Ugo De Giorgi

Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).

Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial Assessing Treatment Preference for Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: PISCES Study

PURPOSE Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choice in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly between approved targeted therapies with similar efficacy. This double-blind cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety factors on their stated preference. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib 800 mg per day for 10 weeks, a 2-week washout, and then sunitinib 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks, or the reverse sequence. The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assessed by questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other end points and analyses included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL. RESULTS Of 169 randomly assigned patients, 114 met the following prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis: exposure to both treatments, no disease progression before cross over, and completion of the preference questionnaire. Significantly more patients preferred pazopanib (70%) over sunitinib (22%); 8% expressed no preference (P < .001). All preplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopanib. Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the main reasons for preferring pazopanib, with less diarrhea being the most cited reason for preferring sunitinib. Physicians also preferred pazopanib (61%) over sunitinib (22%); 17% expressed no preference. Adverse events were consistent with each drugs known profile. Pazopanib was superior to sunitinib in HRQoL measures evaluating fatigue, hand/foot soreness, and mouth/throat soreness. CONCLUSION This innovative cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HRQoL and safety as key influencing factors.

Viable Malignant Cells After Primary Chemotherapy for Disseminated Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors: Prognostic Factors and Role of Postsurgery Chemotherapy—Results From an International Study Group

PURPOSE To assess the value of postsurgery chemotherapy in patients with disseminated nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors (NSGCTs) and viable residual disease after first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The outcome of 238 patients was reviewed. Tumor markers had normalized in all patients before resection. A multivariate analysis of survival was performed on 146 patients. RESULTS The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 64% and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 73%. Three factors were independently associated with both PFS and OS: complete resection (P <.001), < 10% of viable malignant cells (P =.001), and a good International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC) group (P =.01). Patients were assigned to one of three risk groups: those with no risk factors (favorable group), those with one risk factor (intermediate group), and those with two or three risk factors (poor-risk group). The 5-year OS rate was 100%, 83%, and 51%, respectively (P <.001). The 5-year PFS rate was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 76%) and 52% (95% CI, 40% to 64%) in postoperative chemotherapy recipients and nonrecipients, respectively (P <.001). No significant difference was detected in 5-year OS rates. After adjustment on the three prognostic factors, postoperative chemotherapy was associated with a significantly better PFS (P <.001) but not with better OS. Patients in the favorable risk group had a 100% 5-year OS, with or without postoperative chemotherapy. Postoperative chemotherapy appeared beneficial in both PFS (P <.001) and OS (P =.02) in the intermediate-risk group but was not statistically beneficial in the poor-risk group. CONCLUSION A complete resection may be more critical than recourse to postoperative chemotherapy in the setting of postchemotherapy viable malignant NSGCT. Immediate postoperative chemotherapy or surveillance alone with chemotherapy at relapse may be reasonable options depending on the completeness of resection, IGCCC group, and percent of viable cells. Validation is necessary.

Prognostic Factors in Patients With Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors Who Experienced Treatment Failure With Cisplatin-Based First-Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE To develop a prognostic model in patients with germ cell tumors (GCT) who experience treatment failure with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 1,984 patients with GCT who progressed after at least three cisplatin-based cycles and were treated with cisplatin-based conventional-dose or carboplatin-based high-dose salvage chemotherapy was retrospectively collected from 38 centers/groups worldwide. One thousand five hundred ninety-four (80%) of 1,984 eligible patients were randomly divided into a training set of 1,067 patients (67%) and a validation set of 527 patients (33%). Seminomas were set aside for posthoc analyses. Primary end point was the 2-year progression-free survival after salvage treatment. RESULTS Overall, 990 patients (62%) relapsed and 604 patients (38%) remained relapse free. Histology, primary tumor location, response, and progression-free interval after first-line treatment, as well as levels of alpha fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotrophin, and the presence of liver, bone, or brain metastases at salvage were identified as independent prognostic variables and used to build a prognostic model in the training set. Survival rates in the training and validation set were very similar. The estimated 2-year progression-free survival rates in patients not included in the training set was 75% in very low risk, 51% in low risk, 40% in intermediate risk, 26% in high risk, and only 6% in very high-risk patients. Due to missing values in individual variables, 69 patients could not reliably be classified into one of these categories. CONCLUSION Prognostic variables are important in patients with GCT who experienced treatment failure with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy and can be used to construct a prognostic model to guide salvage strategies.

Plasma AR and abiraterone-resistant prostate cancer

Androgen receptor mutations and amplifications in circulating tumor DNA provide clues to prostate cancer drug resistance. Detecting resistance before it starts Androgen receptor targeting is the cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment. Even when the tumors become “castration-resistant” or no longer sensitive to androgen deprivation, androgen signaling can still be effectively targeted by newer drugs such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, which also inhibit the androgen signaling axis. Romanel et al. analyzed tumor DNA samples from the blood of 97 patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer at different times during the course of treatment with abiraterone. Although some new mutations emerged during therapy, the authors found that androgen receptor amplifications were present from the beginning and correlated with abiraterone resistance, suggesting that detection of these amplifications should be useful for identifying abiraterone-resistant cancers before starting treatment. Androgen receptor (AR) gene aberrations are rare in prostate cancer before primary hormone treatment but emerge with castration resistance. To determine AR gene status using a minimally invasive assay that could have broad clinical utility, we developed a targeted next-generation sequencing approach amenable to plasma DNA, covering all AR coding bases and genomic regions that are highly informative in prostate cancer. We sequenced 274 plasma samples from 97 castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone at two institutions. We controlled for normal DNA in patients’ circulation and detected a sufficiently high tumor DNA fraction to quantify AR copy number state in 217 samples (80 patients). Detection of AR copy number gain and point mutations in plasma were inversely correlated, supported further by the enrichment of nonsynonymous versus synonymous mutations in AR copy number normal as opposed to AR gain samples. Whereas AR copy number was unchanged from before treatment to progression and no mutant AR alleles showed signal for acquired gain, we observed emergence of T878A or L702H AR amino acid changes in 13% of tumors at progression on abiraterone. Patients with AR gain or T878A or L702H before abiraterone (45%) were 4.9 and 7.8 times less likely to have a ≥50 or ≥90% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), respectively, and had a significantly worse overall [hazard ratio (HR), 7.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.51 to 15.34; P = 1.3 × 10−9) and progression-free (HR, 3.73; 95% CI, 2.17 to 6.41; P = 5.6 × 10−7) survival. Evaluation of plasma AR by next-generation sequencing could identify cancers with primary resistance to abiraterone.

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.

Circulating Tumor Cells and [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Outcome Prediction in Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) are two new promising tools for therapeutic monitoring. In this study, we compared the prognostic value of CTC and FDG-PET/CT monitoring during systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective analyses of 115 MBC patients who started a new line of therapy and who had CTC counts and FDG-PET/CT scans performed at baseline and at 9 to 12 weeks during therapy (midtherapy) was performed. Patients were categorized according to midtherapy CTC counts as favorable (ie, < five CTCs/7.5 mL blood) or unfavorable (> or = five CTCs/7.5 mL blood) outcomes. CTC counts and FDG-PET/CT response at midtherapy were compared, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS In 102 evaluable patients, the median overall survival time was 14 months (range, 1 to > 41 months). Midtherapy CTC levels correlated with FDG-PET/CT response in 68 (67%) of 102 evaluable patients. In univariate analysis, midtherapy CTC counts and FDG-PET/CT response predicted overall survival (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). FDG-PET/CT predicted overall survival (P = .0086) in 31 (91%) of 34 discordant patients who had fewer than five CTCs at midtherapy. Only midtherapy CTC levels remained significant in a multivariate analysis (P = .004). CONCLUSION Detection of five or more CTCs during therapeutic monitoring can accurately predict prognosis in MBC beyond metabolic response. FDG-PET/CT deserves a role in patients who have fewer than five CTCs at midtherapy. Prospective trials should evaluate the most sensitive and cost-effective modality for therapeutic monitoring in MBC.

Conventional-Dose Versus High-Dose Chemotherapy As First Salvage Treatment in Male Patients With Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors: Evidence From a Large International Database

PURPOSE Conventional-dose chemotherapy (CDCT) and high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) may both be successfully used as salvage treatment for patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCTs) who experience progression with first-line treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data on 1,984 patients with GCTs who experienced progression after at least three cisplatin-based cycles and were treated with either cisplatin-based CDCT or carboplatin-based HDCT chemotherapy were collected from 38 centers or groups worldwide. Of 1,984 patients, 1,594 (80%) were eligible, and among the eligible patients, 1,435 (90%) could reliably be classified into one of the following five prognostic categories based on prior prognostic classification: very low (n = 76), low (n = 257), intermediate (n = 646), high (n = 351), and very high risk (n = 105). Within each of the five categories, the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after CDCT and HDCT were compared using the Cox model adjusted for significant distributional differences between important variables. RESULTS Overall, 773 patients received CDCT, and 821 patients received HDCT. Both treatment modalities were used with similar frequencies within each prognostic category. The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.51) stratified on prognostic category, and the hazard ratio for OS was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75), favoring HDCT. These results were consistent within each prognostic category except among low-risk patients, for whom similar OS was observed between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION This retrospective analysis suggests a benefit from HDCT given as intensification of first salvage treatment in male patients with GCTs and emphasizes the need for another prospective randomized trial comparing CDCT to HDCT in this patient population.

Circulating tumor cells as prognostic and predictive markers in metastatic breast cancer patients receiving first-line systemic treatment

IntroductionCirculating tumor cells (CTCs) represent an independent predictor of outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We assessed the prognostic impact of CTCs according to different first-line systemic treatments, and explored their potential predictive value in MBC patients.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 235 newly diagnosed MBC patients, treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. All patients had a baseline CTC assessment performed with CellSearch®. Progression-free survival and overall survival were compared with the log-rank test between groups, according to CTC count (< 5 vs. ≥ 5) and type of systemic therapy. We further explored the predictive value of baseline CTCs in patients receiving different treatments.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 18 months, the CTC count was confirmed to be a robust prognostic marker in the overall population (median progression-free survival 12.0 and 7.0 months for patients with CTC < 5 and ≥ 5, respectively; P < 0.001). Conversely, in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-overexpressed/amplified tumors receiving trastuzumab or lapatinib, the baseline CTC count was not prognostic (median progression-free survival 14.5 months for patients with CTC < 5 and 16.1 months for those with CTC ≥ 5; P = 0.947). Furthermore, in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 normal tumors, a baseline CTC count ≥ 5 identified subjects who derived benefit from more aggressive treatments, including combination chemotherapy and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that the prognostic information provided by CTC count may be useful in patient stratifications and therapeutic selection, particularly in the group with positive CTCs, in which various therapeutic choices may procure differential palliative benefit.

Characterization of metastatic breast cancer patients with nondetectable circulating tumor cells

Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are an independent prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer patients (MBC). However, CTC are undetectable in one third of patients. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic factors in MBC patients without detectable CTC. This retrospective study included 292 MBC patients evaluated between January 2004 and December 2007. CTC were enumerated before patients started a new line of treatment using the CellSearch™. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of CTC measurement and estimated by the Kaplan‐Meier product limit method. CTC were not detected in 35.96% patients, whereas 40.75% patients had CTC ≥ 5. Undetectable CTC status was positively correlated with presence of brain metastasis (OR: 6.17, 95%CI = 2.14–17.79; p = 0.001), and inversely correlated with bone metastasis (OR: 0.47; 95%CI = 0.27–0.80; p = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, hormone receptors, number of metastatic sites and lines of therapy were independent prognostic factors for OS in patients without detectable CTC. Patients without detectable CTC before starting of a new line of therapy comprise a heterogeneous group with substantially different prognosis. We showed that some important metastatic disease characteristics are predictive of undetectable CTC status in MBC.