Sunitinib Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Angiogenesis Biomarkers Predict Clinical Outcome in the Prospective Phase II PREINSUT Trial.

Purpose: The PREINSUT study characterized factors predictive of response to sunitinib given before planned nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and Methods: This French multicenter, prospective, open-label, phase II trial (NCT00930345) included treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC. Patients received two cycles of sunitinib before nephrectomy. The primary objective was to evaluate the potential of circulating angiogenesis-related biomarkers measured before and on treatment for identifying responders based on primary renal tumor (PRT) size change. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the ability of biomarkers to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median PFS was 4.5 months, and the median OS was 12.4 months. OS was significantly longer in responding patients (28.8 vs. 11.1 months; P = 0.03). Of 27 patients evaluable for PRT response, nine (33.3%) had a ≥10% decrease in PRT size. Baseline biomarkers significantly associated with outcome were endothelial progenitor cells (PRT response); vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), soluble VEGF receptors (sVEGFR)1 and 2 (PFS); and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). During treatment, changes in biomarkers associated with outcome were SDF-1 and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-BB (PRT response), sVEGFR2 (PFS), and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). There was no correlation between plasma sunitinib or its active metabolite steady-state trough concentrations and clinical outcome.Conclusions: Angiogenesis-related parameters that could reflect hypoxia seem to be associated with worse outcome in mRCC. As blood biomarkers are not subjected to tumor heterogeneity and allow longitudinal follow-up, circulating angiogenesis profile has a promising place in antiangiogenic therapy guidance. Clin Cancer Res; 24(22); 5534-42. ©2018 AACR.

Medical and Economic Evaluation of FOREseal Bioabsorbable Reinforcement Sleeves Compared With Current Standard of Care for Reducing Air Leakage Duration After Lung Resection for Malignancy: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of alginate staple-line reinforcement of fissure openings as compared with stapling alone, with or without tissue sealant or glue, in reducing the incidence and duration of air leakage after pulmonary lobectomy for malignancy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: No randomized trial evaluating alginate staple-line reinforcement has been performed to date. METHODS: The Staple-line Reinforcement for Prevention of Pulmonary Air Leakage study was a multicenter randomized trial, with blinded evaluation of endpoints. Patients over 18 years of age scheduled for elective open lobectomy or bilobectomy for malignancy were eligible for enrollment. At thoracotomy, patients were deemed ineligible if an unanticipated pneumonectomy was indicated, or if air leakage occurred after the liberation of pleural adhesions. Otherwise, if the fissure was incomplete or the lung had an emphysematous appearance, patients were randomized to either standard management or interventional procedure consisting of fissure opening with linear cutting staplers buttressed with paired alginate sleeves (FOREseal). The number of eligible patients necessary in each randomization arm was estimated to be 190, and an outcomes analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Of the 611 patients consented to study enrollment, 380 met the inclusion criteria and were randomized. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air leak duration was not different between the 2 groups: 1 day (range: 0-2 d) in the FOREseal group and 1 day (range: 0-3 d) in the control group (P = 0.8357). In addition, the 2 groups were similar in terms of the proportion of patients presenting with prolonged air leakage (7.8% in the FOREseal group vs 11.3% in the control group, P = 0.264) and the average duration of chest drainage (P = 0.107). Procedure costs were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: FOREseal did not demonstrate a significant advantage over standard treatment alone.