CDX2 and Muc2 immunohistochemistry as prognostic markers in stage II colon cancer.

The treatment for colorectal cancer is largely surgical followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk cases. In patients with stage II cancer, there is no clear benefit for chemotherapy, and the current tools for assessment of risk are inadequate. A recent study identified that colorectal cancer with a gene signature similar to undifferentiated colonic stem cells was associated with a worse outcome. It was later shown that loss of CDX2 detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) alone resulted in a worse prognosis and that this could be used to predict patients who would benefit from chemotherapy. Having observed that CDX2 expression can be patchy, we elected to validate these prior results for clinical practice using whole-slide IHC. The pathology of all cases was reviewed, and 3 blocks were selected for CDX2 IHC. We also expanded the panel beyond CDX2 to assess whether other markers in the gene signature including CDX1, Muc2, GPX2, and villin could better predict outcome. Among 210 cases, CDX2 expression was diffusely lost in 11% and focally lost in 23% of cases. There was no difference in survival based on CDX2 expression, but Muc2 loss was associated with reduced survival (hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 9.20). No significant differences in outcome were identified based on CDX1, GPX2, or villin expression. In keeping with this, assessment of The Cancer Genome Atlas gene expression data demonstrated that decreased Muc2 expression was associated with reduced overall survival. Our results with whole-slide IHC are different from the previous studies and caution against the use of CDX2 in isolation as a prognostic marker in clinical practice. We have identified that loss of Muc2 is associated with reduced survival. This supports the use of the colonic differentiation gene expression signature to identify high-risk patients but cautions against the use of any one IHC-based marker in isolation.

A prospective phase I dose-escalation trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as an alternative to cytoreductive nephrectomy for inoperable patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy is thought to improve survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). As many patients are ineligible for major surgery, we hypothesized that SABR could be a safe alternative. METHODS: In this dose-escalation trial, inoperable mRCC patients underwent SABR targeting the entire affected kidney. Toxicity (CTCAE v3.0), quality of life (QoL), renal function, and tumour response (RECIST v1.0) were assessed. RESULTS: Twelve patients of mostly intermediate (67%) or poor (25%) International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class, median KPS of 70%, and median tumour size of 8.7 cm (range: 4.8-13.8) were enrolled in successive dose cohorts of 25 (n = 3), 30 (n = 6), and 35 Gy (n = 3) in 5 fractions. SABR was well tolerated with 3 grade 3 events: fatigue (2) and bone pain (1). QoL decreased for physical well-being (p = 0.016), but remained unchanged in other domains. SABR achieved a median tumour size reduction of - 17.3% (range: + 5.3 to - 54.4) at 5.3 months. All patients progressed systemically and median OS was 6.7 months. Crude median follow-up was 5.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: In non-operable mRCC patients, renal-ablative SABR to 35 Gy in 5 fractions yielded acceptable toxicity, renal function preservation, and stable QoL. SABR merits further prospective investigation as an alternative to cytoreductive nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02264548. Registered July 22 2014 - Retrospectively registered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02264548.

Phase II trial of capecitabine plus erlotinib versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Aim & methods: Capecitabine monotherapy as palliation for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is generally well tolerated. Adding erlotinib, an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, might improve efficacy versus capecitabine alone. 82 patients received capecitabine alone (Arm 1) or capecitabine with erlotinib (Arm 2). RESULTS: Median time-to-progression (TTP) in Arm 1 was 7.9 months versus 9.2 in Arm 2. In KRAS-wild type (WT) patients TTP was 8.4 and 11.7 months in Arms 1 and 2, respectively. In KRAS-mutated patients TTP was 7.4 and 1.9 months in Arms 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.023). Arm 2 KRAS-WT patients, left-sided primaries, had an overall survival of 16.0 versus 12.1 months in right-sided primaries. CONCLUSION: Adding erlotinib to capecitabine increased TTP by 3.2 months in KRAS-WT patients. This study suggests that erlotinib harms patients with KRAS-mutated advanced CRC while it may provide benefit to those with KRAS-WT CRC. Further study of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with left-sided KRAS-WT CRC is warranted.

Phase I study of everolimus, cetuximab and irinotecan as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: To evaluate feasible doses of weekly everolimus and irinotecan given with cetuximab for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with mCRC that progressed after 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine-plus-oxaliplatin were treated using a sequential dose escalation scheme. Dosing decisions were based on the probability of experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first two 21-day treatment cycles. RESULTS: Patients received everolimus 30 mg/week plus irinotecan 350 mg/m2 q3w (n=5; dose A1) or everolimus 30 mg/week plus irinotecan 250 mg/m2 q3w (n=14; dose B1). Among patients evaluable for the maximum tolerated dose, two out of four in A1 and one out of eight in B1 experienced four DLTs. The trial was terminated early based on changes in clinical practice and emerging data on everolimus dosing. CONCLUSION: The feasible doses of everolimus and irinotecan administered with cetuximab as second-line therapy in mCRC were 30 mg/week and 250 mg/m2, respectively.

A randomized, phase II study of the anti-insulin-like growth factor receptor type 1 (IGF-1R) monoclonal antibody robatumumab (SCH 717454) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Overexpression of insulin-like growth factor receptor type 1 (IGF-1R) may promote tumor development and progression in some cancer patients. Our objective was to assess tumor uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose by positron-emission tomography in patients with chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer treated with an anti-insulin-like growth factor receptor type 1 (anti-IGF-1R) monoclonal antibody, robatumumab. This was a randomized, open-label study with two periods (P1 and P2). Patients were randomized 3:1 into treatment arms R/R and C/R that received, respectively, one cycle of 0.3 mg/kg robatumumab or one or more cycles of second-line chemotherapy in P1, followed in either case by 10 mg/kg robatumumab biweekly in P2. The primary measure of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake was maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in the R/R arm having a mean percent decrease from baseline in SUV(max) (DiSUV) greater than 20% 12-14 days postdose in P2. Secondary endpoints included Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined tumor response and pharmacodynamic measures of target engagement. Among 41 patients who were evaluable for the primary endpoint, seven (17%, 95% CI 7%-32%) had DiSUV greater than 20%. Fifty robatumumab-treated patients were evaluable for RECIST-defined tumor response and six (12%) had stable disease lasting greater than or equal to 7 weeks in P2. Pharmacodynamic endpoints indicated target engagement after dosing with 10 mg/kg robatumumab, but not 0.3 mg/kg. The most frequently reported adverse events were fatigue/asthenia, nausea, anorexia, and gastrointestinal disturbances. In this study, few patients with chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer appeared to benefit from treatment with the IGF-1R antagonist robatumumab.

Efficacy of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the elderly patient population.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Targeted therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for mRCC. The efficacy of this therapy in the older population is poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with mRCC treated with first-line anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. Patient characteristics, data on second-line therapy, and outcomes including treatment duration and overall survival, were evaluated using summary statistics and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: All patients (n = 1381) were treated with front-line targeted therapy; 144 (10%) were 75 years old or older. Six patients (4%) were favorable risk, 99 patients (69%) intermediate risk, and 39 patients (27%) poor risk according to Heng Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009 prognostic factors. The initial treatment for those ≥ 75 years of age was sunitinib (n = 98), sorafenib (n = 35), bevacizumab (n = 7), and AZD217 (n = 4). Twenty-three percent of older patients and 39% of the younger patients went on to receive second-line therapy (P < .0001). The overall response rate, median treatment duration, and overall survival for the older versus younger group were 18% versus 25% (P = .0975), 5.5 months versus 7.5 months (P = .1388), and 16.8 months versus 19.7 months (P = .3321), respectively. When adjusted for poor prognostic factors, age 75 years and older was not found to be associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.781-1.285) or shorter treatment duration (HR, 1.018; 95% CI, 0.827-1.252). The retrospective study design was the primary limitation. CONCLUSION: The use of advanced age as a selection criterion for targeted therapy requires further study, with data suggesting no clinically meaningful differences in overall response rate, treatment duration, and overall survival between older and younger age groups.

A population-based overview of sequences of targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several TTs are available to treat mRCC; however, the optimal sequence of therapy remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive population-based samples of patients with mRCC treated with TT were collected from 12 cancer centers via the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. Patient characteristics, first-line and second-line progression-free survival rates and overall survival data were collected based on sequencing of TT. Multivariable analysis was performed when there were significant differences on univariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2106 patients were included with a median follow-up of 36 months; 907 (43%) and 318 (15%) patients received subsequent second-line and third-line TT, respectively. Baseline characteristics were well matched among different sequences apart from more patients with non-clear-cell histology in the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) group compared with the VEGF to VEGF group sequence. When adjusting for the Heng risk criteria and non-clear-cell histology, the hazard ratio for death for the VEGF to mTOR group versus the VEGF to VEGF group was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.669-1.037; P = .1016). More specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio for death for the sunitinib to everolimus versus sunitinib to temsirolimus sequences was 0.774 (95% CI, 0.52-1.153; P = .2086). CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter analysis evaluating different sequences of TT in mRCC, no substantial effect on outcome based on sequence of TT was identified.

Impact of bone and liver metastases on patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: The skeleton and liver are frequently involved sites of metastasis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: To analyze outcomes based on the presence of bone metastases (BMs) and/or liver metastases (LMs) in patients with RCC treated with targeted therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a review from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) of 2027 patients with metastatic RCC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed the impact of the site of metastasis on overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment failure. Statistical analyses were performed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The presence of BMs was 34% overall, and when stratified by IMDC risk groups was 27%, 33%, and 43% in the favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). The presence of LMs was 19% overall and higher in the poor-risk patients (23%) compared with the favorable- or intermediate-risk groups (17%) (p=0.003). When patients were classified into four groups based on the presence of BMs and/or LMs, the hazard ratio, adjusted for IMDC risk factors, was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-1.62) for BMs, 1.42 (95% CI, 1.17-1.73) for LMs, and 1.82 (95% CI, 1.47-2.26) for both BMs and LMs compared with other metastatic sites (p<0.0001). The prediction model performance for OS was significantly improved when BMs and LMs were added to the IMDC prognostic model (likelihood ratio test p<0.0001). Data in this analysis were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of BMs and LMs in patients treated with targeted agents has a negative impact on survival. Patients with BMs and/or LMs may benefit from earlier inclusion on clinical trials of novel agents or combination-based therapies.

The impact of low serum sodium on treatment outcome of targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Hyponatremia has been associated with poor survival in many solid tumors and more recently found to be of prognostic and predictive value in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of baseline hyponatremia in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data on 1661 patients treated with first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) targeted therapy for mRCC were available from 18 cancer centers to study the impact of hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/l) on clinical outcomes. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points included time to treatment failure (TTF) and the disease control rate (DCR). The chi-square test was used to compare the DCR in patients with and without hyponatremia. OS and TTF were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and differences between groups were examined by the log-rank test. Multivariable logistic regression (for DCR) and Cox regression (for OS and TTF) were undertaken adjusted for prognostic risk factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median OS after treatment initiation was 18.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.5-19.8 mo), with 552 (33.2%) of patients remaining alive on a median follow-up of 22.1 mo. Median baseline serum sodium was 138 mmol/l (range: 122-159 mmol/l), and hyponatremia was found in 14.6% of patients. On univariate analysis, hyponatremia was associated with shorter OS (7.0 vs 20.9 mo), shorter TTF (2.9 vs 7.4 mo), and lower DCR rate (54.9% vs 78.8%) (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). In multivariate analysis, these effects remain significant (hazard ratios: 1.51 [95% CI, 1.26-1.80] for OS, and 1.57 [95% CI, 1.34-1.83] for TTF; odds ratio: 0.50 [95% CI, 34-0.72] for DCR; adjusted p<0.001). Results were similar if sodium was analyzed as a continuous variable (adjusted p<0.0001 for OS, TTF, and DCR). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multi-institutional report to show that hyponatremia is independently associated with a worse outcome in mRCC patients treated with VEGF- and mTOR-targeted agents.

Survival outcome and treatment response of patients with late relapse from renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: A subset of primarily localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients will experience disease recurrence ≥5 yr after initial nephrectomy. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical outcome of patients with late recurrence beyond 5 yr. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) treated with targeted therapy were retrospectively characterized according to time to relapse. Relapse was defined as the diagnosis of recurrent metastatic disease >3 mo after initial curative-intent nephrectomy. Patients with synchronous metastatic disease at presentation were excluded. Patients were classified as early relapsers (ERs) if they recurred within 5 yr; late relapsers (LRs) recurred after 5 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Demographics were compared with the Student t test, the chi-square test, or the Fisher exact test. The survival time was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and associations with survival outcome were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 1210 mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy after surgery for localized disease, 897 (74%) relapsed within the first 5 yr and 313 (26%) (range: 5-35 yr) after 5 yr. LRs presented with younger age (p<0.0001), fewer with sarcomatoid features (p<0.0001), more clear cell histology (p=0.001), and lower Fuhrman grade (p<0.0001). Overall objective response rates to targeted therapy were better in LRs versus ERs (31.8% vs 26.5%; p=0.004). LRs had significantly longer progression-free survival (10.7 mo vs 8.5 mo; p=0.005) and overall survival (OS; 34.0 mo vs 27.4 mo; p=0.004). The study is limited by its retrospective design, noncentralized imaging and pathology review, missing information on metastatectomy, and nonstandardized follow-up protocols. CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of patients who eventually developed metastatic disease and were treated with targeted therapy relapsed over 5 yr from initial nephrectomy. LRs have more favorable prognostic features and consequently better treatment response and OS.

Evaluation of second-line and subsequent targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first-line cediranib.

INTRODUCTION: Pivotal phase III trials have positioned angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for the management of most advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCC). Approaches to second-line therapy, however, remain more controversial with respect to drug selection and drug sequencing. METHODS: In this study we evaluated mRCC patients who were initially treated on the first-line National Cancer Institute (NCI) trial with the highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cediranib, to determine the efficacy and tolerability of subsequent therapies. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (65.1%) of the 43 patients enrolled on the first-line cediranib trial were known to receive second-line therapy, most commonly sunitinib (n = 21), with 4 (14%), 2 (7%) and 1 (3%) patients receiving temsirolimus, sorafenib, and interleukin, respectively. Of these, 14 (50%) went on to have 3 or more lines of therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) proportion (PFS) at 1 year from starting second line was 30% (14.5%-47.9%). Longer duration of first-line cediranib treatment was modestly associated with longer duration of second-line treatment (Spearman rho 0.26). Patients who discontinued cediranib for toxicity were less likely to receive second-line sunitinib. CONCLUSION: In this real world evaluation, sequential use of TKIs for the management of mRCC was common. PFS with sequential TKIs was similar to observed and published results for any second-line therapy. Prior toxicity affected treatment patterns and the frequent use of at least 3 lines of therapy underscores the need for prospective sequencing trials in this disease.

Metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapy agents: characterization of survival outcome and application of the International mRCC Database Consortium criteria.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to apply the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic model in metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). In addition, the survival outcome of metastatic nccRCC patients was characterized. METHODS: Data on 2215 patients (1963 with clear-cell RCC [ccRCC] and 252 with nccRCC) treated with first-line VEGF- and mTOR-targeted therapies were collected from the IMDC. Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were compared in groups with favorable, intermediate, and poor prognoses according to IMDC prognostic criteria RESULTS: The median OS of the entire cohort was 20.9 months. nccRCC patients were younger (P < .0001) and more often presented with low hemoglobin (P = .014) and elevated neutrophils (P = .0001), but otherwise had clinicopathological features similar to those of ccRCC patients. OS (12.8 vs 22.3 months; P < .0001) and TTF (4.2 vs 7.8 months; P < .0001) were worse in nccRCC patients compared with ccRCC patients. The hazard ratio for death and TTF when adjusted for the prognostic factors was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.19-1.67; P < .0001) and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.33-1.79; P < .0001), respectively. The IMDC prognostic model reliably discriminated 3 risk groups to predict OS and TTF in nccRCC; the median OS of the favorable, intermediate, and poor prognosis groups was 31.4, 16.1, and 5.1 months, respectively (P < .0001), and the median TTF was 9.6, 4.9, and 2.1 months, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although targeted agents have significantly improved the outcome of patients with nccRCC, for the majority survival is still inferior compared with patients with ccRCC. The IMDC prognostic model reliably predicts OS and TTF in nccRCC and ccRCC patients.

Prognostic factors of survival for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases treated with targeted therapy: results from the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes and prognosis of patients with brain metastases from advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are not well characterized in the targeted-therapy era. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) and brain metastases treated with targeted therapy were collected through the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium from 7 cancer centers. RESULTS: Overall, 106 (15%) of 705 patients with mRCC had brain metastases. Forty-seven patients had brain metastases at the start of first-line anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, and the rest developed metastases during follow-up. Of the patients with brain metastases, 12%, 42% and 29% were in the favorable, intermediate, and poor prognosis groups, respectively, per the Heng criteria. Ninety percent had cerebral metastases, 17% had cerebellar metastases, 37% had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80%, and 80% had neurologic symptoms at presentation. The median largest size and number of brain metastases was 1.8 cm (range, 0.2-6.6 cm) and one (range, 1 to innumerable), respectively. The patients were treated with sunitinib (n = 77), sorafenib (n = 23), bevacizumab (n = 5), and temsirolimus (n = 1). Local disease treatment included whole brain radiotherapy (81%), stereotactic radiosurgery (25%), and neurosurgery (25%). On multivariable analysis, KPS < 80%, diagnosis to treatment with targeted therapy <1 year, and a higher number of brain metastases (>4) was associated with worse survival from the time of diagnosis with brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with brain metastases from RCC are unlikely to be in the favorable risk group. KPS at the start of therapy, diagnosis to treatment time, and the number of brain metastases are prognostic factors for overall survival.

A phase II study of cediranib (AZD 2171) in treatment naive patients with progressive unresectable recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A trial of the PMH phase 2 consortium.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis has emerged as an effective therapeutic strategy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). In this single arm phase 2 study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of cediranib (AZD2171) a potent angiogenesis inhibitor in first line mRCC. METHODS: Eligible patients who had no prior systemic therapy received cediranib 45 mg orally once daily continuously. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months), duration of response, progression free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Between January 2006 and April 2008, 44 patients were accrued. The median age was 62 (range 44-83) and performance status was either 0 (22 patients) or 1 (22 patients). Of the 39 evaluable patients there were 15 (38 %) partial responses (95 % CI: 23-55 %); 18 stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 33/39 = 85 % (95 % CI: 69-94 %) and 6 progressive disease. Median PFS was 8.9 months (95 % CI: 5.1-12.9); and median OS was 28.6 months (95 % CI: 18.2-37.3 months). The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs included hypertension, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib demonstrated significant anti-tumour activity in first line, treatment-naive mRCC, with efficacy parameters comparable to the other approved agents (sunitinib and pazopanib) in this setting. The main toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension. Based on these encouraging results, further evaluation of cediranib in mRCC at a more tolerable dose of 30 mg daily appears warranted.

External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. METHODS: We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium's database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. FINDINGS: Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6-21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68-0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4-50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7-25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5-9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639-0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636-0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614-0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645-0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632-0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models. INTERPRETATION: The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis. FUNDING: None.

The association of clinical outcome to first-line VEGF-targeted therapy with clinical outcome to second-line VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

There are many active drugs to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who progress through their first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor. Many clinicians choose a second-line VEGF inhibitor based on the type of response to first-line VEGF inhibitor, without data supporting this practice. This study was conducted to determine the association of response to second-line VEGF inhibitor with response to first-line VEGF inhibitor. All mRCC patients in participating centers of the International mRCC Database Consortium who were treated from January 2004 through June 2011 with a second-line VEGF inhibitor after failure of a different first-line VEGF inhibitor were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome is objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS) in each line of therapy. Of 1,602 total database patients, 464 patients received a first- and second-line VEGF inhibitor. The ORR to first-line therapy was 22%, and the ORR to second-line therapy was 11%. The ORR to second-line therapy was not different among patients achieving partial response versus stable disease versus progressive disease to first-line therapy (14% vs. 10% vs. 11%, respectively; chi-squared trend test p=0.17). The median PFS on first-line VEGF-targeted therapy was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.6-8.1), and the median PFS on second-line VEGF inhibitor was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.6-4.5). There was no correlation between first-line and second-line PFS (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.025; p=0.59). The clinical response to a second-line VEGF inhibitor is not dependent on response to the first-line VEGF-inhibitor. Further studies are needed to define clinical parameters that predict response to second-line therapy to optimize the sequence of VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic RCC patients.

Phase II clinical and pharmacokinetic study of aflibercept in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein of the VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1 and VEGFR2 extracellular domains. We assessed the safety and efficacy of aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) who had received at least one prior palliative regimen. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Seventy-five patients were enrolled onto this two-stage phase II trial in two cohorts, bevacizumab naïve (n = 24) and prior bevacizumab (n = 51). Aflibercept was administered at 4 mg/kg i.v. in two-week cycles. The primary endpoint was a combination of objective response rate and 16-week progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In the bevacizumab-naïve cohort (n = 24), the best response was stable disease for 16 weeks or more in five of 24 patients. In the prior bevacizumab cohort (n = 50), one patient achieved a partial response and six patients had stable disease for 16 weeks or more. The median PFS in the bevacizumab-naïve and prior bevacizumab cohorts was two months [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7-8.6 months] and 2.4 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.7 months), respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 10.4 months (95% CI: 7.6-15.5) and 8.5 months (95% CI: 6.2-10.6), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension, proteinuria, fatigue, and headache. Ten patients discontinued study treatment due to toxicity. Mean free to VEGF-bound aflibercept ratio was 1.82, suggesting that free aflibercept was present in sufficient amount to bind endogenous VEGF. CONCLUSION: Aflibercept showed limited single-agent activity in patients with pretreated MCRC with moderate toxicity. Further study of aflibercept with chemotherapy is ongoing.

Conditional survival of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with VEGF-targeted therapy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The advent of targeted therapies in the past 7 years has extended median survival for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This improvement in clinical outcome has created a need for new, more accurate prognostic measures. We assessed the use of conditional survival--a measure that accounts for elapsed time since treatment initiation--for prognostication in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line VEGF-targeted therapies. METHODS: We obtained data for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with a first-line VEGF-targeted therapy between April 7, 2003, and Oct 12, 2010, from our large multi-institutional International mRCC Database Consortium (centres in Canada, the USA, Singapore, Denmark, and South Korea). All histologies, performance statuses, and prognostic risk groups were included. The primary outcome was 2-year conditional survival, defined as the probability of surviving an additional 2 years from a given timepoint since the start of targeted therapy. Secondary analyses included 1-year and 3-year conditional survival, along with stratification of patients by Heng prognostic risk criteria and Karnofsky performance score, and conditional survival based on length of time on therapy. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and a landmark analysis to calculate conditional survival. FINDINGS: In the 1673 patients analysed, median follow-up for alive patients was 20·1 months (IQR 9·0-34·4). We recorded an increase in the 2-year conditional survival probability from 44% (95% CI 41-47) at 0 months to 51% (46-55) at 18 months since beginning targeted therapy. When stratified by the Heng prognostic risk criteria defined at therapy initiation, 2-year conditional survival changed little in the favourable and intermediate groups, but in the poor-risk group, 2-year conditional survival improved from 11% (8-15) at 0 months to 33% (18-48) after 18 months. When conditioned on time on targeted therapy from 0 months to 18 months, 2-year conditional survival improved from 44% (41-47) to 68% (60-75) in the overall population and from 74% (68-79) to 90% (77-96) in the favourable group, 49% (45-53) to 57% (45-67) in the intermediate group, and 11% (8-15) to 73% (43-89) in the poor risk group. INTERPRETATION: Conditional survival is a clinically useful prediction measure that adjusts prognosis of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma on the basis of survival since treatment initiation or therapy duration. Conditional survival might be especially relevant to adjust prognosis for poor-risk patients. FUNDING: The Trust Family Fund for Kidney Cancer Research.

Y-chromosome analysis reveals genetic divergence and new founding native lineages in Athapaskan- and Eskimoan-speaking populations.

For decades, the peopling of the Americas has been explored through the analysis of uniparentally inherited genetic systems in Native American populations and the comparison of these genetic data with current linguistic groupings. In northern North America, two language families predominate: Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene. Although the genetic evidence from nuclear and mtDNA loci suggest that speakers of these language families share a distinct biological origin, this model has not been examined using data from paternally inherited Y chromosomes. To test this hypothesis and elucidate the migration histories of Eskimoan- and Athapaskan-speaking populations, we analyzed Y-chromosomal data from Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, and Tlich populations living in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Over 100 biallelic markers and 19 chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) were genotyped to produce a high-resolution dataset of Y chromosomes from these groups. Among these markers is an SNP discovered in the Inuvialuit that differentiates them from other Aboriginal and Native American populations. The data suggest that Canadian Eskimoan- and Athapaskan-speaking populations are genetically distinct from one another and that the formation of these groups was the result of two population expansions that occurred after the initial movement of people into the Americas. In addition, the population history of Athapaskan speakers is complex, with the Tlich being distinct from other Athapaskan groups. The high-resolution biallelic data also make clear that Y-chromosomal diversity among the first Native Americans was greater than previously recognized.