Sunitinib-associated hypertension and neutropenia as efficacy biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) prognostic models may be improved by incorporating treatment-induced toxicities. METHODS: In sunitinib-treated mRCC patients (N=770), baseline prognostic factors and treatment-induced toxicities (hypertension (systolic blood pressure ⩾140 mm Hg), neutropenia (grade ⩾2), thrombocytopenia (grade ⩾2), hand-foot syndrome (grade >0), and asthenia/fatigue (grade >0)) were analysed in multivariate analyses of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) end points. RESULTS: On-treatment neutropenia and hypertension were associated with longer PFS (P=0.0276 and P<0.0001, respectively) and OS (P=0.0014 and P<0.0001, respectively), independent of baseline prognostic factors, including International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. By 12-week landmark analysis, neutropenia was significantly associated with longer PFS and OS (P=0.013 and P=0.0122, respectively) and hypertension or hand-foot syndrome with longer OS (P=0.0036 and P=0.0218, respectively). The concordance index was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63-0.67) for IMDC classification alone and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.70-0.74) when combined with hypertension and neutropenia. Considering hypertension and neutropenia (developing both vs neither) changed IMDC-predicted median OS in each IMDC risk group (favourable: 45.3 vs 19.5 months; intermediate: 32.5 vs 8.0 months; poor: 21.1 vs 4.8 months). CONCLUSIONS: On-treatment neutropenia and hypertension are independent biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy and may add prognostic accuracy to the IMDC model.

Complete longitudinal analyses of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor following imatinib failure.

PURPOSE: To analyze final long-term survival and clinical outcomes from the randomized phase III study of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients after imatinib failure; to assess correlative angiogenesis biomarkers with patient outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given daily on a 4-week-on/2-week-off treatment schedule. Placebo-assigned patients could cross over to sunitinib at disease progression/study unblinding. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using conventional statistical methods and the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method to explore cross-over impact. Circulating levels of angiogenesis biomarkers were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 243 patients were randomized to receive sunitinib and 118 to placebo, 103 of whom crossed over to open-label sunitinib. Conventional statistical analysis showed that OS converged in the sunitinib and placebo arms (median 72.7 vs. 64.9 weeks; HR, 0.876; P = 0.306) as expected, given the cross-over design. RPSFT analysis estimated median OS for placebo of 39.0 weeks (HR, 0.505, 95% CI, 0.262-1.134; P = 0.306). No new safety concerns emerged with extended sunitinib treatment. No consistent associations were found between the pharmacodynamics of angiogenesis-related plasma proteins during sunitinib treatment and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-over design provided evidence of sunitinib clinical benefit based on prolonged time to tumor progression during the double-blind phase of this trial. As expected, following cross-over, there was no statistical difference in OS. RPSFT analysis modeled the absence of cross-over, estimating a substantial sunitinib OS benefit relative to placebo. Long-term sunitinib treatment was tolerated without new adverse events.

Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) is an on-target effect of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, sunitinib. We evaluated the association of sunitinib-induced HTN with antitumor efficacy and HTN-associated adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included pooled efficacy (n = 544) and safety (n = 4917) data from four studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib 50 mg/d administered on a 4-week-on 2-week-off schedule (schedule 4/2). Blood pressure (BP) was measured in the clinic on days 1 and 28 of each 6-week cycle. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; hazard ratios (HRs) for survival were also estimated by a Cox proportional hazards models using HTN as a time-dependent covariate. Efficacy outcomes were compared between patients with and without HTN (maximum systolic BP [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg). Adverse events were also compared between patients with and without HTN (mean SBP ≥140 mm Hg or mean DBP ≥90 mm Hg). All P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP had better outcomes than those without treatment-induced HTN (objective response rate: 54.8% vs 8.7%; median PFS: 12.5 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.9 to 13.7 vs 2.5 months, 95% CI = 2.3 to 3.8 months; and OS: 30.9 months, 95% CI = 27.9 to 33.7 vs 7.2 months, 95% CI = 5.6 to 10.7 months; P < .001 for all). Similar results were obtained when comparing patients with vs without sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP. In a Cox proportional hazards model using HTN as a time-dependent covariate, PFS (HR of disease progression or death = .603, 95% CI = .451 to .805; P < .001) and OS (HR of death = .332, 95% CI = .252 to .436; P < .001) were improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP; OS (HR of death = .585, 95% CI = .463 to .740; P < .001) was improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP, but PFS was not. Few any-cause cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, ocular, and renal adverse events were observed. Rates of adverse events were similar between patients with and without HTN defined by mean SBP; however, hypertensive patients had somewhat more renal adverse events (5% vs 3%; P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib-associated HTN is associated with improved clinical outcomes without clinically significant increases in HTN-associated adverse events, supporting its viability as an efficacy biomarker.

Molecular target modulation, imaging, and clinical evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients treated with sunitinib malate after imatinib failure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate sunitinib activity and potential cellular and molecular correlates in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients after imatinib failure, in addition to assessing the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of different dose schedules. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this open-label, dose-ranging, phase I/II study, 97 patients with metastatic imatinib-resistant/intolerant GIST received sunitinib at doses of 25, 50, or 75 mg/d on one of three schedules. Serial tumor imaging was done using computed tomography and [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography scanning. PK and cell proliferation and KIT phosphorylation status in tumor biopsies were also analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical benefit was observed in 52 patients (54%: 7 objective partial responses, 45 stable disease > or =6 months). Decreased tumor glycolytic activity was shown in most patients within 7 days of starting sunitinib using [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography. Sunitinib treatment was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation by >25% in 52% of cases analyzed and reduced levels of phospho-KIT in tumor biopsies (indicating target modulation). The recommended dose schedule was 50 mg/d for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off treatment. On the 50-mg dose across all schedules, 79% of PK-evaluable patients achieved total drug trough concentrations above the target concentration (50 ng/mL) within 14 days of dosing. In addition, adverse events were generally mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: Cellular and molecular analyses showed that sunitinib clinical activity is associated with inhibition of KIT in GIST following imatinib failure, illustrating the rational approach used to develop a therapy aimed at the underlying oncogenic signaling pathway aberrancy.

Sunitinib and PF-562,271 (FAK/Pyk2 inhibitor) effectively block growth and recovery of human hepatocellular carcinoma in a rat xenograft model.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To investigate the antitumor effect of sunitinib and FAK/Pyk2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (PF-562,271)combination therapy in vivo, utilizing human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells Huh7.5. Nude rats were inoculated subcutaneously with Huh7.5 hepatoma cells. Dosing for Phase 1 was initiated on day 5 post tumor inoculations with Vehicle(Group 1), sunitinib (25 mg/kg/day; Group 2) and sunitinib plus PF-562,271 combination (15 mg/kg/day; Group 3). Phase 2 of the study started on day 26, and each of the three original groups was divided in two subgroups; half of the rats remained on original therapy (Groups 1A and 2A) with the exception of Group 3A that was euthanized after Phase 1. The other half of the rats were switched to sunitinib and PF-562,271 combination (Group 1B) or vehicle (Groups 2B and 3B). Tumor volume and weight, serum alpha feto-protein (AFP), contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging (CEUS) and tumor histology were used to evaluate effects of treatment on tumor growth. RESULTS: The results from this study indicate that the combination of sunitinib and PF-562,271 TKI has the potential to target different aspects of angiogenesis and tumor aggressiveness and may have significantly greater effect than relevant single agent, blocking not only tumor growth, but also impacting the ability of the tumor to recover upon withdrawal of the therapy.

Primary and secondary kinase genotypes correlate with the biological and clinical activity of sunitinib in imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

PURPOSE: Most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harbor mutant KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) kinases, which are imatinib targets. Sunitinib, which targets KIT, PDGFRs, and several other kinases, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with GIST after they experience imatinib failure. We evaluated the impact of primary and secondary kinase genotype on sunitinib activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor responses were assessed radiologically in a phase I/II trial of sunitinib in 97 patients with metastatic, imatinib-resistant/intolerant GIST. KIT/PDGFRA mutational status was determined for 78 patients by using tumor specimens obtained before and after prior imatinib therapy. Kinase mutants were biochemically profiled for sunitinib and imatinib sensitivity. RESULTS: Clinical benefit (partial response or stable disease for > or = 6 months) with sunitinib was observed for the three most common primary GIST genotypes: KIT exon 9 (58%), KIT exon 11 (34%), and wild-type KIT/PDGFRA (56%). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for patients with primary KIT exon 9 mutations (P = .0005) or with a wild-type genotype (P = .0356) than for those with KIT exon 11 mutations. The same pattern was observed for overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were longer for patients with secondary KIT exon 13 or 14 mutations (which involve the KIT-adenosine triphosphate binding pocket) than for those with exon 17 or 18 mutations (which involve the KIT activation loop). Biochemical profiling studies confirmed the clinical results. CONCLUSION: The clinical activity of sunitinib after imatinib failure is significantly influenced by both primary and secondary mutations in the predominant pathogenic kinases, which has implications for optimization of the treatment of patients with GIST.

A phase I study of UFT/leucovorin, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in combination with external beam radiation therapy for advanced esophageal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) are used to treat patients with esophageal cancer. The optimal combination of chemotherapeutic agents with RT is not well established. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of a combination of UFT/leucovorin, carboplatin, and paclitaxel with RT in a Phase I study of patients with advanced esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus initially received UFT/leucovorin, carboplatin, and paclitaxel with RT (1.8 Gy daily to 45 Gy). After completion, the disease was restaged and patients were evaluated for surgery. Primary end points included determination of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and a recommended Phase II dose. Secondary objectives included determination of non-DLTs, as well as preliminary radiographic and pathologic response rates. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled (11 men, 1 woman). All were assessable for toxicity and efficacy. One of 6 patients at Dose Level 1 (UFT/leucovorin, 200/30 mg twice daily on RT days; carboplatin, area under the curve [AUC] 5, Weeks 1 and 4; paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2 Weeks 1 and 4) had a DLT (febrile neutropenia). Of these 6 patients, 4 underwent esophagectomy and none achieved a pathologic complete response. Six patients were then enrolled at Dose Level 2 (UFT/leucovorin, 300/30 mg in the morning and 200/30 mg in the evening on RT days; carboplatin, AUC 5, Weeks 1 and 4; paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2 Weeks 1 and 4). Two of 6 patients at Dose Level 2 developed DLTs (febrile neutropenia in both). Esophagectomy was performed in 3 patients, with 2 achieving a pathologic complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum tolerated doses in this study were UFT/leucovorin, 200/30 mg twice daily on RT days; carboplatin, AUC 5, Weeks 1 and 4; and paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2 Weeks 1 and 4 when delivered with external RT. In this small study, this regimen appears active, but toxic.

A phase I study of eniluracil/5-FU in combination with radiation therapy for potentially resectable and/or unresectable cancer of the pancreas and distal biliary tract.

PURPOSE: Eniluracil is an effective inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). It allows for oral dosing of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which may potentially improve the antitumor activity of 5-FU when delivered concurrently with radiotherapy while avoiding the inconvenience and morbidity of continuous infusion (CI) 5-FU. We addressed the safety of oral eniluracil/5-FU combined with radiation therapy and determined the profile of dose-limiting toxicities and recommended Phase II dose (RPTD) in patients with pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with resectable or locally advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer received eniluracil (starting at 6.0 mg/m(2) q12h)/5-FU (starting at 0.6 mg/m(2) q12h). Eniluracil/5-FU were given concurrently with preoperative radiation to 4500 cGy followed by 540 cGy by reduced fields. Surgery was considered 4 weeks after completion of therapy. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled. Chemoradiotherapy was completed in all patients. The MTD was not reached and, thus, the RPTD of eniluracil/5-FU was determined to be 10 mg/m(2) q12h/1 mg/m(2) q12h. Two patients with locally advanced disease had a 30-45 percent cross-sectional tumor reduction, one of which underwent margin-negative resection. Two of 5 patients with pancreatic cancer, and 1 of 3 patients with cholangiocarcinoma, with underwent exploratory surgery had margin-negative resections. One patient had a pathologic complete response (pCR). Patient 5-FU plasma exposure increased slightly from Day 8 to Day 31. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiation with oral eniluracil/5-FU is feasible, well tolerated, and potentially effective in the neoadjuvant setting. Further investigation of oral fluoropyrimidines as radiosensitizers for pancreaticobiliary malignancies is warranted.

A Phase I trial of preoperative eniluracil plus 5-fluorouracil and radiation for locally advanced or unresectable adenocarcinoma of the rectum and colon.

PURPOSE: Eniluracil, an effective inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, allows for oral dosing of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which avoids the morbidity of continuous infusion 5-FU. We addressed the safety of oral eniluracil and 5-FU combined with preoperative radiotherapy and determined the recommended Phase II dose and dose-limiting toxicity in patients with locally advanced rectal and colon cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with TNM Stage II or III rectal cancer and residual or recurrent colon cancer received eniluracil (starting at 6.0 mg/m(2) every 12 h) and 5-FU (starting at 0.6 mg/m(2) every 12 h). Eniluracil and 5-FU were given with a 5-week course of preoperative radiotherapy of 4500 cGy, with a possible 540-cGy boost. Surgery was performed approximately 4 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled; 1 patient was withdrawn owing to noncompliance. Chemotherapy was completed in all patients; radiotherapy was completed in 20 patients. The recommended Phase II dose of eniluracil and 5-FU was 8 mg/m(2) every 12 h and 0.8 mg/m(2) every 12 h, respectively. Diarrhea was the dose-limiting toxicity. Eleven of the 17 patients with primary rectal cancer underwent a sphincter-sparing procedure. One patient had a pathologic complete response. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with oral eniluracil and 5-FU is feasible and well tolerated. Additional investigation is warranted.