Fabio A.B. Schutz

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Risk of Arterial Thromboembolic Events With Sunitinib and Sorafenib: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

PURPOSE Sunitinib and sorafenib are oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used in a vast range of cancers. Arterial thromboembolic events (ATE) have been described with these agents, although the overall risk remains unclear. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incidence and the relative risk (RR) associated with the use of sunitinib and sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS PubMed databases were searched for articles published from January 1966 to July 2009, and abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meetings held between 2004 and 2009 were searched for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies included phase II and III trials and expanded access programs. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, RRs, and 95% CIs, using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS A total of 10,255 patients were selected for this meta-analysis. The incidence for ATE was 1.4% (95% CI, 1.2% to 1.6%). The RR of ATEs associated with sorafenib and sunitinib was 3.03 (95% CI, 1.25 to 7.37; P = .015) compared with control patients. The analysis was also stratified for the underlying malignancy (renal cell cancer v non-renal cell cancer) and TKI (sunitinib v sorafenib), but no significant differences in incidence or RR were observed. CONCLUSION Treatment with VEGFR TKIs sunitinib and sorafenib is associated with a significant increase in the risk of ATEs.

Association of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

CONTEXT Whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) causes excess cardiovascular deaths in men with prostate cancer is highly controversial and was the subject of a joint statement by multiple medical societies and a US Food and Drug Administration safety warning. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine whether ADT is associated with cardiovascular mortality, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), and all-cause mortality in men with unfavorable-risk, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for relevant randomized controlled trials in English between January 1, 1966, and April 11, 2011. STUDY SELECTION Inclusion required nonmetastatic disease, intervention group with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-based ADT, control group with no immediate ADT, complete information on cardiovascular deaths, and median follow-up of more than 1 year. DATA EXTRACTION Extraction was by 2 independent reviewers. Summary incidence, relative risk (RR), and CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. RESULTS Among 4141 patients from 8 randomized trials, cardiovascular death in patients receiving ADT vs control was not significantly different (255/2200 vs 252/1941 events; incidence, 11.0%; 95% CI, 8.3%-14.5%; vs 11.2%; 95% CI, 8.3%-15.0%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.10; P = .41). ADT was not associated with excess cardiovascular death in trials of at least 3 years (long duration) of ADT (11.5%; 95% CI, 8.1%-16.0%; vs 11.5%; 95% CI, 7.5%-17.3%; RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10; P = .34) or in trials of 6 months or less (short duration) of ADT (10.5%; 95% CI, 6.3%-17.0%; vs 10.3%; 95% CI, 8.2%-13.0%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.37; P = .99). Among 4805 patients from 11 trials with overall death data, ADT was associated with lower PCSM (443/2527 vs 552/2278 events; 13.5%; 95% CI, 8.8%-20.3%; vs 22.1%; 95% CI, 15.1%-31.1%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84; P < .001) and lower all-cause mortality (1140/2527 vs 1213/2278 events; 37.7%; 95% CI, 27.3%-49.4%; vs 44.4%; 95% CI, 32.5%-57.0%; RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P < .001). CONCLUSION In a pooled analysis of randomized trials in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT use was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death but was associated with a lower risk of PCSM and all-cause mortality.

Congestive Heart Failure Risk in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Bevacizumab

PURPOSE Bevacizumab is a treatment option in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Congestive heart failure (CHF) has been reported, although the overall incidence and relative risk (RR) of this complication remains unclear. We performed an up-to-date, comprehensive meta-analysis to determine the risk of serious CHF in patients with breast cancer receiving bevacizumab. METHODS The databases of Medline were searched for articles from 1966 to March 2010. Abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium meetings were also searched for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies include randomized trials with bevacizumab in patients with breast cancer. Adequate reporting of safety profile data was required for inclusion. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs by using random-effects models. RESULTS A total of 3,784 patients were included. Overall incidence results for high-grade CHF in bevacizumab- and placebo-treated patients were 1.6% (95% CI, 1.0% to 2.6%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2% to 1.0%), respectively. The RR of CHF in bevacizumab-treated patients was 4.74 (95% CI, 1.66 to 11.18; P = .001) compared with placebo-treated ones. In subgroup analyses, there were no significant differences in CHF incidence or risk between patients treated with low-dose (2.5 mg/kg) versus high-dose (5 mg/kg) bevacizumab or among patients treated with different chemotherapy regimens. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION This is the first comprehensive report to show that bevacizumab is associated with an increased risk of significant heart failure in patients with breast cancer.

Prognostic Factors in Patients With Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelial Tract Experiencing Treatment Failure With Platinum-Containing Regimens

PURPOSE The present study sought to identify pretreatment prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract (TCCU) who experienced treatment failure with the first-line, platinum-based regimen included in the phase III vinflunine trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 370 patients with platinum-refractory TCCU were included in this analysis. Potential prognostic factors were recorded prospectively. Univariate analysis was used to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact survival. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors, and bootstrap analysis was performed for internal validation, forming a prognostic model. External validation was performed on the phase II vinflunine study CA183001. RESULTS Multivariate analysis and the internal validation identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) more than 0, hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL, and the presence of liver metastasis as the main adverse prognostic factors for OS. External validation confirmed these prognostic factors. Four subgroups were formed based on the presence of zero, one, two, or three prognostic factors; the median OS times for these groups were 14.2, 7.3, 3.8, and 1.7 months (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION We identified and both internally and externally validated three adverse risk factors (PS, hemoglobin level, and liver metastasis) that predict for OS and developed a scoring system that classifies patients with platinum-refractory disease on second-line chemotherapy into four risk groups with different outcome. Similar to the first-line setting, the presence of visceral metastases and poor PS predict a worse prognosis. These factors, together with low hemoglobin, can be used for prognostication and future patient stratification in clinical trials.

Risk of bleeding with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND Sunitinib and sorafenib are oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors used in various cancers. Bleeding has been described with these agents, although the overall risk remains unclear. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the incidence and relative risk associated with use of sunitinib and sorafenib. METHODS We searched PubMed (from January, 1966, to April, 2009) and meeting proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology (2004-09) for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies included phase 2 and 3 trials and expanded-access programmes. Statistical analyses were done to calculate summary incidences, relative risks, and 95% CI, using random-effects or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. FINDINGS 23 trials were selected for the meta-analysis, yielding a total of 6779 patients. The incidence of bleeding events (all grades) was 16.7% (95% CI 12.7-21.5), and that of high-grade events was 2.4% (1.6-3.9). The relative risk of all-grade bleeding events associated with sunitinib and sorafenib (for randomised controlled trials only) was 2.0 (1.14-3.49; p=0.015). Our analysis was also stratified by underlying malignant disease (renal-cell carcinoma vs non-renal-cell carcinoma) and agent used, but no differences were recorded. INTERPRETATION Treatment with the VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib is associated with a significant increase in risk of bleeding. FUNDING None.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for the Incidence and Risk of Treatment-Related Mortality in Patients With Cancer Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

PURPOSE Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have become the cornerstone in the treatment of several malignancies. These drugs have also been associated with an increase in the risk of potentially life-threatening adverse events, such as arterial thrombotic events, bleeding, congestive heart failure, and others. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the risk of fatal adverse events (FAEs) in patients with cancer treated with VEGFR TKIs. METHODS MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched for articles published from January 1966 to February 2011. Eligible studies were limited to trials of US Food and Drug Administration-approved VEGFR TKIs (pazopanib, sunitinib, and sorafenib) that reported on patients with cancer with any primary tumor type, randomized design, and adequate safety profile. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, relative risk (RR), and 95% CIs by using random-effects or fixed-effects models on the basis of the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS In all, 4,679 patients from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, with 2,856 from sorafenib, 1,388 from sunitinib, and 435 from pazopanib trials. The incidence of FAEs related to VEGFR TKIs was 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.4%) with an RR of 2.23 (95% CI, 1.12 to 4.44; P = .023) compared with control patients. On subgroup analysis, no difference in the rate of FAEs was found between different VEGFR TKIs or tumor types. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION In a meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of VEGFR TKIs was associated with an increased risk of FAEs compared with control patients.

Incidence and risk of congestive heart failure in patients with renal and nonrenal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

PURPOSE Sunitinib is a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and GI stromal tumor. Congestive heart failure (CHF) is an important adverse effect that has been reported with sunitinib, but overall incidence and relative risk (RR) remain undefined. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the risk of developing CHF in patients with both RCC and non-RCC tumors treated with sunitinib. METHODS Medline databases were searched for articles published between January 1966 and February 2011. Eligible studies were limited to phase II and III trials of sunitinib with adequate safety reporting in patients with cancer of any tumor type. Summary incidence, RR, and 95% CIs were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models based on the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS A total of 6,935 patients were included. Overall incidence for all- and high-grade CHF in sunitinib-treated patients was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.5% to 10.6%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8% to 3.0%), respectively. RR of all- and high-grade CHF in sunitinib-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.30 to 2.50; P < .001) and 3.30 (95% CI, 1.29 to 8.45; P = .01), respectively. On subgroup analysis, there was no difference observed in CHF incidence for patients with RCC versus non-RCC or in trials with or without cardiac monitoring. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION Sunitinib use is associated with increased risk of CHF in patients with cancer.

Comparison of four early posttherapy imaging changes (EPTIC; RECIST 1.0, tumor shrinkage, computed tomography tumor density, Choi criteria) in assessing outcome to vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy has become standard treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Since these therapies can induce tumor necrosis and minimal tumor shrinkage, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) may not be optimal for predicting clinical outcome. OBJECTIVE To systematically determine the optimal early posttherapy imaging changes (EPTIC) to separate responders and nonresponders at the first posttreatment follow-up computed tomography (CT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Seventy mRCC patients with 155 target lesions treated with first-line sunitinib, sorafenib, or bevacizumab at academic medical centers underwent contrast-enhanced thoracic and abdominal CT at baseline and first follow-up after therapy initiation (median: 78 d after therapy initiation; range: 31-223 d). MEASUREMENTS Evaluations were performed according to (1) RECIST 1.0; (2) Choi criteria; (3) tumor shrinkage (TS) of ≥10% decrease in sum of the longest unidimensional diameter (SLD); and (4) 15% or 20% decrease in mean CT tumor density. Correlation with time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were compared and stratified by response to each of the radiologic criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Eleven patients were considered responders by RECIST 1.0; 49 based on Choi criteria; 31 patients had ≥10% decrease in the SLD; and 36 and 32 patients had ≥15% and ≥20% decrease, respectively, in mean tumor density on CT. Only the threshold of 10% decrease in the SLD was statistically significant in predicting TTF (10.4 vs 5.1 mo; p=0.02) and OS (32.5 vs 15.8 mo; p=0.002). Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded a 10% decrease in SLD as the optimal size change threshold for responders. The retrospective nature of the study and measurements by a single oncoradiologist are inherent limitations. CONCLUSIONS In the retrospectively analyzed study population of mRCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted agents, a 10% reduction in the SLD on the first follow-up CT was an optimal early predictor of outcome.

Pazopanib: Clinical development of a potent anti-angiogenic drug.

Pazopanib is an oral, multi-targeted, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that binds to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) and several other key proteins responsible for angiogenesis, tumor growth and cell survival. Pazopanib exhibited in vivo and in vitro activity against tumor growth and, in early clinical trials, was well tolerated with the main side effects being hypertension, fatigue and gastrointestinal disorders. Pazopanib showed clinical activity in several tumors including renal cell cancer (RCC), breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, thyroid cancer, hepatocellular cancer and cervical cancer. A phase III clinical trial in metastatic RCC patients showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival, leading to its approval in the US. In metastatic breast cancer, the combination of pazopanib with lapatinib was more effective than lapatinib alone. At the time of the current publication, pazopanib is being evaluated in more than 35 phase II and III trials.