First-line pazopanib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the FLIPPER trial.

Temsirolimus has long been the only approved first-line standard of care (SOC) with overall survival (OS) benefit in poor-risk patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). However, tyrosine kinase inhibitors are also commonly used in clinical practice. Pazopanib is an SOC for first-line mRCC treatment, but for poor-risk patients data are scarce. The FLIPPER (First-Line Pazopanib in Poor-Risk Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of first-line pazopanib in poor-risk mRCC patients. FLIPPER was a single-arm, multicenter, Phase IV trial. Key inclusion criteria were treatment-naive clear cell, inoperable advanced or mRCC, poor-risk according to MSKCC with slight modification, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥60% and adequate organ function. Oral pazopanib 800 mg was given daily. Primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. For analysis, descriptive statistics were used. Between 2012 and 2016, 60 patients had been included. Forty-three patients qualified for safety analyses, 34 for efficacy. Median age was 66 years, 64.7% of patients were poor-risk, 82.4% had a KPS ≤70%. PFS6 was 35.3% (95% CI, 19.7-53.5). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.6-7.8) and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.6-22.2), respectively. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 17.4-50.5), median DOR 9.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-12.4). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse event reported in 4.7% of patients was hypertension. No treatment-related death occurred. Since pazopanib is active and well tolerated in poor-risk patients with clear cell mRCC, our results support its use as first-line treatment in this setting.

A Phase 4 Study of Everolimus to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line Sunitinib or Pazopanib (SUNPAZ).

INTRODUCTION: Sunitinib and pazopanib are both standard first-line therapies for clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC). Everolimus is a well-established second-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy and safety of second-line everolimus following pazopanib or sunitinib. METHODS: SUNPAZ was an open-label, phase 4 clinical trial of everolimus in patients with clear-cell mRCC progressing after first-line sunitinib or pazopanib. The primary end point was the number of patients without progression 6 months after starting everolimus. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate. Enrollment was terminated early due to slow recruitment; all analyses are descriptive. RESULTS: Patients who received prior sunitinib (n = 16) or pazopanib (n = 13) were enrolled. One of 12 patients in the sunitinib group and 6/13 patients in the pazopanib group were progression-free by month 6 in the full analysis set. Median PFS in the sunitinib and pazopanib groups was 2.8 and 8.0 months, and median OS was 14.8 months and 20.4 months, respectively. Fifteen patients in the sunitinib group and 13 in the pazopanib group experienced adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy results confirm the second-line everolimus profile. However, baseline differences in patient populations should be taken into consideration.

Extended Versus Limited Lymph Node Dissection in Bladder Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy: Survival Results from a Prospective, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The extent of lymph node dissection (LND) in bladder cancer (BCa) patients at the time of radical cystectomy may affect oncologic outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether extended versus limited LND prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multicenter, phase-III trial patients with locally resectable T1G3 or muscle-invasive urothelial BCa (T2-T4aM0). INTERVENTION: Randomization to limited (obturator, and internal and external iliac nodes) versus extended LND (in addition, deep obturator, common iliac, presacral, paracaval, interaortocaval, and para-aortal nodes up to the inferior mesenteric artery). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was RFS. Secondary endpoints included cancer-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), and complications. The trial was designed to show 15% advantage of 5-yr RFS by extended LND. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 401 patients were randomized from February 2006 to August 2010 (203 limited, 198 extended). The median number of dissected nodes was 19 in the limited and 31 in the extended arm. Extended LND failed to show superiority over limited LND with regard to RFS (5-yr RFS 65% vs 59%; hazard ratio [HR]=0.84 [95% confidence interval 0.58-1.22]; p=0.36), CSS (5-yr CSS 76% vs 65%; HR=0.70; p=0.10), and OS (5-yr OS 59% vs 50%; HR=0.78; p=0.12). Clavien grade ≥3 lymphoceles were more frequently reported in the extended LND group within 90d after surgery. Inclusion of T1G3 tumors may have contributed to the negative study result. CONCLUSIONS: Extended LND failed to show a significant advantage over limited LND in RFS, CSS, and OS. A larger trial is required to determine whether extended compared with limited LND leads to a small, but clinically relevant, survival difference (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01215071). PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we investigated the outcome in bladder cancer patients undergoing cystectomy based on the anatomic extent of lymph node resection. We found that extended removal of lymph nodes did not reduce the rate of tumor recurrence in the expected range.

Vinflunine in the Treatment of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma - Subgroup Analysis of an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite an expected prognostic disadvantage for upper tract versus lower tract metastatic urothelial carcinomas (UTUC/LTUC), only few studies have been conducted to elucidate potential differences in chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A post-hoc subgroup analysis of a non-interventional study investigating vinflunine after failure of a platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic/locally advanced UC patients was performed. RESULTS: A total of 18 and 59 out of 77 patients had UTUC and LTUC, respectively. The effectiveness of vinflunine treatment was comparable with an overall response rate of 22.2% and 23.7% respectively and a median progression-free survival of 2.76 months in both groups. Median overall survival was 5.0 months in UTUC compared to 8.2 months in the LTUC group (p=0.478). The safety profile was in accordance with previous vinflunine experiences, with a comparable frequency of adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: Vinflunine can be applied in the 2nd line for UC regardless of the primary tumor localization.

Vinflunine in routine clinical practice for the treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma - data from a prospective, multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Vinflunine is recommended in the European guideline for the treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) after failure of platinum-based therapy. METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional study investigated the safety and efficacy of vinflunine in platinum-pretreated UCC patients in routine clinical practice. Data were prospectively collected on patients with advanced or metastatic UCC undergoing vinflunine treatment in 39 German hospitals and medical practices. Dosing of vinflunine, tumor assessments and concomitant medications followed physician's routine clinical practice. Primary endpoints were toxicity and assessment of vinflunine treatment modalities. Secondary aims included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) time and a prognostic risk-model. RESULTS: Seventy-seven platinum-pretreated patients were recruited. Vinflunine was predominantly administered as second-line (66%) therapy or in subsequent treatment lines (21%). One third of the patients received at least six cycles of vinflunine and the average number was 4.7 cycles. A vinflunine starting dose of 320 mg/m2 was chosen in 48% of patients and 280 mg/m2 in 39%. Grade 3/4 toxicities were leucopenia 16.9%, anemia 6.5%, elevated liver enzymes 6.5% and constipation 5.2%. ORR was 23.4% and OS was 7.7 (CI 4.1 to 10.4) months. Patients with zero, one, two or ≥three risk factors displayed a median OS of 18.2, 9.5, 4.1 and 2.8 months, respectively (p=0.0005; HR=1.82). CONCLUSION: Vinflunine delivers a meaningful benefit to an unselected population of advanced platinum-pretreated UCC patients managed in routine clinical practice.

Prospective randomized double-blind multicentre phase II study comparing gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus placebo in locally advanced and/or metastasized urothelial cancer: SUSE (AUO-AB 31/05).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and cisplatin in combination with sorafenib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in advanced urothelial cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized phase II trial. Its primary aim was to show an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.5 months by adding sorafenib to conventional chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The patients included in the trial had histologically confirmed locally advanced and/or metastatic urothelial cancer of the bladder or upper urinary tract. Chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1250 mg/qm on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (70 mg/qm on day 1) repeated every 21 days, was administered to all patients in a double-blind randomization of additional sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) vs placebo (two tablets twice daily) on days 3-21. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity, the maximum number of cycles was limited to eight. The response assessment was repeated after every two cycles. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and October 2010, 98 of 132 planned patients were recruited. Nine patients were ineligible. The final analysis included 40 patients in the sorafenib and 49 patients in the placebo arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms concerning ORR (sorafenib: complete response [CR] 12.5%, partial response [PR] 40%; placebo: CR 12%, PR 35%), median PFS (sorafenib: 6.3 months, placebo: 6.1 months) or OS (sorafenib: 11.3 months, placebo: 10.6 months). Toxicity was moderately higher in the sorafenib arm. Diarrrhoea occurred significantly more often in the sorafenib arm and hand-foot syndrome occurred only in the sorafenib arm. The study was closed prematurely because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSION: Although the addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy showed acceptable toxicity, the trial failed to show a 4.5 months improvement in PFS.

Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To report a new and improved seminal vesicle-sparing (SV) technique of radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) as an option for patients with localized prostate cancer, which is currently competing with the retropubic RP (RRP), endoscopic and robotic approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 2003 to July 2006, 507 RPs were undertaken within a three-arm, unrandomized phase II trial. Patients were selected for RPP if they had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of