Second line therapy with axitinib after only prior sunitinib in metastatic renal cell cancer: Italian multicenter real world SAX study final results

Identification of angiogenesis-related subtypes and risk models for predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer patients

Gastric cancer (GC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality and is characterized by significant heterogeneity, highlighting the need for further studies aimed at personalized treatment strategies. Tumor angiogenesis is critical for tumor development and metastasis, yet its role in molecular subtyping and prognosis prediction remains underexplored. This study aims to identify angiogenesis-related subtypes and develop a prognostic model for GC patients. Using data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we performed consensus cluster analysis on differentially expressed angiogenesis-related genes (ARGs), identifying two patient subtypes with distinct survival outcomes. Differentially expressed genes between the subtypes were analyzed via Cox and LASSO regression, leading to the establishment of a subtype-based prognostic model using a machine learning algorithm. Patients were classified into high- and low-risk groups based on the risk score. Validation was performed using independent datasets (ICGC and GSE15459). We utilized a deconvolution algorithm to investigate the tumor immune microenvironment in different risk groups and conducted analyses on genetic profiling, sensitivity and combination of anti-tumor drug. Our study identified ten prognostic signature genes, enabling the calculation of a risk score to predict prognosis and overall survival. This provides critical data for stratified diagnosis and treatment upon patient admission, monitoring disease progression throughout the entire course, evaluating immunotherapy efficacy, and selecting personalized medications for GC patients.

Axitinib after Treatment Failure with Sunitinib or Cytokines in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma-Systematic Literature Review of Clinical and Real-World Evidence

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify clinical evidence on treatments in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors. Herein, we summarise the evidence for axitinib in aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with cytokines or sunitinib.

METHODS

This SLR was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023492931) and followed the 2020 PRISMA statement and the Cochrane guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase as well as for conference proceedings. Study eligibility was defined according to population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design.

RESULTS

Of 1252 titles/abstracts screened, 266 peer-reviewed publications were reviewed, of which 182 were included. In addition, 28 conference abstracts were eligible. Data on axitinib were reported in 55 publications, of which 16 provided efficacy and/or safety outcomes on axitinib after therapy with sunitinib or cytokines. In these patients, median progression-free and overall survival ranged between 5.5 and 8.7 months and 11.0 and 69.5 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib is commonly used in clinical practice and has a well-characterised safety and efficacy profile in the treatment of patients with aRCC after the failure of prior therapy with sunitinib or cytokines.

Real-world experience of second-line axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: analysis of the Swedish population

Aim: Assess the time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) in a Swedish metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) nationwide cohort who received second-line axitinib.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 110 patients with mRCC treated with second-line axitinib in Sweden (2012-2019). Patients included in the study received axitinib after mainly first-line sunitinib or pazopanib.Results: The median (95% CI) TTD of patients who received second-line axitinib was 5.2 (3.7-6.1) months with 6 (5.5%) patients still receiving treatment at the time of analysis. Median (95% CI) OS was 12.2 (7.7-14.2) months.Conclusion: The results are consistent with previous findings in mRCC and add to the evidence demonstrating efficacy of second-line axitinib, after failure of a prior anti-angiogenic therapy in a real-world setting.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04669366 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Sequential treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients after first-line vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy in a real-world setting: epidemiologic, noninterventional, retrospective-prospective cohort multicentre study

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to determine whether data on the clinical effectiveness of second-line therapy collected in a real-world setting provide additional valuable information on the optimal sequence of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy with either sunitinib or pazopanib and with at least one dose of second-line everolimus, axitinib, nivolumab, or cabozantinib were included. The efficacy of different treatment sequences was analyzed based on the time to the second objective disease progression (PFS2) and the time to the first objective disease progression (PFS).

RESULTS

Data from 172 subjects were available for analysis. PFS2 was 23.29 months. The 1-year PFS2 rate was 85.3%, and the 3-year PFS2 rate was 25.9%. The 1-year overall survival rate was 97.0%, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 78.6%. Patients with a lower IMDC prognostic risk group had a significantly (p < 0.001) longer PFS2. Patients with metastases in the liver had a shorter PFS2 than patients with metastases in the other sites (p = 0.024). Patients with metastases in the lungs and lymph nodes (p = 0.045) and patients with metastases in the liver and bones (p = 0.030) had lower PFS2 rates than patients with metastases in other sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a better IMDC prognosis have a longer PFS2. Metastases in the liver lead to a shorter PFS2 than metastases in other sites. One metastasis site means a longer PFS2 than 3 or more metastasis sites. Nephrectomy performed in an earlier stage of disease or metastatic setting means higher PFS and higher PFS2. No PFS2 difference was found between different treatment sequences of TKI-TKI or TKI-immune therapy.

Optimal sequencing of the first- and second-line target therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: based on nationally representative data analysis from the Korean National Health Insurance System

BACKGROUND

The authors intend to compare the effects of each targeted therapy (TT) in the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) using big data based on the Korean National Health Insurance System (NHIS) and determine the optimal treatment sequence.

METHODS

Data on the medical use of patients with kidney cancer were obtained from the NHIS database from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2020. Patient variables included age, sex, income level, place of residence, prescribing department, and duration from diagnosis to the prescription date. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) for each drug and sequencing. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) according to age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index based on the primary TTs.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, the sunitinib (SUN) (n = 1,214) and pazopanib (PAZ) (n = 1,214) groups showed a well-matched distribution across the entire cohort. In the primary treatment group, PAZ had lower OS than SUN (HR, 1.167; p = 0.0015). In the secondary treatment group, axitinib (AXI) had more favorable OS than cabozantinib (CAB) (HR, 0.735; p = 0.0118), and everolimus had more adverse outcomes than CAB (HR, 1.544; p < 0.0001). In the first to second TT sequencing, SUN-AXI had the highest OS; however, there was no statistically significant difference when compared with PAZ-AXI, which was the second highest (HR, 0.876; p = 0.3312). The 5-year survival rate was calculated in the following order: SUN-AXI (51.44%), PAZ-AXI (47.12%), SUN-CAB (43.59%), and PAZ-CAB (34.28%). When the four sequencing methods were compared, only SUN-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.003) and PAZ-AXI versus PAZ-CAB (p = 0.017) were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population-based RWD analysis of Korean patients with mRCC, SUN-AXI sequencing was shown to be the most effective among the first to second TT sequencing methods in treatment, with a relative survival advantage over other sequencing combinations. To further support the results of this study, risk-stratified analysis is needed.

Druggable Biomarkers Altered in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Strategy for the Development of Mechanism-Based Combination Therapy

Targeted therapeutics made significant advances in the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Resistance and serious adverse events associated with standard therapy of patients with advanced ccRCC highlight the need to identify alternative 'druggable' targets to those currently under clinical development. Although the Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) and Polybromo1 (PBRM1) tumor-suppressor genes are the two most frequently mutated genes and represent the hallmark of the ccRCC phenotype, stable expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α/2α (HIFs), microRNAs-210 and -155 (miR_S), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß), nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), and thymidine phosphorylase (TP) are targets overexpressed in the majority of ccRCC tumors. Collectively, these altered biomarkers are highly interactive and are considered master regulators of processes implicated in increased tumor angiogenesis, metastasis, drug resistance, and immune evasion. In recognition of the therapeutic potential of the indicated biomarkers, considerable efforts are underway to develop therapeutically effective and selective inhibitors of individual targets. It was demonstrated that HIF_S, miR_S, Nrf2, and TGF-ß are targeted by a defined dose and schedule of a specific type of selenium-containing molecules, seleno-L-methionine (SLM) and methylselenocystein (MSC). Collectively, the demonstrated pleiotropic effects of selenium were associated with the normalization of tumor vasculature, and enhanced drug delivery and distribution to tumor tissue, resulting in enhanced efficacy of multiple chemotherapeutic drugs and biologically targeted molecules. Higher selenium doses than those used in clinical prevention trials inhibit multiple targets altered in ccRCC tumors, which could offer the potential for the development of a new and novel therapeutic modality for cancer patients with similar selenium target expression. Better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of selenium modulation of specific targets altered in ccRCC could potentially have a significant impact on the development of a more efficacious and selective mechanism-based combination for the treatment of patients with cancer.

Real-world effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and second-line therapy in Japanese untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: 2-year analysis from a multicenter retrospective clinical study (J-cardinal study)

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy is one of the standard therapies for untreated renal cell carcinoma patients with an International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor risk. We have previously reported the 1-year analysis results of the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in the real-world setting in Japan. Here, we report the effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy and of second-line therapy, using 2-year analysis.

Methods

This retrospective observational study enrolled Japanese patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma who initiated nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy between August 2018 and January 2019. Data were collected from patients’ medical records at baseline and at 3 months, 1 year and 2 years after the last enrollment.

Results

Of the 45 patients enrolled, 10 patients (22.2%) each had non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 at baseline. Median follow-up period was 24.0 months; objective response rate was 41.5%, with 6 patients achieving complete response; median progression-free survival was 17.8 months and 24-month progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 41.6 and 59.1%, respectively. Second-line therapy achieved an objective response rate of 20%; median progression-free survival was 9.8 months. Median progression-free survival 2 was 26.4 months.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy at 2-year analysis in the real-world setting in Japan was comparable to that reported in CheckMate 214. The current analysis also demonstrated the effectiveness of second-line therapy after nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy.

Clinical Factors Associated With Long-Term Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Axitinib: Real-World AXILONG Study

BACKGROUND

Axitinib monotherapy obtained approval in pre-treated mRCC patients and recently in combination with pembrolizumab or avelumab in the first-line setting. However, patient profiles that may obtain increased benefit from this drug and its combinations still need to be identified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective multicentre analysis describing clinical characteristics associated with axitinib long-responder (LR) population by comparing two extreme-response sub-groups (progression-free survival [PFS] ≥9 months vs. disease progression/refractory patients [RP]). A multivariate logistic-regression model was used to analyse clinical factors. Efficacy and safety were also analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 157 patients who received axitinib in second or subsequent line were evaluated (91 LR and 66 RP). Older age at start of axitinib and haemoglobin levels > LLN were independent predictive factors for LR in multivariate analyses. In LR patients, median (m) PFS was 18.1 months, median overall survival was 36.0 months and objective response rate (ORR) was 45.5%. In 59 LR patients receiving axitinib in second-line, mPFS was 18.7 months, mOS was 44.8 months and ORR was 43.9%. mOS was significantly longer in second line compared to subsequent lines (44.8 vs. 26.5 months; P = .009). In LR vs. RP, mPFS with sunitinib in first-line was correlated with mPFS with axitinib in second-line (27.2 vs. 10.9 months P < .001). The safety profile was manageable and consistent with known data.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the long-term benefits of axitinib in a selected population, helping clinicians to select the best sequential approach and patients who could obtain a greater benefit from axitinib.

The genomic architecture of metastasis in breast cancer: focus on mechanistic aspects, signalling pathways and therapeutic strategies

Breast cancer is a multifactorial, heterogeneous disease and the second most frequent cancer amongst women worldwide. Metastasis is one of the most leading causes of death in these patients. Early-stage or locally advanced breast cancer is limited to the breast or nearby lymph nodes. When breast cancer spreads to farther tissues/organs from its original site, it is referred to as metastatic or stage IV breast cancer. Normal breast development is regulated by specific genes and signalling pathways controlling cell proliferation, cell death, cell differentiation and cell motility. Dysregulation of genes involved in various signalling pathways not only leads to the formation of primary tumour but also to the metastasis as well. The metastatic cascade is represented by a multi-step process including invasion of the local tumour cell followed by its entry into the vasculature, exit of malignant cells from the circulation and ultimately their colonization at the distant sites. These stages are referred to as formation of primary tumour, angiogenesis, invasion, intravasation and extravasation, respectively. The major sites of metastasis of breast cancer are the lymph nodes, bone, brain and lung. Only about 28% five-year survival rate has been reported for stage IV breast cancer. Metastasis is a serious concern for breast cancer and therefore, various therapeutic strategies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been developed to target specific dysregulated genes and various signalling pathways involved in different steps of metastasis. In addition, other therapies like hyperbaric oxygen therapy, RNA interference and CRISPR/Cas9 are also being explored as novel strategies to cure the stage IV/metastatic breast cancer. Therefore, the current review has been compiled with an aim to evaluate the genetic basis of stage IV breast cancer with a focus on the molecular mechanisms. In addition, the therapeutic strategies targeting these dysregulated genes involved in various signalling pathways have also been discussed. Genome editing technologies that can target specific genes in the affected areas by making knock-in and knock-out alternations and thereby bring significant treatment outcomes in breast cancer have also been summarized.

Efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immuno-checkpoint therapy, retrospective study of Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AFTER I-O study)

Objectives

Guidelines for treatment of mRCC recommend nivolumab monotherapy (NIVO) for treated patients, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy (NIVO+IPI) for untreated IMDC intermediate and poor-risk mRCC patients. Although molecular-targeted therapies (TTs) such as VEGFR-TKIs and mTORi are recommended as subsequent therapy after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, their efficacy and safety remain unclear.

Methods

Outcome of Japanese patients with mRCC who received TT after NIVO (CheckMate 025) or NIVO+IPI (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR of the first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI. Secondary endpoints included TFS, PFS, OS and safety of TTs.

Results

Twenty six patients in CheckMate 025 and 19 patients in CheckMate 214 from 20 centers in Japan were analyzed. As the first subsequent TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, axitinib was the most frequently treated regimen for both CheckMate 025 (54%) and CheckMate 214 (47%) patients. The ORRs of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI were 27 and 32% (all risks), and median PFSs were 8.9 and 16.3 months, respectively. During the treatment of first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI, 98% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3–4 events in 51% of patients, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusions

TTs have favorable antitumor activity in patients with mRCC after ICI, possibly via changing the mechanism of action. Safety signals of TTs after ICI were similar to previous reports. These results indicate that sequential TTs after ICI may contribute for long survival benefit.

Modeling Neoplastic Growth in Renal Cell Carcinoma and Polycystic Kidney Disease

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) share several characteristics, including neoplastic cell growth, kidney cysts, and limited therapeutics. As well, both exhibit impaired vasculature and compensatory VEGF activation of angiogenesis. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR and Ras/Raf/ERK pathways play important roles in regulating cystic and tumor cell proliferation and growth. Both RCC and ADPKD result in hypoxia, where HIF-α signaling is activated in response to oxygen deprivation. Primary cilia and altered cell metabolism may play a role in disease progression. Non-coding RNAs may regulate RCC carcinogenesis and ADPKD through their varied effects. Drosophila exhibits remarkable conservation of the pathways involved in RCC and ADPKD. Here, we review the progress towards understanding disease mechanisms, partially overlapping cellular and molecular dysfunctions in RCC and ADPKD and reflect on the potential for the agile Drosophila genetic model to accelerate discovery science, address unresolved mechanistic aspects of these diseases, and perform rapid pharmacological screens.

Oncological outcomes of a multicenter cohort treated with axitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the real-world use of axitinib and to develop a prognostic model for stratifying patients who could derive long-term benefit from axitinib. This was a retrospective, descriptive study evaluating the efficacy of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had been treated with 1 or 2 systemic antiangiogenic therapy regimens at 1 of 36 hospitals belonging to the Japan Urologic Oncology Group between January 2012 and February 2019. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Using a split-sample method, candidate variables that exhibited significant relationships with OS were chosen to create a model. The new model was validated using the rest of the cohort. In total, 485 patients were enrolled. The median OS was 34 months in the entire study population, whereas it was not reached, 27 months, and 14 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, according to the new risk classification model. The following 4 variables were included in the final risk model: the disease stage at diagnosis, number of metastatic sites at the start of axitinib therapy, serum albumin level, and neutrophil : lymphocyte ratio. The adjusted area under the curve values of the new model at 12, 36, and 60 months were 0.77, 0.82, and 0.82, respectively. The efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is comparable or even superior to that reported previously. The patients in the new model's favorable risk group might derive a long-term survival benefit from axitinib treatment.

Clinical outcomes of second-line treatment following prior targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of axitinib and nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Sequential treatment starting with target therapy is still the standard care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), even in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes between axitinib and nivolumab as second-line therapy following prior targeted therapy in mRCC patients.

METHODS

We identified 41 patients treated with axitinib and 39 patients treated with nivolumab as a second-line regimen after targeted therapy, and retrospectively compared the treatment efficacy and safety in these patients.

RESULTS

The clinical benefit rate of axitinib was significantly higher than that of nivolumab (82.9% versus 56.4%; p = 0.014) and patients who received axitinib tended to show longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those who received nivolumab (10.3 months versus 7.3 months; p = 0.067). There was no difference in the overall survival (OS) of the two groups (both not reached; p = 0.581). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between the two groups, but one patient in the nivolumab group died due to an immune-related AE. In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model showed that the pre-treatment KPS, the baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and an objective response in second-line therapy were significantly associated with PFS, while the pre-treatment KPS, the number of metastatic organs, and an objective response in second-line therapy significantly contributed to the predicted OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the prognosis did not differ markedly between the two groups, axitinib resulted in a better tumor response rate. Further randomized prospective studies are needed for the ideal order of this sequential treatment.