Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Tivozanib in Heavily Pretreated Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib has been approved as a third-line or later therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the TIVO-3 trial, which was conducted before immune checkpoint therapies (ICT), cabozantinib, and lenvatinib/everolimus became incorporated in the current sequential treatment paradigm for advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with advanced ccRCC treated with tivozanib at MD Anderson Cancer Center during 6/2021-7/2023. A blinded radiologist assessed tumor response by RECIST v1.1. We assessed overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) [percentage of all treated patients who achieved radiologic response or stable disease (SD) for ≥ 6 months], progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 30 analyzed patients, 23% had performance status ≥ 2; 47% had International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk disease. Median number of prior therapies was 4 (range 1-8). All patients received prior ICT, 87% cabozantinib and 60% lenvatinib ± everolimus. Of 26 evaluable patients, 2 patients had confirmed partial response (ORR 7.7%); 5 patients had SD for ≥ 6 months (CBR 23.3%). Median PFS was 3.8 months (range 0.7-13.9); median OS was 14.1 months (range 0.3-28.5). Fifteen patients (50%) had ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). There were 6 grade ≥ 3 TRAEs [hypertension, congestive heart failure (3), mucositis, and GI perforation (grade 5)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of heavily pretreated patients with advanced ccRCC, tivozanib yielded a modest clinical benefit in a minority of patients who received prior ICT, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib ± everolimus. TRAEs were consistent with previously published reports.

Updates in the Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma.

At JADPRO Live Virtual 2021, advanced practitioner experts reviewed clinical updates in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, key patient counseling and monitoring considerations, and best practices to manage adverse events associated with therapies for renal cell carcinoma.

Temsirolimus versus Pazopanib (TemPa) in Patients with Advanced Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Poor-risk Features: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Temsirolimus has level 1 evidence for initial treatment of poor-risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its efficacy has not been directly compared with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKi]) in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate temsirolimus versus pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC, predominant clear-cell features, and clinical characteristics of a poor prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized (1:1) phase II trial in 69 treatment-naïve mRCC patients and with three or more predictors of short survival for temsirolimus was conducted during 2012-2017 in a single academic cancer center. Crossover to the alternative treatment upon discontinuation of the first-line agent was permitted. INTERVENTION: Mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor temsirolimus and VEGFR TKi pazopanib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Radiographic response was assessed by blinded radiologists. Efficacy outcomes were adjusted by prior nephrectomy status, prior interleukin-2 treatment, and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Thirty-five patients received temsirolimus and 34 received pazopanib upfront; 72% overall had poor risk by IMDC. Median PFS in the first line was 2.7mo with temsirolimus and 5.2mo with pazopanib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.22; p=0.210). Median OS was 7.1mo with temsirolimus and 11.9mo with pazopanib (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.93; p=0.558), and ORRs were 5.9% and 21.2%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 0.9-29.3; p=0.062). PRO measures favored pazopanib. Five patients discontinued first-line therapy due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus and pazopanib had modest activity in patients with poor-risk clear-cell mRCC, and therefore their use should be discouraged in this setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients presenting with aggressive features when treated with temsirolimus or pazopanib as first-line therapy. Survival was <1yr for most, suggesting that more efficacious alternative treatments should be favored for these patients.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Panax Ginseng for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.

Management and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma: a multicentre collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the management strategies and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) and characterise predictors of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: RMC is a rare and aggressive malignancy that afflicts young patients with sickle cell trait; there are limited data on management to date. This is a study of patients with RMC who were treated in 2000-2015 at eight academic institutions in North America and France. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS, measured from initial RMC diagnosis to date of death. Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of OS. RESULTS: In all, 52 patients (37 males) were identified. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 28 (9-48) years and 49 patients (94%) had stage III/IV. The median OS for all patients was 13.0 months and 38 patients (75%) had nephrectomy. Patients who underwent nephrectomy had superior OS compared to patients who were treated with systemic therapy only (median OS 16.4 vs 7.0 months, P < 0.001). In all, 45 patients received chemotherapy and 13 (29%) had an objective response; 28 patients received targeted therapies, with 8-week median therapy duration and no objective responses. Only seven patients (13%) survived for >24 months. CONCLUSIONS: RMC carries a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy provides palliation and remains the mainstay of therapy, but <20% of patients survive for >24 months, underscoring the need to develop more effective therapy for this rare tumour. In this study, nephrectomy was associated with improved OS.

Everolimus Versus Sunitinib Prospective Evaluation in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ESPN): A Randomized Multicenter Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p=0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p=0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p=0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n=49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p=0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.

Clinical and pathological complete remission in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib: Is mRCC curable with targeted therapy?

We report a patient with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who presented with primary tumor in situ in the left kidney and metastases to bone, liver, lungs, and brain. After over 5 years of sunitinib therapy and subsequent cytoreductive left nephrectomy, the patient achieved radiographic complete response (CR) and had pathologic CR in the nephrectomy specimen. Durable clinical and pathological CRs are possible with targeted agents, even with primary tumor in situ and widely disseminated metastases. Ongoing research will define the optimal duration of systemic therapy in exceptional responders and identify the molecular determinants of response and resistance.

Phase II trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical activity and safety of the combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in advanced nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). METHODS: In this phase II study, patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m intravenous infusion over 10 minutes on day 1 followed immediately by gemcitabine 1500 mg/m intravenously over 30 minutes on day 1, with cycles repeated every 14 days. Planned enrollment was 40 patients. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival. RESULTS: Between December 2005 and December 2008, 16 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC were enrolled. The trial was stopped early due to low efficacy and excessive toxicity. The objective response rate was 0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0%-18%]. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range, 1 to 12). Median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9-6+), and the 16-week PFS rate was 46.7% (95% CI, 19.8%-100%). Median overall survival was 23.2 months (95% CI, 12.9-38.1). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (53%), leukopenia (53%), anemia (13%), fatigue (40%), and renal insufficiency (13%). CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II trial in nccRCC, the combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine was toxic and ineffective. Further development of this regimen in nccRCC is not warranted.

Outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the brain treated with sunitinib without local therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the response of brain metastases to sunitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who did not undergo prior surgical resection or radiation to the brain. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of adult RCC patients who had metastases to the brain and received sunitinib. RESULTS: Six patients with clear-cell RCC were identified between March 2006 and August 2009. All patients had ≥3 metastatic sites including the brain. Five patients received upfront sunitinib; 1 received sorafenib followed by sunitinib. Four patients had a solitary brain lesion, 1 patient had 2 lesions, and 1 patient had multiple subcentimeter lesions with the largest measuring 1.5 cm. Two patients achieved a near complete response to therapy with sunitinib and continue on treatment without recurrence in the brain for 47 and 23 months. One patient died of systemic disease without relapse in the brain. Two patients had disease progression in the brain and were salvaged with radiation therapy. One patient progressed systemically and in the brain after initial improvement in the brain. CONCLUSIONS: Clear-cell RCC patients with small asymptomatic supratentorial metastases without hemorrhage or herniation safely received sunitinib as initial therapy with good response.

A phase 2 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a standard-of-care treatment in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Retrospective and expanded access data suggest sunitinib has activity in advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). OBJECTIVE: To prospectively determine the clinical efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced nccRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a single-arm phase 2 trial with a two-stage design. Eligibility criteria included pathologically confirmed nccRCC or ccRCC with ≥ 20% sarcomatoid histology, performance status 0-2, measurable disease, a maximum of two prior systemic therapies, and no prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. INTERVENTION: Patients received sunitinib 50mg daily on a 4-wk on, 2-wk off schedule. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were safety and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifty-seven patients were eligible (nccRCC histology: papillary, 27; chromophobe, 5; unclassified, 8; collecting duct or medullary carcinoma, 6; sarcomatoid, 7; and others, 4). Median PFS for 55 evaluable patients was 2.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-5.4). Two patients with chromophobe and one patient with unclassified histology had a confirmed partial response (5% ORR). Median PFS for patients with papillary histology was 1.6 mo (95% CI, 1.4-5.4). Median PFS for patients with chromophobe histology was 12.7 mo (95% CI, 8.5-NA). Median OS for all patients was 16.8 mo (95% CI, 10.7-26.3). Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with sunitinib's mechanism of action. The nonrandomized design and small number of patients are limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: The differential response of chromophobe histology to sunitinib suggests a therapeutically relevant biological heterogeneity exists within nccRCC. The low ORR and short PFS with sunitinib in the other nccRCC subtypes underscore the need to enroll patients with these diverse tumors in clinical trials.

Vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy for the treatment of adult metastatic Xp11.2 translocation renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adult "translocation" renal cell carcinoma (RCC), bearing transcription factor E3 (TFE3) gene fusions at Xp11.2, is a recently recognized, unique entity for which prognosis and therapy remain poorly understood. In the current study, the authors investigated the effect of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in this distinct subtype of RCC. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted to describe the clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients with metastatic Xp11.2 RCC who had strong TFE3 nuclear immunostaining and received anti-VEGF therapy. Tumor response to anti-VEGF therapy was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) distributions. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified, of whom 10, 3, and 2 received sunitinib, sorafenib, and monoclonal anti-VEGF antibodies, respectively. The median follow-up was 19.1 months, the median age of the patients was 41 years, and the female:male ratio was 4:1. Initial histologic description included clear cell (n = 8 patients), papillary (n = 1 patient), or mixed clear cell/papillary RCC (n = 6 patients). Five patients had received prior systemic therapy. Five patients had undergone fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis and all demonstrated a translocation involving chromosome Xp11.2. When treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, 3 patients achieved a partial response, 7 patients had stable disease, and 5 patients developed progressive disease. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 7.1 months and 14.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adult-onset, translocation-associated metastatic RCC is an aggressive disease that affects a younger population of patients with a female predominance. In the current study, VEGF-targeted agents appeared to demonstrate some efficacy.