Treatment of metastatic renal carcinoma patients with the combination of gemcitabine, capecitabine and bevacizumab at a tertiary cancer centre

Results From a Randomized Phase II Trial of Sunitinib and Gemcitabine or Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid Features: ECOG-ACRIN E1808

INTRODUCTION

Sarcomatoid renal cancer (sRCC) patients have poor outcomes. EA1808 evaluated sunitinib and gemcitabine (SG) and sunitinib alone (S) in sRCC in a randomized cooperative group phase II trial (NCT01164228).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pts were aggregated 1:1 to SG (45 pts) or S (40 pts) using a 2-stage design. sRCC pts with ≤ 1 prior nonvascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor were stratified into prognostic groups: good (clear cell, < 20% sarcomatoid, PS 0), intermediate (20%-50% sarcomatoid, PS 0), and poor (nonclear cell or > 50% sarcomatoid or PS 1). The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). For SG, the null RR was 15% and a 30% RR was of interest. For S, a 20% RR was of interest vs. a 5% null rate. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

Both arms met protocol criteria for stage 2 of accrual. A total of 47 pts were randomized to SG and 40 to S. The SG arm had 9 of 45 evaluable patient responses (RR of 20%; CI = [13%-31%]) not meeting the predetermined threshold for success. The sunitinib arm met its endpoint with 6/37 (RR of 16%; CI = [9%-27%]) evaluable responses. Grade ≥ 3 events were experienced by 36 in the SG arm and 17 in the sunitinib arm CONCLUSIONS: EA1808 was the largest and first randomized cytotoxic trial for sarcomatoid RCC. Sunitinib alone but not the SG met the preset threshold of success. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is only useful in limited clinical scenarios for sRCC.

Immunotherapy-based combinations in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To perform indirect comparisons of efficacy and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination therapies for renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Five trials were included in our network meta-analyses comprising 568 patients. The combinations nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus cabozantinib achieved significant improvement of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORR). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with the highest likelihood of achieving a complete response. All the included combinations significantly improved PFS and ORR. The combinations of pembrolizumab plus axitinib did not show a statistically significant association with OS. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had the highest likelihood of improving PFS and OS.

SUMMARY

Our network meta-analysis demonstrates that sRCC are responsive to immune-based combinations. The dual ICI with nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved all efficacy outcomes and achieved the highest complete response rates (CRR). Although the association of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with CRR was not statistically significant, this combination demonstrated the highest likelihood of PFS and OS improvements.

Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma: The Present and Future of Treatment Paradigms

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC) is an aggressive form of kidney cancer that is associated with poor prognosis. It can arise from any histologic type of renal cell carcinoma. The majority of cases will present with advanced or metastatic disease requiring systemic therapy. Nephrectomy is the treatment of choice in locally resectable disease. The therapeutic options for sRCC have evolved in the past decade. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and monotherapy with targeted therapy (VEGF and mTOR) have historically shown poor response rates and survival in the treatment of metastatic sRCC. The use of checkpoint inhibitors and their combination with targeted therapy against VEGF has changed the landscape and outcomes for renal cell carcinoma. Given the rarity of sRCC most of the data on treatment is from small cohorts or extrapolation from larger clinical trials. The benefit from the combination of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy to VEGF has shown promise in the sRCC population in post hoc analysis of large clinical trials. Future research focusing on further characterizing the unique biologic and clinical features of sRCC is critical in advancing the knowledge and developing effective therapy to improve clinical outcomes and survival.

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: biology, natural history and management

Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is an uncommon feature that can occur in most histological subtypes of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) and carries a decidedly poor prognosis. Historically, conventional treatments for sarcomatoid RCCs (sRCCs) have shown little efficacy, and median survival is commonly 6–13 months. Despite being first described in 1968, the mechanisms driving sarcomatoid dedifferentiation remain poorly understood, and information and treatment options available to physicians and patients are limited. When diagnosed at an early stage, surgical intervention remains the treatment of choice. However, preoperative identification through routine imaging or biopsy is unreliable and most patients present with advanced disease and systemic symptoms. For these patients, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy is disputed. The expansion of immunotherapies approved for RCCs has generated a search for biomarkers that might be indicative of treatment response in sRCCs, although a proven effective systemic agent remains elusive. PDL1 expression is increased in sarcomatoid dedifferentiated renal tumours, which suggests that patients with sRCCs could benefit from PD1 and/or PDL1 immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Treatment outcomes for sarcomatoid tumours have remained relatively consistent compared with other RCCs, but further investigation of the tumour–immune cell microenvironment might yield insights into further therapeutic possibilities.

In this Review, Blum et al. summarize the current knowledge on sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma, a diagnosis characterized by the presence of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation and a poor prognosis. They discuss the origin, presentation, molecular biology and treatment of this disease.

Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is not considered to be a unique histological subtype of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs); rather, it can be present within any subtype of RCCs.

Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation appears in ~4% of all RCCs, but is present in ~20% of all metastatic RCCs. According to WHO guidelines, any RCC with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is a WHO–International Society of Urological Pathology grade 4 lesion.

Sarcomatoid dedifferentiation is often heterogeneously present within RCCs, making routine imaging and biopsy unreliable for preoperative detection. Surgical resection for localized disease is the standard of care, with subsequent close monitoring of patients following surgery.

In patients with metastatic disease, conventional therapies such as surgery and systemic agents have been ineffective and overall 5-year survival remains at 23.5–33%.

Previous genomic analyses have failed to identify definitive mutational drivers of disease. However, sarcomatoid RCCs (sRCCs) have been shown to have higher PD1 and PDL1 expression than other subtypes of RCCs. Newer combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies could yield improved responses and outcomes.

Studies investigating sRCCs are limited by patient numbers owing to the low incidence of sRCCs and their advanced stage at presentation. Multi-institutional efforts to establish a consensus on treatment recommendations based on highly powered data are essential.

Construct a circRNA/miRNA/mRNA regulatory network to explore potential pathogenesis and therapy options of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most representative subtype of renal cancer. CircRNA acts as a kind of ceRNA to play a role in regulating microRNA (miRNA) in many cancers. However, the potential pathogenesis role of the regulatory network among circRNA/miRNA/mRNA is not clear and has not been fully explored. CircRNA expression profile data were obtained from GEO datasets, and the differentially expressed circRNAs (DECs) were identified through utilizing R package (Limma) firstly. Secondly, miRNAs that were regulated by these circRNAs were predicted by using Cancer-specific circRNA database and Circular RNA Interactome. Thirdly, some related genes were identified by intersecting targeted genes, which was predicted by a web tool (miRWalk) and differentially expressed genes, which was obtained from TCGA datasets. Function enrichment was analyzed, and a PPI network was constructed by Cytoscape software and DAVID web set. Subsequently, ten hub-genes were screened from the network, and the overall survival time in patients of ccRCC with abnormal expression of these hub-genes were completed by GEPIA web set. In the last, a circRNA/miRNA/mRNA regulatory network was constructed, and potential compounds and drug which may have the function of anti ccRCC were forecasted by taking advantage of CMap and PharmGKB datasets. Six DECs (hsa_circ_0029340, hsa_circ_0039238, hsa_circ_0031594, hsa_circ_0084927, hsa_circ_0035442, hsa_circ_0025135) were obtained and six miRNAs (miR-1205, miR-657, miR-587, miR-637, miR-1278, miR-548p) which are regulated by three circRNAs (hsa_circ_0084927, hsa_circ_0035442, hsa_circ_0025135) were also predicted. Then 497 overlapped genes regulated by these six miRNAs above had been predicted, and function enrichment analysis revealed these genes are mainly linked with some regulation functions of cancers. Ten hub-genes (PTGER3, ADCY2, APLN, CXCL5, GRM4, MCHR1, NPY5R, CXCR4, ACKR3, MTNR1B) have been screened from a PPI network. PTGER3, ADCY2, CXCL5, GRM4 and APLN were identified to have a significant effect on the overall survival time of patients with ccRCC. Furthermore, one compound (josamycin) and four kinds of drugs (capecitabine, hmg-coa reductase inhibitors, ace Inhibitors and bevacizumab) were confirmed as potential therapeutic options for ccRCC by CMap analysis and pharmacogenomics analysis. This study implies the potential pathogenesis of the regulatory network among circRNA/miRNA/mRNA and provides some potential therapeutic options for ccRCC.

The prospects for combination therapy with capecitabine in the rapidly evolving treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Although significant advances have been made in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), patients still develop resistance to standard therapies and require the administration of subsequent lines of treatment. New therapeutic approaches are thus imperative to improve the prognosis for patients with RCC.

AREAS COVERED

Based on the current literature, we summarize the treatment of metastatic RCC, including the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy, in this review article. We also review the existing scientific literature regarding the role of capecitabine in the treatment of RCC.

EXPERT OPINION

Currently, targeted therapies including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are widely used in the treatment of metastatic RCC. More recently, the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors has been established in the treatment of advanced RCC. Traditionally, the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of RCC is limited. However, cytotoxic chemotherapy may have benefit in different types of RCC, such as variant histology. Furthermore, new combinations of chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors may provide new treatment options for our patients.

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: Biology and treatment advances

Sarcomatoid transformation in renal cell carcinoma, so called sacromatoid RCC (sRCC), is associated with an aggressive behavior and a poor prognosis. Current therapeutic approaches are largely ineffective. Recent studies looking into the genomic and molecular characterization of sRCCs have provided insights into the biology and pathogenesis of this entity. These advances in molecular signatures may help development of effective treatment strategies. We herein present a review of recent developments in the pathology, biology, and treatment modalities in sRCC.

Phase 2 Trial of Capecitabine, Gemcitabine, and Bevacizumab in Sarcomatoid Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with sarcomatoid renal-cell carcinomas (sRCC) have poor outcomes and limited treatment options. Preclinical and clinical data suggest susceptibility to cytotoxic agents and vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapies. We designed a phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in sRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic or unresectable sRCC were eligible for inclusion. Patients received oral capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle, intravenous gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, and intravenous bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15. Primary end points were progression-free survival and time to treatment failure (TTF). Secondary end points were safety, objective response rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were enrolled onto the trial. One patient was excluded from survival analysis and 4 from response analysis as a result of missing data. Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-7.7), median TTF was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.4-6.0), and median overall survival was 12 months (95% CI, 10.6-13.4). Objective response rate was 20% (5 partial responses, 1 complete response), and disease control rate was 73%. Thirty-one (91%) of the 34 patients discontinued treatment. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was progressive disease, which occurred in 24 patients (71%). The most common grade 3 toxicity was rash (including hand-foot syndrome) in 24% patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of capecitabine, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab is an option for patients with sRCC; however, response rates are low. Novel therapies are needed to improve outcomes in patients with sRCC.

Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma Has a Distinct Molecular Pathogenesis, Driver Mutation Profile, and Transcriptional Landscape

Purpose: Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (SRCC) ranks among the most aggressive clinicopathologic phenotypes of RCC. However, the paucity of high-quality, genome-wide molecular examinations of SRCC has hindered our understanding of this entity.Experimental Design: We interrogated the mutational, copy number, and transcriptional characteristics of SRCC and compared these data with those of nonsarcomatoid RCC (RCC). We evaluated whole-exome sequencing, single-nucleotide polymorphism, and RNA sequencing data from patients with SRCC (n = 65) and RCC (n = 598) across different parent RCC subtypes, including clear-cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC subtypes.Results: SRCC was molecularly discrete from RCC and clustered according to its parent RCC subtype, though with upregulation of TGFβ signaling across all subtypes. The epithelioid (E-) and spindled (S-) histologic components of SRCC did not show differences in mutational load among cancer-related genes despite a higher mutational burden in S-. Notably, sarcomatoid clear-cell RCC (SccRCC) showed significantly fewer deletions at 3p21-25, a lower rate of two-hit loss for VHL and PBRM1, and more mutations in PTEN, TP53, and RELN compared with ccRCC. A two-hit loss involving VHL predicted for ccRCC and a better prognosis, whereas mutations in PTEN, TP53, or RELN predicted for SccRCC and worse prognosis.Conclusions: SRCC segregates by parent subtype, and SccRCC has a fundamentally different early molecular pathogenesis, usually lacking the classic 3p21-25 deletion and showing distinctive mutational and transcriptional profiles. These features prompt a more precise molecular classification of RCC, with diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6686-96. ©2017 AACRSee related commentary by Bergerot et al., p. 6381.

Comprehensive Analysis of Survival Outcomes in Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated in Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical data from patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) receiving targeted therapy are limited, and many clinical trials have excluded these patients from study entry. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients with nccRCC treated in clinical trials in the modern era compared with the outcomes of patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with metastatic RCC who had received targeted therapy in Pfizer-sponsored phase II and III clinical trials from 2003 to 2013. Associations between the histologic type and treatment outcome (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]) were assessed using the log-rank test on univariate analysis or the Wald χ² test from Cox regression on multivariable analysis, adjusted for baseline characteristics, including age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, body mass index, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk factors, previous nephrectomy, previous therapy, metastatic sites, angiotensin system inhibitor use, and statin use.

RESULTS

We identified 4527 patients with metastatic RCC: 4235 with ccRCC and 337 with nccRCC. Overall, the median OS was shorter for those with nccRCC than for those with ccRCC (15.7 vs. 20.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval 1.22-1.63; P < .001). When stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group, the median OS was inferior for the intermediate- and poor-risk patients with nccRCC than for those with ccRCC. However, no differences were found in the favorable risk group for nccRCC versus ccRCC. The patients with nccRCC who had received vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy had shorter PFS compared with that of ccRCC patients (median, 6.1 vs. 8.5 months; HR, 1.49; P < .001) but similar PFS when treated with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (median, 4.3 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.92; P = .63).

CONCLUSION

Our findings have confirmed that patients with nccRCC are underrepresented in clinical trials and highlight the need for further prospective studies exploring current and novel agents for this patient population.

The evolving role of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

While the majority of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors currently used for the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are small molecule agents inhibiting multiple targets, monoclonal antibodies are inhibitors of specific targets, which may decrease off-target effects while preserving on-target activity. A few monoclonal antibodies have already been approved for mRCC (bevacizumab, nivolumab), while many others may play an important role in the therapeutic scenario of mRCC.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes emerging monoclonal antibodies for treating RCC. Currently, bevacizumab, a VEGF monoclonal antibody, is approved in combination with interferon for the therapy of metastatic RCC, while nivolumab, a Programmed Death (PD)-1 inhibitor, is approved following prior VEGF inhibitor treatment. Other PD-1 and PD-ligand (L)-1 inhibitors are undergoing clinical development.

EXPERT OPINION

Combinations of inhibitors of the PD1/PD-L1 axis with VEGF inhibitors or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen (CTLA)-4 inhibitors have shown promising efficacy in mRCC. The development of biomarkers predictive for benefit and rational tolerable combinations are both important pillars of research to improve outcomes in RCC.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy

BACKGROUND

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a heterogeneous disease with regards to histology, progression, and response to treatment. Cytotoxic chemotherapy has been extensively studied in metastatic RCC (mRCC). Responses in most studies are modest and the mechanisms of resistance remain poorly understood. Targeted therapies have significantly improved outcomes in mRCC; however, most patients eventually relapse and die of their disease. Early clinical data suggest that combinations of chemotherapy and targeted agents are clinically active and are well tolerated.

METHODS

We reviewed the available literature for published clinical trials incorporating traditional chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of mRCC. These papers were identified through a Medline search and were included if they employed at least one chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of mRCC. The literature was also reviewed for information regarding mechanisms of chemotherapy resistance.

RESULTS

The data regarding the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in mRCC consist of small, non-randomized phase I and II studies. The major response proportions with single agent chemotherapies are low but combination regimens either with other cytotoxic agents, cytokines, or targeted agents have demonstrated moderate activity. Disparate trial designs and lack of head to head clinical trials make it difficult to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy with that of immunotherapy or targeted agents. Chemotherapy is particularly useful in patients with collecting duct histology and predominantly sarcomatoid differentiation. Chemotherapy resistance may be mediated by overexpression of p-glycoprotein efflux pumps and the dysregulation of the microtubule-hypoxia inducible factor signaling axis.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment for clear cell RCC remains poorly defined. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is considered a standard of care in patients with mRCC with predominantly sarcomatoid differentiation and collecting duct RCC variants (Motzer et al., 2014). Early trials combining chemotherapy with targeted therapies are generally well tolerated and show clinical activity. A better understanding of the biology of aggressive subsets of RCC and mechanisms of resistance will help elucidate the role of cytotoxic agents in the current treatment paradigm of RCC.

Phase 2 trial of sunitinib and gemcitabine in patients with sarcomatoid and/or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is associated with an aggressive biology and a poor prognosis. Poor-risk RCC is defined by clinical prognostic factors and demonstrates similarly aggressive behavior. No standard treatment exists for patients with sarcomatoid RCC, and treatment options for patients with poor-risk disease are of limited benefit. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy in clinically aggressive RCC.

METHODS

This was a phase 2, single-arm trial of sunitinib and gemcitabine in patients with sarcomatoid or poor-risk RCC. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included the time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker correlatives.

RESULTS

Overall, 39 patients had sarcomatoid RCC, and 33 had poor-risk RCC. The ORR was 26% for patients with sarcomatoid RCC and 24% for patients with poor-risk RCC. The median TTP and OS for patients with sarcomatoid RCC were 5 and 10 months, respectively. For patients with poor-risk disease, the median TTP and OS were 5.5 and 15 months, respectively. Patients whose tumors had >10% sarcomatoid histology had a higher clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease) than those with ≤10% sarcomatoid histology (P = .04). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (n = 20), anemia (n = 10), and fatigue (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that antiangiogenic therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy are an active and well-tolerated combination for patients with aggressive RCC. The combination may be more efficacious than either therapy alone and is currently under further investigation.

Immunologics and chemotherapeutics for renal cell carcinoma

Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma remains a challenge for clinicians. Traditional chemotherapy is ineffective and immunotherapy with interleukin-2 is only occasionally beneficial. The development of numerous agents targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and mammalian target of rapamycin signaling pathways that have been studied in phase III trials have resulted in significant improvement in survival for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Currently available U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved first line targeted agents include sunitinib, pazopanib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab (with interferon), while axitinib, everolimus, and sorafenib are most extensively used following progression as second- or third line therapy. Attempts to augment the activity of these agents by combining them together or with chemotherapy or immunotherapy have not yet proven to improve outcomes. As a result, the sequential use of single agents remains the current standard of care.

Comparative in vitro evaluation of transportability and toxicity of capecitabine and its metabolites in cells derived from normal human kidney and renal cancers

The goal of this study was to understand roles of nucleoside and nucleobase transport processes in capecitabine pharmacology in cells derived from human renal proximal tubule cells (hRPTCs) and three human renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cell lines, A498, A704, and Caki-1. Human equilibrative nucleoside transporters 1 and 2 (hENT1 and hENT2) mediated activities and a sodium-independent nucleobase activity were present in hRPTCs. In hRPTCs, uptake of 5′-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (DFUR), a nucleoside metabolite of capecitabine, was pH dependent with highest uptake seen at pH 6.0. In RCC cell lines, hENT1 was the major nucleoside transporter. Nucleobase transport activity was variable among the three RCC cell lines, with Caki-1 showing the highest and A498 showing the lowest activities. Treatment of RCC cell lines with interferon alpha (IFN-α) increased thymidine phosphorylase levels and prior treatment of RCC cell lines with IFN-α followed by 5-FU or DFUR resulted in enhanced sensitivity of all cell lines to 5-FU and two of three cell lines to DFUR. We report for the first time a nucleobase transport activity in hRPTCs and RCC cell lines. In addition, our in vitro cytotoxicity results showed that RCC cell lines differed in their response to 5-FU and DFUR and prior treatment with IFN-α potentiated cytotoxic response to metabolites of capecitabine.

Phase II trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical activity and safety of the combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in advanced nonclear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC).

METHODS

In this phase II study, patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m intravenous infusion over 10 minutes on day 1 followed immediately by gemcitabine 1500 mg/m intravenously over 30 minutes on day 1, with cycles repeated every 14 days. Planned enrollment was 40 patients. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival.

RESULTS

Between December 2005 and December 2008, 16 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC were enrolled. The trial was stopped early due to low efficacy and excessive toxicity. The objective response rate was 0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0%-18%]. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range, 1 to 12). Median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.9-6+), and the 16-week PFS rate was 46.7% (95% CI, 19.8%-100%). Median overall survival was 23.2 months (95% CI, 12.9-38.1). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (53%), leukopenia (53%), anemia (13%), fatigue (40%), and renal insufficiency (13%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase II trial in nccRCC, the combination of pemetrexed and gemcitabine was toxic and ineffective. Further development of this regimen in nccRCC is not warranted.

Osteonecrosis and the Jaws and Bevacizumab Therapy: A Case Report

Bevacizumab is a humanized recombinant monoclonal antibody that blocks Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF). Recently, its use has been related with osteneocrosis of the jaws (ONJ), a disease showing a histological pattern similar to bisphosphonate-related ONJ. The aim of this study is to describe an ONJ case-report following bevacizumab chemotherapy without bisphosphonate therapy. We monitored ONJ development associated with the use of bevacizumab in a 47-year-old male with primitive adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland. Our results could suggest a possible correlation between the eruption of the lower third molar tooth and ONJ development following bevacizumab therapy. Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of bevacizumab-related ONJ complication; moreover, since there are no effective therapeutic protocols for ONJ treatment, it is very important that patients develop good oral hygiene habits and undergo regular dental status evaluation by dentists.