RandomizEd phase II trial of Sunitinib four weeks on and two weeks off versus Two weeks on and One week off in metastatic clear-cell type REnal cell carcinoma: RESTORE trial

First-line sunitinib treatment modification in patients with mRCC: nationwide analysis of the Swedish population

Aim: Assess first-line sunitinib dosing for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Swedish clinical practice (2006-2019).Materials & methods: Retrospective analysis of three sunitinib dosing regimens: 2-weeks on, 1-week off (2:1 Start); standard 4-weeks on, 2-weeks off (4:2) and 4:2 start with switch to 2:1 (2:1 Switch).Results: Time-to-treatment discontinuation (95% CI) differed significantly (p < 0.001): 6.2 (5.6-7.2), 13.9 (8.1-20.6) and 4.6 (4.3-5.6) months for 2:1 Start (n = 320), 2:1 Switch (n = 71) and 4:2 (n = 704), respectively. Overall survival (95% CI) differed significantly (p < 0.001): 21.8 (18.1-26.1), 32.2 (25.1-48.3) and 13.5 (12.3-15.8) months for 2:1 Start (n = 320), 2:1 Switch (n = 71) and 4:2 (n = 704), respectively.Conclusion: Alternative dosing does not compromise clinical efficacy and may provide advantages in terms of improved treatment outcomes. However, due to the changing treatment patterns during this long-term study, and the absence of patient risk category data, caution is required when interpreting the main outcomes.

A Prospective Cohort Study Exploring the Effect of Lenvatinib Planned Drug Holidays in Treatment of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Background: Although lenvatinib is the preferred treatment for unresectable radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC), this agent exerts considerable toxicities, which can lead to frequent dose interruptions and modifications. The adoption of planned drug holidays has been recently suggested as one means of minimizing or avoiding these severe adverse events. Our retrospective study demonstrated that planned drug holidays appear to be a promising strategy for continuing of lenvatinib. However, the benefits of planned drug holidays in a prospective study have yet to be clarified. Here, we investigated the impact of planned drug holidays on clinical outcomes in patients treated with lenvatinib in the COLLECT study. Methods: In COLLECT, a prospective observational study, patients with RR-DTC were treated with lenvatinib in a real-world clinical setting. Lenvatinib was administered orally at a dose of 24 mg daily. Dose modification for toxicities was permitted. Furthermore, planned drug holidays were allowed to avoid severe or intolerable toxicities. The present post hoc analysis focused on evaluating the impact of planned drug holidays on clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), time to failure strategy (TFS), and progression-free survival (PFS), in patients in the COLLECT study who were treated with lenvatinib. Results: In total, 262 patients were included. Of the 253 patients evaluable for efficacy, 73 undertook a planned drug holiday at the discretion of the attending physician. OS, TTF, TFS, and PFS were significantly longer in patients who used a planned drug holiday than in those who did not. The planned drug holiday group demonstrated notable clinical outcomes, with a 1-year OS of 95.8% and a 1-year PFS of 94.5%. Moreover, planned drug holidays demonstrated a clinically meaningful advantage in clinical outcomes. The planned drug holiday group had a significantly longer duration of administration at a dose of ≥10 mg. Conclusions: Planned drug holidays for lenvatinib were associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes compared to daily oral administration. Further investigation of the optimal treatment schedule for lenvatinib is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN000022243.

A Comprehensive Review of Cancer Drug-Induced Cardiotoxicity in Blood Cancer Patients: Current Perspectives and Therapeutic Strategies

Cardiotoxicity has emerged as a serious outcome catalyzed by various therapeutic targets in the field of cancer treatment, which includes chemotherapy, radiation, and targeted therapies. The growing significance of cancer drug-induced cardiotoxicity (CDIC) and radiation-induced cardiotoxicity (CRIC) necessitates immediate attention. This article intricately unveils how cancer treatments cause cardiotoxicity, which is exacerbated by patient-specific risks. In particular, drugs like anthracyclines, alkylating agents, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors pose a risk, along with factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Mechanistic insights into oxidative stress and topoisomerase-II-B inhibition are crucial, while cardiac biomarkers show early damage. Timely intervention and prompt treatment, especially with specific agents like dexrazoxane and beta-blockers, are pivotal in the proactive management of CDIC.

2/1 dose schedule of sunitinib is superior than the 4/2 regimen for the first-line therapy of clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma - An Indian experience

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib remains the first-line treatment for favorable risk metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC). It was conventionally given in the 4/2 schedule; however, toxicity necessitated trying the 2/1 regimen. Regional variations in treatment response and toxicity are known, and there is no data from the Indian subcontinent about the outcomes of the alternative dosing schedule.

METHODS

Clinical records of all consecutive adult patients who received sunitinib as first-line therapy for histologically proven mccRCC following cytoreductive nephrectomy from 2010-2018 were reviewed. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary objectives were to evaluate the response rate (objective response rate and clinical benefit rate), toxicity, and overall survival. A list of variables having a biologically plausible association with outcome was drawn and multivariate inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) analysis was done to determine the absolute effect size of dosing schedules on PFS in terms of "average treatment effect on the treated" and "potential outcome mean."

RESULTS

We found 2/1 schedule to be independently associated with higher PFS on IPTW analysis such that if every patient in the subpopulation received sunitinib by the 2/1 schedule, the average time to progression was estimated to be higher by 6.1 months than the 4/2 schedule. We also found 2/1 group to have a lower incidence than the 4/2 group for nearly all ≥ grade 3 adverse effects. Other secondary outcomes were comparable between both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib should be given via the 2/1 schedule in Indian patients.

Combining Sunitinib and Bevacizumab for the Management of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Phase I/II Trial

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors remain a cornerstone in managing metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The 4 weeks on/2 weeks off intermittent sunitinib schedule could result in rebound angiogenesis and tumor progression in the 2-week rest period. We propose using bevacizumab during this period for continuous antiangiogenic effects.

METHOD

This was a phase I/II study of patients with advanced clear cell RCC. Sunitinib was given 50 mg daily on a 4-week on/2-week off schedule. Bevacizumab was given on day 29 of each sunitinib cycle. The bevacizumab starting dose was 5 mg/kg, and the dose was escalated to 10 mg if there was no dose-limiting toxicity. The primary endpoints were response rate and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were recruited. The study was closed prematurely because of poor accrual. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed with 5 mg bevacizumab. One patient achieved a complete response, and 12 achieved a partial response (52% response rate). At a median follow-up of 42.2 months (95%, confidence interval (CI) 32.9 to 51.4), the median PFS duration was 16.5 months (95% CI 4.1-28.8), and the median overall survival time was 33.3 months (95% CI 19.4-47.3). Twenty-two patients (88%) had at least one grade 3 or 4 toxicity; the most common were thrombocytopenia (32%), lymphopenia (32%), hypertension (28%), and fatigue (24%).

CONCLUSION

Continuous angiogenesis blockade by adding bevacizumab to the sunitinib on/off regimen for advanced RCC yields significant antitumor activity with manageable increased toxicity.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Therapeutic Combinations Based on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Monotherapy for First-Line Therapy of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Outside of Clinical Trials: A Real-World Retrospective Multi-Institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have demonstrated the superior efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapy over sunitinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. However, such benefits have not been elucidated in populations outside of clinical trials.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data from 467 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received ICI-based combination therapy or TKIs, as first-line therapy. Clinical outcome was compared between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs in each population divided according to trial eligibility.

RESULTS

Among 152 patients treated with ICI-based combination therapy and 315 patients treated with TKIs, 76 (50.0%) and 156 (49.5%) were trial ineligible, respectively. Overall survival (p = 0.0072) and objective response rate (p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs, but progression-free survival was comparable (p = 0.681). In the trial-eligible population, overall survival was longer (p = 0.0906) and the objective response rate was significantly higher (p = 0.0124) in ICI-based combination therapy than in TKIs. In the trial-ineligible population, overall survival (p = 0.0208) and objective response rate (p = 0.0006) were significantly higher with ICI-based combination therapy than with TKIs. A multivariate analysis also showed that ICI-based combination therapy was independently associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.47; p = 0.0016). Regardless of trial eligibility, progression-free survival did not differ between ICI-based combination therapy and TKIs (trial eligible: p = 0.287; trial ineligible: p = 0.0708).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study, using real-world data, provides evidence indicating the therapeutic benefit of ICI-based combination therapy over TKIs for advanced renal cell carcinoma was more statistically significant in the trial-ineligible population than in the trial-eligible population.

Sunitinib maleate administration before percutaneous CT-guided cryoablation for large renal cell carcinoma: A case report

A 60-year-old woman taking anti-platelet drugs was referred to the hospital for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. CT revealed that the tumor had a diameter of 5 cm and hyper-vascularity. Percutaneous CT-guided cryoablation (CA) was indicated. Since preprocedural arterial embolization failed to provide sufficient embolic effects, sunitinib maleate was administered. It provided good tumor devascularization and volume reduction, which corresponded to downstage. Therefore, the administration contributed to successfully performing subsequent percutaneous CT-guided CA with no serious hemorrhagic complications. Sunitinib maleate may be an alternative to conventional treatments before CA for renal cell carcinoma.

Continuous sunitinib schedule in advanced platinum refractory thymic epithelial neoplasms: A retrospective analysis from the ThYmic MalignanciEs (TYME) Italian collaborative group

BACKGROUND

Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are rare diseases, with diverse clinical behaviour and prognosis. Intermittent dosing sunitinib represents the gold-standard systemic treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. To ensure more homogeneous drug exposure, continuous daily dosing (CDD) sunitinib is utilised in other malignancies; however, no data exist in patients with TETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined data from patients with platinum-resistant TETs receiving CDD sunitinib 37.5 mg between 1 May 2017 and 31 May 2022 within the Italian collaborative group for ThYmic MalignanciEs. Primary end-points were median progression-free survival, overall response rate (ORR), median duration of response and major treatment-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 20 consecutive patients (12 thymic carcinoma [TC], 6 B3, and 2 B2 thymoma) were evaluated. Among the 19 patients evaluable for response, ORR was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.5%-56.5%). Among patients with TC, one complete response, four partial responses, and four stable diseases were observed (ORR 41%).The overall median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 4.5-10.3): 7.3 months (95% CI, 4.4-NA) within patients with thymoma and 6.8 months (95% CI, 2.8-10.3) in patients with TC; median duration of response was 10.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-NA). CDD was associated with a manageable toxicity profile. Six patients (30%) experienced >G2 toxicity, nine required dose reduction and three discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CDD sunitinib showed a relevant antitumor activity and confirmed a good toxicity profile. Similar effectiveness and a better toxicity profile as compared with intermittent dosing historical data suggest that this schedule should be considered.

Feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring of sunitinib and its implications on response and toxicity in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer

PURPOSE

Sunitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). High variability in pharmacokinetics coupled with a proven exposure-effect relationship makes sunitinib an ideal candidate for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The feasibility of TDM of sunitinib in patients with mRCC was evaluated in this prospective observational study in a real-world scenario.

METHODS

Seventy patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib at a fixed dose of 50 mg per day were enrolled in the study. Total trough plasma level (TTL) of sunitinib (sunitinib and its active metabolite, SU12662), was measured between days 14/15 of cycle 1. The discriminatory potential of TTL of sunitinib for the prediction of responders and occurrence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

The median TTL of sunitinib was 76 ng/mL. Forty six out of 70 patients were evaluable for response, whereas 60 out of 70 patients were evaluable for toxicity. Threshold concentrations obtained from ROC analysis showed that TTL of 60.75 ng/mL and 82.3 ng/mL was discriminatory for response and occurrence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity respectively. 31/34 (91.7%) patients having TTL ≥ 60.75 ng/mL responded to treatment, while only 5/12 (41.6%) responded when TTL was < 60.75 ng/mL (P = 0.001). On the other hand, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity was 9/24 (37.7%) in patients with TTL ≥ 82.3 ng/mL compared to 4/36 (11.1%) in patients with TTL < 82.3 ng/mL (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The TTL range of 60.75-82.3 ng/mL was found to be optimal in terms of safety and efficacy. More than 50% of patients in our cohort attained TTL of sunitinib outside the optimal range, thus demonstrating the feasibility of TDM to improve safety and efficacy of sunitinib in mRCC.

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

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

[Interdisciplinary recommendations for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma]

In the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, anti-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have been replaced mostly by immunotherapy combinations with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI), especially in first line therapy. Due to these novel therapies, the prognosis of patients has been improved further. In pivotal studies a median overall survival of 3-4 years has been achieved. TKI monotherapy remains important for patients with low risk, a contraindication against immunotherapy and with regard to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Selection of the correct first line therapy is difficult to answer because there are two CPI-TKI combinations and one CPI-combination. Temsirolimus and the combination bevacizumab + interferon alfa have become less important. In second line therapy, nivolumab and cabozantinib have demonstrated superior overall survival compared to everolimus. Furthermore, the combination of lenvatinib + everolimus and axitinib are approved treatment options in the second line and further settings. TKI are an option as well, but they have lower supporting evidence. Everolimus has been replaced in the second line setting by these new options. Biomarkers are not available. The German S3 guideline has been updated recently to give better orientation in clinical practice.The question of the optimal sequence is still unanswered. Most second line options were evaluated after failure of anti-VEGF-TKI, but these are only applicable for a minority of patients.The purpose of an interdisciplinary expert meeting in november 2020 was to debate which criteria should influence the therapy. The members discussed several aspects of treating patients with advanced or metastatic RCC, including the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. As in previous years, the experts intended to provide recommendations for clinical practice. The results are presented in this publication.

Intermittent versus continuous administration of pazopanib in progressive radioiodine refractory thyroid carcinoma: Final results of the randomised, multicenter, open-label phase II trial PAZOTHYR

INTRODUCTION

Multikinase inhibitor (MKI) treatments have shown efficacy in progressive radioiodine refractory thyroid cancers (RAIR-TC), but most patients experienced substantial adverse effects. This randomised multicentric study investigated intermittent versus continuous pazopanib administration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The PAZOTHYR study included RAIR-TC patients with progressive disease in the last 12 months, who may have received one prior MKI. RAIR-TC patients received pazopanib for 6 months, and patients with stable disease or tumour response were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continuous (CP) or intermittent (IP) pazopanib until progression. The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF) defined as the time from randomisation to permanent discontinuation of pazopanib, due to any cause. One hundred randomised patients were needed to demonstrate an increase from 50% (CP) to 70% (IP) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.515, 80% power) in the rate of patients still under treatment 6 months (6m-SuT) post-randomisation. Secondary end-points included the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) under pazopanib and safety.

RESULTS

RAIR-TC patients (168) enrolled from June 18, 2013 to January 16, 2018, received 6-month pazopanib treatment and showed 35.6% (95% CI 28.2-43.6) best response rate and 89.4% (83.5-93.7) disease control rate. One hundred patients were randomised (IP:50; CP:50). With a median follow-up of 31.3 months, median TTF was not statistically different between arms (IP:14.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3-17.4; CP:11.9, 95% CI 7.5-15.6) months (HR 0.79, 0.49-1.27). 6m-SuT rates were similar (IP:80% 66.0-88.7%; CP:78% 63.8-87.2%). Median PFS under pazopanib were not statistically different (IP:5.7 4.8-7.8; CP: 9.2 7.3-11.1) months (HR 1.36, 0.88-2.12). Pazopanib-related adverse events grade 3-4 occurred in 36 (IP: 19, 38%; CP: 17, 34%) randomised patients. Seven pazopanib-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent administration of pazopanib did not demonstrate significant superiority in efficacy or tolerance compared with continuous treatment. An intermittent administration scheme cannot be recommended outside clinical trials. This study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT01813136.

Study on HOXBs of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Detection of New Molecular Target

Our study examined the transcriptional and survival data of HOXBs in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from the ONCOMINE database, Human Protein Atlas, and STRING website. We discovered that the expression levels of HOXB3/5/6/8/9 were significantly lower in ccRCC than in normal nephritic tissues. In ccRCC, patients with a high expression of HOXB2/5/6/7/8/9 mRNA have a higher overall survival (OS) than patients with low expression. Further analysis by the GSCALite website revealed that the methylation of HOXB3/5/6/8 in ccRCC was significantly negatively correlated to gene expression, while HOXB5/9 was positively correlated to the CCT036477 drug target. As DNA abnormal methylation is one of the mechanisms of tumorigenesis, we hypothesized that HOXB5/6/8/9 are potential therapeutic targets for patients with ccRCC. We analyzed the function of enrichment data of HOXBs in patients with ccRCC from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway enrichment and the PANTHER pathway. The results of the analysis show that the function of HOXBs might be associated with the Wnt pathway and that HOXB5/6/8/9 was coexpressed with multiple Wnt pathway classical genes and proteins, such as MYC, CTNNB, Cyclin D1 (CCND1), and tumor protein P53 (TP53), which further confirms that HOXBs inhibit the growth of renal carcinoma cells through the Wnt signaling pathway. In conclusion, our analysis of the family of HOXBs and their molecular mechanism may provide a theoretical basis for further research.

Clinical-Based vs. Model-Based Adaptive Dosing Strategy: Retrospective Comparison in Real-World mRCC Patients Treated with Sunitinib

Different target exposures with sunitinib have been proposed in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, such as trough concentrations or AUCs. However, most of the time, rather than therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinical evidence is preferred to tailor dosing, i.e., by reducing the dose when treatment-related toxicities show, or increasing dosing if no signs of efficacy are observed. Here, we compared such empirical dose adjustment of sunitinib in mRCC patients, with the parallel dosing proposals of a PK/PD model with TDM support. In 31 evaluable patients treated with sunitinib, 53.8% had an empirical change in dosing after treatment started (i.e., 46.2% decrease in dosing, 7.6% increase in dosing). Clinical benefit was observed in 54.1% patients, including 8.3% with complete response. Overall, 58.1% of patients experienced treatment discontinuation eventually, either because of toxicities or progressive disease. When choosing 50-100 ng/mL trough concentrations as a target exposure (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), 45% patients were adequately exposed. When considering 1200-2150 ng/mL.h as a target AUC (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), only 26% patients were in the desired therapeutic window. TDM with retrospective PK/PD modeling would have suggested decreasing sunitinib dosing in a much larger number of patients as compared with empirical dose adjustment. Indeed, when using target trough concentrations, the model proposed reducing dosing for 61% patients, and up to 84% patients based upon target AUC. Conversely, the model proposed increasing dosing in 9.7% of patients when using target trough concentrations and in 6.5% patients when using target AUC. Overall, TDM with adaptive dosing would have led to tailoring sunitinib dosing in a larger number of patients (i.e., 53.8% vs. 71-91%, depending on the chosen metrics for target exposure) than a clinical-based decision. Interestingly, sunitinib dosing was empirically reduced in 41% patients who displayed early-onset severe toxicities, whereas model-based recommendations would have immediately proposed to reduce dosing in more than 80% of those patients. This observation suggests that early treatment-related toxicities could have been partly avoided using prospective PK/PD modeling with adaptive dosing. Conversely, the possible impact of model-based adapted dosing on efficacy could not be fully evaluated because no clear relationship was found between baseline exposure levels and sunitinib efficacy measured at 3 months.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Sunitinib in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors and Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Adults-A Review

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib is an inhibitor of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases and is a standard-of-care treatment for advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma and a second-line treatment in locally advanced inoperable and metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. A fixed dose of the drug, however, does not produce a uniform therapeutic outcome in all patients, and many face adverse effects and/or toxicity. One of the possible causes of the interindividual variability in the efficacy and toxicity response is the highly variable systemic exposure to sunitinib and its active metabolite. This review aims to summarize all available clinical evidence of the treatment of adult patients using sunitinib in approved indications, addressing the necessity to introduce proper and robust therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of sunitinib and its major metabolite, N-desethylsunitinib.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic search of the available scientific literature using the PubMed online database. The search terms were "sunitinib" AND "therapeutic drug monitoring" OR "TDM" OR "plasma levels" OR "concentration" OR "exposure." The search yielded 520 journal articles. In total, 447 publications were excluded because they lacked sufficient relevance to the reviewed topic. The remaining 73 articles were, together with currently valid guidelines, thoroughly reviewed.

RESULTS

There is sufficient evidence confirming the concentration-efficacy and concentration-toxicity relationship in the indications of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and metastatic renal clear-cell carcinoma. For optimal therapeutic response, total (sunitinib + N-desethylsunitinib) trough levels of 50-100 ng/mL serve as a reasonable target therapeutic range. To avoid toxicity, the total trough levels should not exceed 100 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the current evidence presented in this review, a TDM-guided dose modification of sunitinib in selected groups of patients could provide a better treatment outcome while simultaneously preventing sunitinib toxicity.

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.

[Interdisciplinary recommendations for the treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma]

Due to novel therapies, the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved. A median overall survival of more than two years is a realistic goal. Immunotherapy combinations with checkpoint inhibitors or checkpoint inhibitors and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib are new first-line options.Sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib and the combination of bevacizumab + interferon alpha are approved for first-line therapy regardless of the progression risk score. The use of both the combination of nivolumab + ipilimumab and cabozantinib is restricted to intermediate and high-risk patients. In this subgroup, the immunotherapy combination was more effective in terms of overall survival compared with sunitinib. Temsirolimus is only approved for high-risk patients.Sunitinib and pazopanib can also be applied as second-line options - for pazopanib the use is restricted to the event of cytokine failure. Nivolumab and cabozantinib demonstrated superior overall survival compared with everolimus. Furthermore, the combination of lenvatinib + everolimus and axitinib are approved treatment options in the second-line and further settings. Everolimus has been replaced in the second-line setting by these new options.The question regarding the optimal sequence is still unanswered.The purpose of an interdisciplinary expert meeting was to debate which criteria should influence treatment. The members discussed several aspects of treating patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. As in previous years, the experts intended to provide recommendations for clinical practice. The results are presented in this publication.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated significant clinical impact in improving overall survival of several malignancies associated with poor outcomes; however, only 20–40% of patients will show long-lasting survival. Further clarification of factors related to treatment response can support improvements in clinical outcome and guide the development of novel immune checkpoint therapies. In this article, we have provided an overview of the pharmacokinetic (PK) aspects related to current ICIs, which include target-mediated drug disposition and time-varying drug clearance. In response to the variation in treatment exposure of ICIs and the significant healthcare costs associated with these agents, arguments for both dose individualization and generalization are provided. We address important issues related to the efficacy and safety, the pharmacodynamics (PD), of ICIs, including exposure–response relationships related to clinical outcome. The unique PK and PD aspects of ICIs give rise to issues of confounding and suboptimal surrogate endpoints that complicate interpretation of exposure–response analysis. Biomarkers to identify patients benefiting from treatment with ICIs have been brought forward. However, validated biomarkers to monitor treatment response are currently lacking.

Randomised Phase II study comparing alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential administration in first-line metastatic renal carcinoma (SUNRISES study)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), as alternating blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways could potentially prevent the occurrence of resistance to anti-VEGFR therapy in mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

SUNRISES, a randomised open-label Phase II study, investigated the efficacy of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus vs standard sequential treatment of sunitinib followed by everolimus upon progression. Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC were included. Alternating treatment consisted on 12 weeks of sunitinib, followed by 12 weeks of everolimus. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoints included the median PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Accrual was low due to the advent of new-generation therapies, and the study was stopped prematurely. Only 41 patients out of the planned 102 patients were accrued, and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (15 patients to the control arm, 26 to the experimental arm). In all, 60.9% of patients had performance status (PS) 0 and 39% PS 1; 63% had a favourable prognostic risk profile, while 36% were intermediate risk. The primary endpoint was not met. The 1-year PFS rate was 49.7% (experimental arm) vs 84.62% (control arm; P = 0.11). There was a trend towards fewer Grade ≥3 adverse events with the alternating approach (50% vs 73.3%; P = 0.14). The median OS was similar in both treatment arms. The other secondary endpoints favoured the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The study failed to show any benefit of alternating cycles of sunitinib and everolimus in patients with mRCC. The alternating approach using an mTOR inhibitor does not seem to prevent the occurrence of resistance to VEGFR blockade.

Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World and Clinical Trials Data

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have stringent inclusion criteria and may not fully represent patients seen in everyday clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) can provide supportive evidence for the effectiveness of medical interventions in more heterogeneous populations than RCTs. Sunitinib is a widely used first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Objective

This is the first comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib using the novel approach of combining RCTs and RWD.

Methods

RCTs and RWD studies published between 2000 and 2017 were identified from PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Eligible studies contained a cohort of ≥ 50 adult patients with mRCC receiving first-line sunitinib treatment. The meta-analysis combined RWD and RCT treatment groups, adjusting for data type (RCT or RWD). Recorded outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and objective response rate (ORR). Publication bias was assessed via review of funnel plots for each outcome measure. A random effects model to account for study heterogeneity was applied to each endpoint. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the overall estimates.

Results

Of the 3611 studies identified through medical database searches, 22 (15 RWD studies, 7 RCTs) met eligibility criteria and were analyzed. mPFS (18 studies), mOS (19 studies), and ORR (15 studies) were reported for aggregate measures based on 4815, 5321, and 4183 patients, respectively. Reported mPFS (RWD, 7.5–11.0 months; RCTs, 5.6–15.1 months) and ORR data (RWD, 14.0–34.6%; RCTs, 18.8–46.9%) were consistent with the overall confidence estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 9.3 (8.6–10.2) months and 27.9% (24.2–32.0), respectively. Reported mOS showed greater variation in RWD (6.8–33.2 months) compared with RCTs (21.8–31.5 months), with an overall confidence estimate (95% CI) of 23.0 (19.2–27.6) months. Inspection of funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated that there was no publication bias for any efficacy endpoint. Sensitivity analyses showed no evidence of lack of robustness for mPFS, mOS, or ORR. Interpretation of these results is limited by differences in trial design, cohort characteristics, and missing data.

Conclusions

This novel, comprehensive meta-analysis validates sunitinib as an effective first-line treatment for patients with mRCC in both RCTs and everyday clinical practice. The methodology provides a framework for future analyses combining data from RCTs and RWD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11523-019-00653-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Acute Acalculous Cholecystitis Associated with Sunitinib Treatment for Renal Cell Carcinoma]

A 64-year-old man was treated with sunitinib as a first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. He was given oral sunitinib in cycles of 50 mg once daily for 2 weeks followed by a week off. During the 5th week of treatment right upper quadrant pain developed, but this resolved spontaneously during the 6th week (off treatment). However, on the 8th week of treatment, he was admitted to hospital because the acute right upper quadrant pain recurred with nausea, vomiting, and fever. Acute acalculous cholecystitis was then diagnosed by ultrasonography and CT. In addition, his laboratory findings indicated disseminated intravascular coagulation. Accordingly, sunitinib therapy was discontinued and broad-spectrum antibiotics initiated. He subsequently recovered after emergent percutaneous cholecystostomy. His Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale score was 7, indicaing a probable association of the event with sunitinib. Suspicion of sunitinib-related acute cholecystitis is required, because, although uncommon, it can be life-threatening.

Efficacy and Safety of Approved First-Line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatments in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This network meta-analysis aims to deliver an up-to-date, comprehensive efficacy and toxicity comparison of the approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in order to provide support for evidence-based treatment decisions. Previous NMAs of first-line mRCC treatments either predate the approval of all the first-line TKIs currently available or do not include evaluation of safety data for all treatments.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of phase II/III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing approved first-line TKI therapies for mRCC. A random effects model with a frequentist approach was computed for progression-free survival (PFS) data and for the proportion of patients experiencing a maximum of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis of PFS demonstrated no significant differences between cabozantinib and either sunitinib (50 mg 4/2), pazopanib or tivozanib. The network meta-analysis indicated that in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs, tivozanib had the most favourable safety profile and was associated with significantly less risk of toxicity than the other TKIs.

CONCLUSION

These network meta-analysis data demonstrate that cabozantinib, sunitinib, pazopanib and tivozanib do not significantly differ in their efficacy, but tivozanib is associated with a more favourable safety profile in terms of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Consequently, the relative toxicity of these first-line TKIs may play a more significant role than efficacy comparisons in treatment decisions and in planning future RCTs.

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

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

Effect of Changes in Skeletal Muscle Mass on Oncological Outcomes During First-Line Sunitinib Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia is a state of degenerative skeletal muscle wasting induced by cancer cachexia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic impact of changes in skeletal muscle mass (SMM) during first-line sunitinib therapy on oncological outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty-nine patients were evaluated retrospectively. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated based on computed tomography images obtained before the initiation (pre-treatment SMI) and after two cycles of sunitinib treatment (post-treatment SMI). The change in SMM was evaluated based on the value of ΔSMI, which was calculated as [(posttreatment SMI - pretreatment SMI)/ pretreatment SMI] × 100. Oncological outcomes were compared between patients with ΔSMI <0 (SMM decrease) and ΔSMI ≥0 (SMM maintenance).

RESULTS

A decrease in SMM was observed in 38 patients (55.1%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib therapy initiation were significantly shorter in patients with ΔSMI <0 than in those with ΔSMI ≥0 (median PFS: 9.53 vs. 28.4 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 19.8 vs. 52.6 months, p = 0.0001). ΔSMI was an independent predictive factor for PFS (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.74-6.29, p = 0.0002) and OS (HR 4.53, 95% CI 2.15-10.5, p < 0.0001). The objective response rate was significantly lower in patients with ΔSMI <0 than in those with ΔSMI ≥0 (23.7% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.0164).

CONCLUSION

Decreased SMM during first-line sunitinib therapy can be an effective marker of outcome prediction for mRCC.

[Interdisciplinary recommendations for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma]

Due to novel therapies, the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma has improved significantly. A median overall survival of more than two years is a realistic goal. Immunotherapies with checkpoint inhibitors are new first-line and second-line options. Sunitinib, Pazopanib, Tivozanib and the combination of Bevacizumab + interferon alpha are approved for first-line therapy, regardless of the progression risk score. The use of both the combination Nivolumab + Ipilimumab and Cabozantinib is limited to intermediate and high-risk patients. In this subgroup, the immunotherapy combination was more effective in terms of overall survival compared with Sunitinib. Temsirolimus is only approved for high-risk patients. Sunitinib and Pazopanib can also be used as second-line options, with the use of Pazopanib being limited to the event of cytokine failure. Nivolumab and Cabozantinib demonstrated superior overall survival compared to Everolimus. Furthermore, the combination of Lenvatinib + Everolimus and Axitinib are approved treatment options in second-line and further settings. Everolimus monotherapy has been replaced by the new options. The question regarding the optimal sequence of treatments is still unanswered. An interdisciplinary expert meeting aimed to discuss the criteria that should be used for therapy. The members discussed several aspects of treating patients with RCC. As in previous years, the experts intended to provide recommendations for clinical practice. The results are presented here.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Overview of current and future systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Since the 2000s, there have been dramatic advances in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), including drugs targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways. The first VEGF inhibitors approved for mRCC were sorafenib and sunitinib. Subsequently, two mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and temsirolimus) and other VEGF inhibitors (pazopanib and axitinib) were approved. Overall survival (OS) of mRCC patients has significantly increased during this period. Two novel VEGF inhibitors have recently been approved overseas, including cabozantinib and lenvatinib. Additionally, the recent advent of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has led to significant changes in the treatment of mRCC. The PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab improved the OS rate of patients with mRCC following VEGF inhibitors. Moreover, the CheckMate 214 trial demonstrated the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in OS and objective response rate in treatment-naive intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC. In this review, current evidence related to the clinical use of targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with mRCC is discussed. In addition, we review ongoing trials investigating combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with targeted agents and the identification of biomarkers to guide patient selection and enable individualization of therapy.

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

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

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

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

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients.

Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib.

Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting Tyrosine kinases in Renal Cell Carcinoma: "New Bullets against Old Guys"

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the seventh most frequently diagnosed tumor in adults in Europe and represents approximately 2.5% of cancer deaths. The molecular biology underlying renal cell carcinoma (RCC) development and progression has been a key milestone in the management of this type of tumor. The discovery of Von Hippel Lindau (VHL) gene alterations that arouse in 50% of ccRCC patients, leads the identification of an intracellular accumulation of HIF and, consequently an increase of VEGFR expression. This change in cell biology represents a new paradigm in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer by targeting angiogenesis. Currently, there are multiple therapeutic drugs available for advanced disease, including therapies against VEGFR with successful results in patients´ survival. Other tyrosine kinases' pathways, including PDGFR, Axl or MET have emerged as key signaling pathways involved in RCC biology. Indeed, promising new drugs targeting those tyrosine kinases have exhibited outstanding efficacy. In this review we aim to present an overview of the central role of these tyrosine kinases' activities in relevant biological processes for kidney cancer and their usefulness in RCC targeted therapy development. In the immunotherapy era, angiogenesis is still an "old guy" that the medical community is trying to fight using "new bullets".

Survival outcomes associated with different sunitinib dosing regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

Standard dosing regimen of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists of four weeks treatment followed by two weeks rest (intermittent dosing). Alternative regimens have been suggested, including continuous daily dosing (continuous dosing) and non-conventional dosing (non-conventional dosing: e.g. two weeks on/one week off, non-conventional dosing), to provide more individualized therapy with less toxicities. It is unclear whether non-standard sunitinib dosing affects survival outcomes.

Patients

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib between 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2011 at our institution.

Methods

Medical records and dispensing data were reviewed retrospectively to categorize sunitinib dosing as intermittent dosing, continuous dosing, or non-conventional dosing. Primary outcome was to compare overall survival associated with varying regimens, with secondary outcomes of progression-free survival and incidence of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.

Results

A total of 180 patients were identified. Most patients received intermittent dosing ( n = 120, 67%), followed by continuous dosing ( n = 32, 18%) and non-conventional dosing ( n = 28, 16%). Compared to intermittent dosing, continuous dosing was associated with similar overall survival (median 9 vs. 13 months, HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.43–1.06, p = 0.088) while non-conventional dosing was associated with significantly longer overall survival (median 9 vs. 23 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34–0.90, p = 0.016). Progression-free survival was significantly better for continuous dosing (median 4 vs. 9 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.94, p = 0.025) and non-conventional dosing (median 4 vs. 10 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, p = 0.03) when compared to intermittent dosing. Similar to prior sunitinib trials, a significant proportion of patients (20%) discontinued sunitinib therapy due to adverse effects.

Conclusions

Based on retrospective, real-world data, alternative sunitinib dosing regimens appear to be viable options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment for Metastatic Renal Carcinoma in Romania

Rationale: In recent years, the cost of several treatment options for renal cancer have been supported by the Romanian healthcare system for both first- and second-line therapies. First-line alternatives through real-life efficacy and amplitude of adverse reactions may influence the efficacy and costs of patients treated with second-line treatment.

Objective: Estimation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio for first-line treatment alternatives: Sunitinib and Pazopanib from the payer’s perspective in the Romanian healthcare system.

Methods and Results: We developed a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio for 2 cohorts of patients using the results from the COMPARZ study for efficacy (progression-free survival, general survivability and quality of life) and safety and costs from national hospital databases. For an estimated population of 800 patients, Pazopanib has a quantified benefit of 7.19 years in progression-free survival, 11.71 life years gained and 8.97 years of quality-adjusted life-years compared to Sunitinib. The analysis is limited by the accuracy of the national data used and the transposition of general data on efficacy and safety at the local level.

The Current and Evolving Landscape of First-Line Treatments for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors (VEGFRs), as well as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immune checkpoint receptor programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling pathway have improved clinical outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) pazopanib and sunitinib are FDA-approved first-line treatment options for advanced RCC; however, other treatment options in this setting are available, including the recently approved combination of nivolumab (anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 [CTLA-4]) for patients with intermediate or poor risk. Unfortunately, treatment guideline recommendations provide little guidance to aid first-line treatment choice. In addition, several ongoing randomized phase III trials of investigational first-line regimens may complicate the RCC treatment paradigm if these agents gain approval. This article reviews clinical trial and real-world evidence for currently approved and investigational first-line treatment regimens for advanced RCC and provides clinical evidence to aid first-line treatment selection. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as first-line treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, the treatment paradigm is rapidly evolving. The combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was recently approved for intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and other combination strategies and novel first-line agents will likely be introduced soon.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

COMPARZ Post Hoc Analysis: Characterizing Pazopanib Responders With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

This post hoc analysis of the COMPARZ study (pazopanib, n = 557; sunitinib, n = 553) supported similar efficacy of first-line pazopanib and first-line sunitinib treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who required dose modifications because of toxicity received higher cumulative doses with longer time of treatment and had significantly better objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival than patients with minimal toxicity.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed rapidly in recent years. In first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk patients, the CheckMate 214 study demonstrated a significant survival advantage for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib. The high cost of combined immune-modulating agents warrants an understanding of the combination's value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC from the U.S. payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2017. We extrapolated survival beyond the trial closure using Weibull distribution. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The total mean cost per-patient of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib was $292,308 and $169,287, respectfully. Nivolumab and ipilimumab generated a gain of 0.978 QALYs over sunitinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab and ipilimumab was $125,739/QALY versus sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis established that the base case ICER in the model for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib is below what some would consider the upper limit of the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S. ($150,000/QALY) and is thus estimated to be cost-effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib for treatment of patients with intermediate- to poor-risk metastatic kidney cancer, from the U.S. payer perspective. It would cost $125,739 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib in these patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Real-World Korean Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib

BACKGROUND

To evaluate survival outcomes and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who received sunitinib (SU) and pazopanib (PZ) as first-line therapy in real-world Korean clinical practice.

METHODS

Data of 554 patients with mRCC who received SU or PZ at eight institutions between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the targeted therapy, the patients were divided into SU (n = 293) or PZ (n = 261) groups, and the clinicopathological variables and survival rates of the two groups were compared. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the prognostic factors for OS.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 16.4 months (interquartile range, 8.3-31.3). Patients in the PZ group were older, and no significant difference was observed in the performance status (PS) between the two groups. In the SU group, the dose reduction rate was higher and the incidence of grade 3 toxicity was more frequent. The objective response rates were comparable between the two groups (SU, 32.1% vs. PZ, 36.4%). OS did not differ significantly between the two groups (SU, 36.5 months vs. PZ, 40.2 months; log-rank, P = 0.955). Body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS > 2, synchronous metastasis, poor Heng risk criteria, and liver and bone metastases were associated with a shorter OS.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data of Korean patients with mRCC suggested that SU and PZ had similar efficacies as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, PZ was better tolerated than SU in Korean patients.

The Surge in the Number of Circulating Tumor Cells Following Treatment with Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a promising biomarker for several cancers. We streamlined the experimental procedure of CTC immunofluorescent staining. We encountered a 72-year-old woman with metastatic right renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (clinical stage: T4N0M1), whose CTC number rapidly increased after the administration of sunitinib and then gradually decreased. The change in the CTC number appeared to coincide with laboratory data and hypertension, suggesting that a CTC analysis may be useful for promptly monitoring the treatment response. Our data provided the first evidence of an association between the CTC numbers and the treatment response in a metastatic RCC patient.