Clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving everolimus or temsirolimus after sunitinib

A phase II study of alternating sunitinib and temsirolimus therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib is a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that inhibits VEGF receptor 1, 2, 3 (VEGFRs), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), colony-stimulating factor receptor (CSFR), and the stem cell factor receptor c-KIT. Temsirolimus inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) through binding to intracellular protein FKBP-12. Both agents are approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), have different anticancer mechanisms, and non-overlapping toxicities. These attributes form the scientific rationale for sequential combination of these agents. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the efficacy of alternating sunitinib and temsirolimus therapy on progression-free survival (PFS) in mRCC.

METHODS

We undertook a phase II, multi-center, single cohort, open-label study in patients with mRCC. Patients were treated with alternating dosing of 4 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg PO daily, followed by 2 weeks rest, then 4 weeks of temsirolimus 25 mg IV weekly, followed by 2 weeks rest (12 weeks total per cycle). The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included clinical response rate and characterization of the toxicity profile of this combination therapy.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were enrolled into the study. The median observed PFS (n = 13 evaluable for PFS) was 8.8 months (95% CI 6.8-25.2 months). Best responses achieved were five partial response, nine stable disease, and three disease progression according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines (two non-evaluable). The most commonly observed toxicities were fatigue, platelet count decrease, creatinine increased, diarrhea, oral mucositis, edema, anemia, rash, hypophosphatemia, dysgeusia, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Alternating sunitinib and temsirolimus did not improve the PFS in patients with mRCC.

The role of mTOR inhibition as second-line therapy in metastatic renal carcinoma: clinical evidence and current challenges

INTRODUCTION

Sequential treatment with targeted agents is the standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Although first-line therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended for most patients, eventually all patients become resistant to them. Therefore, optimal selection of second-line therapy is crucial. Areas covered: We have reviewed the recent literature through pubmed search and recent congress presentations to briefly describe the clinical evidence for mTOR inhibition as a valid strategy in the treatment of mRCC after progression during anti-VEGFR therapy. In addition, we outline the management of adverse events associated with these agents, highlighting the importance of switching to an alternative mechanism of action to overcome resistance to TKI and to decrease cumulative toxicity associated with sequential treatments of the same type. Expert commentary: The choice of subsequent therapy after progression to first-line is not clear. Although the new drugs cabozantinib and nivolumab have shown to be superior that everolimus, still it is unknown which patients may benefit from these therapies in second-line, so treatment should be personalized to each patient and should consider approaches with different mechanisms of action.

Everolimus Versus Temsirolimus in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma After Progression With Previous Systemic Therapies

BACKGROUND

Everolimus is an approved agent for use after disease progression with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. With recently published trials showing efficacy of nivolumab and cabozantinib in the second-line therapy setting, the use of everolimus will likely move to the third- or fourth-line therapy setting. Temsirolimus has occasionally been used instead of everolimus for many reasons, including financial considerations, assurance of patient compliance given its intravenous administration, its toxicity profile, patient performance status, and patient or physician preference. However, efficacy of everolimus and temsirolimus in this setting have not been compared in a randomized trial. The results from retrospective studies have been inconsistent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients treated with a first-line VEGFR-TKI for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and then treated with either everolimus or temsirolimus on progression from the databases of 2 large academic cancer centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the initiation of second-line treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients received either everolimus (n = 59; 66%) or temsirolimus (n = 31; 34%) after progression during first-line VEGFR-TKI therapy. The patient and disease characteristics were similar in both groups. The median PFS was not different, but OS was superior with everolimus compared with temsirolimus (24.2 months vs. 12.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .047).

CONCLUSION

Our results bolster existing guidelines supporting everolimus over temsirolimus as salvage therapy after previous systemic therapies.

Clinical experience with everolimus in the second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Everolimus is an oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR-I) and is currently approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of first-line vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). In this narrative review, we aim to report the available evidence about the use of everolimus as second-line therapy for mRCC. A literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE and abstracts from major conferences on clinical oncology as sources. We report data from prospective as well as retrospective and real world data studies and we analyze the safety and efficacy profile of everolimus as second-line therapy for mRCC. Although different drugs are currently available for the second-line treatment of mRCC, everolimus represents a feasible and safe option in this setting, especially for patients who have experienced high-grade toxicity or are still carrying TKI-related toxicities from first-line treatment.

Clinical experience with temsirolimus in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Temsirolimus is an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) kinase, a protein that has been shown to be particularly active in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with poor prognosis. Therefore, temsirolimus should be considered as the first-line treatment indicated in mRCC patients classified as poor risk. The benefits of temsirolimus are not limited to an increased survival but are also related to a better quality of life, which is certainly one of the most important aspects in the clinical management of these frail patients. Temsirolimus is a well-tolerated treatment, and the most frequent adverse events are manageable with supportive care. To this end, the identification of predictive factors of response to temsirolimus could help us to better select patients and obtain a more tailored clinical management of mRCC.

Comparative effectiveness of second-line targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: synthesis of findings from two multi-practice chart reviews in the United States

BACKGROUND

Second-line targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This study compares the effectiveness of these therapies in a multi-practice chart review and synthesizes the findings with those of a similarly designed study.

METHODS

Medical oncologists/hematologists (N = 36) were recruited to review charts for patients aged ≥18 years, received a first-line TKI and initiated second-line targeted therapy in 2010 or later. The primary outcome was time from second-line initiation to treatment failure (TTF; discontinuation, physician-assessed progression, or death, whichever occurred first). TTF was compared among patients receiving second-line everolimus (EVE), temsirolimus (TEM), or TKI as a class, using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for type of initial TKI and response, histological subtype, performance status, and sites of metastasis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for TTF were pooled, in a meta-analysis, with previously reported HRs for progression-free survival from a chart review with a similar design.

RESULTS

A total of 138, 64 and 79 patients received second-line therapy with EVE, TEM or a TKI, respectively. Adjusting for baseline characteristics, EVE was associated with numerical, but not statistically significant, reductions of 28% (HR = 0.72; 95% CI [0.45-1.16]) and 26% (HR = 0.74; 95% CI [0.48-1.15]) in the hazard of TTF compared to TEM and TKI, respectively. After pooling the HRs from both studies, EVE was associated with significantly reduced hazards of TTF compared to TEM and TKI (HR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.57-0.93]; and HR = 0.75; 95% CI [0.57-0.98], respectively).

LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS include retrospective analyses with possible missing or erroneous chart data, confounding of unobserved factors due to non-randomization, and limited data for axitinib during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In pooled results from two independent multi-practice chart reviews of second-line mRCC treatment, EVE was associated with significantly reduced hazards of treatment failure compared to TEM and to TKIs as a class.