pH-Responsive Block Copolymer Micelles of Temsirolimus: Preparation, Characterization and Antitumor Activity Evaluation

Purpose

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common and lethal type of urogenital cancer, with one-third of new cases presenting as metastatic RCC (mRCC), which, being the seventh most common cancer in men and the ninth in women, poses a significant challenge. For patients with poor prognosis, temsirolimus (TEM) has been approved for first-line therapy, possessing pharmacodynamic activities that block cancer cell growth and inhibit proliferation-associated proteins. However, TEM suffers from poor water solubility, low bioavailability, and systemic side effects. This study aims to develop a novel drug formulation for the treatment of RCC.

Methods

In this study, amphiphilic block copolymer (poly(ethylene glycol) monomethyl ether-poly(beta-amino ester)) (mPEG-PBAE) was utilized as a drug delivery vehicle and TEM-loaded micelles were prepared by thin-film hydration method by loading TEM inside the nanoparticles. Then, the molecular weight of mPEG-PBAE was controlled to make it realize hydrophobic-hydrophilic transition in the corresponding pH range thereby constructing pH-responsive TEM-loaded micelles. Characterization of pH-responsive TEM-loaded nanomicelles particle size, potential and micromorphology while its determination of drug-loading properties, in vitro release properties. Finally, pharmacodynamics and hepatorenal toxicity were further evaluated.

Results

TEM loading in mPEG-PBAE increased the solubility of TEM in water from 2.6 μg/mL to more than 5 mg/mL. The pH-responsive TEM-loaded nanomicelles were in the form of spheres or spheroidal shapes with an average particle size of 43.83 nm and a Zeta potential of 1.79 mV. The entrapment efficiency (EE) of pH-responsive TEM nanomicelles with 12.5% drug loading reached 95.27%. Under the environment of pH 6.7, the TEM was released rapidly within 12 h, and the release rate could reach 73.12% with significant pH-dependent characteristics. In vitro experiments showed that mPEG-PBAE preparation of TEM-loaded micelles had non-hemolytic properties and had significant inhibitory effects on cancer cells. In vivo experiments demonstrated that pH-responsive TEM-loaded micelles had excellent antitumor effects with significantly reduced liver and kidney toxicity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we successfully prepared pH-responsive TEM-loaded micelles. The results showed that pH-responsive TEM-loaded micelles can achieve passive tumor targeting of TEM, and take advantage of the acidic conditions in tumor tissues to achieve rapid drug release.

ALK-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC): Evaluation of histomorphological and immunohistochemical features by analysis of 276 renal cell carcinoma cases in Turkey

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement-associated renal cell carcinoma (ALK-RCC) is characterized by ALK fusion at chromosome 2p23. It has recently been included as a recognized entity with the 5th edition of the WHO classification urinary and male genital tumor. However, our knowledge about ALK-RCC is limited due to the small number of reported cases. In our study, we aimed to contribute the histomorphological and immunohistochemical features of ALK-rearranged renal cell carcinoma cases. We reviewed 276 cases diagnosed as RCC in order to detect ALKRCCs.We used immunohistochemistry to screen ALK rearrangement and then confirmed the ALK rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method. ALK was immunohistochemically positive in 8 of 276 cases. ALK rearrangement was detected by FISH in 3 of 8 cases. These cases were previously diagnosed as clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CRCC), papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC), and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC). Their histomorphological findings were diverse, and all three cases exhibited different immunohistochemical findings. Survival of these patients ranged between 6 and 24 months. ALK immunohistochemical findings were also different in each case as perinuclear, weak cytoplasmic, and membranous.ALK RCCs appear to be very rare tumors with heterogeneous histomorphological and immunohistochemical features. Although immunohistochemistry may be useful to detect ALK positivity, genetic evaluation is required to confirm the diagnosis. With identifying ALK-RCCs, ALK inhibitors, which are currently used in the treatment of lung adenocarcinomas, can be used as a targeted therapy option in ALK-RCCs.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Temsirolimus in Asian Metastatic/Recurrent Non-clear Cell Renal Carcinoma

Purpose

Temsirolimus is effective in the treatment for metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) with poor prognosis. We aim to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of temsirolimus in treatment of naïve Asian patients with metastatic/recurrent nccRCC.

Materials and Methods

From January 2008 to July 2017, data of treatment-naïve, metastatic/recurrent nccRCC patients, who were treated with temsirolimus according to the standard protocol, were collected. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and tolerability of temsirolimus.

Results

Forty-four metastatic/recurrent nccRCC patients, 10 from prospective and 34 from retrospective groups, were enrolled; 24 patients (54%) were papillary type, and other histology subtypes included 11 chromophobes (25%), two collecting ducts (5%), one Xp11.2 translocation (2%), and six others (14%). The median PFS and OS were 7.6 months and 17.6 months, res-pectively. ORR was 11% and disease control rate was 83%. Patients with prior nephrectomy had longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.42; p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.45; p < 0.001). Compared to favorable/intermediate prognosis group, poor prognosis group had shorter median PFS (4.7 months vs. 7.6 months [HR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.39 to 6.12; p=0.005]) and median OS (9.2 months vs. 17.6 months [HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.56; p=0.015]).

Conclusion

Temsirolimus not only benefits poor-risk nccRCC patients, but it is also effective in favorable or intermediate-risk group in Asians. Temsirolimus was well-tolerated with manageable adverse events.

Phase II Trial and Correlative Genomic Analysis of Everolimus Plus Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose The decreased effectiveness of single-agent targeted therapies in advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ncRCC) compared with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) supports the study of combination regimens. We evaluated the efficacy of everolimus plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic ncRCC. Patients and Methods In this single-center phase II trial, treatment-naive patients received everolimus 10 mg oral once per day plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Correlative analyses explored candidate tissue biomarkers through next-generation sequencing. Results Thirty-five patients were enrolled with the following histologic subtypes: chromophobe (n = 5), papillary (n = 5), and medullary (n = 2) RCC and unclassified RCC (uRCC, n = 23). The majority of patients had papillary growth as a major component (n = 14). For 34 evaluable patients, median PFS, overall survival, and objective response rate (ORR) were 11.0 months, 18.5 months, and 29%, respectively. PFS varied by histology ( P < .001), and ORR was higher in patients with significant papillary (seven of 18) or chromophobe (two of five) elements than for others (one of 11). Presence of papillary features were associated with benefit, including uRCC, where it correlated with ORR (43% v 11%), median PFS (12.9 v 1.9 months), and overall survival (28.2 v 9.3 months; P < .001). Several genetic alterations seemed to segregate by histology. In particular, somatic mutations in ARID1A were seen in five of 14 patients with papillary features but not in other RCC variants. All five patients achieved treatment benefit. Conclusion The study suggests efficacy for this combination in patients with ncRCC characterized by papillary features. Distinct mutational profiles among ncRCCs vary according to specific histology.

Updated recommendation on molecular-targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell cancer

Molecular-targeted therapy was recommended for the systemic therapy of renal cell cancer (RCC) in the RCC guidelines, but these guidelines do not address the order of administration of the multiple presently available agents. There are several aspects that remain unknown regarding the optimal administration order and combination of molecular-targeted drugs. Until the optimal treatment sequence is determined by clinical trials, treatment individualization is required for each patient based on patient and disease characteristics. We herein investigate 12 cases of RCC patients who received axitinib. Axitinib was used as the first-line drug in 4 cases, second-line in 5 cases, third-line in 1 case and as a fourth-line drug in 2 cases. Partial response (PR) was observed in 4 cases (30%) and stable disease in 4 cases (30%) during axitinib treatment, with an overall response rate of 60%. The duration of PR ranged from 6 to 19 months. Based on our cases, axitinib exhibited reasonable therapeutic efficacy as first- as well as second-line treatment. However, more cases are required to draw firm conclusions.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

Novel therapeutic options for second-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has gained a variety of therapeutic options since the introduction of targeted therapy, starting in 2007. The basic molecular mechanisms included predominantly the targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor or the inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin. Recently, results from two randomized controlled trials, the CheckMate-25 and the METEOR trial, regarding therapy for RCC in the second-line setting have been published. In the present review, the current status of second-line therapy in mRCC is discussed, together with results from the two newly introduced substances, nivolumab and cabozantinib.

Expert Recommendations for First-Line Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Special Subpopulations

The availability of agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor or mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR] pathways has provided new treatment options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Based on the results of pivotal randomized clinical trials, specific recommendations have been established for management of these patients in first- and second-line settings. However, certain subgroups of patients may be excluded or under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with poor performance status, brain metastases, and cardiac or renal comorbidities, elderly patients, and those with non-clear cell histology. For these subpopulations, management recommendations have emerged from expanded access programs (EAPs), small phase II studies, retrospective analysis of clinical data, and expert opinion. This paper describes recommendations from an expert panel for the treatment of metastatic RCC in these subpopulations. The efficacy of targeted agents appears to be inferior in these patient subgroups relative to the general RCC population. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mTOR inhibitors can be administered safely to elderly patients and those with poor performance status, although dose and schedule modifications are often needed, and close monitoring and management of adverse events is essential. In addition to local surgical treatment and radiotherapy for brain metastases, systemic treatment with a TKI should be offered as part of multidisciplinary care.While there are currently no data from randomized trials, sunitinib has the greatest body of evidence, and it should be considered the first choice in patients with a good prognosis. Patients with an acute cardiac event within the previous 6 months, New York Heart Association grade III heart failure, or uncontrolled high blood pressure should not be treated with TKIs. In patients with mild or moderate renal failure, there are no contraindications to TKI treatment. TKIs can be administered to patients undergoing dialysis, but other, less nephrotoxic agents and other alternatives should always be considered.In managing RCC among patients with non-clear cell histology, sunitinib seems to be more effective than everolimus for the papillary subtype, but there are no clear data to guide treatment for other subtypes. In conclusion, individualized treatment approaches are needed to manage RCC in subpopulations that are underrepresented in registration clinical trials.