Pharmacoeconomic and clinical implications of sequential therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients in Central and Eastern Europe

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and mortality rates of kidney cancer in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region are among the highest in the world. Access to second and subsequent lines of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) therapies is highly varied in the region. Despite the increasing body of evidence supporting the clinical benefit of multiple lines of treatment, access to treatment beyond first line is restricted in many of these countries.

AREAS COVERED

The adoption of targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of mRCC in the region was slow and faced many obstacles. In order to evaluate the current status of treatment beyond the first-line setting in the CEE region, this review examines the availability and reimbursement of mRCC drugs and clinical practice in institutions that treat patients with mRCC.

EXPERT OPINION

This review highlights the need to raise awareness among physicians, payers and regulators on clinical trial and cost-effectiveness data regarding the treatment of mRCC beyond the first line. The obstacles to mRCC drug access highlighted in this review need to be overcome to ensure that patients are receiving the best treatment available.

Insulin and IGFs in renal cancer risk and progression

Insulin and IGFs play a significant role in cancer development and progression, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). RCC is the most frequent type of kidney cancer in adults and the tenth most common malignancy worldwide. Insulin is normally associated with metabolism control, whereas IGFs are defined as proliferation regulators. Today, there is convincing evidence of an association between obesity and the risk of RCC. Indicated risk factors together with type 2 diabetes are irreversibly connected with circulating insulin and IGF levels. The interplay between these molecules, their receptors, and IGF-binding proteins might be crucial for RCC cell biology and RCC progression. Given the potent activity IGF/IGF receptor 1 (IGF1R) inhibitors demonstrate against RCC in basic research, some type of combination therapy may prove to be beneficial clinically in the management of RCC. This review addresses not only molecular but also clinical associations between insulin and IGF1 signaling pathways and both RCC biology and clinical course. Revealing these interactions may improve our understanding of basic molecular oncology processes in RCC and improve treatment strategies.

Final results from the large sunitinib global expanded-access trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We report final results with extended follow-up from a global, expanded-access trial that pre-regulatory approval provided sunitinib to metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, ineligible for registration-directed trials.

METHODS

Patients ⩾18 years received oral sunitinib 50 mg per day on a 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule. Safety was assessed regularly. Tumour measurements were scheduled per local practice.

RESULTS

A total of 4543 patients received sunitinib. Median treatment duration and follow-up were 7.5 and 13.6 months. Objective response rate was 16% (95% confidence interval (CI): 15-17). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-10.0) and 18.7 months (95% CI: 17.5-19.5). Median PFS in subgroups of interest: aged ⩾65 years (33%), 10.1 months; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ⩾2 (14%), 3.5 months; non-clear cell histology (12%), 6.0 months; and brain metastases (7%), 5.3 months. OS was strongly associated with the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model (n=4065). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (10%), fatigue (9%), and asthenia, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome (each 7%).

CONCLUSION

Final analysis of the sunitinib expanded-access trial provided a good opportunity to evaluate the long-term side effects of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor used worldwide in mRCC. Efficacy and safety findings were consistent with previous results.

A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial

BACKGROUND

This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers.

RESULTS

Overall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab.

CONCLUSION

Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.

Assessing the impact of evolving evidence in renal cell carcinoma treatment: an update of the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT)

The appropriateness of the numerous therapeutic options available for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was evaluated in 2011, using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness methodology to match treatment suitability to a range of patient scenarios. However, the RCC therapeutic area evolves rapidly and a body of new clinical data has accrued in the intervening years; as a result the exercise was repeated in 2013 using the same methodology, expert panel and patient scenarios. The aim of the updated assessment was to update the guidance to clinicians and use it to develop an interactive web-based application, the Renal Cell Carcinoma Appropriateness-based Treatment Toolkit (ReCATT). This round of assessment achieved greater concordance concerning the appropriateness of treatments/interventions for the clinical scenarios tested; this higher level of agreement is likely to reflect the body of scientific evidence accrued since the previous assessment exercise. Many of the areas of disagreement in 2011 related to the suitability of pazopanib or sunitinib treatment; in the 2013 assessment both agents were considered appropriate treatment options for many of the clinical scenarios assessed. Uncertain scenarios often are related to the optimal management of metastatic RCC with clear cell histology. The use of the RAND/UCLA RCC assessment findings to develop the ReCATT support tool will help to disseminate expert opinion concerning best treatment practice and guide the clinical management of RCC patients treated in the community setting.

Insights into cancer surveillance in Central and Eastern Europe, Israel and Turkey

The current cancer landscape within transitional economies in central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area is not particularly optimistic. Current perceptions are often based on extrapolations from other countries and regions; and hence the authors collaborated with the South Eastern Europe Oncology Group (SEEROG) to collect information on cancer registration in Central and Eastern Europe, Israel and Turkey. Healthcare authorities and specialist oncology centres in 21 countries in the region were contacted for information on cancer registries in their countries. Based on this information, the authors believe that the recording and reporting of data on cancer in the region is at an acceptable level. The authors discuss and compare institution- and population-based registries, and present opinions on elements of an 'ideal registry' based on the survey replies and comparisons with other registries. A comparison with the sources used for GLOBOCAN 2008 illustrates the need for consistent data to be communicated, published and utilised throughout the region and the oncology community. The authors conclude by considering the potential value of collaboration between health authorities across the region, as well as between the clinical and epidemiological communities, to ensure that cancer data are consistently collected, verified and made public.

A supersaturated calcium phosphate solution seems to effectively prevent and treat oral mucositis in haematopoietic stem cell transplanted cancer patients - single centre experience

PURPOSE

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the most frequent and bothersome complications of high-dose chemotherapy with subsequent auto- and allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We have assessed the effectiveness of supersaturated calcium phosphate rinse (Caphosol ®) and palifermin (Kepivance®) in the prophylaxis of OM caused by HSCT.

METHODS

Caphosol® and Kepivance® were prospectively evaluated in OM prophylaxis in 64 patients after HSCT and compared against themselves and an historical control group.

RESULTS

Grade 3 and 4 OM was not observed in patients treated with Caphosol® and palifermin. None of those patients needed total parenteral nutrition (TPN), too. In the Caphosol® group 40.9% of the patients did not develop OM, and 70% of patients treated with palifermin were free of any kind of OM symptoms. In the control group OM was observed in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Caphosol® seems to decrease the incidence, severity and duration of OM, the demand for opioids and for TPN. It needs to be tested in randomized trials, because its easy administration and cost-effectiveness may render it a valuable addition to the standard care in the treatment of OM.

AMG 386 in combination with sorafenib in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study

309

Background: AMG 386 inhibits angiogenesis by sequestering angiopoietin-1 and -2, thus preventing their interaction with the Tie2 receptor on endothelial cells. Combination with VEGF receptor inhibition has demonstrated additive effects in vivo. The efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib plus AMG 386, an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein, were evaluated in mRCC pts.

Methods: Treatment-naive pts with clear cell mRCC were randomized 1:1:1 to sorafenib 400 mgPO BID plus AMG 386 10 mg/kg (Arm A) or 3 mg/kg (Arm B) QW; or placebo (Arm C) IV QW. Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS; primary); and (secondary) objective response rate (ORR), change in tumor burden, adverse events (AEs) and pharmacokinetics. Tumor assessment was performed at baseline and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Results: 152 pts were randomized: Arms A/B/C, n=50/51/51. 60/61/61% of pts had intermediate and 40/39/37% had low MSKCC risk at baseline. PFS was similar in all 3 arms, whereas ORR was higher in the AMG 386 arms ( Table ). In Arms A/B/C the incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 66/73/86% and serious AEs 36/49/28%. The most common AEs included diarrhea (70/67/56%; grade ≥3 8/10/8%), hand- foot syndrome (52/47/54%; grade ≥3 12/16/28%), alopecia (50/45/50%; grade ≥3 0/0/2%), and hypertension (42/49/46%; grade ≥3 18/20/14%). Median steady-state Cmax and Cmin for AMG 386 were similar to those reported previously. Sorafenib coadministration did not markedly affect AMG 386 exposure.

Conclusions: Sorafenib plus AMG 386 was tolerable but did not improve PFS compared with sorafenib plus placebo. Increased ORR and the observed reduction in tumor burden are suggestive of an antitumor effect of AMG 386 in mRCC.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

A randomized, double-blind phase III study (VEG105192) of pazopanib (paz) versus placebo (pbo) in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Updated safety results

313

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of paz in 435 pts with mRCC. The primary endpoint of PFS with paz vs pbo was met with a median PFS of 9.2 vs. 4.2 mo (HR 0.46; p<0.0001) respectively. Final OS was 22.9 mos in paz arm vs. 20.5 mos in pbo (HR 0.91; p=0.224); however, OS was confounded by extensive crossover of pbo pts to paz and other therapies. Two independent analyses to adjust for crossover, IPCW (Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighted) and RPSFT (Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time) suggest an OS benefit with paz;HR 0.504; p=0.002 by IPCW and HR 0.43; p=0.172 by RPFST. At the final OS analysis, pts on the paz arm had a 30% increase or in absolute terms 70 yrs (303.7 yrs from 233.5 yrs) in cumulative exposure since analysis 2 yrs ago (Sternberg; JCO 2010). Updated safety data is reported.

Methods: Pts with clear cell mRCC and measurable disease with no prior treatment or 1 prior cytokine-based trt were randomized (2:1) to paz 800 mg QD or pbo and treated until progression (PD), death, or unacceptable toxicity. Upon PD, pts on the pbo arm could receive paz through a parallel open-label study.

Results: Median exposure duration was nearly doubled in the paz arm vs. pbo (7.4 mo vs. 3.8 mo). In the paz arm, 32% of subjects remained on treatment > than 12 mos, 15% for > 24 mos and 8% for > 36 mos. The mean daily dose of paz was 679 mg. ALT elevations >3xULN occurred in 54 pts; upon interruption of paz, or with continuation (adaptation), 85% of pts had documented recovery, 9% no recovery data and 6% not recovered. Further details regarding these and less frequent class effect AEs such as hand-foot syndrome (6%), myocardial dysfunction (<1%) will be reported.

Conclusions: This safety update reflects a 30% increase in the cumulative exposure to paz since the previous clinical cutoff. There are no significant changes to the type, frequency or severity of AEs and no differences in grade 3, 4, or 5 AEs. No new safety signals have been detected.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Final results of the European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study: a large open-label study in diverse community settings

BACKGROUND

The European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study provided sorafenib to advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in whom previous systemic therapy had failed. The study assessed the safety and use of sorafenib for the treatment of advanced RCC in a large community-based patient population across 11 countries in Europe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

EU-ARCCS was a single-arm, open-label trial of sorafenib in advanced RCC patients. End points included safety, time to progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Subgroup analyses included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, prior therapy, and number and sites of metastases.

RESULTS

About 1159 advanced RCC patients were enrolled. Most patients (94%) experienced drug-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade, with the most common grade ≥3 AEs including hand-foot skin reaction (13%), diarrhea (7%), fatigue (7%), hypertension (6%), and rash/desquamation (5%). The incidence of AEs in the subgroups was similar to that in the overall population. Median PFS was 6.6 months; DCR at ≥8 and ≥12 weeks was 85% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The sorafenib safety profile in European community-based practice settings was similar to that reported in clinical trials. The heterogeneous advanced RCC patient population in EU-ARCCS permitted assessment of sorafenib in important subpopulations of advanced RCC patients.

Serum TRAIL levels in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A pilot study

AIMS

The study attempted to evaluate the kinetics of changes in serum TRAIL levels as a potential predictive and prognostic factor in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC), eligible for an interval debulking surgery (IDS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

17 patients with primary inoperable EOC or PPC in FIGO Stage IIIC or IV who underwent an exploratory operation were enrolled to the study. Serum TRAIL levels were determined by ELISA method (DIACLONE, Besancon Cedex, France) before and after two courses of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) based on paclitaxel and platinum analogue (cisplatin or carboplatin). The control group consisted of six healthy volunteers. The median difference in concentration of TRAIL (dTRAIL) between the initial marking and after two courses of NAC in each patient was 192 pg/ml and it was used for dichotomization of the test group.

RESULTS

Suboptimal interval debulking surgery (IDS) was performed in 23.5% (4/17) and optimal IDS in 76.5% (13/17) patients. TRAIL concentration before chemotherapy did not differ significantly between patients with EOC or PPC [1426.96 +/- 321.06 pg/ml (mean +/- SD) (U = 26, p = 0.08)] and the control group [1160.40 +/- 256.39 pg/ml (mean +/- SD. After two courses of NAC serum TRAIL concentration level was 1247.49 +/- 378.46 pg/ml (mean +/- SD). The difference was significant (Z = 2.44, p = 0.0147). Statistical analysis showed that dTRAIL did not significantly influence either extent of IDS (U = 35, p = 0.0962) or time to progression (log-rank test, p = 0.1185), overall survival (log-rank test, p = 0.1973) and response to treatment according to RECIST criteria (U = 35.5, p = 0.9616).

CONCLUSIONS

Serum TRAIL concentration levels changed significantly during NAC. However, it seems that the concentration of this protein has no critical value as a predictive or prognostic factor in patients with EOC or PPC.

Oral treatment of metastatic breast cancer with capecitabine: what influences the decision-making process?

The importance of selecting treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that best suits the needs of the patient while offering a good clinical outcome is becoming more prominent in the decision-making process. We designed a questionnaire-based study to identify factors influencing treatment choice. We prospectively surveyed 218 female MBC patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy who were eligible for capecitabine monotherapy. All 215 patients who answered the questionnaire preferred oral capecitabine to intravenous chemotherapy. The most frequently cited reason for this preference was convenience (72%). The possibility of staying at home during treatment was considered important by 67% of patients overall, 42% of the 71 patients giving only one reason for their preference, 65% of those receiving first-line therapy and 74% treated in the second-line setting. Our study suggests that most patients prefer oral chemotherapy because of the convenience and possibility of staying at home during treatment. The study did not explore patient perceptions of efficacy or tolerability, which play a pivotal role in treatment selection from both the patient and physician perspectives. Capecitabine provides a very effective treatment for MBC and additionally addresses patients' desire to receive treatment at home.

A randomized, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)

5021^

Background: Pazopanib, an oral multikinase angiogenesis inhibitor, has shown clinical efficacy in patients (pts) with advanced RCC. In this study (VEG105192), the efficacy and safety of pazopanib was compared with placebo in advanced RCC. Methods: Pts (N = 400 planned) with clear cell advanced RCC and measurable disease with no prior treatment or 1 prior cytokine-based treatment, were stratified and randomized (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg QD or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and safety. The study had ≥ 90% power to detect an 80% improvement in PFS and a 50% improvement in OS, by stratified log-rank tests with α = 0.025 one-sided. Pts received continuous treatment until disease progression (PD), death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon PD, placebo pts could receive pazopanib via an extension study. Final PFS, RR and safety results are reported here. Results: A total of 233 treatment-naïve and 202 cytokine-pretreated pts were enrolled (290 pazopanib; 145 placebo). Pt characteristics were balanced between the 2 arms. ECOG 0/1 was 42%/58% and 41%/59% for pazopanib and placebo pts, respectively. PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib in the overall study population (9.2 vs 4.2 mos; HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.62; p < 0.0000001), in treatment naïve pts (11.1 vs 2.8 mos; HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.60; p < 0.0000001), and in cytokine-pretreated pts (7.4 vs 4.2 mos; HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.84; p < 0.001). RR was 30% with pazopanib (vs 3% with placebo) and median duration of response was 58.7 wks. Median duration of exposure was 7.4 mos (pazopanib) and 3.8 mos (placebo). The majority of adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2. Most common AEs in pazopanib-treated pts were diarrhea (52%; 4% Gr 3/4), hypertension (40%; 4% Gr 3/4), hair color change (38%; <1% Gr 3/4), nausea (26%; <1% Gr 3/4), anorexia (22%; 2% Gr 3/4), and vomiting (21%; 2% Gr 3/4). The most common laboratory abnormality was ALT elevation (53%; 10% Gr 3; 2% Gr 4). Conclusions: Pazopanib monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS and RR compared to placebo. Final OS results are awaited.

[Table: see text]

ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions

In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting.

For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings.

For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

Long-term safety of sorafenib (SOR) for the treatment (tx) of advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (RCC): Data analysis from patients (pts) treated for over 1 year in the phase III TARGET study

e16057

Background: Results of the phase III multicenter TARGET study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)- controlled study of tx with SOR in pts with clear-cell RCC in whom 1 prior systemic therapy had failed, indicated that SOR is effective (PFS 5.5 vs 2.8 mo, HR=0.44, P<0.000001, and 39% increase in survival for SOR vs PBO, HR=0.71, P=0.015) and safe in pts with advanced RCC (Escudier et al. N Engl J Med. 2007). With a database cut-off of Sept 8, 2006, we analyzed the safety of long-term use of SOR in pts in TARGET (study start Nov 2003). Methods: Pts (N=903) with advanced metastatic clear-cell RCC that had progressed after 1 systemic tx, ECOG PS 0–2, and low- or intermediate-risk MSKCC score were randomized 1:1 to SOR 400 mg BID or PBO. End points included OS, PFS, and safety. A single planned analysis of PFS showed a significant benefit of SOR over PBO; consequently, pts assigned to PBO were offered SOR. Descriptive analysis of safety and efficacy of pts treated >1 year (y) was conducted. Results: 169/903 pts were randomized to SOR and treated >1 y and 27 pts treated >2 y. Due to crossover of PBO to SOR, only 6 pts randomized to PBO were treated with SOR >1 y. Pts treated with SOR >1 y had median PFS of 10.9 months and a response rate of 22.5%. Median tx duration was 20 months. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) were mainly grades 1 and 2 and occurred early during tx (see Table ); 31% and 22% of pts required dose interruption and reduction, respectively, because of AEs. Conclusions: Long-term tx with SOR did not result in new toxicities or an increase in overall incidence of tx-related AEs. Toxicity was not cumulative and no increase in grades 3/4 AEs was observed. Pts with preexisting cardiac disease or hypertension tolerated long-term tx with SOR; no dose reduction was required. No increase in cardiovascular toxicity was observed in this pt population. Long-term tx of pts with advanced RCC with SOR is medically manageable, with a predictable AE profile. [Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with diabetes: Results from the phase III TARGET study

e16099

Background: Results of the phase III TARGET trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sorafenib (SOR) treatment in pts with clear-cell RCC in whom 1 prior systemic therapy had failed, indicated that SOR is effective and safe for pts with advanced RCC, leading to the approval of SOR for the treatment of advanced RCC. Diabetes can be associated with increased morbidity during treatment in a variety of malignancies. Therefore, an exploratory subset analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SOR in pts enrolled in TARGET with or without diabetes at baseline. Methods: Pts (N=903) with advanced clear-cell RCC, ECOG PS 0–2, and low- or intermediate-risk MSKCC score were randomized 1:1 to SOR 400 mg BID or placebo (PBO). End points included OS, PFS, and safety. A planned independently-assessed formal analysis of PFS showed significant benefit for SOR over PBO; consequently, pts assigned to PBO were able to cross over to SOR. Results: Pt demographics were similar for all subsets. Pre- crossover data by subset are shown in the table . The incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) across subgroups was consistent with that for the overall population. In pts with vs without diabetes, treatment with SOR was not associated with increased hyperglycemia (1 pt/arm in the without diabetes subgroups only) or hypertension. Conclusions: The safety profile of SOR in pts with diabetes was comparable with that for the overall study population. SOR was well tolerated and AEs were manageable. Trends in improved PFS were observed for SOR regardless of baseline diabetes status; however, the small diabetic subset limits interpretation of a SOR OS benefit in this subpopulation. *Final PFS of overall study population based on independent review from Jan 2005; all other data from May 2005 database [Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Tau expression as a predictive marker in ovarian cancer patients (pts) treated with platinum/paclitaxel chemotherapy

5529

Background: Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer and its standard treatment consists of cytoreductive surgery followed by paclitaxel/platinum-based chemotherapy. Additional prognostic biomarkers may allow for more tailored chemotherapy and an improved outcome. Recently, microtubule associated protein tau was identified as a marker of response to paclitaxel in breast cancer. Its predictive value in ovarian cancer has not been established. We evaluated the relevance of tau expression in ovarian cancer. Methods: Tissue specimens were obtained from 74 ovarian cancer patients (stage I-IV) who underwent cytoreductive surgery followed by standard paclitaxel/platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) chemotherapy. Tau expression was determined by immunohistochemistry using semiquantitative DAKO test. Statistical analysis included long rank test and Mann Whitney test. Results: Median age of pts was 54 years (range 31–73). 25.7% and 74.3% of the pts were classified as tau-negative and tau-positive, respectively. In the univariate analysis 2-year progression free survival in tau-negative and tau-positive groups was 75.0% and 30.6%, respectively (p = 0.0153). This relationship was confirmed in the multivariate analysis including age, disease stage, histology type, and grade (HR 2.68; 95%CI [1.13–6.37]; p = 0.0255). Among the 46 pts with measurable disease, overall response rate in tau-negative and tau-positive groups was 90.9 and 54.5%, respectively (p = 0.0299, Z = 2.17). Conclusions: Tau protein expression seems to be a strong predictor of clinical outcome in ovarian cancer pts applied paclitaxel/platinum-based chemotherapy.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Molecular characteristics of matched brain metastasis (BM) versus the primary breast cancer (PBC)

Abstract #2028

Background: Brain is increasingly a site of relapse in breast cancer patients, however the molecular patho-physiology of this process is not well understood. Using a novel assay allowing high-throughput analysis of gene expression from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPET) tumor samples, we compared molecular characteristics of BM with those of the PBC in a series of breast cancer patients who underwent excision of brain metastasis.&#x2028; Methods: In each patient we performed molecular analysis of paired archived FFPET specimens from both the PBC and excised BM. Of the 37 pairs of PBC/BM samples, 24 pairs had sufficient pathology material for molecular analysis. Patient characteristics: mean age at PBC diagnosis was 46.7 years (range 27-67 years); 7 (29%) ER+, 17 (71%) ER-, 12 (50%) HER2-positive(3+). We performed cDNA-mediated annealing, selection, extension and ligation (DASL) assay (Illumina Corp) for expression of 502 known cancer genes, using 200 ng RNA. Statistical analysis for microarrays (SAM) accounting for the pairing of the primary and metastasized tumors was used to identify differentially expressed genes while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR &lt;0.01). BeadStudio™ Absolute correlation clustering was used to cluster samples based on their expression profiles.&#x2028; Results: In only 7 (29%) cases matched PBC and BM pair clustered together on unsupervised hierarchical clustering, the pairs in remaining cases clustered apart. Comparison of the two groups (PBC and BM) showed that 41 genes were up regulated in BM, including proliferation genes (CDC2, CDC25a, CCNA2 and E2F family), anti-apoptotic (BIRC5), DNA repair (RAD51, -54b, XRCC2, BRCA2, BARD1, TOP1), angiogenesis (VEGF), and development of drug resistance (ABCB1, -G2). In contrast, the 43 genes that were down regulated in BM included those associated with invasion (MMP2, -3, -14), cellular motility, and epithelial to mesenchymal transformation (CDH11). Additional analysis to validate these trends and to identify potential therapeutic targets is underway.&#x2028; Conclusions: Although some BM retain remarkable similarity to the PBC, majority exhibit considerable deviation in their gene expression profile. These “adaptive” changes include greater resistance to drug therapy, increased DNA repair, a reversal back to the epithelial phenotype and decreased capacity for cell motility and invasion.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 2028.

Two different first-line 5-fluorouracil regimens with or without oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin (LV) are standard first-line treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The aim of this multicentre, open-label, phase IIIb study was to assess the addition of oxaliplatin to two different 5-FU regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomised to arm A [two-weekly oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) + either continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) of 5-FU without LV or two-weekly bolus and CIV 5-FU + LV (LV5FU2)] or arm B (5-FU CIV or LV5FU2 alone). Irinotecan monotherapy was planned on progression.

RESULTS

A total of 725 patients were enrolled. After a fixed follow-up of 2 years for each patient, 2-year survival rates were 27.3% and 24.8% in arms A and B, respectively (hazard ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.10). The addition of oxaliplatin significantly improved response rates (54.1 versus 29.8%; P < 0.0001) and median progression-free survival (7.9 versus 5.9 months; P < 0.0001). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (arm A, 33%; arm B, 5%), diarrhoea (arm A, 14%; arm B, 8%), and fatigue (arm A, 9%; arm B, 8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved rates of tumour control, these results failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to infused 5-FU and lend further support to the use of sequential monotherapy in some patients with mCRC.