Adverse event profile and dose modification of everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world Japanese clinical practice

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

OBJECTIVE

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized clinical trials and real life studies: Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in oral target therapies for renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS.Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.

Nivolumab in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: CheckMate 275 2-year global and Japanese patient population analyses

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab has demonstrated antitumor activity and manageable safety in the single-arm, phase II CheckMate 275 study in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant urothelial carcinoma. We report updated results of the global population and a subanalysis of Japanese patients from this study.

METHODS

Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) confirmed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) by BIRC and overall survival (OS). Safety was also reported. The minimum follow-up was 21 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 patients were treated with nivolumab globally; 23 patients were Japanese. In the global and Japanese populations, respectively, ORR per BIRC was 20.4% and 21.7%; median PFS was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-2.3) and 3.8 months (95% CI 1.9-7.2); and median OS was 8.6 (95% CI 6.1-11.3) and 21.0 months (95% CI 7.2-not reached). The most common any grade treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (18.1%) and diarrhea (12.2%) in the global population; the most common in the Japanese population were diarrhea (26.1%) and pyrexia (13.0%). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61 (22.6%) and seven (30.4%) of the global and Japanese patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab continues to show antitumor activity and survival in the global population of CheckMate 275. Meaningful clinical benefit was also observed in Japanese patients. No new safety signals were identified.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from the CheckMate 025 study

Background

Nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the phase III CheckMate 025 study (minimum follow-up: 14 months). We report efficacy and safety in the global and Japanese populations (minimum follow-up: 26 months).

Methods

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or everolimus 10-mg tablet orally once daily. Primary endpoint: OS, key secondary endpoints: ORR, progression-free survival and safety.

Results

Of 410 (nivolumab) and 411 (everolimus) patients, 37 (9%) and 26 (6%), respectively, were Japanese. Median OS for the global population was 26.0 months (nivolumab) and 19.7 months (everolimus; hazard ratio 0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.88]; P = 0.0006), with medians not reached for Japanese patients. ORR for the global population was 26% (nivolumab) versus 5% (everolimus; odds ratio 6.13; 95% CI: 3.77-9.95); ORR for Japanese patients: 43% versus 8% (odds ratio 9.14; 95% CI: 1.76-88.33). In Japanese patients, any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78% (Grade 3-4, 19%; most common, anemia [5%]) treated with nivolumab and 100% (Grade 3-4, 58%; most common, hypertriglyceridemia [12%]) treated with everolimus; the most common with nivolumab was diarrhea (19%) and with everolimus was stomatitis (77%). Quality of life was stable in the nivolumab arm.

Conclusions

With >2 years of follow-up, Japanese patients had a higher response rate with nivolumab versus everolimus that was more pronounced yet consistent with the global population, with median OS not reached, and a favorable safety profile.

Increased risk of everolimus-associated acute kidney injury in cancer patients with impaired kidney function

BACKGROUND

Everolimus was recently introduced as a second-line treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and many other cancers. Several prospective studies have shown that serum creatinine levels are increased in a significant proportion of patients receiving everolimus. However, data on the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) during everolimus treatment in clinical practice are sparse. Here, we report the incidence, risk factors, and clinical significance of AKI associated with everolimus treatment in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed patients who received everolimus for more than 4 weeks as an anticancer therapy. AKI was defined as increase in creatinine levels from baseline levels greater than 1.5-fold.

RESULTS

The majority of the 110 patients enrolled in this analysis had RCC (N=93, 84.5%). AKI developed in 21 (23%) RCC patients; none of the patients (N=17) with other cancers had AKI. Fourteen of 21 cases were considered to be everolimus-associated AKI, in which there were no other nephrotoxic insults other than everolimus at the onset of AKI. The incidence of AKI increased progressively as baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased (10% in subjects with eGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m2, 17% in subjects with eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m2, 28% in subjects with eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100% in subjects with eGFR 15-30 mL/min/1.73 m2; P=0.029 for trend). Baseline eGFR was an independent risk factor for the development of everolimus-associated AKI (hazard ratio per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 increase, 0.70; 95% confidential interval, 049-1.00; P=0.047). Nine of 14 patients with everolimus-associated AKI continued receiving the drug at a reduced dose or after a short-term off period. Administration of the drug was discontinued in four of 14 patients because of progression of an underlying malignancy. Only one patient stopped taking the drug because of AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper suggests that AKI is a common adverse effect of everolimus treatment, especially in subjects with impaired renal function. However, the occurrence of AKI did not require the discontinuation of the drug, and the treatment decision should be made via a multidisciplinary approach, including the assessment of the oncological benefits of everolimus and other therapeutic options.