First-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a decision-making analysis among experts.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. RESULTS: Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. CONCLUSION: A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice.

Locus of control is associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption in young adults of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children.

Individuals appraise events as a consequence of their own actions (i.e. internal locus of control, LoC) or as the outcome of chance or others' will (i.e. external LoC). We hypothesized that having a more external LoC would be associated with higher risk of tobacco and alcohol use. Few studies have examined this association using large prospective data. We evaluated within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) the associations between LoC at 16 and tobacco and alcohol consumption at 17 and 21 years using logistic regression. A more external LoC at age 16 (N = 4656) was associated with higher odds of being a weekly smoker at age 17 (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.25) and 21 (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21) and with dependence measured using the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence at age 17 (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51) and 21 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.49). Individuals with external LoC at age 16 were more likely to be hazardous drinkers according to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test at age 17 (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15) but not at 21 (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.06). Having a more external LoC at age 16 is associated with increased tobacco consumption at age 17 and 21 and alcohol consumption at 17 years. LoC may represent an intervention target for preventing substance use and dependence.

Patients' preferences for adjuvant sorafenib after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial: what makes it worthwhile?

Background: We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for 1 year, or for 3 years after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial. Methods: SORCE participants from all sites in Australia and New Zealand, and selected sites in the UK, completed a validated preferences questionnaire at months 0, 3, 15, and 42 to elicit the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for 1 year (versus observation), or for 3 years (versus 1 year). The questionnaires used reference survival times of 5 and 15 years; and reference survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. Results: The 233 participants had a median age of 57 years (range 29-78) and 71% were male. For 1 year of sorafenib versus no adjuvant therapy, the median benefits in survival times judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra 9 months beyond 5 years and an extra 1 year beyond 15 years; the median benefit in survival rates were an extra 4% beyond 65% and an extra 3% beyond 85% at 5 years. For 3 years of sorafenib versus 1 year of sorafenib, the median benefit in survival time judged sufficient to warrant extended treatment was an extra 1 year beyond both 5 and 15 years. Participants randomly allocated to treatment with sorafenib judged larger benefits necessary than those allocated to placebo. Participants' preferences were not associated with their baseline characteristics or the interval from randomisation. Conclusion: Most participants judged an extra year of survival necessary to warrant 1 year of adjuvant sorafenib worthwhile, and an additional year of survival to warrant extending the duration of sorafenib from 1 to 3 years. Patients' preferences are important in shared decision making. SORCE trial clinical trials number: NCT00492258.

Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts' consensus algorithms.

BACKGROUND: Second-line systemic treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer (mccRCC) are diverse and treatment strategies are variable among experts. Our aim was to investigate the approach for the second-line treatment after first-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Recently two phase III trials have demonstrated a potential role for nivolumab (NIV) and cabozantinib (CAB) in this setting. We aimed to estimate the impact of these trials on clinical decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven international experts were asked to provide their treatment strategies for second-line systemic therapy for mccRCC in the current setting and once NIV and CAB will be approved and available. The treatment strategies were analyzed with the objective consensus approach. RESULTS: The analysis of the decision trees revealed everolimus (EVE), axitinib (AXI), NIV and TKI switch (sTKI) as therapeutic options after first-line TKI therapy in the current situation and mostly NIV and CAB in the future setting. The most commonly used criteria for treatment decisions were duration of response, TKI tolerance and zugzwang a composite of several related criteria. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the first-line setting, recommendations for second-line systemic treatment of mccRCC among experts were not as heterogeneous. The agents mostly used after disease progression on a first-line TKI included: EVE, AXI, NIV and sTKI. In the future setting of NIV and CAB availability, NIV was the most commonly chosen drug, whereas several experts identified situations where CAB would be preferred.

UK Lung Cancer RCT Pilot Screening Trial: baseline findings from the screening arm provide evidence for the potential implementation of lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening using low-dose CT (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: The pilot UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) is a randomised controlled trial of LDCT screening for lung cancer versus usual care. A population-based questionnaire was used to identify high-risk individuals. CT screen-detected nodules were managed by a pre-specified protocol. Cost effectiveness was modelled with reference to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial mortality reduction. RESULTS: 247 354 individuals aged 50-75 years were approached; 30.7% expressed an interest, 8729 (11.5%) were eligible and 4055 were randomised, 2028 into the CT arm (1994 underwent a CT). Forty-two participants (2.1%) had confirmed lung cancer, 34 (1.7%) at baseline and 8 (0.4%) at the 12-month scan. 28/42 (66.7%) had stage I disease, 36/42 (85.7%) had stage I or II disease. 35/42 (83.3%) had surgical resection. 536 subjects had nodules greater than 50 mm(3) or 5 mm diameter and 41/536 were found to have lung cancer. One further cancer was detected by follow-up of nodules between 15 and 50 mm(3) at 12 months. The baseline estimate for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of once-only CT screening, under the UKLS protocol, was £8466 per quality adjusted life year gained (CI £5542 to £12 569). CONCLUSIONS: The UKLS pilot trial demonstrated that it is possible to detect lung cancer at an early stage and deliver potentially curative treatment in over 80% of cases. Health economic analysis suggests that the intervention would be cost effective-this needs to be confirmed using data on observed lung cancer mortality reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 78513845.

A randomised, phase II study of nintedanib or sunitinib in previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell cancer: 3-year results.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory study evaluated the safety/efficacy of nintedanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Ninety-six patients were randomised (2:1) to either nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or sunitinib (50 mg kg(-1) once daily (4 weeks on treatment; 2 weeks off)). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. P-values reported are descriptive only; the study was not powered for such comparisons. RESULTS: Progression-free survival at 9 months was comparable between nintedanib and sunitinib (43.1% vs 45.2%, respectively; P=0.85). Median PFS was 8.4 months in each group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.80; P=0.64). Median overall survival was 20.4 and 21.2 months for nintedanib and sunitinib, respectively (HR, 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.56; P=0.76). Overall incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was comparable (90.6% vs 93.8%); AEs grade ⩾ 3 were lower with nintedanib than sunitinib (48.4% vs 59.4%). Nintedanib was associated with lower incidences of some AEs typical of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs): hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, cardiac disorders and haematological abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced RCC, nintedanib has promising efficacy and similar tolerability to sunitinib, and a manageable safety profile with fewer TKI-associated AEs.

Guidelines for the definition of time-to-event end points in renal cell cancer clinical trials: results of the DATECAN project†.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.

Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design.

BACKGROUND: The detection of occult bone metastases is a key factor in determining the management of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), especially when curative surgery is considered. This prospective study assessed the sensitivity of (18)F-labelled sodium fluoride in conjunction with positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-NaF PET/CT) for detecting RCC bone metastases, compared with conventional imaging by bone scintigraphy or CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An adaptive two-stage trial design was utilized, which was stopped after the first stage due to statistical efficacy. Ten patients with stage IV RCC and bone metastases were imaged with (18)F-NaF PET/CT and (99m)Tc-labelled methylene diphosphonate ((99m)Tc-MDP) bone scintigraphy including pelvic single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Images were reported independently by experienced radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians using a 5-point scoring system. RESULTS: Seventy-seven lesions were diagnosed as malignant: 100% were identified by (18)F-NaF PET/CT, 46% by CT and 29% by bone scintigraphy/SPECT. Standard-of-care imaging with CT and bone scintigraphy identified 65% of the metastases reported by (18)F-NaF PET/CT. On an individual patient basis, (18)F-NaF PET/CT detected more RCC metastases than (99m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy/SPECT or CT alone (P = 0.007). The metabolic volumes, mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV mean and SUV max) of the malignant lesions were significantly greater than those of the benign lesions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-NaF PET/CT is significantly more sensitive at detecting RCC skeletal metastases than conventional bone scintigraphy or CT. The detection of occult bone metastases could greatly alter patient management, particularly in the context when standard-of-care imaging is negative for skeletal metastases.

The power of phase II end-points for different possible mechanisms of action of an experimental treatment.

BACKGROUND: The high failure rate in phase III oncology trials is partly because the signal obtained from phase II trials is often weak. Several papers have considered the appropriateness of various phase II end-points for individual trials, but there has not been a systematic comparison using simulated data to determine which end-point should be used in which situation. METHODS: In this paper we carry out simulation studies to compare the power of several Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) response-based end-points for one-arm and two-arm trials, together with progression-free survival (PFS) and testing the tumour-shrinkage directly for two-arm trials. We consider six scenarios: (1) short-term cytotoxic therapy; (2) continuous cytotoxic therapy; (3+4) cytostatic therapy; (5+6) delayed tumour-shrinkage effect (seen in some immunotherapies). We also consider measurement error in the assessment of tumour size. RESULTS: Measurement error affects the type-I error rate and power of single-arm trials, and the power of two-arm trials. Generally no single end-point performed well in all scenarios. Best observed response rate, PFS and directly testing the tumour-shrinkages performed best for a number of scenarios. PFS performed very poorly when the effect of the treatment was short-lived. In scenario 6, where the delay in effect was long, no end-point performed well. CONCLUSIONS: A clinician setting up a phase II trial should consider the likely mechanism of action the drug will have and choose an end-point that provides high power for that scenario. Testing the difference in tumour-shrinkage is often powerful. Alternative end-points are required for therapies with a long delayed effect.

Assessing the impact of evolving evidence in renal cell carcinoma treatment: an update of the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT).

The appropriateness of the numerous therapeutic options available for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was evaluated in 2011, using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness methodology to match treatment suitability to a range of patient scenarios. However, the RCC therapeutic area evolves rapidly and a body of new clinical data has accrued in the intervening years; as a result the exercise was repeated in 2013 using the same methodology, expert panel and patient scenarios. The aim of the updated assessment was to update the guidance to clinicians and use it to develop an interactive web-based application, the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT). This round of assessment achieved greater concordance concerning the appropriateness of treatments/interventions for the clinical scenarios tested; this higher level of agreement is likely to reflect the body of scientific evidence accrued since the previous assessment exercise. Many of the areas of disagreement in 2011 related to the suitability of pazopanib or sunitinib treatment; in the 2013 assessment both agents were considered appropriate treatment options for many of the clinical scenarios assessed. Uncertain scenarios often are related to the optimal management of metastatic RCC with clear cell histology. The use of the RAND/UCLA RCC assessment findings to develop the ReCATT support tool will help to disseminate expert opinion concerning best treatment practice and guide the clinical management of RCC patients treated in the community setting.

Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009-2010).

BACKGROUND: The conduct of clinical trials should be an integral part of routine patient care. Treating patients in trials incurs additional costs over and above standard of care (SOC), but the extent of the cost burden is not known. We undertook a retrospective cost attribution analysis to quantitate the treatment costs associated with cancer clinical trial protocols conducted over a 2 year period. METHODS: All patients entered into oncology (non-haematology) clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products in 2009 and 2010 in a single UK institution were identified. The trial protocols on which they were treated were analysed to identify the treatment costs for the experimental arm(s) of the trial and the equivalent SOC had the patient not been entered in the trial. The treatment cost difference was calculated by subtracting the experimental treatment cost from SOC cost. For randomised trials, an average treatment cost was estimated by taking into account the number of arms and randomisation ratio. An estimate of the annual treatment costs was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 357 adult oncology patients were treated on 53 different trial protocols: 40 phase III, 2 randomised II/III and 11 phase II design. A total of 27 trials were academic, non-commercial sponsored trials and 26 were commercial sponsored trials. When compared with SOC, the average treatment cost per patient was an excess of £431 for a non-commercial trial (range £6393 excess to £6005 saving) and a saving of £9294 for a commercial trial (range £0 to £71,480). There was an overall treatment cost saving of £388,719 in 2009 and £496,556 in 2010, largely attributable to pharmaceutical company provision of free drug supplies. CONCLUSION: On an average, non-commercial trial protocols were associated with a small per patient excess treatment cost, whereas commercial trials were associated with a substantially higher cost saving. Taking into account the total number of patients recruited annually, treatment of patients on clinical trial protocols was associated with considerable cost savings across both the non-commercial and commercial portfolio.

Fatal case of sorafenib-associated idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity in the adjuvant treatment of a patient with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an orally available kinase inhibitor with activity at Raf, PDGFß and VEGF receptors that is licensed for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Current evidence-based post-nephrectomy management of individuals with localized RCC consists of surveillance-based follow up. The SORCE trial is designed to investigate whether treatment with adjuvant sorafenib can reduce recurrence rates in this cohort. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we report an idiosyncratic reaction to sorafenib resulting in fatal hepatotoxicity and associated renal failure in a 62 year-old man treated with sorafenib within the SORCE trial. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case of sorafenib exposure associated fatal toxicity in the adjuvant setting and highlights the unpredictable adverse effects of novel adjuvant therapies.

Evaluation of treatment options for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: assessment of appropriateness, using the validated semi-quantitative RAND corporation/University of California, Los Angeles methodology.

A diverse range of treatment options and interventions are available for the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), allowing clinicians to tailor therapy to best meet their patient's needs and situation. However, choosing from the plethora of options can be problematic. RCC treatment guidelines advise on the most efficacious agents based upon specific clinical trial populations, but these do not always take into account all the patient factors that influence the suitability of treatment options for individual patients. This study used the validated RAND/UCLA (RAND corporation/University of California, Los Angeles) 'appropriateness methodology' to integrate clinical efficacy data with expert opinion concerning the use of specific RCC treatment options for particular patient scenarios, in an attempt to facilitate the widespread implementation of patient-focussed treatment choices. Use of the methodology has allowed us to develop treatment algorithms for patients with locally-advanced RCC and for those with metastatic disease post-nephrectomy or with primary tumour in situ. The algorithms take into account patient-specific characteristics such as tumour histology, prior treatment and known risk factors to advise whether a particular treatment intervention is appropriate, not appropriate or of uncertain appropriateness. Use of this methodology aims to develop a formalised process by which expert opinion can be integrated with clinical data and used as an additional source of information that can provide further guidance concerning difficult treatment decisions when data are absent or sparse.

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies.

METHOD: The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study. RESULTS: In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m(-2) dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37%; median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0). CONCLUSION: Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.

Comparison of whole-body MRI and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in renal cancer.

This study aims to compare the sensitivity of whole-body MRI with bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in patients with renal cancer. A prospective study was carried out in 47 patients with renal cancer (mean age 62 years, range 29-79 years). All patients had assessment of the skeleton with whole-body bone scintigraphy (with technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate) and whole-body MRI (coronal T(1) weighted and short tau inversion recovery sequences). The number and sites of bony metastases were assessed on each imaging investigation independently. Sites of extra-osseous metastasis on MRI were also noted. The imaging findings were correlated with other imaging modalities and follow-up. 15 patients (32%) had bone metastases at 34 different sites. Both scintigraphy and MRI were highly specific (94% and 97%, respectively), but the sensitivity of MRI (94%) was superior (p = 0.007) to that of scintigraphy (62%). MRI identified more metastases in the spine and appendicular skeleton, whereas scintigraphy showed more lesions in the skull/facial and thoracic bones. MRI identified extra-osseous metastases in 33 patients (70%), these were mainly lung and retroperitoneal in site. Whole-body MRI is a more sensitive method for detection of bone metastases in renal cancer than bone scintigraphy, and also allows the assessment of soft-tissue disease.

Comparison of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus cisplatin and etoposide for patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) has been a standard treatment for patients with poor-prognosis small cell lung cancer (SCLC). This non-inferiority design trial aimed to determine whether the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) results in similar survival but is less toxic with better quality of life. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with SCLC with extensive disease or limited stage with poor prognostic factors were randomly assigned to six 3-weekly cycles of GC or PE. RESULTS: 241 patients (121 GC, 120 PE) were recruited, of which 216 (90%) had died. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.32). Median survival with GC and PE was 8.0 and 8.1 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months with GC and 6.3 months with PE. Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppressions were more frequent with GC (anaemia: 14% GC vs 2% PE; leucopenia: 32% GC vs 13% PE; thrombocytopenia: 22% GC vs 4% PE), but these were not associated with increased hospital admissions, infections or fatalities. Grade 2-3 alopecia (68% PE vs 17% GC) and nausea (43% PE vs 26% GC) were more frequent with PE. Patients given GC received more chemotherapy as outpatients (89% GC vs 66% PE of treatment cycles). In QoL questionnaires, more patients receiving PE reported being upset by hair loss (p = 0.004) and impaired cognitive functioning (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: GC is as effective as PE in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and has a toxicity profile more acceptable to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 39679215.