José Pablo Maroto

Drug-Related Pneumonitis in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Temsirolimus

PURPOSE Pneumonitis has occurred in patients treated with inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In a phase III study of patients with previously untreated, poor-prognosis, advanced renal cell carcinoma (ARCC), the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus improved survival compared with interferon. We performed a retrospective, independent, blinded radiographic review of chest computed tomography (CT) images of patients in this study to characterize temsirolimus-related pneumonitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were treated with intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly or subcutaneous interferon alfa 3 million units, with an increase to 18 million units, thrice weekly. Drug-related pneumonitis was identified based on sequential chest CT images, required every 8 weeks, showing changes consistent with pneumonitis and not pneumonia (infection) or disease progression as correlated with clinical data. Cumulative probability of drug-related pneumonitis was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Eight (6%) of 138 and 52 (29%) of 178 evaluable patients on interferon and temsirolimus treatment, respectively, developed radiographically identified drug-related pneumonitis. Time to onset of pneumonitis was significantly shorter on the temsirolimus arm than on the interferon arm (log-rank P < .001). Estimated cumulative probability of pneumonitis at 8 and 16 weeks from first dose was 21% and 31%, respectively, on the temsirolimus arm and 6% and 8%, respectively, on the interferon arm. Respiratory symptoms were observed around time of onset of radiographically diagnosed temsirolimus-related pneumonitis in 16 (31%) of 52 patients. CONCLUSION Patients with ARCC receiving temsirolimus should be monitored closely for development of pneumonitis, and their management should be altered if clinical symptoms appear.

Recommendations for the optimal management of early and advanced urothelial carcinoma

The field of urothelial carcinoma has shown considerable advances in terms of diagnosis, staging, and treatment. The increasing knowledge of molecular pathways and genes involved in the occurrence of this tumor has encouraged the search for new, more effective and less toxic therapies, and has prompted the design and development of clinical trials. However, the speed at which results are published makes it difficult for clinicians to cover the vast amount of information available. Moreover, in clinical practice some gaps remain concerning treatment options for patients who have progressed after first-line cisplatin-based combinations, who cannot tolerate cisplatin-based chemotherapy, or who have received platinum-based neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy, and thus cannot be offered this option on disease progression. The purpose of this review is to issue a series of recommendations on the optimal management of early and advanced urothelial carcinoma based on current evidence and the available updated guidelines.

Indirect treatment comparison of bevacizumab + interferon-α-2a vs tyrosine kinase inhibitors in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy

Background: The vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) given in combination with interferon-α-2a (IFN), and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib (SUN) and pazopanib (PAZ), have all shown significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapy. These targeted therapies are currently competing to be primary choice; hence, in the absence of direct head-to-head comparison, there is a need for valid indirect comparison assessment. Methods: Standard indirect comparison methods were applied to independent review PFS data of the pivotal Phase III trials, to determine indirect treatment comparison hazard-ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). As BEV+IFN and SUN have been compared to IFN, indirect comparison was enabled by the common IFN comparator arms. As PAZ was compared to placebo (PLA), a connector trial (IFN vs PLA) was required for the indirect comparison to BEV+IFN. Sensitivity analyses taking into account real-life influence of patient compliance on clinical outcomes were performed. Results: The indirect efficacy comparison resulted in a statistically nonsignificant PFS difference of BEV+IFN vs SUN (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.78–1.45; P = 0.73) and of BEV+IFN vs PAZ (range based on different connector trials; HR: 0.74–1.03; P = 0.34–0.92). Simulating real-life patient compliance and its effectiveness impact showed an increased tendency towards BEV+IFN without reaching statistical significance. Conclusions: There is no statistically significant PFS difference between BEV+IFN and TKIs in first-line mRCC. These findings imply that additional treatment decision criteria such as tolerability and therapy sequencing need to be considered to guide treatment decisions.

Sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is resistant to conventional treatment with chemotherapy. Recently the use of molecular-targeted therapies with multikinase inhibitors has been recommended as first-choice therapy because they inhibit cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. Sorafenib is a well tolerated tyrosine kinase inhibitor that initially demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients with metastatic RCC who progressed after immunotherapy. Expanded-access studies in Europe and North America showed the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in special populations such as elderly, renal failure and cerebral metastases, as well as patients with no prior therapy. No cross-resistance has been suggested in non-randomized trials when used in second line treatment after other targeted therapies. Ongoing clinical trials will better define the role of sorafenib in first and second line either as monotherapy or in combination, as well as the best strategies for the sequential use of this drug.

Phase Ib/II study of eribulin mesylate administered in combination with gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: Phase Ib results.

273 Background: Eribulin mesylate (E) is a synthetic analog of the natural, marine-sponge product halichondrin B. A phase (Ph) II study of E monotherapy in urothelial carcinoma with no prior cytotoxic therapy for advanced disease reported an overall response rate of 38% (95% CI: 23%, 54%; Quinn et al ASCO 2010, abstract 4539). Therefore, we combined E with gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) to assess the feasibility, safety, and preliminary activity of the combination, in patients (pts) with advanced bladder cancer. This is an open-label, multicenter study consisting of a Ph Ib and Ph II portion. METHODS In the Ph Ib portion, three ascending doses of E were to be administered IV on days 1 and 8 q21d to determine the MTD with standard doses of G (1000 mg/m2, days 1 and 8 q21d) and C (70 mg/m2, day 1). In Ph II, pts are randomized 1:1 to E plus G/C, or G/C alone. RESULTS Nine pts (median age: 59 years; 7 male/2 female) entered Ph Ib. Pts received E 0.7 mg/m2 (n=3) or 1.0 mg/m2 (n=6), with standard dose G/C. Thirty-four cycles were given (2 pts are ongoing). One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed at 1.0 mg/m2 (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia). The 1.4 mg/m2 dose of E was not explored due to an investigator consensus that, with that dose, the probability of DLTs (severe hematologic toxicity) developing was high. Thus, the MTD was not achieved or defined. The recommended Ph II dose (RP2D) of E in combination with G/C was established as 1.0 mg/m2. Most common adverse events at the RP2D were nausea (83%), neutropenia (83%), fatigue (83%), thrombocytopenia (83%), anemia (83%), and anorexia (50%). Best responses at 1.0 mg/m2 were 1 complete response (CR) (unconfirmed) and 4 partial responses (PR) (all confirmed). Overall response for both cohorts was 89% - 2 CRs (1 confirmed, 1 unconfirmed) and 6 PRs (4 confirmed, 2 unconfirmed). Six pts have been randomized into the Ph II portion of the study to date. CONCLUSIONS E combined with standard G/C chemotherapy is feasible and has encouraging clinical activity. Hematologic toxicity is the main limiting factor.

Expert opinion on chemotherapy use in castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel

The term castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) encompasses a wide variety of patients with different prognoses. The combination of docetaxel and prednisone is considered as the standard first-line chemotherapy. For years, patients progressing on docetaxel have been managed with second- and third-line hormone therapies, re-treatment with docetaxel, or combined mitoxantrone and prednisone. Recently published results of four studies using different drugs: cabazitaxel (CBZ), abiraterone (AA), enzalutamide (ENZ), and radium 223, showed an increased survival in such patients. In this article, authors make some considerations about criteria guiding the choice of a second-line chemotherapy after docetaxel in patients with metastatic CRPC, and propose an algorithm based on scientific evidence and consensus for rational use of cabazitaxel in this scenario.

Evaluation of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line treatment

The approval and use of molecular targeted agents for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has substantially improved the clinical outcome of patients. Although eventually all patients progress, hopes have been renewed with the approval of everolimus for patients who progress on or after treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In order to improve the prognosis for these patients, it is imperative to understand the reasons why patients with mRCC fail on first-line treatment. Currently, progression is assessed on the basis of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, but it is known that targeted agents tend to cause disease stabilization rather than a significant decrease in tumor mass. Therefore, it may be time to evaluate the need to incorporate additional diagnostic methods in the assessment of disease response. Equally important is the study of the factors that determine the success or failure of second-line therapy in order to increase the chances of delivering the most effective and personalized therapy possible. In this article, we review the evidence related to the evaluation of patients with mRCC who fail on first-line treatment with targeted agents, including the systems to assess response and progression, the prognostic factors, the prognostic models that have been created based on these factors, and what is known about predictive biomarkers of disease outcome.

Novel potential predictive markers of sunitinib outcomes in long-term responders versus primary refractory patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

Background Several potential predictive markers of efficacy of targeted agents in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been identified. Interindividual heterogeneity warrants further investigation. Patients and methods Multicenter, observational, retrospective study in patients with clear-cell mRCC treated with sunitinib. Patients were classified in two groups: long-term responders (LR) (progression-free survival (PFS)≥22 months and at least stable disease), and primary refractory (PR) (progressive disease within 3-months of sunitinib onset). Objectives were to compare baseline clinical factors in both populations and to correlate tumor expression of selected signaling pathways components with sunitinib PFS. Results 123 patients were analyzed (97 LR, 26 PR). In the LR cohort, overall response rate was 79% and median duration of best response was 30 months. Median PFS and overall survival were 43.2 (95% confidence intervals[CI]:37.2-49.3) and 63.5 months (95%CI:55.1-71.9), respectively. At baseline PR patients had a significantly lower proportion of nephrectomies, higher lactate dehydrogenase and platelets levels, lower hemoglobin, shorter time to and higher presence of metastases, and increased Fuhrman grade. Higher levels of HEYL, HEY and HES1 were observed in LR, although only HEYL discriminated populations significantly (AUC[ROC]=0.704; cut-off=34.85). Increased levels of hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p were also associated with prolonged survival. No statistical significant associations between hsa-miR-23b or hsa-miR-27b and the expression of c-Met were found. Conclusions Certain mRCC patients treated with sunitinib achieve extremely long-term responses. Favorable baseline hematology values and longer time to metastasis may predict longer PFS. HEYL, hsa-miR-27b, hsa-miR-23b and hsa-miR-628-5p could be potentially used as biomarkers of sunitinib response.

Phase I trial of sorafenib with concurrent radiotherapy (RT) in patients with invasive bladder cancer treated with bladder-sparing intent: A Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group study.

270 Background: Preclinical studies suggest enhanced radiation-induced cell death when VEGFR inhibitor therapies are combined with RT. METHODS Patients with localized muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in clinical stage T2-3 N0 M0, who were not eligible or rejected radical cystectomy, ECOG PS 0-2, and adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function, were enrolled in this phase I study to assess safety and identify the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) of sorafenib and RT. A 3+3 dose escalation design with cohorts of 3-6 patients was used. Treatment consisted of TUR, followed by normofractionated (2 Gy/day) external-beam RT with high-energy photons, 46 Gy to minor pelvis and 66 Gy to bladder, combined with sorafenib given po continuously. Sorafenib was started two weeks before RT and was administered for 12 weeks, finishing 4 weeks after RT. Dose levels 1, 2 and 3 corresponded to sorafenib 200 mg qd, 200 mg bid and 800 mg bid. Pathological response was assessed by post-treatment TUR. RESULTS Ten patients were included: median age 71 years (44-84); gender 7M: 3F. Patients were treated at 3 dose levels, the MTD was reached at level 3 and the RD was: sorafenib 200 mg bid with RT. Two DLTs occurred, both at the third dose level: diarrhea grade 3 and digestive bleeding grade 3 with secondary anemia and hemodynamic angor in a patient with previous small bowel angiodysplasia. The most frequent toxicity was diarrhea. Other grade 1-2 toxicities included rash, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, dysuria and urinary frequency. One patient developed late radiation cystitis. Pathological complete response was achieved in 8 of 9 patients evaluated. Salvage cystectomy has been performed in one patient due to recurrent superficial bladder tumor. After a median follow up of 30 months, 6 patients remain disease-free with intact bladder. CONCLUSIONS The combination of sorafenib and RT appears to be feasible and safe allowing long-term bladder preservation in selected patients. A phase II study to assess the activity of this promising combination is warranted.

Experience with Sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients: pooled analysis from 3 Spanish observational prospective studies.

ABSTRACT Background: A pivotal, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated a statistically significant superiority of sunitinib over interferon-α in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced or mRCC in routine clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective pooled analysis of clinical data from three observational and prospective studies carried out between 2007 and 2011 in 33 Spanish hospitals. Tumor response, Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and main sunitinib-related toxicities were registered. Results: 224 patients were analyzed. Median PFS 10.6 months (95% CI: 9.02–12.25), median OS 21.9 months (95% CI: 17.2–26.6). Objective response rate (ORR) 43.8% (95% CI: 36.8–50.7). Median time to PR was 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.86–5.99) and to CR 8.2 months (95% CI: 4.75–9.77). The most common ≥ grade-3 AEs were asthenia/fatigue (18.7%), hand-foot syndrome (6.2%), hypertension (5.8%) and neutropenia (4.8%). Hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea and mucositis were confirmed as independent predictors for PFS and/or OS in a multivariate analysis (p < 0.05) Conclusions: Outcomes with sunitinib in daily clinical practice resemble those obtained in clinical trials. Long-term benefit with sunitinib is possible in advanced RCC patients but the appropriate management of toxicities is mandatory to enable patients to remain on treatment.