Fatigue among patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib: patient-reported outcomes of ECOG-ACRIN E2805 trial

Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors vs. Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors/Everolimus in Adjuvant Renal Cell Carcinoma: Indirect Comparison of Disease-Free Survival

BACKGROUND

The proven efficacy of mTOR inhibitors (mTORIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) suggests that these agents should be investigated as adjuvant therapy with the aim of eliminating undetectable microscopic residual disease after curative resection. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments using an innovative method of reconstructing individual patient data.

METHODS

Nine phase III trials describing adjuvant RCC treatments were selected. The IPDfromKM method was used to reconstruct individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. The combination treatments were compared with the control arm (placebo) for disease-free survival (DFS). Multi-treatment KM curves were used to summarize the results. Standard statistical tests were performed. These included hazard ratio and likelihood ratio tests for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the study showed that two ICIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab) and one TKI (sunitinib) were superior to the placebo, whereas both TKIs and mTORIs were inferior. As we assessed DFS as the primary endpoint for the adjuvant comparison, the overall survival benefit remains unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel approach to investigating survival has allowed us to conduct all indirect head-to-head comparisons between these agents in a context where no "real" comparative trials have been conducted.

Patient-reported Outcome Measurement and Reporting for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use of this information for treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients in real-world settings is facilitated by consistent and transparent reporting of trial methods.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare PROMs used in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials in terms of the rationale for the choice of measure, endpoint hierarchy (primary, secondary, exploratory), assessment time points, statistical methods, and statistical metrics for interpretation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature review via searches of four online databases (2016-2021) and recent conference abstracts (2019-2021) identified 2616 articles, of which 33 were included in the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Among the 33 clinical studies included, 19 different PROMs were identified: three kidney cancer-specific scales, two cancer-specific scales, two generic scales, and 12 symptom-specific scales. The endpoint hierarchy for patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was reported in 42% of the studies; one study included PROs as a primary endpoint. Reporting of time points, minimal important differences, and statistical analyses was highly heterogeneous.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of PROMs have been included in clinical studies for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC. Prespecified analyses for PRO assessments were generally not stated, while analytical methods and reporting varied. An improvement in alignment across studies would better inform regulatory, market-access, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making to improve patient care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed how the impact of cancer therapies on health outcomes from the patient's point of view is being measured in clinical trials for kidney cancer. The techniques and reporting varied across trials. Standardisation of how these data are captured and reported may improve care and decision-making for patients with kidney cancer.

Prevalence and severity of long-term physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue across 15 different cancer entities

Background

Fatigue prevalence and severity have been assessed in a variety of studies, yet, not in a standardized way, and predominantly in breast cancer patients. Systematic, comparative investigations across a broad range of cancer entities are lacking.

Methods

The FiX study systematically enrolled 2244 cancer patients across 15 entities approximately 2 years after diagnosis. Fatigue was assessed with the multidimensional EORTC QLQ‐FA12 questionnaire. Physical, emotional, cognitive, and total fatigue were compared across entities and with normative values of the general population. Differences in patients' characteristics and cancer therapy between entities were taken into account using analyses of covariance models.

Results

Across all entities, mean physical fatigue levels were significantly higher than age‐ and sex‐matched means of the general population for all cancer entities (all Bonferroni‐Holm adjusted P < .01). For most entities also emotional and cognitive fatigue levels were significantly higher than normative values. Age‐ and sex‐standardized physical fatigue prevalence ranged from 31.8% among prostate to 51.7% among liver cancer patients. Differences between entities could not be fully explained by sex, age, BMI, or cancer therapy. Adjusted for these factors, mean physical fatigue was higher for stomach (P = .0004), lung (P = .034), kidney (P = .0011), pancreas (P = .081), and endometrium (P = .022) compared to breast cancer patients. Adjusted means of emotional fatigue were also lowest in breast cancer patients and significantly higher in stomach (P = .0047), bladder (P = .0036), and rectal (P = .0020) cancer patients.

Conclusions

Physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue is prevalent in all 15 investigated cancer entities even 2 years after diagnosis. Fatigue in breast cancer patients, the so‐far most studied group, is in the lowest range among all entities, suggesting that the extent of fatigue is still insufficiently determined. Entity‐specific problems might need to be considered in the treatment of fatigue.

Safety of sunitinib in patients with renal cell carcinoma following nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The safety profile characteristics of sunitinib were evaluated in patients who underwent nephrectomy for kidney cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In this literature review, safety data were evaluated from phase III trials investigating sunitinib following nephrectomy, either in the more recent adjuvant setting after nephrectomy or in the metastatic setting, with a focus on new data from the CARMENA and SURTIME trials. In particular, the aim was to determine the specificity of toxicity in the adjuvant setting.

EXPERT OPINION

In the adjuvant setting, even if the toxicity profile of sunitinib does not differ significantly from that in the metastatic setting, the importance of the dose intensity and, thus, exposure has been emphasized. Consequently, as described mainly in the metastatic setting, management of the adverse effects of sunitinib remains critical.

Cancer-Related Fatigue: Causes and Current Treatment Options

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a problem for a significant proportion of cancer survivors during and after active cancer treatment. However, CRF is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Interventions are available for CRF although there is no gold standard. Based on current level of evidence, exercise seems to be most effective in preventing or ameliorating CRF during the active- and posttreatment phases.

Adjuvant sunitinib in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma: safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes in the S-TRAC trial

Background

Adjuvant sunitinib has significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence post-nephrectomy (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.98; two-sided P = 0.03). We report safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving sunitinib and placebo in the S-TRAC trial.

Patients and methods

Patients were stratified by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and randomized (1 : 1) to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day) or placebo. Single dose reductions to 37.5 mg, dose delays, and dose interruptions were used to manage adverse events (AEs). Patients’ health-related quality of life, including key symptoms typically associated with sunitinib, were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

Results

Patients maintained treatment for 9.5 (mean, SD 4.4) and 10.3 (mean, SD 3.7) months in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the sunitinib arm, key AEs occurred ∼1 month (median) after start of treatment and resolved within ∼3.5 weeks (median). Many (40.6%) AEs leading to permanent discontinuation were grade 1/2, and most (87.2%) resolved or were resolving by 28 days after last treatment. Patients taking sunitinib showed a significantly lower EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health status score versus placebo, although this reduction was not clinically meaningful. Patients reported symptoms typically related to sunitinib treatment with diarrhea and loss of appetite showing clinically meaningful increases.

Conclusions

In S-TRAC, AEs were predictable, manageable, and reversible via dose interruptions, dose reductions, and/or standard supportive medical therapy. Patients on sunitinib did report increased symptoms and reduced HRQoL, but these changes were generally not clinically meaningful, apart from appetite loss and diarrhea, and were expected in the context of known sunitinib effects.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375674.