First-line axitinib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: exploratory subgroup analyses of Phase III data

New advances in the research of clinical treatment and novel anticancer agents in tumor angiogenesis

In 1971, Folkman proposed that tumors could be limited to very small sizes by blocking angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is the generation of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels, considered to be one of the important processes in tumor growth and metastasis. Angiogenesis is a complex process regulated by various factors and involves many secreted factors and signaling pathways. Angiogenesis is important in the transport of oxygen and nutrients to the tumor during tumor development. Therefore, inhibition of angiogenesis has become an important strategy in the clinical management of many solid tumors. Combination therapies of angiogenesis inhibitors with radiotherapy and chemotherapy are often used in clinical practice. In this article, we will review common targets against angiogenesis, the most common and up-to-date anti-angiogenic drugs and clinical treatments in recent years, including active ingredients from chemical and herbal medicines.

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.

Renal adverse reactions of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of tumours: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Objectives: Tumours remain a serious threat to human life. Following rapid progress in oncology research, tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been used to treat multiple tumour types. Given the great influence of kidneys on pharmacokinetics, renal toxicities associated with TKIs have attracted attention. However, the TKIs with the lowest risks of renal impairment are unclear. In this study, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the incidence of renal impairment among different TKIs in patients with tumours. Methods and analysis: Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and China Biomedical Literature Database) were electronically searched from inception to 1 November 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials on the incidence of renal impairment for different TKIs in patients with tumours. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Then, a pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using Stata version 13, and network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was conducted using R software version 3.5.3 with the package "gemtc 0.8-2" recalling JAGS (version 4.3.0). Results: Overall, 34 randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Although renal toxicity was common among patients receiving TKIs, the incidence and severity greatly differed among the drugs and studies. Elevated creatinine and protein levels were the most common nephrotoxic events, whereas haematuria was relatively rare. Among TKIs, nintedanib and ripretinib carried the lowest risks of renal impairment. Conclusion: TKIs displayed different profiles of renal toxicity because of their different targets and underlying mechanisms. Clinicians should be aware of the risks of renal impairment to select the optimal treatment and improve patient adherence to treatment. Systematic Review Registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022295853].

A real-world pharmacovigilance study of axitinib: data mining of the public version of FDA adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

Axitinib was approved for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study was to assess axitinib-related adverse events (AEs) through data mining of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

Disproportionality analyses, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms, were employed to quantify the signals of axitinib-associated AEs.

RESULTS

Out of 10,703,806 reports collected from the FAERS database, 9044 reports of axitinib as the 'primary suspected (PS)' AEs were identified. Axitinib induced AEs occurrence targeted 26 organ systems. A total of 95 significant disproportionality PTs conforming to the four algorithms were simultaneously retained. Rare reports and significant signals of aortic disease have emerged. Unexpected significant AEs such as scrotal swelling, scrotal ulcers, infections, and infestations might also occur. The median onset time of axitinib-associated AEs was 63.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 20-182 days), and most of the cases occurred within the first one and 2 months after axitinib initiation.

CONCLUSION

Our study found potential new AEs signals and might provide important support for clinical monitoring and risk identification of axitinib.

ATLAS trial of adjuvant axitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analyses with focus on axitinib dosing and racial groups

Background

The ATLAS trial, investigating adjuvant axitinib versus placebo in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), was stopped for futility at a preplanned interim analysis. We report subgroup outcome analyses by ethnicity, time on treatment, dose modification and toxicity.

Patients and methods

Patient demographics, baseline characteristics, treatment duration and exposure and safety were analysed for Asian versus non-Asian patients treated with axitinib versus placebo. Disease-free survival (DFS) was analysed by ethnicity, treatment duration (≥1 versus <1 year), dose modification and adverse event (AE) grade.

Results

No DFS benefit was observed for Asian {hazard ratio (HR) 0.883 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.638-1.220]} or non-Asian [HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.490-1.400)] patients treated with axitinib or placebo. Fewer Asian versus non-Asian patients were in the highest-risk group in axitinib (51.9% versus 72.3%) or placebo (51.5% versus 66.0%) arm. Highest-risk patients in both subgroups had no DFS benefit with either treatment. More axitinib-treated Asian versus non-Asian patients had dose reductions due to AEs (58.8% versus 46.0%; P = 0.028). Asian patients experienced more nasopharyngitis but less fatigue or asthenia than non-Asians. Among Asian patients, proteinuria, hypothyroidism, nasopharyngitis, and hypertension were more common in Japanese patients than Korean patients and more common in Korean patients than Chinese patients. Patients receiving axitinib >1 year versus ≤1 year did not have different DFS: HR 0.572 (95% CI 0.247-1.327); P = 0.1874. Compared with patients on stable axitinib dose, DFS was longer in patients with dose reduction [HR 0.458 (95% CI 0.305-0.687); P = 0.0001], whereas DFS was not different in those with dose escalation [HR 1.936 (95% CI 0.937-3.997); P = 0.0685]. DFS was not different in patients experiencing grade ≥2 versus <2 AEs within 6 months of initiating axitinib: HR 0.885 (95% CI 0.419-1.869); P = 0.7488.

Conclusions

Asian versus non-Asian subgroup analysis revealed differences in AE experience and drug exposure. There were no DFS differences based on ethnicity or treatment duration, but axitinib dose reduction led to longer DFS.

•

DFS analysis by Asian versus non-Asian did not indicate a DFS benefit over placebo for either subgroup.

•

Asian patients had a lower median daily dose of axitinib and more frequent dose reductions versus non-Asian patients.

•

Duration of axitinib treatment did not impact DFS in both Asian and non-Asian subgroups.

•

Patients with dose reductions had longer DFS versus patients with stable dose or dose increase.

•

There were notable differences in AEs between Asian and non-Asian patients and among Japanese, Korean and Chinese patients.

Clinical use of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma

In recent years, there have been increased incidences of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is refractory to conventional chemotherapy. Owing to the insensitivity to traditional therapy, targeted therapy becomes a possible alternative strategy. Over the past decade, the development of targeted treatments for metastatic RCC has advanced considerably. Several studies have shown that the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway is an important mediator for the occurrence and development of RCC, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) have been considered optimal therapeutic options for RCC. Six small molecules that inhibit VEGFR1/2/3, namely, sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, pazopanib, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of RCC. Additionally, clinical trials assessing seven TKIs that target VEGFRs are currently in progress. To some extent, these drugs improve quality of life and prolong the survival of patients. This paper presents a review of the systemic targeted therapies against VEGFRs that have been approved so far or are undergoing trials as treatments for RCC.

Oral Intake of Royal Jelly Has Protective Effects Against Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Induced Toxicity in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background: Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are still recommended as the standard therapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the high frequency of adverse events is a weakness of this therapy. Because royal jelly (RJ) possesses anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, we assessed its protective effects on TKI-induced toxicities in RCC patients. Methods: We enrolled 33 patients with advanced RCC who were assigned to start TKI therapy in combination with a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled RJ trial consisting of a placebo group with 17 subjects and an RJ group with 16 subjects. Results: Fatigue and anorexia frequencies in the RJ group were significantly lower than in the placebo group (p = 0.003 and 0.015, respectively). A statistically significant correlation between RJ and fatigue or anorexia was detected in sunitinib-treated patients. The dose reduction- or discontinuation-free periods were significantly longer (p = 0.013) in the RJ group than in the placebo group. Furthermore, similar observations were made in sunitinib-treated patients (p = 0.016). Conclusions: Our clinical trial showed that RJ exerted protective effects against TKI-induced fatigue and anorexia and lowered TKI dose reduction or discontinuation. Hence, RJ is beneficial for maintaining the quality of life and medication compliance in TKI-treated RCC patients.

Axitinib versus placebo as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase III, randomized ATLAS trial

Background

The ATLAS trial compared axitinib versus placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at risk of recurrence after nephrectomy.

Patients and methods

In a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial, patients had >50% clear-cell RCC, had undergone nephrectomy, and had no evidence of macroscopic residual or metastatic disease [independent review committee (IRC) confirmed]. The intent-to-treat population included all randomized patients [≥pT2 and/or N+, any Fuhrman grade (FG), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0/1]. Patients (stratified by risk group/country) received (1 : 1) oral twice-daily axitinib 5 mg or placebo for ≤3 years, with a 1-year minimum unless recurrence, occurrence of second primary malignancy, significant toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) per IRC. A prespecified DFS analysis in the highest-risk subpopulation (pT3, FG ≥ 3 or pT4 and/or N+, any T, any FG) was conducted.

Results

A total of 724 patients (363 versus 361, axitinib versus placebo) were randomized from 8 May 2012, to 1 July 2016. The trial was stopped due to futility at a preplanned interim analysis at 203 DFS events. There was no significant difference in DFS per IRC [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.870; 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.660-1.147; P = 0.3211). In the highest-risk subpopulation, a 36% and 27% reduction in risk of a DFS event (HR; 95% CI) was observed per investigator (0.641; 0.468-0.879; P = 0.0051), and by IRC (0.735; 0.525-1.028; P = 0.0704), respectively. Overall survival data were not mature. Similar adverse events (AEs; 99% versus 92%) and serious AEs (19% versus 14%), but more grade 3/4 AEs (61% versus 30%) were reported for axitinib versus placebo.

Conclusions

ATLAS did not meet its primary end point; however, improvement in DFS per investigator was seen in the highest-risk subpopulation. No new safety signals were reported.

Trial registration number

NCT01599754.