Real-world Effectiveness and Safety of Pazopanib in Patients With Intermediate Prognostic Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib in patients with intermediate-risk advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the PRINCIPAL study (NCT01649778). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had clear-cell advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma and met intermediate-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Assessments included progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety. We also evaluated effectiveness based on number of risk factors, age, and performance status (PS), as well as safety in older and younger patients. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty three and 343 intermediate-risk MSKCC and IMDC patients were included, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 13.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-18.1 months) and 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.2-10.3 months) for patients with 1 and 2 MSKCC risk factors, respectively, and 13.1 months (95% CI, 10.7-18.1 months) and 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-10.7 months) for patients with 1 and 2 IMDC risk factors, respectively. The median overall survival was not reached and was 15.2 months (95% CI, 12.3-26.5 months) for patients with 1 and 2 MSKCC risk factors, respectively, and 33.9 months (95% CI, 33.9 months to not estimable) and 19.4 months (95% CI, 14.3 months to not estimable) with 1 and 2 IMDC risk factors, respectively. A lower overall response rate was observed with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≥ 2 (vs. PS < 2). All-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in approximately 63% of patients, and the safety profile among older and younger patients was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes with pazopanib in intermediate-risk patients suggest that patients can be further stratified by number of risk factors (1 vs. 2) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS (< 2 vs. ≥ 2) to more accurately predict outcomes.

Active surveillance in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a prospective, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma show indolent growth of metastases. Because of the toxicity and non-curative nature of systemic therapy, some of these patients could benefit from initial active surveillance. We aimed to characterise the time to initiation of systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma under active surveillance. METHODS: In this prospective phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with treatment-naive, asymptomatic, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from five hospitals in the USA, Spain, and the UK. Patients were radiographically assessed at baseline, every 3 months for year 1, every 4 months for year 2, then every 6 months thereafter. Patients continued on observation until initiation of systemic therapy for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma; a decision that was made at the discretion of the treating physician and patient. The primary endpoint of the study was time to initiation of systemic therapy in the per-protocol population. The follow-up of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2008, and June 7, 2013, we enrolled 52 patients. Median follow-up of patients in the study was 38·1 months (IQR 29·4-48·9). In the 48 patients included in analysis, median time on surveillance from registration on study until initiation of systemic therapy was 14·9 months (95% CI 10·6-25·0). Multivariate analysis showed that higher numbers of International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) adverse risk factors (p=0·0403) and higher numbers of metastatic disease sites (p=0·0414) were associated with a shorter surveillance period. 22 (46%) patients died during the study period, all from metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. INTERPRETATION: A subset of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma can safely undergo surveillance before starting systemic therapy. Additional investigation is required to further define the benefits and risks of this approach. FUNDING: None.