Giuseppe Procopio

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.).

Sequential use of sorafenib and sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC): an Italian multicentre retrospective analysis of 189 patient cases

Study Type – Therapy (retrospective cohort)

Predictors of Health-related Quality of Life and Adjustment to Prostate Cancer During Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND Active surveillance (AS) is emerging as an alternative approach to limit the risk of overtreatment and impairment of quality of life (QoL) in patients with low-risk localised prostate cancer. Although most patients report high levels of QoL, some men may be distressed by the idea of living with untreated cancer. OBJECTIVE To identify factors associated with poor QoL during AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Between September 2007 and March 2012, 103 patients participated in the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) QoL study. Mental health (Symptom Checklist-90), demographic, clinical, and decisional data were assessed at entrance in AS. Health-related QoL (HRQoL) Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate version and Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer outcomes were assessed after 10 mo of AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of low (<25th percentile) HRQoL, adjustment to cancer, and a global QoL index at 10 mo after enrollment. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The mean age of the study patients was 67 yr (standard deviation: ±7 yr). Lack of partner (odds ratio [OR]: 0.08; p=0.009) and impaired mental health (OR: 1.2, p=0.1) were associated with low HRQoL (p=0.006; area under the curve [AUC]: 0.72). The maladaptive adjustment to cancer (p=0.047; AUC: 0.60) could be predicted by recent diagnosis (OR: 3.3; p=0.072). Poor global QoL (overall p=0.02; AUC: 0.85) was predicted by impaired mental health (OR: 1.16; p=0.070) and time from diagnosis to enrollment in AS <5 mo (OR: 5.52; p=0.009). Influence of different physicians on the choice of AS (OR: 0.17; p=0.044), presence of a partner (OR: 0.22; p=0.065), and diagnostic biopsy with >18 core specimens (OR: 0.89; p=0.029) were predictors of better QoL. Limitations of this study were the small sample size and the lack of a control group. CONCLUSIONS Factors predicting poor QoL were lack of a partner, impaired mental health, recent diagnosis, influence of clinicians and lower number of core samples taken at diagnostic biopsy. Educational support from physicians and emotional/social support should be promoted in some cases to prevent poor QoL.

Sorafenib with interleukin-2 vs sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the ROSORC trial

Background:Preclinical investigations support combining sorafenib with IL-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Methods:In this open-label, phase II study, 128 patients with mRCC were randomised to receive oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily, plus subcutaneous IL-2, 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 in every 8 weeks, or sorafenib alone. After enrolment of the first 40 patients, IL-2 dose was reduced to improve the tolerability.Results:After a median follow-up of 27 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 33 weeks with sorafenib plus IL-2, and 30 weeks with sorafenib alone (P=0.109). For patients receiving the initial higher dose of IL-2, median PFS was 43 weeks vs 31 weeks for those receiving the lower dose. The most common adverse events were asthenia, hand–foot syndrome, hypertension, and diarrhoea. Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported for 38 and 25% of patients receiving combination and single-agent treatment, respectively.Conclusion:The combination of sorafenib and IL-2 did not demonstrate improved efficacy vs sorafenib alone. Improvements in PFS appeared greater in patients receiving higher-dose IL-2.

Lanreotide autogel every 6 weeks compared with Lanreotide microparticles every 3 weeks in patients with well differentiated neuroendocrine tumors: a Phase III Study.

The noninferiority of a 6‐week dosing schedule of lanreotide Autogel (Lan ATG) at a dose of 120 mg compared with a 3‐week dosing schedule of lanreotide microparticles (Lan MP) at a dose of 60 mg was investigated in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET).

Clinical outcomes in patients receiving three lines of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a large patient cohort

AIM A number of targeted therapies (TTs) are effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but clinical outcomes with the sequential use of three TTs have been poorly investigated, this study evaluates their outcome. METHODS Patients with clear cells mRCC treated with three TTs were retrospectively studied. Therapies were classified as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi). Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and total PFS (tPFS)--defined as the time from start of first-line to progression on third-line treatment--were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and curves were compared with log-rank test. RESULTS A total of 2065 patients with mRCC were consecutively treated with first-line TT in 23 centres in Italy. Overall 281/2065 patients (13%) were treated with three TTs. Median OS and tPFS were 44.7 and 34.1 months, respectively and were longer in patients receiving the sequence vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi)-VEGFi-mTORi compared with those receiving VEGFi-mTORi-VEGFi with a statistical difference in OS (50.7 versus 37.8 months, p = 0.004; 36.5 versus 29.3 months, p = 0.059, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Few patients received three lines of TTs. The sequence VEGFi-VEGFi-mTORi was associated with improved survival with respect to VEGFi-mTORi-VEGFi and primary resistance to first-line was a negative predictive and prognostic factor.

Incidence and relative risk of hepatic toxicity in patients treated with anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors for malignancy

The aim of this study is to investigate the incidence and risk of hepatic toxicity in patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) through a large up‐to‐date meta‐analysis of available clinical trials.

Clinical Outcomes of Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Treatments Administered as Third or Fourth Line Following Failure of Docetaxel and Other Second-line Treatment: Results of an Italian Multicentre Study

BACKGROUND The availability of new agents (NAs) active in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel treatment (abiraterone acetate, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide) has led to the possibility of using them sequentially to obtain a cumulative survival benefit. OBJECTIVE To provide clinical outcome data relating to a large cohort of mCRPC patients who received a third-line NA after the failure of docetaxel and another NA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients who had received at least two successive NAs after the failure of docetaxel. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The independent prognostic value of a series of pretreatment covariates on the primary outcome measure of overall survival was assessed using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS We assessed 260 patients who received one third-line NA between January 2012 and December 2013, including 38 who received a further NA as fourth-line therapy. The median progression-free and overall survival from the start of third-line therapy was, respectively, 4 mo and 11 mo, with no significant differences between the NAs. Performance status, and haemoglobin and alkaline phosphatase levels were the only independent prognostic factors. The limitations of the study are mainly due its retrospective nature and the small number of patients treated with some of the sequences. CONCLUSIONS We were unable to demonstrate a difference in the clinical outcomes of third-line NAs regardless of previous NA therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY It is debated which sequence of treatments to adopt after docetaxel. Our data do not support the superiority of any of the three new agents in third-line treatment, regardless of the previously administered new agent.

Sorafenib tolerability in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results from a large pooled analysis

Background:Elderly patients tend to be underrepresented in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) clinical trials. The Sorafenib RCC Integrated Database includes data from six clinical trials and two expanded-access studies evaluating sorafenib monotherapy in >4600 patients with RCC. Using this database, sorafenib tolerability and treatment patterns were analysed according to age group (<55, 55–<65, 65–<75, or ⩾75 years).Methods:Dosing patterns, and incidence, prevalence and cumulative incidence of drug-related adverse events (DRAEs) and fatal DRAEs were assessed.Results:Overall, 4684 patients were evaluable (<55 years, n=1126; 55–<65, n=1579; 65–<75, n=1382; ⩾75, n=559). Treatment patterns were generally similar across subgroups, although sorafenib treatment duration was ∼30% shorter in the ⩾75-years subgroup. There were no substantial differences in any-grade DRAEs with sorafenib between subgroups. Drug-related adverse events and dose modifications due to DRAEs tended to occur in months 0–3 and declined thereafter; there was no evidence of cumulative toxicity. Fatal DRAEs were rare (0.7% overall; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–1.0%).Conclusion:Sorafenib was well tolerated regardless of age in a heterogeneous population of RCC patients.

CheckMate 025 Randomized Phase 3 Study: Outcomes by Key Baseline Factors and Prior Therapy for Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND The randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 025 study of nivolumab (n=410) versus everolimus (n=411) in previously treated adults (75% male; 88% white) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). OBJECTIVE To investigate which baseline factors were associated with OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Subgroup OS analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. INTERVENTION Nivolumab 3mg/kg every 2 wk or everolimus 10mg once daily. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The minimum follow-up was 14 mo. Baseline subgroup distributions were balanced between nivolumab and everolimus arms. Nivolumab demonstrated an OS improvement versus everolimus across subgroups, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups; age <65 and ≥65 yr; one and two or more sites of metastases; bone, liver, and lung metastases; number of prior therapies; duration of prior therapy; and prior sunitinib, pazopanib, or interleukin-2 therapy. The benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus was noteworthy for patients with poor MSKCC risk (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.70). The mortality rate at 12 mo for all subgroups was lower with nivolumab compared with everolimus. ORR also favored nivolumab. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events across subgroups was lower with nivolumab. Limitations include the post hoc analysis and differing sample sizes between groups. CONCLUSION The trend for OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab for multiple subgroups, without notable safety concerns, may help to guide treatment decisions, and further supports nivolumab as the standard of care in previously treated patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated the impact of demographic and pretreatment features on survival benefit and tumor response with nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Survival benefit and response were observed for multiple subgroups, supporting the use of nivolumab as a new standard of care across a broad range of patients with previously treated aRCC. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01668784.