Sequential therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: pre-clinical and clinical rationale for selecting a second- or subsequent-line therapy with a different mechanism of action.

Few types of cancer have had their treatment evolve as rapidly as metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Since 2005, six new targeted therapies with proven efficacy have been approved for the treatment of mRCC. The downside is that our knowledge about the mechanisms of action of these therapies and the intrinsic and extrinsic mechanism of resistance has not evolved equally fast, and many questions remain unanswered. The only approved agent to date in the European Union for patients who progress on sunitinib or sorafenib is everolimus. The results of the phase III trial comparing axitinib vs. sorafenib after failure on sunitinib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus, or cytokines have recently been published, and axitinib has recently been licensed by the Food and Drugs Administration. Other phase III trials that are being conducted include a comparison between everolimus plus bevacizumab and everolimus after failure on tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and between temsirolimus and sorafenib after failure on sunitinib. In this article, we will review the available evidence from clinical studies on sequential therapy for mRCC, including those that are still in progress. In addition, information on the mechanism of resistance or tolerance to first-line therapy, recommendations of the main practice guidelines for second-line treatment, potential therapies for third or successive treatment lines, and the major reasons why patients who progress may benefit from a change of mechanism of action will also be discussed.

Risk-adapted treatment in clinical stage I testicular seminoma: the third Spanish Germ Cell Cancer Group study.

PURPOSE: To confirm the efficacy of a risk-adapted treatment approach for patients with clinical stage I seminoma. The aim was to reduce both the risk of relapse and the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining a high cure rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2008, 227 patients were included after orchiectomy in a multicenter study. Eighty-four patients (37%) presented no local risk factors, 44 patients (19%) had tumors larger than 4 cm, 25 patients (11%) had rete testis involvement, and 74 patients (33%) had both criteria. Only the latter group received two courses of adjuvant carboplatin, whereas the rest were managed by surveillance. RESULTS: After a median follow-up time of 34 months, 16 relapses (7%) have been documented (15 [9.8%] among patients on surveillance and one [1.4%] among those treated with carboplatin). All relapses occurred in retroperitoneal lymph nodes, except for one case in pelvic nodes. Median node size was 25 mm, and median time to recurrence was 14 months. All patients were rendered disease-free with chemotherapy. The actuarial 3-year disease-free survival rate was 88.1% (95% CI, 82.3% to 93.9%) for patients on surveillance and 98.0% (95% CI, 94.0% to 100%) for those treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall 3-year survival was 100%. CONCLUSION: With the limitations of the short follow-up duration, we confirm that a risk-adapted approach is effective for stage I seminoma. Adjuvant carboplatin seems adequate treatment for patients with 2 risk criteria, as is active surveillance for those with 0 to one risk factors. More reliable predictive factors are needed to improve the applicability of this model.

Randomized phase II study comparing gemcitabine plus dacarbazine versus dacarbazine alone in patients with previously treated soft tissue sarcoma: a Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas study.

PURPOSE: To assess the activity and toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in a randomized, multicenter, phase II study using DTIC alone as a control arm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously treated advanced STS were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-dose rate gemcitabine (10 mg/m2/min) at 1800 mg/m2 followed by DTIC at 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks, or DTIC alone at 1200 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary end point of the study was progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 months. RESULTS: From November 2005 to September 2008, 113 patients were included. PFR at 3 months was 56% for gemcitabine plus DTIC versus 37% for DTIC alone (P = .001). Median progression-free survival was 4.2 months versus 2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.86; P = .005), and median overall survival was 16.8 months versus 8.2 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.90; P = .014); both favored the arm of gemcitabine plus DTIC. Gemcitabine plus DTIC was also associated with a higher objective response or higher stable disease rate than was DTIC alone (49% v 25%; P = .009). Severe toxicities were uncommon, and treatment discontinuation for toxicity was rare. Granulocytopenia was the more common serious adverse event, but febrile neutropenia was uncommon. Asthenia, emesis, and stomatitis were the most frequent nonhematologic effects. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and DTIC is active and well tolerated in patients with STS, providing in this phase II randomized trial superior progression-free survival and overall survival than DTIC alone. This regimen constitutes a valuable therapeutic alternative for these patients.