence (VNTR), are under investigation to guide 5-FU treatment. Yet, no information is available with regard to changes in TYMS allele frequencies in RCC malignances.

METHODS

Blood and matched tumor samples were collected from 41 histological proven clear cell RCC affected patients (30 males, 11 females.). TYMS VNTR genotype was first determined in blood to identify heterozygotes employing PCR techniques. To evaluate for allelic imbalance, fragment analysis was performed both in blood and matched tumor DNA of the heterozygote patients. Microsatellite analysis, employing the markers D18S59 and D18S476 mapping, respectively, at the TYMS locus (18p11.32) and 1.5 Mb downstream of the TYMS gene sequence (18p11.31), was performed to confirm TYMS allelic imbalance in tumors.

RESULTS

Germ-line TYMS VNTR distribution was: 2R/2R (19.5%), TYMS 2R/3R (36.6%) and TYMS 3R/3R (43.9%). Allelic imbalance for the TYMS tandem repeat region was detected in 26.6% of the heterozygote patients. Microsatellite analysis confirmed the allelic imbalance detected by TYMS VNTR analysis and revealed that the overall frequence of allelic imbalance of chromosome band 18p11.32 was 35%, while the overall allelic imbalance of chromosome band 18p11.31 was 28%.

CONCLUSIONS

By focusing on the TYMS polymorphic variants in renal cancer, we here provide evidence, to our knowledge, for the first time showing loss of 18p11.32 and 18p11.31 in renal cell carcinomas. As allelic imbalances involving TYMS locus may be an important variable affecting 5-FU responsiveness, this study may contribute to explain different responses of advanced RCC in combined chemotherapeutic regimens incorporating fluoropyridines.

The efficacy and safety of irinotecan cisplatin and mitomycin chemotherapy in sunitinib pre-treated metastatic clear cell renal cancer

Background

Sunitinib is widely used as first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (MCRC). No reports are known of treatment after sunitinib failure. As irinotecan, cisplatin, and mitomycin-C (IPM) chemotherapy has been reported to influence MCRC after progression on cytokine therapy, we report on the outcome of 11 patients treated with IPM after sunitinib failure.

Patients and methods

Eleven patients with progression of disease on sunitinib therapy were treated with 4, monthly cycles of monthly IPM.

Results

Nine out of 11 patients progressed during IPM therapy. The median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI: 0.7–2.1 months), while the overall survival was 4.2 months (95% CI: 0.9–2.3). Overall 10 patients have died of progressive renal cancer. One patient had a radiological response to therapy and remains progression free 11 months after treatment. Four of the 10 patients required a dose reduction for grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

Conclusions

IPM alone does not appear to benefit patients with MCRC who previously progressed during sunitinib therapy. The median progression-free survival and overall survival for these patients is short.

Role of Chemotherapy With Gemcitabine Plus 5-fluorouracil and Chemoimmunotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer (mRCC)

Several phase II trials have shown that gemcitabine and fluoropyrimidines have marginal but definite activity in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). We retrospectively analyzed the 193 mRCC patients consecutively seen in our institutions during the last 11 years, of whom 39 were treated with chemotherapy (CT): 16 were treated with CT alone (gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil) and 23 with the same regimen plus low dose of interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha. The main end point of the analysis was to estimate response rate and time to progression (TTP); the secondary end point was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Overall TTP was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval: 2.22-4.18). Three patients (7.7%) achieved a partial response and 10 (25.6%) stable disease. Median OS was 9.23 months (95% confidence interval: 7.16-11.31) and the 1-year survival rate was 40.6%. Although not statistically significant, the response and disease control rates were better in the pretreated patients (8% vs. 7% and 44% vs. 14%), with a favorable trend for TTP and OS (4.9 vs. 3.2 mo and 12.9 vs. 4.2 mo). Grade 3 to 4 toxicities included hematologic toxicity and depressed mood. OS was strongly influenced by performance status, the presence of brain metastasis, and response after 3 cycles of therapy. In these mRCC patients, both CT and chemoimmunotherapy showed modest but definite activity and a regimen CT-based should be offered to patients with progressive mRCC. The association of these treatments with antiangiogenetic agents should be tested in future trials.

A phase II study of gemcitabine and capecitabine in metastatic renal cancer: a report of Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 90008

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to verify previous reports of activity with gemcitabine plus a fluoropyrimidine in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer in a multiinstitutional setting.

METHODS

Eligibility included a Zubrod performance status from 0 to 2, no prior gemcitabine or fluoropyrimidine therapy, and normal organ function. Patients received gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 and capecitabine at a dose of 830 mg/m2 twice daily on Days 1 through 21 on a 28-day cycle with specified dose reductions for baseline renal insufficiency. The primary endpoint was the response rate, which was assessed every 8 weeks. The statistical plan tested the hypothesis that the response rate was 5% versus an alternative of 15%.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled, and 4 of those patients never started treatment. Of the 56 evaluable patients, 79% of patients underwent prior nephrectomy, 75% of patients received prior systemic therapy, and 75% of patients had clear cell histology. Risk stratification revealed that 34%, 43%, and 16% of patients were in Risk Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Toxicity (graded according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) included Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 45% of patients, Grade 2 or greater fatigue in 32% of patients, Grade 2 or greater nausea in 29% of patients, Grade 2 or greater hand-foot reaction in 39% of patients, and Grade 2 or greater diarrhea in 22% of patients. Six patients responded (11%; 95% confidence interval, 4-22%), and the overall median survival was 14.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had modest activity in patients with metastatic renal cancer, although the degree of activity and its associated toxicity would not support further evaluation in a Phase III trial of unselected patients. More focused investigations to identify patients most likely to benefit or to enhance activity with additional agents would be reasonable.

A Phase I trial of fixed dose rate gemcitabine and capecitabine in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has modest response rates to chemotherapy with gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Fixed dose rate gemcitabine infusion leads to enhanced intracellular accumulation of drug and possible augmented clinical effect. To determine the toxicity of this combination therapy in metastatic RCC, a Phase I trial was conducted.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic RCC were enrolled in a Phase I dose escalation trial. Patients received fixed dose rate gemcitabine on Days 1, 8, and 15 in combination with capecitabine, an oral 5-FU analog, given on Days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle.

RESULTS

Nine patients were enrolled at one of two dose levels. The initial dose level produced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), including prominent palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (hand-foot syndrome). A modified second dose level also resulted in DLT, precluding further study. No central nervous system (CNS) toxicity was observed in three patients with CNS metastases. Two patients demonstrated an objective partial response.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed dose rate gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine produced unacceptable toxicity in patients with advanced RCC. Further development of this schedule in RCC cannot be recommended.

Active chemotherapy for sarcomatoid and rapidly progressing renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and in patients with rapidly progressive metastatic or locally recurrent disease, with a median time to progression of approximately 2 months and a median survival of 4-7 months. Gemcitabine-based regimens have modest antitumor activity, whereas doxorubicin is often used to treat sarcomatoid RCC. Based on the antitumor activity of doxorubicin and gemcitabine in collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney, the authors used this combination to treat selected patients with sarcomatoid or rapidly progressing RCC.

METHODS

Eighteen patients (11 males and 7 females; median age, 53 years; range, 31-81 years) with RCC (56% sarcomatoid; 44% other) were treated at 2 institutions in a collaborative study that was not institutional review board reviewed. Seven patients received previous treatment with interferon or interleukin-2. Sites of metastases included the lung, soft tissue, bone, liver, and brain with 88% of patients having > or = 3 sites of disease. Treatment consisted of doxorubicin (50 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1500 or 2000 mg/m2) every 2-3 weeks with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor support.

RESULTS

A median of 5 courses was administered (range, 2-12 cycles). Therapy was well tolerated with no Grade 4 toxicities. Two patients had a complete response, five had a partial response, three had a mixed response, and one had stable disease. The median duration of response was 5 months (range, 2-21+ months).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggested that the combination of doxorubicin and gemcitabine has antitumor activity in patients with sarcomatoid RCC or with rapidly progressing RCC. A prospective investigation of this combination in RCC is warranted.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the treatment of patients with immunotherapy-resistant advanced renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no standard treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who do not experience a response to first-line immunotherapy. In the current Phase II study, the authors explored the antitumor activity of a combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (L-OHP) in this setting.

METHODS

Forty-two patients with RCC who had progressive disease following immunotherapy received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on Days 1 and 8 every 21 days) and L-OHP (90 mg/m2 intravenously on Day 1 every 21 days) for a minimum of 2 cycles before responses were evaluated. Responses to treatment and toxicity were recorded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, respectively.

RESULTS

No complete responses were recorded; however, 6 patients experienced a partial response (14.28%; 95% confidence interval, 5.43-28.5%), 11 patients (26.19%) had temporary stable disease as a best response, and the remaining 25 patients (59.52%) experienced progression despite receiving treatment. The median time to disease progression was 2.5 months (mean, 3.86 months; range, 1.5-11.0 months), whereas the median overall survival was 9.5 months (mean, 10.46 months; range, 4.0-22.5 months). With regard to toxicity, treatment generally was well tolerated, with only one episode of Grade 4 toxicity and expected episodes of Grade 3 toxicity, including myelosuppression and neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and L-OHP possesses a certain level of activity and an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with immunotherapy-resistant advanced RCC.

Prognostic Factors for Survival With Gemcitabine Plus 5-fluorouracil Based Regimens for Metastatic Renal Cancer

PURPOSE

Combination gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) may have activity in metastatic renal cell cancer. To identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit and compare survival to that in previously described patient series long-term survival as a function of known and suspected prognostic variables was determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survival status of 153 patients with metastatic renal cell cancer treated on 1 phase I and 4 phase II trials of gemcitabine/5-FU based regimens was updated. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed using multiple imputation for missing values.

RESULTS

Performance status, prior nephrectomy, number of metastatic sites, decreased albumin and elevated alkaline phosphatase were highly prognostic for survival. Sarcomatoid differentiation and hypercalcemia had borderline prognostic significance. Using a previous described prognostic model that divided patients into 3 risk groups survival in those treated with gemcitabine/5-FU in this series was consistently better than survival in similar patients treated in the Motzer series.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously described prognostic factors for survival in metastatic renal cancer were confirmed. There is no clearly identifiable group that is most likely to benefit from a gemcitabine/5-FU regimen but there is a continued suggestion that this regimen provides a modest improvement over historical chemotherapy approaches.

Chemotherapeutic strategies for renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a disease that is highly resistant to systemic chemotherapy. Responses to combination chemotherapy have been reported in patients with collecting duct carcinoma and the sarcomatoid variant of renal cancer. Clinical trials combining chemotherapy with biologic response modifiers have not resulted in significant advances in the treatment of RCC. Patients with advanced local or metastatic RCC should be offered investigational therapeutic options. The identification of novel agents with significantly improved antitumor activity remains a high priority in the treatment of this disease.

Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, pemetrexed and other newer agents in urothelial and kidney cancers

Significant progress has been made in understanding the biology of urothelial and kidney cancers. Approaches to advanced urothelial cancer include dose intensification, reducing toxicity in unfit or elderly patients, doublet and triplet combination chemotherapy and sequential regimens. Promising new chemotherapeutic agents such as the epothilones, pemetrexed (Alimta), topoisomerase inhibitors and vinflunine act at different phases of the cell cycle and on folate metabolism. New agents that are combined with chemotherapy in urothelial cancer include the farnesyl transferase inhibitors and growth factors receptor inhibitors. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is particularly resistant to cytotoxic agents, although a gemcitabine/fluorinated pyrimidine combination may have modest but real clinical benefit. In metastatic RCC, new biologic and targeted therapies include anti-angiogenesis agents such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody and thalidomide, as well as toremifene, CCI-779 and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Metastatic urothelial and renal cell cancers continue to be the clinical trial focus of many novel agents. The molecular biology of these diseases is being unravelled and as knowledge accumulates, our ability to target these cancers will continue to increase.

Novel therapies for renal cell carcinoma--an update

This article reviews the recent progress in the search for new treatments for renal cell cancer (RCC), based on a variety of preclinical models or strategies. Some recent clinical trials addressing migrating treatments from other cancers onto RCC and novel agents are discussed, as well as the molecular targets for some of the novel agents. Drugs oriented to histologically definable RCC features, such as the G250 antigen, and the receptor tyrosine kinases, such as epidermal growth factor receptor, are reviewed. Drugs aimed at antiangiogenesis and perturbing features of the cell cycle are also mentioned, including preclinical and empirical experience. Molecular techniques in the study of von Hippel Lindau-related pathways and mRNA expression analyses are cited. Within the immune model of therapy, progress in the application of immune-related drugs including older cytokines (IL-2, IFN-alpha) and of newer cytokine-variant and other cytokines are discussed. Finally, cell-based therapies such as lymphocyte infusions, tumour-cell vaccines, dendritic cell vaccines and allogeneic mini-transplant are outlined. Although high percentage improvements in outcomes for metastatic RCC are not yet realised, the many fronts for scientific and clinical advances form some basis for optimism in the coming years.

A high rate of venous thromboembolism in a multi-institutional phase II trial of weekly intravenous gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil and daily thalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine the clinical response rate of the combination of weekly intravenous (IV) gemcitabine with continuous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) and daily oral thalidomide in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

Between June, 2000 and January, 2001, 21 patients with metastatic RCC were enrolled onto this multi-institutional Phase II study of gemcitabine at 600 mg/m(2) per day on Days 1, 8, and 15; 5-FU at 150 mg/m(2) per day by continuous IV infusion through a permanent catheter on Days 1-21; and oral thalidomide on Days 1-28 starting at a dose of 200 mg daily. After the first 2 weeks of therapy, the thalidomide dose was escalated by 100 mg per day every week to a maximum dose of 400 mg per day unless it was precluded by toxicity. Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days.

RESULTS

A high rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was observed. Five patients developed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), three patients developed pulmonary embolization (PE), and one patient suffered a fatal cardiac arrest preceded by hemoptysis, for an overall VTE rate of 43%. Of the 18 assessable patients, there were no complete responses and 2 partial responses (objective response rate, 10%; 95% confidence interval, 1-30%).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of thalidomide to gemcitabine and 5-FU did not improve the objective response rate previously observed with gemcitabine and 5-FU alone and added significant vascular toxicity. The authors recommend against further development or use of this three-drug regimen.

Future directions for gemcitabine in the treatment of genitourinary cancer

Because of an annual morbidity of 225,000 patients and mortality of over 56,000 patients per year in the United States from metastatic genitourinary malignancies, there is a great need for new systemic agents. With its activity and low toxicity, gemcitabine has begun to play a growing role in genitourinary cancer treatment and clinical trials. Substantial activity has been reported for gemcitabine combinations in the treatment of bladder cancer (median survival in one study of nearly 20 months) and for gemcitabine alone or in combinations in testicular cancer patients. Lower (but real) levels of activity have also been observed for gemcitabine combinations in renal carcinoma (17% response rate) and for monotherapy in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (7%). These data suggest the need for further trials of gemcitabine alone or in combinations in genitourinary cancer patients.