Improved Long-Term Clinical Outcomes And Safety Profile Of Sunitinib Dosing Schedule With 4/2 Switched To 2/1 In Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

First-line sunitinib treatment modification in patients with mRCC: nationwide analysis of the Swedish population

Aim: Assess first-line sunitinib dosing for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Swedish clinical practice (2006-2019).Materials & methods: Retrospective analysis of three sunitinib dosing regimens: 2-weeks on, 1-week off (2:1 Start); standard 4-weeks on, 2-weeks off (4:2) and 4:2 start with switch to 2:1 (2:1 Switch).Results: Time-to-treatment discontinuation (95% CI) differed significantly (p < 0.001): 6.2 (5.6-7.2), 13.9 (8.1-20.6) and 4.6 (4.3-5.6) months for 2:1 Start (n = 320), 2:1 Switch (n = 71) and 4:2 (n = 704), respectively. Overall survival (95% CI) differed significantly (p < 0.001): 21.8 (18.1-26.1), 32.2 (25.1-48.3) and 13.5 (12.3-15.8) months for 2:1 Start (n = 320), 2:1 Switch (n = 71) and 4:2 (n = 704), respectively.Conclusion: Alternative dosing does not compromise clinical efficacy and may provide advantages in terms of improved treatment outcomes. However, due to the changing treatment patterns during this long-term study, and the absence of patient risk category data, caution is required when interpreting the main outcomes.

2/1 dose schedule of sunitinib is superior than the 4/2 regimen for the first-line therapy of clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma - An Indian experience

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib remains the first-line treatment for favorable risk metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC). It was conventionally given in the 4/2 schedule; however, toxicity necessitated trying the 2/1 regimen. Regional variations in treatment response and toxicity are known, and there is no data from the Indian subcontinent about the outcomes of the alternative dosing schedule.

METHODS

Clinical records of all consecutive adult patients who received sunitinib as first-line therapy for histologically proven mccRCC following cytoreductive nephrectomy from 2010-2018 were reviewed. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary objectives were to evaluate the response rate (objective response rate and clinical benefit rate), toxicity, and overall survival. A list of variables having a biologically plausible association with outcome was drawn and multivariate inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) analysis was done to determine the absolute effect size of dosing schedules on PFS in terms of "average treatment effect on the treated" and "potential outcome mean."

RESULTS

We found 2/1 schedule to be independently associated with higher PFS on IPTW analysis such that if every patient in the subpopulation received sunitinib by the 2/1 schedule, the average time to progression was estimated to be higher by 6.1 months than the 4/2 schedule. We also found 2/1 group to have a lower incidence than the 4/2 group for nearly all ≥ grade 3 adverse effects. Other secondary outcomes were comparable between both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Sunitinib should be given via the 2/1 schedule in Indian patients.

Construction of a risk model and prediction of prognosis and immunotherapy based on cuproptosis-related LncRNAs in the urinary system pan-cancer

BACKGROUND

Urinary pan-cancer system is a general term for tumors of the urinary system including renal cell carcinoma (RCC), prostate cancer (PRAD), and bladder cancer (BLCA). Their location, physiological functions, and metabolism are closely related, making the occurrence and outcome of these tumors highly similar. Cuproptosis is a new type of cell death that is different from apoptosis and plays an essential role in tumors. Therefore, it is necessary to study the molecular mechanism of cuproptosis-related lncRNAs to urinary system pan-cancer for the prognosis, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of urinary tumors.

METHOD

In our study, we identified 35 co-expression cuproptosis-related lncRNAs (CRLs) from the urinary pan-cancer system. 28 CRLs were identified as prognostic-related CRLs by univariate Cox regression analysis. Then 12 CRLs were obtained using lasso regression and multivariate cox analysis to construct a prognostic model. We divided patients into high- and low-risk groups based on the median risk scores. Next, Kaplan-Meier analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), functional rich annotations, and nomogram were used to compare the differences between the high- and low-risk groups. Finally, the prediction of tumor immune dysfunction and rejection, gene mutation, and drug sensitivity were discussed.

CONCLUSION

Finally, the candidate molecules of the urinary system pan-cancer were identified. This CRLs risk model may be promising for clinical prediction of prognosis and immunotherapy response in urinary system pan-cancer patients.

Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Cytokines versus Sunitinib and Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESCAPE Study): A Phase III, Randomized, Sequential Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

The sequence of first-line cytokine and second-line molecular targeted therapies may be suitable for some patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) because of the expectation of complete remission and durable response achieved with cytokine therapy.

METHODS

This was a phase III randomized controlled trial investigating the outcomes of low-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) plus interferon alfa (IFNα) versus sunitinib as the first line and axitinib as the second line in patients with low- and intermediate-risk mRCC.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were randomly assigned. The total progression-free survival (PFS) to the end of the second line was 29.0 months (95% CI, 11.7-46.3) in the IL-2 + IFNα group and 16.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-26.4) in the sunitinib group. The PFS hazard ratio for the IL-2 + IFNα group relative to the sunitinib group was 0.401 (95% CI, 0.121-1.328; p = 0.135). The hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) was 1.675 (95% CI, 0.418-6.705; p = 0.466), which was better in the sunitinib group than in the IL-2 + IFNα group but not statistically significant. The types of adverse events (AEs) differed significantly, although there was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a trend toward better total PFS for IL-2 + IFNα, but it was not significant. There was also no advantage of IL-2 + IFNα in terms of OS. The study was underpowered to draw any definitive conclusions. The results showed no clear advantage of IL-2 + IFNα over sunitinib in the first-line setting; however, it may be an option in some relatively low-risk mRCC cases due to the difference in the AE profile. This trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), center identifier UMIN 000012522.

Efficacy and Safety of Individualized Schedule of Sunitinib by Drug Monitoring in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose

To investigate the survival benefit and safety of individualized schedules for sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) through plasma concentration monitoring.

Methods

A total of 105 patients with mRCC were enrolled. The schedule was adjusted in two ways: therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and toxicity-adjusted schedule (TAS). One group of patients were without any schedule adjustment (maintained schedule, MAS). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and adverse events (AEs) were compared. The relationship between AEs and steady-state concentration or consecutive monitoring curves was explored. Further monitoring of individualized schedules was also conducted.

Results

Based on the plasma concentration, the schedules of 18 patients were adjusted in the TDM group. The schedules were adjusted in 37 patients due to severe AEs in the TAS group, while 50 patients were without any schedule adjustment. The median PFS and OS were better in the TDM group than the other two groups (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that TDM could decrease the risk of death independently (p = 0.026). Moreover, the incidence of grades 3/4 AEs decreased from 88.9% to 33.3% in the TDM group (p = 0.001). Sunitinib concentration in 150–200ng/mL was regarded as a “transitional zone” due to severe AEs mainly happened when concentration elevated over it. After TDM, further plasma concentration monitoring indicated that individualized schedules enabled sunitinib concentration to fluctuate in a much safer range.

Conclusion

Treatment-related toxicities could be minimized through plasma concentration monitoring. Patients with adjusted schedules by therapeutic drug monitoring could achieve better survival benefits.

Sequential everolimus for angiomyolipoma associated with tuberous sclerosis complex: a prospective cohort study

Background

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and health economics of sequential everolimus in treating angiomyolipoma (AML) associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC).

Methods

In this prospective cohort study, patients met the inclusion criteria received standard or sequential treatment according to their willingness. All patients received an initial dose of everolimus (10 mg oral, once a day) for 3 months. The standard treatment group maintained 10 mg QD for 12 months, while the sequential treatment group reduced the dose to 5 mg QD from the 4th month. The efficacy, serum everolimus concentration and safety were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed angiomyolipoma response of at least a 50% reduction in the total volume of target AML relative to baseline.

Results

Between June 1, 2016 and June 1, 2017, a total of 53 patients were included. Twenty-three patients received standard treatment, 30 patients received sequential treatment. At 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after treatment, the proportion of patients whose total target tumor volume decreased by ≥ 50% from baseline was 39.1% versus 36.7%, 43.5% versus 56.7%, 47.8% versus 50%, 47.8% versus 60% and 47.8% versus 23.3% respectively (P > 0.05 for all). The overall response rate of skin lesions in the two groups was 40.4%, and the response rates of skin lesions at different times were similar for two groups (P > 0.05 for all). Major adverse effects (AEs) included mouth ulceration, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, menstrual disorders. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of AEs at 3 months after treatment. The incidence of overall and grade 3/4 AEs at 12 months after treatment were significantly lower in the sequential treatment group. The average direct cost of the two groups in 12 months was $15,466 and $11,120, respectively.

Conclusions

Compared to standard treatment, sequential treatment was equally effective, with a lower incidence of adverse events and a lower direct cost, suggesting that it may be an alternative treatment for AML associated with TSC.

Tolerability and outcome of sunitinib by giving 4/2 schedule versus 2/1 schedule in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: a prospective randomized multi-centric Egyptian study

Introduction

Sunitinib is a standard of care first line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Sunitinib standard dose is 50 mg once daily for 4 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks' off (4/2 schedule). Long-term and high exposure to this medication lead to severe adverse events (AEs); therefore, this trial was done to find the best schedule which gives the best outcome with minimal toxicity.

Materials and methods

Seventy patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups, then received 50 mg/day of sunitinib. Group 1 (40 patients) received sunitinib for 4 consecutive weeks followed by 2 weeks off (4/2 schedule) while 30 patients were admitted to group 2 with 2 weeks on and 1 week off (2/1 schedule).

Results

All patients (100%) had significantly higher AEs on schedule 4/2 vs. 73.3% on schedule 2/1 (p = 0.001). Furthermore, the grade 3 AEs on schedule 2/1 were significantly lower than those on schedule 4/2 (26.7% vs. 82.5%) respectively (p = 0.001), such as fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, hand foot syndrome (HFS) and mucositis. Progression-free survival (PFS) rate was significantly higher in 2/1 schedule (60.9% vs. 38.6%) than in 4/2 schedule (p < 0.008). Multivariate analysis suggested that: age > 60 years, poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, tumor size > 10 cm and treatment schedule (group 1) were poor prognostic factors of PFS.

Conclusions

Our study supported the use of 2/1 schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic RCC because of lower toxicity profile and better efficacy with improved PFS in comparison to 4/2 schedule.

The influence of dynamic changes in lipid metabolism on survival outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The role of lipid metabolic status in tyrosine kinase inhibitors-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the influence of dynamic changes of lipid metabolism on survival outcomes in tyrosine kinase inhibitors-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Serum levels of triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were collected, both before tyrosine kinase inhibitors therapy and at different time points of tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment duration. Other clinicopathological and survival data were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical outcomes, including tumour response, progression-free survival and overall survival, were analysed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted and the log-rank test was used to analyse statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, initially treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line systemic therapy, were included. In the whole cohort, the serum levels of triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol fluctuated but gradually increased during tyrosine kinase inhibitors treatment. In survival analysis, the higher serum level of lipid metabolism, the longer progression-free survival was observed. In terms of overall survival, all post-treatment lipid metabolism, including the percentages of increasing change, were correlated with better survival. Further multivariate analysis showed that patients with five components of treatment-related dysfunction of lipid metabolism had superior survival to those with less than five components. However, lipid metabolism was not correlated with tumour response.

CONCLUSION

Increasing parameters of lipid metabolism indicated improvement of survival in tyrosine kinase inhibitors-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, especially the increasing percentages.

The clinical significance of routine risk categorization in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and its impact on treatment decision-making: a systematic review

Aim: To analyze responses to first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment stratified by risk criteria. Patients & methods: Clinical trials and observational studies of patients aged ≥18 years, published January 2005-May 2019, were identified via Ovid from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Trials Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extracted included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: 47/1269 articles met eligibility criteria. Most studies stratified patients by International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (n = 19) or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (n = 21). PFS, OS and ORR varied according to risk group. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab + axitinib, ipilimumab + nivolumab and avelumab + axitinib were most effective across all risk groups. Favorable-risk patients benefit from sunitinib treatment.

A 2/1 Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Provides Superior Antitumor Effectiveness and Less Toxicity Than a 4/2 Schedule for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The standard sunitinib schedule to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (4/2). However, some studies revealed intolerable adverse events (AEs) in patients on this schedule. An alternative schedule, 2 weeks on/1 week off (2/1), may overcome this issue. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness and toxicity between the 2/1 and 4/2 sunitinib dosing schedules.

Methods: We acquired relevant studies by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Our main endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and AEs.

Results: We identified 9 medium- and high-quality studies. Both schedules were effective for mRCC, with comparable OS and similar ORR. However, the 2/1 schedule had better PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.99, P = 0.04), higher DCR [risk rate (RR) = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01–1.47, P = 0.04] and fewer dosage interruptions (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43–0.84, P = 0.003). Additionally, the 2/1 schedule elicited fewer specific severe AEs, including thrombocytopenia/platelet disorder, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and fatigue. In our subanalysis, PFS was better among East Asians using the 2/1 schedule than among other populations (HR= 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58–0.98, P = 0.03), and patients administered an initial dosage of 50 mg/d on the 2/1 schedule had superior PFS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.97, P = 0.03) than those others.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that the 2/1 schedule is more suitable for mRCC than 4/2, due to superior PFS, better DCR and fewer AEs. Nevertheless, more large-scale studies with good quality are needed.

Thyroid profile during the alternative Sunitinib dosing 2/1 schedule in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Hypothyroidism is a common side effect of Sunitinib (SUN) treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. We aimed to evaluate thyroid profile during the alternative 2/1 SUN treatment schedule and to assess the predictive value of hypothyroidism in terms of survival.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study enrolling 42 consecutive mRCC patients starting first-line alternative SUN dosing 2/1 schedule. Thyroid function was assessed at baseline and during the first three SUN cycles (1 cycle = 6 weeks = 2 ON/1 OFF + 2 ON/1 OFF), and then after 6 and 12 months. Thyroid ultrasound was performed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Subclinical hypothyroidism developed in 24% of patients during the first cycle; in other 24% in the second cycle and in 14% in the third cycle. The highest TSH values were reached during the second cycle, ON phase (6.58 ± 5.74 μI U/l). We observed a reduction in thyroid size, in echogenicity and in parenchymal perfusion in all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) tended to be longer in patients with TSH ≥ 5 μI U/ml during the second cycle (p = 0.069). TSH level was an independent risk factor for PFS in men (p = 0.009) but not in women (p = 0.285).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study investigating functional and morphological effects on thyroid during the alternative 2/1 SUN schedule in mRCC patients. We detected an early onset of subclinical hypothyroidism, observing the association between TSH ≥ 5 μI U/ml and: (i) longer PFS in men; (ii) progressive decrease of thyroid size in absence of significant changes in autoimmune thyroid profile.

Does an Alternative Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Really Improve Survival Outcomes over a Conventional Dosing Schedule in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) can obfuscate the maintenance of a conventional schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, alternative schedules seeking to improve the safety profile of sunitinib have been tested. Recently, two meta-analyses similarly described improved safety profiles favoring a two weeks on and one week off (2/1) schedule, but with conflicting results for survival outcomes. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, including all recently published studies and using complementary statistical methods. Endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and AEs of 15 types. Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis. Using adjusted findings, we noted statistically better results in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.005), but no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.04; p = 0.08). Moreover, the 2/1 schedule was beneficial for reducing the incidence of several AEs. Conclusively, our meta-analysis suggests that the 2/1 schedule holds promise as an alternative means of reducing AEs and maintaining patient quality of life. While the survival outcomes of the 2/1 schedule seem also to be favorable, the level of evidence for this was low, and the interpretation of these findings should warrant caution. Large scale randomized trials are needed to support these results.

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Costs of Sorafenib vs. Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Sorafenib and sunitinib are extensively used as first-line medications for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the antitumor efficacy, toxicity, and costs of the two drugs among mRCC patients.

Materials and methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles. The endpoints consisted of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs.

Results: We included 14 studies with 2,925 patients. Both drugs were valid for treating mRCC with equivalent PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.10, P = 0.74] and disease control rates [DCRs; risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08, P = 0.28], but sunitinib had a better OS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01–1.20, P = 0.04) and higher ORR (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45–0.97, P = 0.03) than sorafenib. Furthermore, sunitinib induced more incidences of severe hematologic AEs (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia) and stomatitis/mucositis than sorafenib. In the subanalysis, Asian patients treated with sorafenib reported a longer PFS than those treated with sunitinib (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83–0.90, P = 0.01), and European patients treated with sunitinib had a longer OS than those treated with sorafenib (HR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30, P = 0.04). Moreover, the pooled results of the high-quality studies reported a higher ORR with sunitinib than with sorafenib, and medium-quality studies showed a longer OS with sunitinib than with sorafenib.

Conclusions: Sunitinib has more benefits (longer OS and better ORR) than sorafenib as a first-line therapy for mRCC. However, sunitinib has higher toxicity than sorafenib. Sorafenib might be more suitable than sunitinib among Asian patients, and sunitinib might be superior to sorafenib in European patients. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.