Lionnel Geoffrois

Temsirolimus and bevacizumab, or sunitinib, or interferon alfa and bevacizumab for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TORAVA): a randomised phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Combining targeted treatments for renal cell carcinoma has been suggested as a possible method to improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess the potential synergistic or additive effect of the combination of bevacizumab, directed against the VEGF receptor, and temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS TORAVA was an open-label, multicentre randomised phase 2 study undertaken in 24 centres in France. Patients aged 18 years or older who had untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to receive the combination of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and temsirolimus (25 mg weekly; group A), or one of the standard treatments: sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off; group B), or the combination of interferon alfa (9 mIU three times per week) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; group C). Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of four and eight patients stratified by participating centre and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 48 weeks (four follow-up CT scans), which was expected to be above 50% in group A. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is ongoing for long-term overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00619268. FINDINGS Between March 3, 2008 and May 6, 2009, 171 patients were randomly assigned: 88 to the experimental group (group A), 42 to group B, and 41 to group C. PFS at 48 weeks was 29.5% (26 of 88 patients, 95% CI 20.0-39.1) in group A, 35.7% (15 of 42, 21.2-50.2) in group B, and 61.0% (25 of 41, 46.0-75.9) in group C. Median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI 7.0-9.6) in group A, 8.2 months (5.5-11.7) in group B, and 16.8 months (6.0-26.0) in group C. 45 (51%) of 88 patients in group A stopped treatment for reasons other than progression compared with five (12%) of 42 in group B and 15 (38%) of 40 in group C. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 68 (77%) of 88 patients in group A versus 25 (60%) of 42 in group B and 28 (70%) of 40 in group C. Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (44%) of 88, 13 (31%) of 42, and 18 (45%) of 40 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. INTERPRETATION The toxicity of the temsirolimus and bevacizumab combination was much higher than anticipated and limited treatment continuation over time. Clinical activity was low compared with the benefit expected from sequential use of each targeted therapy. This combination cannot be recommended for first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING French Ministry of Health and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Subcutaneous interleukin-2, interferon alfa-2a, and continuous infusion of fluorouracil in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter phase II trial. Groupe Français d'Immunothérapie.

PURPOSE A phase II trial was designed to determine the efficacy and the tolerance of interleukin-2 (IL-2), interferon alfa-2a (IFNalpha), and fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred eleven patients were included. Patients received subcutaneous IL-2 9 x 10(6) IU daily for 6 days and IFNalpha 6 x 10(6) IU on days 1, 3, and 5 every other week for 8 weeks. 5-FU was administered through a continuous infusion at 600 mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days for 1 week every 4 weeks. RESULTS The response rate was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0% to 4.3%) with only two partial responses (PRs). Toxicity was moderate with 3.6% grade 4 events and two deaths related to treatment. CONCLUSION This regimen of IL-2, IFNalpha, and 5-FU in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma was ineffective. The results raise the question of the dose and schedule of subcutaneous cytokines that must be used in metastatic renal carcinoma.

Quality of life assessment after concurrent chemoradiation for invasive bladder cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study (GETUG 97-015).

PURPOSE To evaluate bladder preservation and functional quality after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for muscle-invasive cancer in 53 patients included in a Phase II trial. PATIENT AND METHODS Pelvic irradiation delivered 45 Gy, followed by an 18-Gy boost. Concurrent chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil by continuous infusion was performed at Weeks 1, 4, and 7 during radiotherapy. Patients initially suitable for surgery were evaluated with macroscopically complete transurethral resection after 45 Gy, followed by radical cystectomy in case of incomplete response. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30, specific items on bladder function, and the Late Effects in Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management, and Analytic (LENT-SOMA) symptoms scale were used to evaluate quality of life before treatment and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after treatment. RESULTS Median age was 68 years for 51 evaluable patients. Thirty-two percent of patients had T2a tumors, 46% T2b, 16% T3, and 6% T4. A visibly complete transurethral resection was possible in 66%. Median follow-up was 8 years. Bladder was preserved in 67% (95% confidence interval, 52-79%) of patients. Overall survival was 36% (95% confidence interval, 23-49%) at 8 years for all patients, and 45% (28-61%) for the 36 patients suitable for surgery. Satisfactory bladder function, according to LENT-SOMA, was reported for 100% of patients with preserved bladder and locally controlled disease 6-36 months after the beginning of treatment. Satisfactory bladder function was reported for 35% of patients before treatment and for 43%, 57%, and 29%, respectively, at 6, 18, and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS Concurrent chemoradiation therapy allowed bladder preservation with tumor control for 67% patients at 8 years. Quality of life and quality of bladder function were satisfactory for 67% of patients.

A phase III trial of personalized chemotherapy based on serum tumor marker decline in poor-prognosis germ-cell tumors: Results of GETUG 13.

LBA4500 Background: Poor-prognosis GCT (IGCCCG, J Clin Oncol 1997) remains a challenge with no improvement in the 50% survival demonstrated in phase III trials for 25 years. Day 21 serum tumor marker decline rate identified a subgroup of patients (pts) with a better outcome (J Clin Oncol 2004, 22: 3868-76). The hypothesis we tested in this study is that treatment allocation based on early tumor marker decline will improve the progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS Pts with IGCCCG poor-prognosis GCT were treated with a first cycle of BEP. AFP and hCG were assessed at day 18-21: 1) Pts with a favorable decline continued BEP for a total of 4 courses (Fav-BEP); 2) Pts with an unfavorable decline were randomized to receive either BEP (Unfav-BEP) or a dose-dense regimen (Unfav-dose-dense), consisting of paclitaxel-BEP plus day-10 oxaliplatin x 2 cycles, followed by 2 cycles of cisplatin, ifosfamide, and continuous infusion bleomycin (depending on lung function) + G-CSF. The primary endpoint was PFS (hypothesis: 20% difference, type 1 error: 5%, power 80%, 196 randomized pts needed). RESULTS 263 pts were enrolled and 254 were evaluable at day 21 (6 early deaths, 3 withdrawals): 51 pts (20%) had favorable tumor marker decline and 203 had unfavorable decline (randomized: 105 Unfav-dose-dense arm, 98 Unfav-BEP). The prognostic value of early tumor marker decline (Fav-BEP vs Unfav-BEP) was confirmed: 70% vs 48% for 3-year PFS (p=0.01), and 84% vs 65% for overall survival (OS) (p=0.02). The 3-year PFS was 59% in the Unfav-dose-dense arm vs 48% in the Unfav-BEP arm (p=0.05; HR: 0.66 [0.44-1.00]). 3-year OS was 73% and 65%, respectively. More ≥ grade 2 neurotoxicity (21% vs 4%) and more hematotoxicity occurred in the dose-dense arm, with no excess febrile neutropenia (17% each arm) or toxic deaths (1 each arm). Salvage high-dose chemotherapy + stem-cell transplant were required in 6% in the Unfav-dose-dense arm and 16% in the Unfav-BEP arm (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS An algorithm of individualized treatment intensification determined by the rate of early tumor marker decline reduces the risk of progression or death in men with poor-prognosis GCT. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00104676.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal‐cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal‐cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear‐cell renal‐cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow‐up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib‐alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy–sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib‐alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy–sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression‐free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal‐cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate‐risk or poor‐risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033.)

Final overall survival analysis for the phase II RECORD-3 study of first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib versus first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in metastatic RCC

Background RECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points. Patients and methods Patients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored. Results At final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1–26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0–29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9–1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6–33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8–33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9–1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences. Conclusions Results of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals. Clinical Trials number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175

A Risk-adapted Study of Cisplatin and Etoposide, with or Without Ifosfamide, in Patients with Metastatic Seminoma: Results of the GETUG S99 Multicenter Prospective Study

BACKGROUND Whether patients with good prognosis and intermediate/poor prognosis advanced seminoma should be treated differently has not been defined. OBJECTIVE To assess a risk-adapted chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced seminoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 132 patients were included in this prospective study. Patients with a good prognosis according to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group (IGGCCG) were treated with four cycles of cisplatin-etoposide (EP). Patients with an intermediate prognosis according to the IGCCCG (or a poor prognosis according to the Medical Research Council classification) were treated with four cycles of VIP (EP and ifosfamide) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The median follow-up was 4.5 yr (range: 0.4-11.6 yr). Among 108 patients (82%) with a good prognosis who received EP, grade 3-4 toxicity included neutropenia (47%) and neutropenic fever (12%). Among the 24 patients (18%) with an intermediate/poor prognosis who received VIP plus G-CSF, toxicity included grade 3-4 neutropenia (36%), neutropenic fever (23%), thrombocytopenia (23%), anemia (23%), and a toxicity-related death (n=1; 4%). The 3-yr progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 93% (range: 85-97%) in the good prognosis group and 83% (range: 63-93%) in the intermediate/poor prognosis group (p=0.03 for PFS). The 3-yr overall survival (OS) rate was 99% (range: 92-100%) and 87% (range: 67-95%), respectively (p<0.005 for OS). Only four patients died of seminoma or its treatment. CONCLUSIONS A risk-adapted chemotherapy policy for advanced seminoma yielded an excellent outcome with a 3-yr OS rate of 96%.

Combining gemcitabine, cisplatin, and ifosfamide (GIP) is active in patients with relapsed metastatic germ-cell tumors (GCT): A prospective multicenter GETUG phase II trial

BACKGROUND The standard treatment of patients with metastatic germ-cell tumor (GCT) relapsing after first-line chemotherapy is based on a cisplatin and ifosfamide-containing three-drug regimen, which usually yields a complete response (CR) rate <50%. As gemcitabine consistently displayed activity in patients with advanced GCT and as synergy with cisplatin was reported, we integrated this drug into the salvage triplet regimen and assessed its activity in this phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS The GIP regimen consisted in gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) day 1 and 5, ifosfamide 1200 mg/m(2)/day day 1-5, cisplatin 20 mg/m(2)/day day 1-5, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor 263 μg/day day 7-15, repeated every 3 weeks for four cycles. Eligibility criteria were that patients had favorable prognostic factors to conventional-dose salvage chemotherapy including a testis primary tumor and a previous CR to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was the CR rate and a two-stage Simon design was used. RESULTS Thirty-seven patients were accrued and 29 (78%) achieved a favorable response, including a CR in 20 (54%) and a partial response with normalization of tumor markers (PRm-) in 9 (24%). With a median follow-up of 53 months (13-81), the 2-year overall survival rate is 73% (57%-84%) and the continuous progression-free survival rate is 51% (35%-66%). Myelosuppression was the main toxicity including febrile neutropenia in 8 (22%) patients and 18 (50%) cases required platelet infusion. No grade 3 and 4 peripheral neurotoxicity or renal toxicity occurred. Two patients died of treatment-related toxicity, one of them with cancer progression. CONCLUSION In a multicenter context, four cycles of the GIP regimen achieved a high CR rate in patients with relapsed testicular GCT. The GIP regimen avoided severe neurotoxicity and yielded a high survival rate. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER NCT00127049.

A phase II multicenter study of oxaliplatin in combination with paclitaxel in poor prognosis patients who failed cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ-cell tumors

BACKGROUND The aim of this study is to determine feasibility and efficacy of the combination regimen oxaliplatin and paclitaxel in patients with cisplatin (CDDP)-refractory germ-cell tumors (GCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with either a cisplatin absolute-refractory GCT defined as progressive disease (PD) during or within 1 month of CDDP administration or with a poor prognosis relapse, defined as PD between the second and the sixth month after CDDP administration, were treated with a combination of oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2)) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) administered every 21 days. Primary end point was efficacy. RESULTS Twenty-seven patients were included. Patients were pretreated with a median of two lines of cisplatin-based chemotherapy (range 1-5). Sixteen patients were absolute refractory. Five patients had relapsed after high-dose chemotherapy plus stem-cell support. There were no complete responses but there was one marker-positive partial response and nine disease stabilization (34, 6%). After a median follow-up of 65 months, two patients are disease-free survivors. Main toxicity was leucocytopenia grade 3/4 in 30% of the patients. CONCLUSION Combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and paclitaxel is feasible with acceptable toxicity and may be effective if combined with additional treatment in patients with CDDP-refractory GCT.

Clinical activity of sunitinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma-Results of the REchallenge with SUnitinib in MEtastatic RCC (RESUME) Study.

AIM To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib rechallenge in the third-line or later setting in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This observational study comprised 61 mRCC patients at 19 centres in France who received sunitinib rechallenge between January 2006 and May 2013. Patients received first-line sunitinib, ≥1 different targeted therapies, and then sunitinib rechallenge. Patient/disease characteristics, tolerability, treatment modalities, and outcomes of therapeutic lines were recorded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in sunitinib rechallenge. RESULTS Analyses included 52 patients; median age was 59 years, 75% were male, and 98% had clear-cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy. At sunitinib rechallenge versus first-line, patients had poorer performance (Karnofsky performance status 90-100: 30% versus 81%) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic risk (poor risk: 18% versus 3%). Overall, 20%, 65%, 12%, and 4% received sunitinib rechallenge as third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-line therapy, respectively, at 14.6 months (median) after stopping initial treatment. With first-line sunitinib and rechallenge, median PFS was 18.4 and 7.9 months, respectively; objective response rate was 54% and 15%. Two of eight rechallenge responders had not achieved first-line response. Median overall survival was 55.9 months. The sunitinib rechallenge safety profile was as expected, with no new adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. Disease progression with first-line sunitinib may not be associated with complete or irreversible resistance to therapy.