Georg A. Bjarnason

Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE A randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-alpha) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-alpha 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up. RESULTS Median overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-alpha group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P = .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P = .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P = .049). Within the IFN-alpha group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-alpha (P < .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-alpha (P < .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). CONCLUSION Sunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-alpha plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: an expanded-access trial

BACKGROUND Results from clinical trials have established sunitinib as a standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients, particularly those with a poorer prognosis, do not meet inclusion criteria and little is known about the activity of sunitinib in these subgroups. The primary objective of this trial was to provide sunitinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regulatory approval had not been granted. METHODS Previously treated and treatment-naive patients at least 18 years of age with metastatic RCC were eligible. All patients received open-label sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on schedule 4-2 (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Safety was assessed regularly, tumour measurements done per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of sunitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00130897. FINDINGS As of December, 2007, 4564 patients were enrolled in 52 countries. 4371 patients were included in the modified ITT population. This population included 321 (7%) patients with brain metastases, 582 (13%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, 588 (13%) non-clear-cell RCC, and 1418 (32%) aged 65 years or more. Patients received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-25). Reasons for discontinuation included lack of efficacy (n=1168 [27%]) and adverse events (n=362 [8%]). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (n=1936 [44%]) and fatigue (n=1606 [37%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (n=344 [8%]) and thrombocytopenia (n=338 [8%]) with incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events similar across subgroups. In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subgroup ORR as follows: brain metastases (26 of 213 [12%]), ECOG performance status 2 or higher (29 of 319 [9%]), non-clear-cell RCC (48 of 437 [11%]) and age 65 years or more (176 of 1056 [17%]). Median progression-free survival was 10.9 months (95% CI 10.3-11.2) and overall survival was 18.4 months (17.4-19.2). INTERPRETATION In a broad population of patients with metastatic RCC, the safety profile of sunitinib 50 mg once-daily (initial dose) on schedule 4-2 was manageable and efficacy results were encouraging, particularly in subgroups associated with poor prognosis who are not usually entered into clinical trials. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Circadian Expression of Clock Genes in Human Oral Mucosa and Skin : Association with Specific Cell-Cycle Phases

We studied the relative RNA expression of clock genes throughout one 24-hour period in biopsies obtained from the oral mucosa and skin from eight healthy diurnally active male study participants. We found that the human clock genes hClock, hTim, hPer1, hCry1, and hBmal1 are expressed in oral mucosa and skin, with a circadian profile consistent with that found in the suprachiasmatic nuclei and the peripheral tissues of rodents. hPer1, hCry1, and hBmal1 have a rhythmic expression, peaking early in the morning, in late afternoon, and at night, respectively, whereas hClock and hTim are not rhythmic. This is the first human study to show a circadian profile of expression for all five clock genes as documented in rodents, suggesting their functional importance in man. In concurrent oral mucosa biopsies, thymidylate synthase enzyme activity, a marker for DNA synthesis, had a circadian variation with peak activity in early afternoon, coinciding with the timing of S phase in our previous study on cell-cycle timing in human oral mucosa. The major peak in hPer1 expression occurs at the same time of day as the peak in G(1) phase in oral mucosa, suggesting a possible link between the circadian clock and the mammalian cell cycle.

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 Consortiums 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.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Temsirolimus Versus Sorafenib As Second-Line Therapy After Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE This international phase III trial (Investigating Torisel As Second-Line Therapy [INTORSECT]) compared the efficacy of temsirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) and sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after disease progression on sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 512 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly (n = 259) or oral sorafenib 400 mg twice per day (n = 253), with stratification according to duration of prior sunitinib therapy (≤ or > 180 days), prognostic risk, histology (clear cell or non-clear cell), and nephrectomy status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee assessment. Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. RESULTS Primary analysis revealed no significant difference between treatment arms for PFS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07; two-sided P = .19) or ORR. Median PFS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms were 4.3 and 3.9 months, respectively. There was a significant OS difference in favor of sorafenib (stratified HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.63; two-sided P = .01). Median OS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms was 12.3 and 16.6 months, respectively. Safety profiles of both agents were consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSION In patients with mRCC and progression on sunitinib, second-line temsirolimus did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with sorafenib. The longer OS observed with sorafenib suggests sequenced VEGFR inhibition may benefit patients with mRCC.

Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND The benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for overall survival (OS) is unclear in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of targeted therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine OS benefit of CN compared with no CN in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective data from patients with synchronous mRCC (n=1658) from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were used to compare 982 mRCC patients who had a CN with 676 mRCC patients who did not. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OS was compared and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for IMDC poor prognostic criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable, intermediate, or poor in 9%, 63%, and 28% vs 1%, 45%, and 54%, respectively). The median OS of patients with CN versus without CN was 20.6 versus 9.5 mo (p<0.0001). When adjusted for IMDC criteria to correct for imbalances, the HR of death was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.69; p<0.0001). Patients estimated to survive <12 mo may receive marginal benefit from CN. Patients who have four or more of the IMDC prognostic criteria did not benefit from CN. Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS CN is beneficial in synchronous mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy, even after adjusting for prognostic factors. Patients with estimated survival times <12 mo or four or more IMDC prognostic factors may not benefit from CN. This information may aid in patient selection as we await results from randomized controlled trials. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.

miRNA profiling for clear cell renal cell carcinoma: biomarker discovery and identification of potential controls and consequences of miRNA dysregulation.

PURPOSE Renal cell carcinoma is the most common neoplasm of the adult kidney. Currently to our knowledge there are no biomarkers for diagnostic, prognostic or predictive applications for renal cell carcinoma. miRNAs are nonprotein coding RNAs that negatively regulate gene expression and are potential biomarkers for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed 70 matched pairs of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and normal kidney tissues from the same patients by microarray analysis and validated our results by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. We also performed extensive bioinformatic analysis to explore the role and regulation of miRNAs in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS We identified 166 miRNAs that were significantly dysregulated in clear cell renal cell carcinoma, including miR-122, miR-155 and miR-210, which had the highest over expression, and miR-200c, miR-335 and miR-218, which were most down-regulated. Analysis of previously reported miRNAs dysregulated in RCC showed overall agreement in the direction of dysregulation. Extensive target prediction analysis revealed that many miRNAs were predicted to target genes involved in renal cell carcinoma pathogenesis. In renal cell carcinoma miRNA dysregulation can be attributed in part to chromosomal aberrations, co-regulation of miRNA clusters and co-expression with host genes. We also performed a preliminary analysis showing that miR-155 expression correlated with clear cell renal cell carcinoma size. This finding must be validated in a larger independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS Analysis showed that miRNAs are dysregulated in clear cell renal cell carcinoma and may contribute to kidney cancer pathogenesis by targeting more than 1 key molecule. We identified mechanisms that may contribute to miRNA dysregulation in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dysregulated miRNAs represent potential biomarkers for kidney cancer.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Circadian Variation in the Expression of Cell-Cycle Proteins in Human Oral Epithelium

At the tissue level, there is experimental and clinical data to suggest a cytokinetic coordination of the cell cycle with a greater proportion of cycling cells entering S-phase and mitosis at specific times of the day. The association of certain cell-cycle proteins with defined events in the cell cycle is well established and may be used to study the timing of cell-cycle phases over 24 hours. In this study oral mucosal biopsies were obtained from six normal human volunteers at 4-hour intervals, six times over 24 hours. Using immunohistochemistry, the number of positive cells expressing the proteins p53, cyclin-E, cyclin-A, cyclin-B1, and Ki-67 was determined for each biopsy and expressed as the number of positive cells per mm of basement membrane. We found a statistically significant circadian variation in the nuclear expression of all of these proteins with the high point of expression for p53 at 10:56 hours, cyclin-E at 14:59 hours, cyclin-A at 16:09 hours, cyclin-B1 at 21:13 hours, and Ki-67 at 02:50 hours. The circadian variation in the nuclear expression of cyclins-E (G1/S phase), -A (G2-phase), and -B1 (M-phase) with a normal physiological progression over time suggests a statistically significant circadian variation in oral epithelial cell proliferation. The finding of a circadian variation in the nuclear expression of p53 protein corresponding to late G1 is novel. This information has clinical implications regarding the timing of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.