VinCaP: a phase II trial of vinflunine in locally advanced and metastatic squamous carcinoma of the penis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the first-line activity of vinflunine in patients with penis cancer. Cisplatin-based combinations are commonly used, but survival is not prolonged; many patients are unfit for such treatment or experience toxicity that outweighs clinical benefit. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with inoperable squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited to a single-arm, Fleming-A'Hern exact phase II trial. Treatment comprised 4 cycles of vinflunine 320 mg/m2, given every 21 days. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR: objective responses plus stable disease) assessed after 4 cycles. Seven or more objective responses or disease stabilisations observed in 22 evaluable participants would exclude a CBR of <15%, with a true CBR of >40% being probable. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants were evaluable. Ten objective responses or disease stabilisations were confirmed. CBR was 45.5%, meeting the primary endpoint; partial response rate was 27.3%. Seven patients received >4 cycles of vinflunine. Dose reduction or treatment delay was required for 20% of cycles. In all, 68% of patients experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event. Two deaths on treatment were not caused by disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-specified clinical activity threshold was exceeded. Toxicity was in keeping with experience in other tumours. Vinflunine merits further study in this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02057913.

Tissue based biomarkers in non-clear cell RCC: Correlative analysis from the ASPEN clinical trial.

Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC), particularly papillary renal cell carcinoma, in order to inform on initial treatment selection and identify potentially novel targets for therapy. We enrolled 108 patients in ASPEN, an international randomized open-label phase 2 trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC treated with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (n=57) or the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitor sunitinib (n=51), stratified by MSKCC risk and histology. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary efficacy endpoints for this exploratory biomarker analysis were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) defined by intention-to-treat using the RECIST 1.1 criteria and radiographic response rates. Tissue biomarkers (n=78) of mTOR pathway activation (phospho-S6 and -Akt, c-kit) and VEGF pathway activation (HIF-1α, c-MET) were prospectively explored in tumor tissue by immunohistochemistry prior to treatment and associated with clinical outcomes. We found that S6 activation was more common in poor risk NC-RCC tumors and S6/Akt activation was associated with worse PFS and OS outcomes with both everolimus and sunitinib, while c-kit was commonly expressed in chromophobe tumors and associated with improved outcomes with both agents. C-MET was commonly expressed in papillary tumors and was associated with lower rates of radiographic response but did not predict PFS for either agent. In multivariable analysis, both pAkt and c-kit were statistically significant prognostic biomarkers of OS. No predictive biomarkers of treatment response were identified for clinical outcomes. Most biomarker subgroups had improved outcomes with sunitinib as compared to everolimus.

Angiokines Associated with Targeted Therapy Outcomes in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Individualizing Systemic Therapies in First Line Treatment and beyond for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Therapeutic options for treating advanced renal cell cancer (RCC) are rapidly evolving. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-directed therapy, predominantly VEGF receptor (VEGFr) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) had been the most effective first line treatment since 2005 irrespective of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk stratification. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have recently changed the treatment paradigm for advanced RCC particularly as the first-line systemic treatment modality. The combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab provides better disease control and long-term outcomes compared with the anti-VEGFr TKI Sunitinib for IMDC intermediate- to poor-risk patients and we now have the option of using ICI with TKI upfront for all IMDC risk groups. This poses a challenge for physicians, both to select the most suitable first line regimen and the most suitable subsequent therapy given the lack of data about sequencing in this setting. This treatment landscape is expected to become more complex with the emerging treatment options. Moreover, these therapeutic options cannot be generalized as significant variability exists between individual's disease biologies and their physiologies for handling treatment adverse effects. Notable efforts are being made to identify promising predictive biomarkers ranging from neo-antigen load to gene expression profiling. These biomarkers need prospective validation to justify their utility in clinical practice and in treatment decision making. This review article discusses various clinicopathological characteristics that should be carefully evaluated to help select appropriate treatment and discusses the current status of biomarker-based selection.

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Red cell differential width (RDW) as a predictor of survival outcomes with palliative and adjuvant chemotherapy for metastatic penile cancer.

PURPOSE: Red cell distribution width (RDW) measures red cells' size variability. Metastatic penile cancer displays poor chemotherapy response. As no validated prognostic predictor exists, we investigated whether RDW correlates independently with survival outcomes in metastatic penile cancer treated by chemotherapy. METHODS: Electronic chemotherapy files of patients with metastatic penile cancer (M1 or N3) from a large academic supra-regional centre were retrospectively analysed between 2005 and 2018. Patients were stratified into RDW > 13.9% and < 13.9%, as per published data on RDW in renal cell carcinoma. Survival time was calculated from the date of chemotherapy initiation until the date of death. RESULTS: 58 patients were analysed. The RDW-high group (n = 31) had a poorer survival than the RDW-low group (n = 27). Median overall survival (mOS) in all patients was 19.0 months (95% CI 13.1-24.9). mOS for RDW-high was 15.0 months (95% CI 10.1-19.9) and 37.0 months (95% CI 32.3-43.1) for RDW-low. Kaplan-Meier curves showed a clear disparity in survival (log rank p = 0.025). Cox proportional hazard ratio for death, corrected for T-stage, grade, age and deprivation score was 0.43 (p = 0.04). Sub-analysis of the M1 patients showed mOS in RDW-high of 17 m (95% CI 11.6-22.4) vs. NR; HR for death of 0.42. N3 patients' mOS in RDW-high cohort was 30 months (95% CI 4.5-55.9) vs. 13 months (95% CI 1.8-24.2) in RDW-low; HR for death was 0.30. CONCLUSION: RDW correlates independently with survival outcomes in metastatic penile cancer and may act as a potential predictor of survival outcomes for patients with metastatic penile cancer receiving chemotherapy.

VICTOR: Vinflunine in advanced metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: A retrospective analysis of the use of vinflunine in multi-centre real life setting as second line chemotherapy through Free of Charge Programme for patients in the UK and Ireland.

There is no standard of care in the UK or Ireland for second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCCU). Vinflunine is approved for TCCU patients who have failed a platinum-based regimen, and is standard of care in Europe but is not routinely available in the UK. Data were collected retrospectively on patients who received vinfluine as a second-line treatment. The aims were to document the toxicity and efficacy in a real life setting. Data were collected on 49 patients from 9 sites across the UK and Ireland [median age, 64 (IQR, 57-70) years, 33 males]. All patients had advanced metastatic TCCU. Thirteen patients had bone or liver metastases, 4 patients had PS 2 and 11 patients had HB <10. Median vinflunine administration was 3.5 cycles (range 1-18). Most common grade 3-4 toxicities were constipation (4 patients) and fatigue (3 patients). Partial response rate was 29% (14 PR, 11 SD, 19 PD, 4 NE, 1 not available). Median OS was 9.1 (6.0, 12.7) months. Results are consistent with real life data from Europe. Toxicity is further reduced with prophylactic laxative and oral antibiotics. Vinflunine is an efficient and tolerable second line treatment in advanced TCCU.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Is observation a valid strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a diagnosis with wide variation in outcome; prognostic categories of favourable, intermediate and poor risk based on clinical criteria are widely used in routine clinical practice. The observation that a subgroup of patients has indolent disease associated with prolonged survival was recognized before the introduction of novel targeted agents. This led to interest in a strategy of deferring systemic therapy in selected patients. This review will consider data that have evaluated the safety and acceptability of such a strategy in the era of effective systemic therapies for mRCC. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from five retrospective studies, one prospective cohort and a subgroup of a randomized phase III trial lend support to the strategy of deferral of systemic therapy for carefully selected patients with mRCC. Prospectively collected data also indicate that this approach is acceptable to patients and does not induce anxiety or impair quality of life. SUMMARY: Patients with asymptomatic, low-volume metastatic disease may benefit from a period of observation free from the toxicity of systemic therapy without compromising survival. Further prospective studies with biomarker validation are required to define the patients most likely to benefit from this approach.

Efficacy and toxicity of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma with severe renal impairment or on haemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: To further investigate the effect of sunitinib, which is currently a standard of care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), in patients with severe renal impairment or those undergoing dialysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical databases were used to identify all patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib in seven institutions internationally. Databases were searched to identify only those patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² or those who had end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Baseline characteristics, adverse event data, response and progression-free survival were recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen patients met the inclusion criteria, 10 of whom were undergoing haemodialysis. Of the nine non-dialysis-dependent patients at drug initiation, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 27 mL/min/1.73 m² (range 23-29). Baseline characteristics included a median age of 61 years (range 44-77); 17 patients had a Karnofsky performance status of >80; eight patients had more than two metastatic sites and 17 had undergone prior nephrectomy. The estimated median progression-free survival of this cohort was 43 weeks (range 7 to 158+) and progression has not yet been reached in six patients. Partial response or stable disease was observed as best response in 15 patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhoea, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), nausea and vomiting and rash. Grade three treatment-related adverse events including fatigue (seven patients), HFSR (two patients), diarrhoea (one patient), rash (one patient) and stomatitis (one patient) occurred in a total of 12 patients. Only one patient experienced a grade four adverse event (HFSR). Only diarrhoea (P = 0.0002), HFSR (P < 0.0001) and neutropenia (P = 0.001) were more common in patients undergoing haemodialysis compared with non-dialysis-dependent patients. Four of the non-dialysis dependent patients started at a dose of 50 mg compared with three of the patients undergoing haemodialysis. However five and two of the patients undergoing haemodialysis started at doses of 37.5 mg and 25 mg daily, respectively, compared with four and one of the non-dialysis-dependent patients. All patients took sunitinib for 4 out of every 6 weeks. Dose reductions during treatment were performed in eight patients but only one patient required discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease on haemodialysis can be safely treated with sunitinib at doses of 25-50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week break. The observed efficacy of therapy is similar to that reported in patients with normal renal function. These preliminary results warrant confirmation in a larger cohort of patients.

Sunitinib is superior to interferon alpha with respect to quality of life for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Randomized trials have shown that both anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin have superior clinical efficacy when compared with interferon alpha in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. In 2007, a pivotal phase III trial randomly allocated 750 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma to receive either the VEGF-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib or interferon alpha, and showed that sunitinib led to improved response rates, progression-free and overall survival. In this Practice Point, we discuss the data reported by Cella et al., which showed that the quality of life of patients in this trial was better with sunitinib than interferon alpha; these differences were predominantly due to better control of disease-related symptoms by sunitinib. This landmark study is the first to report comparative quality-of-life data for an anti-VEGF therapy and a cytokine therapy.

Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors and bone health.

Adjuvant hormonal therapy results in substantial improvements in disease-free and overall survival for women with operable breast cancer. Use of an aromatase inhibitor (AI) is expected to replace tamoxifen as standard care for many patients. Aromatase is the enzyme responsible for the final step in estrogen biosynthesis. This is the conversion of the androgens testosterone and androstenedione to the estrogens estrone and estradiol. AIs are potent inhibitors of estrogen production and thus one of the major concerns over their use is their effect on bone health and their potential to increase the incidence of osteoporosis and risk of fracture. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recognized that these patients are at high risk of developing osteoporosis and has published guidelines to aid in their management. These recommend that all patients have an initial dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) bone scan to assess bone mineral density and are offered calcium and vitamin D supplements as well as lifestyle advice. Patients with osteoporosis should be treated with a bisphosphonate to reduce the incidence of fracture. Osteonecrosis of the jaws is a recently described adverse side-effect of bisphosphonate therapy and has been described in women with metastatic breast cancer. Oversuppression of bone turnover is probably the primary mechanism for the development of this condition. The degree of risk for osteonecrosis with bisphosphonates is uncertain and warrants careful monitoring.