Treatment with sorafenib and sunitinib in renal cell cancer: a Swedish register-based study

Central nervous system miliary metastasis in breast cancer: a case series analysis and proposed identification criteria of a rare metastasis subtype

Background

CNS miliary metastasis (MiM) is poorly recognised in breast and other malignancies. Given its rarity, little epidemiologic, radiographic and clinical data are known. Although usually identified on neuroimaging, criteria for radiographic diagnosis do not exist. In this analysis, we establish its presence in breast cancer and identify factors contributing to outcome.

Methods

We identified 546 female patients with brain metastasis from breast cancer between 2000 and 2015. Radiographic criteria were established through review of neuroimages by a senior Neuroradiologist, and defined as: (1) ≥20 lesions per image on ≥2 non-contiguous MRI images or ≥10 lesions per image on ≥2 non-contiguous CT images, and (2) bilateral lesions located in both the supratentorial and infratentorial compartments.

Results

Twenty-one MiM cases were identified (3.8%). Number and anatomical distribution of metastases best identified MiM, while lesion size did not. Ten patients were diagnosed with MiM as initial CNS metastasis; 11 developed MiM following known CNS metastasis. Breast cancer subtype did not influence MiM development before or after other CNS metastasis.

Conclusions

This is the first study to propose radiographic criteria for MiM diagnosis. Additional analysis is needed to verify data, but our results may enable a standardised approach for future MiM research.

Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib as Initial Targeted Therapy for mCC-RCC With Favorable/Intermediate Risk: Multicenter Randomized Trial CROSS-J-RCC

PURPOSE

The present study compared the efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib as first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mCC-RCC) with favorable or intermediate Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment-naive patients with mCC-RCC were randomized to receive open-label sunitinib followed by sorafenib (SU/SO) or sorafenib followed by sunitinib (SO/SU). The primary endpoint was first-line progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were total PFS and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of the 124 patients enrolled at 39 institutions from February 2010 to July 2012, 120 were evaluated. The median first-line PFS duration was 8.7 and 7.0 months in the SU/SO and SO/SU groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.08). The total PFS and OS were not significantly different between the SU/SO and SO/SU groups (27.8 and 22.6 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.428-1.246; and 38.4 and 30.9 months; HR, 0.934; 95% CI, 0.588-1.485, respectively). The subgroup analysis revealed that the total PFS with SU/SO was superior to the total PFS with SO/SU in the patients with favorable MSKCC risk and those with < 5 metastatic sites). SO/SU was superior to SU/SO for patients without previous nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences were found in first-line PFS, total PFS, or OS between the 2 treatment arms (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01481870).

Comparative efficacy and safety of sunitinib vs sorafenib in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate the safety and efficiency of sunitinib and sorafenib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Databases were searched up till February 28, 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility, quality, and extracted relevant data. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Six studies including 3112 patients were accessed. Sorafenib group exhibited higher median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared to sunitinib group (MD, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.56 to -0.03), especially in the first-line treatment (MD, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.61 to -0.04). However, sunitinib significantly reduced the risk of progression-free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.6-0.82). Sunitinib also significantly reduced risk of overall survival (OS) compared to sorafenib (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92), while median OS was similar in both groups (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -3.40-2.43). With regards to safety, the risk of rash (RR, 0.31, 95% CI, 0.12-0.79) was greater in sunitinib than sorafenib group, while the risk of decreased appetite (RR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.33-3.30) and dehydration (RR 2.73, 95% CI: 1.14-6.56) was smaller in contrast.Based on risk of PFS and OS, sunitinib was a better treatment option for RCC treatment while patients faced with severe skin reaction. And for those Asian patients classified under MSKCC moderate risk, whether in first or second-line treatment, had difficulty in feeding, sorafenib is a better choice for prolong mPFS.

Evaluating beneficial drug effects in a non-interventional setting: a review of effectiveness studies based on Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data

Aims

To describe and assess current effectiveness studies published up to 2014 using Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR) data.

Methods

Study characteristics were extracted. Each study was assessed concerning the clinical relevance of the research question, the risk of bias according to a structured checklist, and as to whether its findings contributed to new knowledge. The biases encountered and ways of handling these were retrieved.

Results

A total of 24 effectiveness studies were included in the review, the majority on cardiovascular or psychiatric disease (n = 17; 71%). The articles linked data from four (interquartile range: three to four) registers, and were published in 21 different journals with an impact factor ranging from 1.58 to 51.66. All articles had a clinically relevant research question. According to the systematic quality assessments, the overall risk of bias was low in one (4%), moderate in eight (33%) and high in 15 (62%) studies. Overall, two (8%) studies were assessed as contributing to new knowledge. Frequently occurring problems were selection bias making the comparison groups incomparable, treatment bias with suboptimal handling of drug exposure and an intention‐to‐treat approach, and assessment bias including immortal time bias. Good examples of how to handle bias problems included propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Although this review illustrates that effectiveness studies based on dispensed drug register data can contribute to new evidence of intended effects of drug treatment in clinical practice, the expectations of such data to provide valuable information need to be tempered due to methodological issues.

Sorafenib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the largest multicenter retrospective analysis of survival and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy of sorafenib and sunitinib with regard to overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to elucidate the relationship between clinical variables and prognosis comparing sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line treatment agents in Chinese patients with mRCC. Between September 2006 and December 2014, 845 patients received either sorafenib (400 mg bid; n = 483) or sunitinib (50 mg q.d; n = 362). The primary end point was OS and PFS.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with low and moderate risk according to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) score was significantly higher in sunitinib group, and that with high risk was significantly higher in sorafenib group (15.1 vs. 5.2%; p < 0.001). Median OS was similar in sorafenib and sunitinib group (24 vs. 24 months; p = 0.298). Sorafenib group exhibited higher mPFS compared to sunitinib group (11.1 vs. 10.0 months; p = 0.028). Treatment (sorafenib vs sunitinib), pathology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, MSKCC scores, Heng's criteria of risk, and number of metastases were identified as significant predictors for OS and along with liver metastasis for PFS. Clinical outcomes in terms of mOS was significantly better with sorafenib in patients ≥65 years of age (p = .041), ECOG 0 (p = 0.0001), and median MSKCC risk score (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Sorafenib and sunitinib are both effective in treating mRCC. However, sorafenib might be more effective in elderly patients (≥65 years) and in patients with an ECOG status of 0, classified under MSKCC moderate risk.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

BACKGROUND

Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate).

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

More than 10 years survival with sequential therapy in a patient with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a case report

Although radical nephrectomy alone is widely accepted as the standard of care in localized treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), it is not sufficient for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), which invariably leads to an unfavorable outcome despite the use of multiple therapies. Currently, sequential targeted agents are recommended for the management of mRCC, but the optimal drug sequence is still debated. This case was a 57-year-old man with clear-cell mRCC who received multiple therapies following his first operation in 2003 and has survived for over 10 years with a satisfactory quality of life. The treatments given included several surgeries, immunotherapy, and sequentially administered sorafenib, sunitinib, and everolimus regimens. In the course of mRCC treatment, well-planned surgeries, effective sequential targeted therapies and close follow-up are all of great importance for optimal management and a satisfactory outcome.

The role of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the response to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in patients with metastatic primary renal cell carcinoma

Background

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) using fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is increasingly used in the evaluation of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), primarily for staging purposes. The aim of this paper is to perform a systematic review about the usefulness of PET-CT using FDG in response assessment after treatment with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced RCC.

Materials and methods.

The scientific literature about the role of PET-CT using FDG in the assessment of response to treatment with TKIs in patients affected by advanced RCC was systematically reviewed.

Results

Seven studies about the role of PET-CT using FDG in the response assessment after treatment with TKIs (essentially sunitinib and sorafenib) in advanced RCC were retrieved in full-text and analysed, to determine the predictive role of this morpho-functional imaging method on patient outcome.

Conclusions

To date, the role of PET-CT using FDG in evaluating the response to TKIs in metastatic RCC patients is still not well defined, partly due to heterogeneity of available studies; however, PET-CT reveals potential role for the selection of patients undergoing therapy with TKIs. The use of contrast-enhanced PET-CT appears to be promising for a “multi-dimensional” evaluation of treatment response in these patients.

Seminal plasma protein in renal cell carcinoma: expression of semenogelin I is a predictor for cancer progression and prognosis

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been steadily rising each year. There are currently few recognized biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of RCC. We investigated semenogelin I (Sg I) expression and its clinical significance in patients with RCC. The expression levels of Sg I and its protein were measured by qPCR and Western blotting, respectively. Immunohistochemistry was used to investigate the protein expression of Sg I in RCC and normal renal tissue from 53 patients. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to evaluate the data. By qRCR (p < 0.01) and Western blot, the level of Sg I expression in benign tissues was higher than that in RCC tissues. Expression of Sg I was observed in 30 (57 %) RCC cases, which was significantly lower than that observed in benign renal tissues from the same patients [Sg I positive in 53 (100 %) cases (p < 0.0001)] by immunohistochemistry. There was an inverse relation between Sg I expression and clinical stage (pT1-2 vs pT3-4, p < 0.0001). Patients with Sg I-negative tumor had a significantly higher risk of recurrence (Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests, p < 0.0001). There was low Sg I expression in RCC. Sg I expression has potential value in predicting cancer progression and prognosis. These findings support the use of Sg I as a novel biomarker for RCC.