Time on Therapy for at Least Three Months Correlates with Overall Survival in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

With 15 drugs currently approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and even more combination regimens with immunotherapy on the horizon, there remains a distinct lack of molecular biomarkers for therapeutic efficacy. Our study reports on real-world clinical outcomes of mRCC patients from a tertiary academic medical center treated with empirically selected standard-of-care therapy. We utilized the Stanford Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (RCCD) to report on various outcome measures, including overall survival (OS) and the median number of lines of targeted therapies received from the time of metastatic diagnosis. We found that most metastatic patients did not survive long enough to attempt even half of the available targeted therapies. We also noted that patients who failed to receive a clinical benefit within the first two lines of therapy could still go on to experience clinical benefit in later lines of therapy. The term, “clinical benefit” was assigned to a line of therapy if a patient remained on drug treatment for three months or longer. Moreover, patients with clinical benefit in at least one line of therapy experienced significantly longer OS compared to those who did not have clinical benefit in at least one line of therapy. Developing biomarkers that identify patients who will receive clinical benefit in individual lines of therapy is one potential strategy for achieving rational drug sequencing in mRCC.

Improving outcomes in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma by sequencing therapy

Targeted agents have substantially improved outcomes in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. However, due to multiple mechanisms of evasive resistance, almost all patients progress at some point and may require subsequent therapies. Various agents have been explored after failure of first-line treatment in randomized clinical trials. However, so far few questions about the optimal sequence have been answered. Both everolimus and axitinib have been considered standard of care after failure of first-line VEGF-TKI; sorafenib has been proposed as an additional option. In clinical practice, several factors may influence the choice of subsequent treatment: these include considerations on appropriate drug exposure in first-line, gained insights on prognostic and predictive factors as well as mechanisms of resistance. Once the decision in second-line has been made and treatment has been initiated, treating physicians may already be challenged by the question of what to offer in third- and later lines. Treatment beyond second-line treatment isn't supported by strong evidence, and at this stage of disease, retrospective reports on rechallenge may help to guide decisions. In addition, local treatment approaches including metastasectomy and stereotactic radiosurgery may help to optimize outcomes in all treatment lines.

Maximising the duration of disease control in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with targeted agents: an expert agreement

With six targeted agents approved (sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, bevacizumab [+interferon], everolimus and pazopanib), many patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) will receive multiple therapies. However, the optimum sequencing approach has not been defined. A group of European experts reviewed available data and shared their clinical experience to compile an expert agreement on the sequential use of targeted agents in mRCC. To date, there are few prospective studies of sequential therapy. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus was approved for use in patients who failed treatment with inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptors (VEGFR) based on the results from a Phase III placebo-controlled study; however, until then, the only licensed agents across the spectrum of mRCC were VEGF(R) inhibitors (sorafenib, sunitinib and bevacizumab + interferon), and as such, a large body of evidence has accumulated regarding their use in sequence. Data show that sequential use of VEGF(R) inhibitors may be an effective treatment strategy to achieve prolonged clinical benefit. The optimal place of each targeted agent in the treatment sequence is still unclear, and data from large prospective studies are needed. The Phase III AXIS study of second-line sorafenib vs. axitinib (including post-VEGF(R) inhibitors) has completed, but the data are not yet published; other ongoing studies include the Phase III SWITCH study of sorafenib-sunitinib vs. sunitinib-sorafenib (NCT00732914); the Phase III 404 study of temsirolimus vs. sorafenib post-sunitinib (NCT00474786) and the Phase II RECORD 3 study of sunitinib-everolimus vs. everolimus-sunitinib (NCT00903175). Until additional data are available, consideration of patient response and tolerability to treatment may facilitate current decision-making regarding when to switch and which treatment to switch to in real-life clinical practice.

Sunitinib in solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Until recently, few treatments were available for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Several targeted agents inhibiting key pathogenetic pathways have since been developed for RCC (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus, everolimus) and GIST (imatinib, sunitinib). Sunitinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor of VEGFR-2, PDGFR (alpha,beta), FLT-3, KIT, CSF-1 and RET.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the literature regarding the structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, toxicity and current clinical use of sunitinib. Other potential roles for this drug in RCC, GIST and other tumor types will be discussed.

METHODS

A literature search identified relevant (pre)clinical studies of sunitinib and other relevant agents.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Sunitinib revolutionized the management of advanced RCC and GIST. With the realization that cross-resistance between targeted agents is incomplete, evolving strategies include sequential treatment, concurrent treatment, and biomarker development. Sunitinib also shows promise in several other tumor types that lack therapeutic options. What remains less clear is its role in tumors that are not heavily dependent on a central pathogenetic pathway, especially if effective cytotoxic therapies exist. Future clinical trials will clarify whether there is a role for sunitinib in these tumors, possibly in combination with cytotoxic agents.