The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic renal cancer

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.

Temporary treatment cessation versus continuation of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (STAR): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1).

INTERPRETATION

Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Feasibility Study on Using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI to Assess the Effect of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy within the STAR Trial of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

Objective: To identify dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) parameters predictive of early disease progression in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) treated with anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Methods: The study was linked to a phase II/III randomised control trial. Patients underwent DCE-MRI before, at 4- and 10-weeks after initiation of TKI. DCE-MRI parameters at each time-point were derived from a single-compartment tracer kinetic model, following semi-automated tumour segmentation by two independent readers. Primary endpoint was correlation of DCE-MRI parameters with disease progression at 6-months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated for parameters associated with disease progression at 6 months. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: 23 tumours in 14 patients were measurable. Three patients had disease progression at 6 months. The percentage (%) change in perfused tumour volume between baseline and 4-week DCE-MRI (p = 0.016), mean transfer constant K^trans change (p = 0.038), and % change in extracellular volume (p = 0.009) between 4- and 10-week MRI, correlated with early disease progression (AUC 0.879 for each parameter). Inter-observer agreement was excellent for perfused tumour volume, K^trans and extracellular volume (ICC: 0.928, 0.949, 0.910 respectively). Conclusions: Early measurement of DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour perfusion at 4- and 10-weeks predicts disease progression at 6-months following TKI therapy in mRCC.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms.

DESIGN

A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study.

SETTING

Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.

INTERVENTIONS

Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study.

RESULTS

In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prognostic value of performance status in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The association between performance status (PS) and the prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remains controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of PS in mRCC patients treated with TKIs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify the studies that had assessed the association between pretreatment PS and prognosis in mRCC patients receiving TKIs. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from eligible studies were used to calculate combined HRs. The heterogeneity across the included studies was assessed by Cochrane's Q test and I² statistic. The Begg's funnel plot and Egger's linear regression teats were used to evaluate the potential publication bias. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 and Stata SE12.0 according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 6780 patients from 19 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that a poor PS was an effective prognostic factor of both OS (pooled HR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.78-2.45) and PFS (pooled HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.20-1.91). Subgroup analysis revealed that poor PS significantly associated with poor OS and PFS in studies using Karnofsky PS scale (OS, pooled HR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.65-2.94; PFS, pooled HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.19-2.56), conducted in Asia (OS, pooled HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.71-2.95; PFS, pooled HR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.14-2.64) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of 8 (OS, pooled HR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.92-3.55; PFS, pooled HR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.36-4.33).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that a poor PS is significantly associated with poor prognosis in mRCC patients receiving TKIs.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Patient-centered simulations to assess the usefulness of the 70-gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy administration in early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

From the MINDACT trial, Cardoso et al. did not demonstrate a significant efficacy for adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for women with early-stage breast cancer presenting high clinical and low genomic risks. Our objective was to assess the usefulness of the 70-gene signature in this population by using an alternative endpoint: the number of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), i.e., a synthetic measure of quantity and quality of life.

METHODS

Based on the results of the MINDACT trial, we simulated a randomized clinical trial consisting of 1497 women with early-stage breast cancer presenting high clinical and low genomic risks. The individual preferences for the different health states and corresponding decrements were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The gain in terms of 5-year disease-free survival was 2.8% (95% CI from - 0.1 to 5.7%, from 90.4% for women without CT to 93.3% for women with CT). In contrast, due to the associated side effects, CT significantly reduced the number of QALYs by 62 days (95% CI from 55 to 70 days, from 4.13 years for women without CT to 3.96 years for women with CT).

CONCLUSION

Our results support the conclusions published by Cardoso et al. by providing additional evidence that the 70-gene signature can be used to avoid overtreatment by CT for women with high clinical risk but low genomic risk.

Traitement focal et traitement systémique dans la prise en charge du cancer du rein métastatique : une question de complémentarité

FOCAL TREATMENT AND SYSTEMIC THERAPY IN METASTATIC KIDNEY CANCER

COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES: To treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma, therapies used are with an oral intake, for the vast majority, and have many side effects that may compromise observance. Strategies of drug holiday have been studied and, in case of an indolent and oligometastatic tumor, studies have shown that active surveillance is possible to delay the introduction of systemic treatment, without compromising the patient survival. A multimodal approach combining systemic and focal treatments can be done with several objectives: to delay even more introduction of systemic treatment by focally treating metastases, to allow drug holiday after partial response to medical treatment by local control of persistent metastases, and to permit drug continuation even in case of dissociated response to systemic therapy, by focal treatment of metastasis(es) in progression. Technics that can be used for focal treatment are metastasectomy, radiofrequency ablation or cryotherapy, and stereotactic radiotherapy. In literature, studies that evaluated this approach are for almost retrospective studies, but they have reported interesting results in terms of local control and low morbidity. In the era of checkpoint's inhibitors, it seems important to make prospective collections of data to validate these practices. In any case, and because international recommendations about multimodal approach are poor, discussions between the different actors of the patient care are essential to find the most beneficial treatment for him.

Liver resection surgery versus thermal ablation for colorectal LiVer MetAstases (LAVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. A prospective randomised trial is required to define the efficacy of resection vs ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases.

Methods

Design and setting: This is a multicentre, open, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial design with internal pilot and will be performed in tertiary liver centres in UK and The Netherlands.

Participants: Eligible patients will be those with colorectal liver metastases at high surgical risk because of their age, co-morbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation.

Intervention: Thermal ablation as per local policy.

Control: Surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol.

Co-interventions: Further chemotherapy will be offered to patients as per current practice.

Outcomes

Pilot study: Same as main study and in addition patients and clinicians’ acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment.

Primary outcome: Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years post randomisation.

Secondary outcomes: Overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, DFS measured from end of intervention.

Follow-up: 24 months from randomisation; five-year follow-up for overall survival.

Sample size: 330 patients to demonstrate non-inferiority of thermal ablation.

Discussion

This trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for high-risk people with colorectal liver metastases, and guide the optimal treatment for these patients.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN52040363. Registered on 9 March 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2499-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Drug Holiday in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) is noncurative and may be associated with significant toxicities. Some patients may receive treatment breaks as a result of TKI-related adverse effects or planned drug holidays.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, mRCC patients who underwent drug holidays during TKI therapy at 2 different institutions were analyzed. A drug holiday was defined as a period of drug cessation for ≥ 3 months for reasons other than progressive disease.

RESULTS

Of the 112 patients, the median duration of the first drug holiday for the overall cohort was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval, 12.5-26.4), and 40 patients (36%) remain on the first drug holiday. Overall, patients received a median of 2 lines of treatment. Complete response before the initial drug holiday (n = 14) was associated with a longer surveillance period (P = .0004). The observed median survival of this cohort was 71.7 months (range, 1.3 to 93+ months).

CONCLUSION

Some selected mRCC patients with a favorable response to TKIs may be eligible for drug holidays. The cohort evaluated in this retrospective study represents a highly selected group of patients with indolent disease biology.

Treatment of renal cell carcinoma: Current status and future directions

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Over the past 12 years, medical treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has transitioned from a nonspecific immune approach (in the cytokine era), to targeted therapy against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and now to novel immunotherapy agents. Multiple agents-including molecules against vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and related receptors; inhibitors of other targets, such as the mammalian target of rapamycin and the MET and AXL tyrosine-protein kinase receptors; and an immune-checkpoint inhibitor-have been approved based on significant activity in patients with advanced RCC. Despite these advances, important questions remain regarding biomarkers of efficacy, patient selection, and the optimal combination and sequencing of agents. The purpose of this review is to summarize present management and future directions in the treatment of metastatic RCC. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:507-524. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Outcome of Restarted Sunitinib Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: a Retrospective Trial and Combined Case Reports from Literature

In practice it is still not clear whether a drug holiday in sunitinib (Su) treatment can be safety, without impairing the overall outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim was to retrospectively evaluate the outcome in patients who restarted Su after an interruption of ≥3 months and a combined analysis of case studies from literature. From 556 patients treated between January 2006 and March 2016 a group of 38 patients were selected whose treatment was interrupted for other reasons than disease progression. During interruption Su was restarted in case of RECIST-defined progression. The primary objective was the objective response (OR) and progression free survival (PFS) of baseline and restarted therapy. The secondary objective was the overall survival (OS) calculated from the start of baseline treatment. Multivariate survival analysis was also applied. The major causes of interruption were toxicity (39%) and patient' choice (24%). Median duration of interruption was 7 (range 3-41) months. The OR of baseline and restarted treatment was 63% and 39%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 76 (95% CI 65-79) months the median PFS of baseline and restarted treatment was 21 (18-27) and 14 (10-18) months, respectively. The median OS was 61 (56-80) months. In multivariate analysis the lack of OR of restated treatment was an independent predictor of shorter PFS of restarted Su. According to our findings and also on combined case studies from literature restarted Su can be effective in selected cases of patients who progressed during treatment holiday.

Sunitinib in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: an update on recent evidence

Sunitinib is a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor endowed mainly by antiangiogenic effects, although an indirect inhibitory effect on tumor growth and, more recently, a complex activity on antitumor immune response has been described. From approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2006, sunitinib represents a key molecule in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) due to the peculiar molecular pathogenesis of this neoplasm. Over the past 10 years, clinical trials and real-world experiences helped clinicians to understand how, when and for how long to use sunitinib. Although a huge amount of data evidenced the relationship existing between sunitinib dose intensity and improved clinical outcome, the management of sunitinib-induced adverse events is often complex; thus, alternative schedules have been proposed over time which allow increased tolerability, without decreased daily sunitinib exposure, leading to improved clinical outcomes. To date, combinations of sunitinib with other approved targeted agents did not demonstrate any significant benefit over its single-agent use, mainly due to tolerability issues. Sunitinib has also been tested in the adjuvant setting, within the ASSURE and S-TRAC trials, with opposite results; indeed, equivocal risk-stratification criteria, as well as immature overall survival (OS) data prevent any definitive conclusion on this important issue. Despite being on the market for a long time, sunitinib still plays a role as the 'comparator arm' of a number of trials in the field of mRCC. Combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors and vaccines look promising; once again, sunitinib can help us to optimize mRCC management.

Sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Sunitinib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that targets various receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). Sunitinib received approval in 2006 and became a standard treatment option in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) after a phase III trial showed superiority compared with interferon alpha (IFN-α). Sunitinib has also shown activity in second-line treatment in several trials. Most of the combination trials with sunitinib with various agents have led to considerable toxicity without improving efficacy. Sunitinib alone causes significant side effects and has a distinct profile with diarrhoea, hypertension, skin effects hypothyroidism, fatigue and nausea of special interest. The recommended dose of sunitinib in mRCC is 50 mg orally daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment (4/2 schedule). An alternative 2 weeks on, 1 week off schedule (2/1 schedule) seems to be of similar efficacy and better tolerability and could be more widely used in the future. An intermittent treatment strategy with a stop in remission and re-induction after progression showed efficacy in smaller trials and is currently being evaluated in a phase III trial. Direct comparison of sunitinib with pazopanib in first-line treatment showed a similar efficacy for both TKIs with a distinct toxicity profile. Data from two phase II trials showed that sunitinib has also activity in non-clear cell cancer and is an option due to a lack of better alternatives. Currently, after immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown very promising results in the second-line treatment of RCC, they are being tested in a number of phase III trials in the first-line setting. The future will show the position of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of RCC in the era of the immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Dosing strategies and optimization of targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Within the past decade, treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma have expanded dramatically. Currently, seven targeted agents are approved for use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and have superseded the use of parenteral cytokine therapy with interleukin-2 or interferon, the former standards of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Targeted agents include inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (i.e. sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib, and bevacizumab) and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway (i.e. temsirolimus and everolimus). These newer therapies have been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with previous approaches. Because most of these targeted agents are taken orally, responsibility for dose administration has shifted to patients, which might result in variable adherence. Additionally, with new treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma comes the challenge of selecting dosing schemes that maximize therapeutic benefit and minimize adverse events. Much of the information related to the effectiveness of dose modifications for targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has been gathered from clinical studies that have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which might not translate directly to real-world patient populations. This review discusses the impact of dose adherence on the effectiveness of targeted agents to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma, assesses the literature regarding the effectiveness of approved dosing strategies, and provides a summary of alternative dosing strategies.

Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials

Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.

Long-term outcomes of tyrosine kinase inhibitor discontinuation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who interrupted vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical records was performed on all patients with mRCC treated with VEGFR-TKIs between January 2008 and July 2014 (n = 505). Patients who achieved stable disease (SD) or a better response under TKI and later discontinued TKI treatment for any reason with the exception of disease progression were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 32 patients (sunitinib = 20, sorafenib = 7, and pazopanib = 5). The responses to VEGFR-TKIs were complete response (CR, n = 4), partial response (PR, n = 11), SD (n = 15), and controlled but nonmeasurable response (n = 2). Median time to TKI discontinuation from the initiation of VEGFR-TKI therapy was 16.6 months (95 % CI 12.8-20.3), and the main cause of VEGFR-TKI discontinuation was toxicity (n = 19, 59.4 %). At the time of analysis, 16 patients had disease progression and one patient died. With a median follow-up duration of 51.7 months (range 11.5-87.6), median progression-free survival (PFS) after TKI discontinuation was 20.2 months (95 % CI 6.4-34.0). In multivariate analysis, the duration of TKI therapy (<1 year) before TKI discontinuation was an independent significant prognostic factor of poor PFS (p = 0.045). Among 11 patients who were retreated with the same TKI, two patients (18.2 %) achieved PR and nine achieved SD (81.8 %).

CONCLUSIONS

VEGFR-TKI could be interrupted at least temporarily when clinically warranted in patients with mRCC sufficiently controlled by TKIs.

Constructing indirect utility models: some observations on the principles and practice of mapping to obtain health state utilities

The construction of mapping models is an increasingly popular mechanism for obtaining health state utility data to inform economic evaluations in health care. There is great variation in the sophistication of the methods utilized but to date very little discussion of the appropriate theoretical framework to guide the design and evaluation of these models. In this paper, we argue that recognizing mapping models as a form of indirect health state valuation allows the use of the framework described by Dolan for the measurement of social preferences over health. Using this framework, we identify substantial concerns with the method for valuing health states that is implicit in indirect utility models (IUMs), the conflation of two sets of respondents' values in such models, and the lack of a structured and statistically reasonable approach to choosing which states to value and how many observations per state to require in the estimation dataset. We also identify additional statistical challenges associated with clustering and censoring in the datasets for IUMs, additional to those attributable to the descriptive systems, and a potentially significant problem with the systematic understatement of uncertainty in predictions from IUMs. Whilst recognizing that IUMs appear to meet the needs of reimbursement organizations that use quality-adjusted life years in their appraisal processes, we argue that current proposed quality standards are inadequate and that IUMs are neither robust nor appropriate mechanisms for estimating utilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.