Pazopanib after sunitinib failure in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Multikinase inhibitor-induced liver injury in patients with cancer: A review for clinicians

BACKGROUND

Multikinase inhibitors (MKI) are targeted molecular agents that have revolutionized cancer management. However, there is a paucity of data concerning MKI-related liver injury risk and clinical guidelines for the management of liver toxicity in patients receiving MKI for cancer are scarce.

DESIGN

We conducted a PubMed search of articles in English published from January 2000 to December 2018 related to hepatotoxicity of the 29 FDA-approved MKIs at doses used in clinical practice. The search terms were the international non-proprietary name of each agent cross-referenced with «hepatotoxicity», «hepatitis», «hepatic adverse event», or «liver failure», and «phase II clinical trial», «phase III clinical trial», or «case report».

RESULTS

Following this search, 140 relevant studies and 99 case reports were considered. Although asymptomatic elevation of aminotransferase levels has been frequently observed in MKI clinical trials, clinically significant hepatotoxicity is a rare event. In most cases, the interval between treatment initiation and the onset of liver injury is between one week and two months. Liver toxicity is often hepatocellular and less frequently mixed. Life-threatening MKI-induced hepatic injury has been described, involving fulminant liver failure or death. Starting from existing data, a description of MKI-related liver events, grading of hepatotoxicity risk, and recommendations for management are also given for various MKI molecules.

CONCLUSION

All MKIs can potentially cause liver injury, which is sometimes irreversible. As there is still no strategy available to prevent MKI-related hepatotoxicity, early detection remains crucial. The surveillance of liver function during treatment may help in the early detection of hepatotoxicity. Furthermore, the exclusion of potential causes of hepatic injury is essential to avoid unnecessary MKI withdrawal.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG)

PURPOSE

The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients.

METHODS

Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session.

RESULTS

The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available.

CONCLUSION

This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Complications of biologic therapy for pediatric cancer - What the surgeon needs to know

Biologic therapy for pediatric cancer has gained much enthusiasm over the past two decades. Recent advances in the clinical sequencing of tumors, have also allowed for the identification of targetable mutations. These findings have created a new avenue of biologic agent development and study. As experience with biologic agents builds, so too must the awareness of the surgeon to identify potential complications of these drugs. Complications can result from the direct effect of a biologic on the patient, such as gastrointestinal perforation or secondary spontaneous pneumothorax, or they can be related to the effect a biologic has on another aspect of a patient's care, such as wound complications following surgery. The morbidity caused by these complications must be weighed against any potential benefit of an agent, when determining the role for biologic therapy in the overall cancer treatment strategy.

Effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitors on renal handling of creatinine by MATE1

Creatinine is actively secreted across tubular epithelial cells via organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and multidrug and toxin extrusion 1 (MATE1). We previously showed that the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib inhibits OCT2-mediated transport of creatinine. In the present work, we examined the inhibitory potency of TKIs, including crizotinib, on MATE1-mediated transport of creatinine. Then, we used the kinetic parameters estimated in this and the previous work to predict the potential impact of TKIs on serum creatinine level (SCr) via reversible inhibition of creatinine transport. Crizotinib inhibited [¹⁴C]creatinine uptake by MATE1-overexpressing cells, and the inhibitory effect increased with incubation time, being greater in the case of pre-incubation or combined pre-incubation/co-incubation (pre/co-incubation) than in the case of co-incubation alone. The inhibition was non-competitive, with K _i values of 2.34 μM, 0.455 μM and 0.342 μM under co-, pre- or pre/co-incubation conditions, respectively. Similar values were obtained for inhibition of [³H]MPP⁺ uptake by MATE1-overexpressing cells. Gefitinib, imatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib also inhibited MATE1-mediated creatinine uptake. Further, all these TKIs except pazopanib inhibited [¹⁴C]creatinine uptake by OCT2-overexpressing cells. In rat kidney slices, the ratio of unbound tissue accumulation of TKIs to extracellular concentration ranged from 2.05 to 3.93. Prediction of the influence of TKIs on SCr based on the renal creatinine clearance and plasma maximum unbound concentrations of TKIs suggested that crizotinib and imatinib might increase SCr by more than 10% in the clinical context. Accordingly, it is necessary to be cautious in diagnosing TKI-induced renal failure only on the basis of an increase of SCr.

The role of pazopanib on tumour angiogenesis and in the management of cancers: A review

Pazopanib is a relatively new compound to be introduced into the chemotherapy field. It is thought to have decent anti-angiogenic properties, which gives an additional hope for the treatment of certain types of cancers. A systematic review solely discussing about pazopanib and its anti-angiogenic effect is yet to be published to date, despite several relevant clinical trials being conducted over the recent years. In this review, we aim to investigate the mechanism of pazopanib's anti-angiogenic effect and its effectiveness in treating several cancers. We have included, in this study, findings from electronically searchable data from randomized clinical trials, clinical studies, cohort studies and other relevant articles. A total of 352 studies were included in this review. From the studies, the effect of pazopanib in various cancers or models was observed and recorded. Study quality is indefinite, with a few decent quality articles. The most elaborately studied cancers include renal cell carcinoma, solid tumors, advanced solid tumors, soft tissue sarcoma, breast cancer and gynecological cancers. In addition, several less commonly studied cancers are included in the studies as well. Pazopanib had demonstrated its anti-angiogenic effect based on favorable results observed in cancers, which are caused by angiogenesis-related mechanisms, such as renal cell carcinoma, solid tumors, advanced solid tumors and soft tissue sarcoma. This review was conducted to study, analyze and review the anti-angiogenic properties of pazopanib in various cancers. The results obtained can provide a decent reference when considering treatment options for angiogenesis-related malignancies. Furthermore, the definite observations of the anti-angiogenic effects of pazopanib could provide newer insights leading to the future development of drugs of the same mechanism with increased efficiency and reduced adverse effects.

Eligibility for phase 3 clinical trials of systemic therapy in real-world patients with metastatic renal cell cancer managed in a rural region

Previous research has identified disparities between urban and rural cancer care, including clinical trial access. Therefore, we addressed three different questions in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer managed according to national guidelines in a rural Norwegian standard practice setting. (1) How many patients would have been eligible for three recent landmark randomized clinical trials? (2) Is survival different between eligible and non-eligible patients receiving first-line systemic therapy? (3) Is survival different between eligible patients and published trial results? We performed a retrospective analysis of 101 consecutive patients (2006-2016). Only 52% of the patients were eligible for the first-line study of pazopanib versus sunitinib. The main reasons for violating inclusion or exclusion criteria were presence of brain metastases, absence of clear cell histology, and poor performance status. Even fewer patients were eligible for trials of nivolumab and cabozantinib in pre-treated patients. Eligible patients had significantly better survival than non-eligible patients, median 29.2 versus 8.5 months (p = 0.0001). These results confirm that many patients from rural practices do not fulfill all mandatory trial eligibility criteria. However, eligible patients managed according to national guidelines had survival outcomes in line with published first-line trial results.

Pazopanib as a second-line treatment for non-cytokine-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the effect of treatment

BACKGROUND

The currently recommended treatment algorithm for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who fail the first-line targeted therapy does not normally include pazopanib as a second-line treatment option. It would therefore be of interest to determine the efficiency of pazopanib in this setting in terms of the partial response rate (PRR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS).

METHODS

Peer-reviewed clinical reports without language restriction, both full papers and conference abstracts, which assessed the second-line use of pazopanib following failure of first-line non-cytokine-targeted therapy, were included. After the literature retrieval, we conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the size of the effect of each outcome measure (PRR, DCR, and PFS). The effect size and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity represented by I(2) of selected studies. Meta-analysis forest plots with a fixed-effect model showing the PRR and DCR were created.

RESULTS

Our results show that there are no available comparative studies on pazopanib second-line treatment. Only phase II trials or retrospective analysis reports were retrievable. Six studies (comprising 217 patients) were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Pazopanib as a second-line treatment resulted in a PRR of 23 % (95 % CI, 17-31 %; I(2) = 52.6 %) and a DCR of 73 % (95 % CI, 65-80 %; I(2) = 0.00 %). The meta-analysis with fixed-effect model revealed that PFS was 6.5 months (95 % CI, 5.6-7.5 months; I(2) = 86.2 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the effectiveness and indication of pazopanib for use in the second-line setting has not yet been examined in-depth; however, this meta-analysis has shown that the treatment effects in terms of PRR, DCR, and PFS may be similar to other well-studied second-line targeted therapies. Rigorous comparative phase III trials testing this hypothesis are required.

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.

Pazopanib and depot octreotide in advanced, well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours: a multicentre, single-group, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for advanced, well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) remain scarce. Pazopanib is an orally bioavailable, small molecule, multitargeted kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3. We did a study of the efficacy of pazopanib with depot octreotide in patients with advanced NETs.

METHODS

We did a parallel cohort study of patients with metastatic or locally advanced grade 1-2 carcinoid tumours or pancreatic NETs, by use of a single-group, two-stage design. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg orally once per day and octreotide at their preprotocol dosage. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response, as assessed by investigators, by intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00454363, and was completed in March, 2014.

FINDINGS

Between April 12, 2007, and July 2, 2009, we enrolled 52 patients, including 32 individuals with pancreatic NETs and 20 individuals with carcinoid tumours. Seven (21·9%, 95% CI 11·0-38·8) of 32 patients with pancreatic NETs achieved an objective response. We detected no responses in the first stage of the cohort with carcinoid tumours, and we terminated accrual at 20 patients. Toxic effects included one patient with grade 4 hypertriglyceridaemia and one with grade 4 thrombosis, with the most common grade three events being aminotransferase increases and neutropenia, each of which happened in 3 patients. In all 52 patients, the most frequently observed toxic effects were fatigue (39 [75%]), nausea (33 [63%]), diarrhoea (33 [63%]), and hypertension (28 [54%]).

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with pazopanib is associated with tumour response for patients with pancreatic NETs, but not for carcinoid tumours; a randomised controlled phase 3 study to assess pazopanib in advanced pancreatic NETs is warranted.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Cross-resistance to clinically used tyrosine kinase inhibitors sunitinib, sorafenib and pazopanib

PURPOSE

When during cancer treatment resistance to a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) occurs, switching to another TKI is often considered as a reasonable option. Previously, we reported that resistance to sunitinib may be caused by increased lysosomal sequestration, leading to increased intracellular lysosomal storage and, thereby, inactivity. Here, we studied the effect of several other TKIs on the development of (cross-) resistance.

METHODS

TKI resistance was induced by continuous exposure of cancer cell lines to increasing TKI concentrations for 3-4 months. (Cross-) resistance was evaluated using MTT cell proliferation assays. Intracellular TKI concentrations were measured using LC-MS/MS. Western blotting was used to detect lysosome-associated membrane protein-1 and -2 (LAMP1/2) expression.

RESULTS

The previously generated sunitinib-resistant (SUN) renal cancer cells (786-O) and colorectal cancer cells (HT-29) were found to be cross-resistant to pazopanib, erlotinib and lapatinib, but not sorafenib. Exposure of 786-O and HT-29 cells to sorafenib, pazopanib or erlotinib for 3-4 months induced drug resistance to pazopanib and erlotinib, but not sorafenib. Intracellular drug accumulation was found to be increased in pazopanib- and erlotinib-, but not in sorafenib-exposed cells. Lysosomal capacity, reflected by LAMP1/2 expression, was found to be increased in resistant cells and, in addition, to be transient. No cross-resistance to the mTOR inhibitor everolimus was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that tumor cells can develop (cross-) resistance to TKIs, and that such resistance includes increased intracellular drug accumulation accompanied by increased lysosomal storage. Transient (cross-) resistance was found to occur for several of the TKIs tested, but not for everolimus, indicating that switching from a TKI to a mTOR inhibitor may be an attractive therapeutic option.

Pazopanib as third line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical efficacy and temporal analysis of cytokine profile

PURPOSE

Pazopanib has been assessed primarily in cytokine refractory or treatment naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Outcomes have been associated with a specific immunological profile. However, pazopanib activity in the third line setting and temporal changes in the immunological profile during therapy are poorly understood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study eligibility was limited to patients with 2 prior lines of therapy, including at least 1 vascular endothelial growth factor directed therapy, as well as ECOG performance status 0 to 2 and clear cell histology. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg daily. A Simon minmax 2-stage design was used with 80% power to determine an encouraging 23% overall response rate (10% type I error). Immunological profiles were assessed monthly on a Luminex® platform using the Human Cytokine 30-Plex Cytokine Immunoassay (Invitrogen™).

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients with a median age of 63 years (range 45 to 86) were enrolled in study. Of the patients 12 (43%) had a confirmed complete (1) or partial (11) response. In the cohort median progression-free survival was 16.5 months (95% CI 14.7-not reached). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hypertension (46% of cases) and proteinuria (14%). At 6 and 12 months responders had lower levels of HGF, VEGF, IL-6 and 8, and soluble IL-2R (each p <0.05). Nonresponders also showed increased numbers of myeloid-derived suppressor cells at each interval. Phenotypic and functional studies confirmed that the myeloid-derived suppressor cells were granulocytic.

CONCLUSIONS

Progression-free survival and the overall response rate associated with third line pazopanib were encouraging. Immunological profile differences between responders and nonresponders suggest that the mechanism of pazopanib resistance is at least partly related to the generation of systemic tumor immune tolerance.

Pneumothorax as adverse event in patients with lung metastases of soft tissue sarcoma treated with pazopanib: a single reference centre case series

Background

Recently, the phase III PALETTE study introduced pazopanib (Votrient®) as treatment for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-liposarcoma soft tissue sarcoma after prior treatment with doxorubicin and/or ifosfamide. Pneumothorax was reported as adverse event in 8 of 246 treated patients (3.3%) in that study. This case series presents the incidence and clinic of this complication in the Leiden University Medical Centre.

Cases

Forty-three patients were treated with pazopanib of which six patients (14.0%) developed a pneumothorax. These six patients were treated for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, angiosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, fibromyxomatoid sarcoma, pleomorphic sarcoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma. All six patients had subpleural pulmonary or pleural metastases at the start of pazopanib and the pneumothorax developed during or shortly after treatment with pazopanib and was difficult to treat.

Discussion

The incidence reported by us is higher than the incidence in the PALETTE study. Trials with pazopanib in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma and cervix carcinoma did not report pneumothorax as an adverse event, suggesting pneumothorax as a specific adverse event in soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with pazopanib. This may be related to the fact that there is often pleural metastatic involvement and cystic degeneration due to pazopanib treatment may add to the risk.

Conclusion

The risk of an, often difficult to treat, pneumothorax during pazopanib therapy should be discussed with the patient before initiation of treatment for a pulmonary metastasized sarcoma and physicians should be alert to the occurrence of such an event.

Controversies in renal cell carcinoma: treatment choice after progression on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy

The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORI) everolimus and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib are the only two post-first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) licensed at present. Extrapolation of robust phase III studies suggests that median progression-free survival (PFS) is similar between agents. This presents a dilemma for the physician planning treatment for their patients with mRCC: should they be treated with a TKI-mTORI or a TKI-TKI sequence? The lack of direct comparison between axitinib and everolimus leaves the clinician without clear guidance on the optimal choice in second-line therapy. In phase III studies, both post first-line everolimus and axitinib have been shown to delay disease progression; however, cumulative toxicity with sequential use of TKIs may result in more treatment interruptions or dose reductions or increased likelihood of adverse events. While everolimus exerts a tolerability advantage, axitinib is associated with higher response rate and a similar PFS benefit. Proven superiority cannot be used to guide treatment sequence selection in mRCC. Instead, therapeutic planning requires us to take a long-term view of our patient's treatment that includes quality of life and a balance between symptom control, adverse event management and avoidance of unnecessary drug interruptions or dose reductions. In the absence of curative therapies, sustaining a patient's quality of life is a major goal throughout the course of treatment and choosing a second-line agent that is able to adequately achieve this by limiting adverse events should be a priority.