An Italian multicenter retrospective real-life analysis of patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma: the BMRCC study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with brain-spread renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an unmet clinical need, although more recent therapeutic strategies have significantly improved RCC patients' life expectancy. Our multicenter, retrospective, observational study investigated a real-world cohort of patients with brain metastases (BM) from RCC (BMRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 226 patients with histological diagnosis of RCC and radiological evidence of BM from 22 Italian institutions were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate models were performed to investigate the impact of clinicopathological features and multimodal treatments on both overall survival (OS) from the BM diagnosis and intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS). RESULTS: The median OS from the BM diagnosis was 18.8 months (interquartile range: 6.2-43 months). Multivariate analysis confirmed the following as positive independent prognostic factors: a Karnofsky Performance Status >70% [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.92, P = 0.0026] and a single BM (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.86, P = 0. 0310); in contrast, the following were confirmed as worse prognosis factors: progressive extracranial disease (HR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.003-2.74, P = 0.00181) and only one line of systemic therapy after the BM occurrence (HR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.62-5.49, P = 0.029). Subgroup analyses showed no difference in iPFS according to the type of the first systemic treatment [immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT)] carried out after the BM diagnosis (HR = 1.033, 95% CI 0.565-1.889, P = 0.16), and revealed that external radiation therapy (eRT) significantly prolonged iPFS when combined with IT (10.7 months, 95% CI 4.9-48 months, P = 0.0321) and not when combined with TT (9.01 months, 95% CI 2.7-21.2 months, P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a potential additive effect in terms of iPFS for eRT combined with IT and encourage a more intensive multimodal therapeutic strategy in a multidisciplinary context to improve the survival of BMRCC patients.

Tumor MGMT promoter hypermethylation changes over time limit temozolomide efficacy in a phase II trial for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objective response to dacarbazine, the intravenous form of temozolomide (TMZ), in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is confined to tumors harboring O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter hypermethylation. We conducted a phase II study of TMZ enriched by MGMT hypermethylation in archival tumor (AT), exploring dynamic of this biomarker in baseline tumor (BT) biopsy and plasma (liquid biopsy). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We screened 150 mCRC patients for MGMT hypermethylation with methylation-specific PCR on AT from FFPE specimens. Eligible patients (n = 29) underwent BT biopsy and then received TMZ 200 mg/m(2) days 1-5 q28 until progression. A Fleming single-stage design was used to determine whether progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks would be ≥35% [H0 ≤ 15%, type I error = 0.059 (one-sided), power = 0.849]. Exploratory analyses included comparison between MGMT hypermethylation in AT and BT, and MGMT methylation testing by MethylBEAMing in solid (AT, BT) and LB with regard to tumor response. RESULTS: The PFS rate at 12 weeks was 10.3% [90% confidence interval (CI) 2.9-24.6]. Objective response rate was 3.4% (90% CI 0.2-15.3), disease control rate 48.3% (90% CI 32.0-64.8), median OS 6.2 months (95% CI 3.8-7.6), and median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 1.4-2.7). We observed the absence of MGMT hypermethylation in BT in 62.7% of tumors. CONCLUSION: Treatment of mCRC with TMZ driven by MGMT promoter hypermethylation in AT samples did not provide meaningful PFS rate at 12 weeks. This biomarker changed from AT to BT, indicating that testing BT biopsy or plasma is needed for refined target selection.

Rationale and clinical results of multi-target treatments in oncology.

During the last 10 years, the concept of targeted biological therapy for the treatment of cancer has emerged. Targeted agents entered clinical practice only recently, and the first drugs with demonstrated clinical efficacy were mainly inhibitors of the ErbB family of receptors (i.e., EGFR and HER-2), either monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). After the proof of concept for the clinical efficacy and tolerability of these selective agents, it was conceived that most tumors will depend on more than one signaling pathway for their growth and survival. As a consequence, different strategies were pursued to inhibit multiple signaling pathways or multiple steps in the same pathway, either by the development of multi-targeted agents or the combination of single targeted drugs. The recent FDA and EMEA approval of sorafenib and sunitinib, both multi-targeted TKIs, marked the coming of age of this new generation of drugs. Now a whole new wave of multi-targeted compounds is moving into clinical trials, raising in the minds of investigators important questions about the best strategies to pursue in their use and many doubts about their differences and the seeming redundancies in the pipelines of pharmaceutical companies. This review will deal with the rationale underlying the multi-targeted approach and with the available clinical experience with multi-targeted agents, especially focusing on molecules with anti- EGFR mechanisms of action.

Rationale and clinical results of multi-target treatments in oncology.

During the last 10 years, the concept of targeted biological therapy for the treatment of cancer has emerged. Targeted agents entered clinical practice only recently, and the first drugs with demonstrated clinical efficacy were mainly inhibitors of the ErbB family of receptors (i.e., EGFR and HER-2), either monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). After the proof of concept for the clinical efficacy and tolerability of these selective agents, it was conceived that most tumors will depend on more than one signaling pathway for their growth and survival. As a consequence, different strategies were pursued to inhibit multiple signaling pathways or multiple steps in the same pathway, either by the development of multi-targeted agents or the combination of single targeted drugs. The recent FDA and EMEA approval of sorafenib and sunitinib, both multi-targeted TKIs, marked the coming of age of this new generation of drugs. Now a whole new wave of multi-targeted compounds is moving into clinical trials, raising in the minds of investigators important questions about the best strategies to pursue in their use and many doubts about their differences and the seeming redundancies in the pipelines of pharmaceutical companies. This review will deal with the rationale underlying the multi-targeted approach and with the available clinical experience with multi-targeted agents, especially focusing on molecules with anti- EGFR mechanisms of action.

Cetuximab for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

In the past decade the median overall survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has increased from 12 to more than 20 months, mostly due to the new chemotherapeutic agents, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Most recently, targeted therapies, that inhibit specific cancer pathways and molecules, have shown promising results in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. One of the most studied targets for anticancer therapy is the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which is overexpressed in a variety of malignancies. Cetuximab, an anti-EGFR chimeric monoclonal antibody, has shown clinically meaningful antitumor activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in several clinical trials. Efforts of physicians and researchers are currently directed towards the identification of predictive factors (clinical or molecular) of clinical outcome, with the aim of both optimizing the therapeutic index and dealing with increasing costs of these new compounds.