Phase III study of sunitinib malate (SU11248) versus interferon-alpha as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Evaluation of the Therapeutic Potential of the Novel Isotype Specific HDAC Inhibitor 4SC-202 in Urothelial Carcinoma Cell Lines

Background

Targeting of class I histone deacetylases (HDACs) exerts antineoplastic actions in various cancer types by modulation of transcription, upregulation of tumor suppressors, induction of cell cycle arrest, replication stress and promotion of apoptosis. Class I HDACs are often deregulated in urothelial cancer. 4SC-202, a novel oral benzamide type HDAC inhibitor (HDACi) specific for class I HDACs HDAC1, HDAC2 and HDAC3 and the histone demethylase LSD1, shows substantial anti-tumor activity in a broad range of cancer cell lines and xenograft tumor models.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic potential of 4SC-202 in urothelial carcinoma (UC) cell lines.

Methods

We determined dose response curves of 4SC-202 by MTT assay in seven UC cell lines with distinct HDAC1, HDAC2 and HDAC3 expression profiles. Cellular effects were further analyzed in VM-CUB1 and UM-UC-3 cells by colony forming assay, caspase-3/7 assay, flow cytometry, senescence assay, LDH release assay, and immunofluorescence staining. Response markers were followed by quantitative real-time PCR and western blotting. Treatment with the class I HDAC specific inhibitor SAHA (vorinostat) served as a general control.

Results

4SC-202 significantly reduced proliferation of all epithelial and mesenchymal UC cell lines (IC₅₀ 0.15–0.51 μM), inhibited clonogenic growth and induced caspase activity. Flow cytometry revealed increased G2/M and subG1 fractions in VM-CUB1 and UM-UC-3 cells. Both effects were stronger than with SAHA treatment.

Conclusion

Specific pharmacological inhibition of class I HDACs by 4SC-202 impairs UC cell viability, inducing cell cycle disturbances and cell death. Combined inhibition of HDAC1, HDAC2 and HDAC3 seems to be a promising treatment strategy for UC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11523-016-0444-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

Heme oxygenase-1 is a predictive biomarker for therapeutic targeting of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or sunitinib

Background

We analyzed the expression of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) in patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CC-RCC) and evaluated the effects of the targeted therapies treated with sorafenib and sunitinib.

Methods

Expression of HO-1 in cancer tissue from 66 patients was measured by immunohis-tochemical staining. The patients received either oral sorafenib (n=40) or oral sunitinib (n=26) within 4 weeks after nephrectomy and were followed up long term to determine the tumor response and prognosis.

Results

Our current study revealed a high HO-1 expression level in 57.6% (38/66) of patients and a low HO-1 expression level in 42.4% (28/66) of patients with CC-RCC. The study also revealed that patients with high HO-1 expression did not have a higher objective response rate (2.6% versus 53.6%, P<0.01), clinical benefit rate (47.4% versus 92.9%, P<0.01), longer progression-free survival (4.4 versus 42 months, P=0.022), or overall survival (χ²=4.775, P=0.029) than patients with low HO-1 expression. In the low HO-1 level group, a higher tumor response rate and a longer survival time was achieved in patients who received sorafenib or sunitinib. Multivariate analysis showed that HO-1 expression was an independent prognostic factor for tumor response and overall survival.

Conclusion

High expression of HO-1 was associated with a lower tumor response rate and a shorter overall survival time when compared with low expression of HO-1. Overall, HO-1 expression might be a useful biomarker for predicting the response to sunitinib and sorafenib for patients with metastatic CC-RCC.

Risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with VEGFR-TKIs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been widely used in advanced cancers. Concerns have arisen regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism with the use of these drugs. Currently, the contribution of VEGFR-TKIs to venous thromboembolism is still unknown. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the incidence and relative risk (RR) of venous thromboembolism events (VTEs) associated with these agents. Eligible studies included phase II and III prospective trials evaluating US Food and Drug Administration approved VEGFR-TKIs (pazopanib, sunitinib, sorafenib and vandetanib), and data on VTEs were available. Overall incidence rates, RR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of included trials. A total of 14 studies (4,430 patients) were selected for this meta-analysis. The incidence of VTEs related to VEGFR-TKIs was 3% (95%CI: 1.7-5.1%), and there was no statistically significant increase in the risk of VTEs for VEGFR-TKIs versus controls in overall population (RR0.912, 95%CI: 0.617-1.348, p = 0.643). On subgroup analysis, no significant increase in the risk of VTEs was found among different VEGFR-TKIs or tumor types. No evidence of publication bias was observed. The use of VEGFR-TKIs does not significantly increase the risk of VTEs, the risk of VTEs in patients with cancer is driven predominantly by tumor types, host factors and concomitant usage of anticancer agents. These results would provide important information for clinicians who use VEGFR-TKIs to treat patients with solid cancer.

[Management of side-effects of targeted therapies in renal cancer: gastrointestinal side-effects]

Several types of gastrointestinal complications can occur during treatment with targeted therapies: diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abnormalities in hepatic and pancreatic profiles, etc. Gastrointestinal problems in targeted therapy can have a significant impact on the general status of patients, their weight and their adherence to the treatment. The prevention, screening and rapid treatment of these side-effects are essential elements of patient care and can limit the associated dose reductions and loss of therapeutic benefit. In the case of diarrhoea, treatment must be started at the onset of grade 1 or 2 diarrhoea (four to six stools per day), with loperamide or racecadotril. Treatment with targeted therapy must be stopped if there is diarrhoea of grade 3 or 4 (more than six stools per day). In the case of nausea/vomiting or burning pain in the oesophagus, symptomatic treatment without stopping the targeted therapy is recommended. Biological assessment including transaminases, total and conjugated bilirubin should be prescribed before treatment initiation with targeted therapy. An elevation in alkaline phosphatases without elevation of transaminases suggests primarily the existence of hepatic metastases. In the event of worsening of the hepatic profile, if ALT greater than 5N, treatment must be stopped and specialist advice sought.

Interleukin-8 mediates resistance to antiangiogenic agent sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma

The broad spectrum kinase inhibitor sunitinib is a first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), a deadly form of kidney cancer. Unfortunately, most patients develop sunitinib resistance and progressive disease after about 1 year of treatment. In this study, we evaluated the mechanisms of resistance to sunitinib to identify the potential tactics to overcome it. Xenograft models were generated that mimicked clinical resistance to sunitinib. Higher microvessel density was found in sunitinib-resistant tumors, indicating that an escape from antiangiogenesis occurred. Notably, escape coincided with increased secretion of interleukin-8 (IL-8) from tumors into the plasma, and coadministration of an IL-8 neutralizing antibody resensitized tumors to sunitinib treatment. In patients who were refractory to sunitinib treatment, IL-8 expression was elevated in ccRCC tumors, supporting the concept that IL-8 levels might predict clinical response to sunitinib. Our results reveal IL-8 as an important contributor to sunitinib resistance in ccRCC and a candidate therapeutic target to reverse acquired or intrinsic resistance to sunitinib in this malignancy.

Angiogenesis and antiangiogenic therapy in hematologic malignancies

Angiogenesis, the generation of new blood capillaries from preexisting blood vessels, is tightly regulated in the adult organism. Although many of the initial studies were performed on solid tumors, increasing evidence indicates that angiogenesis also plays an important role in hematologic malignancies. Overexpression of angiogenic factors in particular VEGF and bFGF in most hematologic malignancies may explain the increased angiogenesis found in these malignancies and correlate with poor prognosis as well as decreased overall survival. In this review, we focus on the current literature of angiogenesis and antiangiogenic therapy in hematologic malignancies, and finally describe advances and potential challenges in antiangiogenic treatment in hematologic malignancies.