Uveal melanoma: In the era of new treatments

Uveal melanoma (UM), also known as choroidal melanoma, is the leading adult intraocular tumor worldwide, affecting mainly Caucasian populations. The last decade has seen an improvement in the outcome of these tumors at the localized stage, in favor of conservative treatment of the eye, notably with new radioactive treatment techniques. Despite optimal management, half of the patients will become metastatic, with liver involvement in 90% of cases. The prognosis is pejorative and considers clinical, tumor anatomy, histological and molecular parameters. This review provides a broad overview of the different therapeutic options for the management of localized or metastatic UM disease, with recently updated data. Despite the known limited efficacy of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we discuss the first results of combined immunotherapies, the arrival of a new first-in-class immunomodulatory treatment Tebentafusp, in HLA-A*02:01 patients, avenues of research into targeted anti-tyrosine kinase therapies, and the growing use of ctDNA to guide treatment prescription.

Adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: does higher risk for recurrence improve the chance for success?

The success of targeted therapies, including inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway or the mammalian target of rapamycin, in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma led to interest in testing their efficacy in the adjuvant setting. Results from the first trials are now available, with other studies due to report imminently. This review provides an overview of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma, including interpretation of currently available conflicting data and future direction of research. We discuss the key differences between the completed targeted therapy adjuvant trials, and highlight the importance of accurately identifying patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment. We also consider reasons why blinded independent radiology review and treatment dose may prove critical for adjuvant treatment success. The implications of using disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival from the patient perspective and measurement of health benefit have recently been brought into focus and are discussed. Finally, we discuss how the ongoing adjuvant trials with targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors may improve our understanding and ability to prevent tumor recurrence after nephrectomy in the future.

Hepatic intra-arterial versus intravenous fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma (EORTC 18021): a multicentric randomized trial

BACKGROUND

In uveal melanoma (UM) with metastatic disease limited to the liver, the effect of an intrahepatic treatment on survival is unknown. We investigated prospectively the efficacy and toxicity of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) versus systemic (IV) fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from UM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IV or HIA fotemustine at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 (and 22 in HIA arm only) as induction, and after a 5-week rest period every 3 weeks as maintenance. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary end points.

RESULTS

Accrual was stopped after randomization of 171 patients based on the results of a futility OS analysis. A total of 155 patients died and 16 were still alive [median follow-up 1.6 years (range 0.25-6 years)]. HIA did not improve OS (median 14.6 months) when compared with the IV arm (median 13.8 months), hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.50, log-rank P = 0.59. However, there was a significant benefit on PFS for HIA compared with IV with a median of 4.5 versus 3.5 months, respectively (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84, log-rank P = 0.002). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% in the HIA arm versus 8% in the IV arm. An improved RR was seen in the HIA (10.5%) compared with IV treatment (2.4%). In the IV arm, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (42.1%) and neutropenia (62.6%), compared with 21.2% and 28.7% in the HIA arm. The main grade ≥3 toxicity related to HIA was catheter complications (12%) and liver toxicity (4.5%) apart from two toxic deaths.

CONCLUSION

HIA treatment with fotemustine did not translate into an improved OS compared with IV treatment, despite better RR and PFS. Intrahepatic treatment should still be considered as experimental.

EUDRACT NUMBER AND CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

2004-002245-12 and NCT00110123.

Q-TWiST analysis to estimate overall benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-α

Background:

In a randomised phase III trial of treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with interferon (IFN)-α. We assessed between-treatment differences in overall benefit using a quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (TWiST; Gelber and Goldhirsch) analysis.

Methods:

In this analysis, in which only grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were included, overall survival was partitioned into three health states: toxicity (time with toxicity after randomisation and before progression), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and time from progression until death. Between-treatment differences in the mean duration of each state were calculated. A threshold utility analysis was used to assess quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) outcomes.

Results:

Q-TWiST scores showed that quality-adjusted survival time was greater with sunitinib than with IFN-α, even though certain grade 3/4 toxicities occurred more frequently with sunitinib. For both treatments, the mean number of days with toxicity was small compared with PFS. This effect was more pronounced with sunitinib in which time spent without progression or toxicity was 151 days greater than with IFN-α.

Conclusion:

Patients randomised to sunitinib had longer clinical benefit, defined as Q-TWiST scores, than patients randomised to IFN-α.

TORAVA trial: Lessons from this trial in the two control arms, sunitinib and bevacizumab in combination with interferon

315

Background: The TORAVA trial, reported at ASCO 2010, was a randomized phase II study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of temsirolimus and bevacizumab combination. Both efficacy and safety were demonstrated as insufficient. Interestingly, 2 control arms were used in this study, sunitinib (arm B) or bevacizumab and a-interferon (arm C). Both PFS and RR were higher in arm C than arm B (16.8 mths and 39% vs. 8.6 mths and 23.8%). Post-hoc analysis were thus performed to determine the predictive factors for better efficacy.

Methods: Overall, 171 pts were randomized in this study, 42 in arm B and 41 in arm C. The study was stratified on PS only, 0–1 vs 2. These 83 pts were analyzed regarding baseline characteristics, and dose reduction.

Results: Some important differences were detected in the 2 arms, in favor of arm C: DFI>12mths (29 vs. 39%), good MSKCC risk (31 vs. 39%), Fuhrman grade 1–2 (32 vs. 38%), liver metastases (19 vs. 14.6%), high LDH (17.1 vs. 7.9%). Interestingly, pts who had dose reduction of interferon (27/41 pts) had a longer PFS than those who did not reduced the dose. Updated analyses will be presented.

Conclusions: Small randomized trials such as randomized phase II trials are not guaranteed to balance predictive/ prognostic factors across treatment arms. Before interpreting RR and PFS in mRCC, careful analysis of pt characteristics should be performed. However, this study will probably help to determine a population more likely to benefit from bevacizumab-interferon combination.

[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.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with and without prior cytokine therapy, a subanalysis of TARGET

Before the development of targeted therapies, administration of cytokines (e.g., interleukin-2, interferon-alpha) was the primary systemic treatment option for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sorafenib, an oral targeted, multikinase inhibitor, significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET), a large (N = 903) phase III, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma resistant to standard therapy. This analysis of a patient subgroup from TARGET evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients who had received prior cytokine therapy (sorafenib: n = 374; placebo: n = 368) and in patients who were cytokine-naïve (sorafenib: n = 77; placebo: n = 84). Progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with sorafenib therapy compared with placebo among patients with and without prior cytokine therapy (respectively 5.5 vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64 and 5.8 vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.73). Clinical benefit rates for sorafenib-treated patients compared with placebo patients were also higher (cytokine-treated: 83 vs. 54.3%; cytokine-naïve: 85.7 vs. 56.0%). Sorafenib was well tolerated in both subgroups (grade 3/4: 20 and 22%, respectively). Sorafenib demonstrated a consistent, significant clinical benefit against advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a twofold improvement in progression-free survival and disease control rate, with similar toxicities in patients with or without prior cytokine treatment.

Final results of the phase III, randomized, double-blind AVOREN trial of first-line bevacizumab (BEV) + interferon-α2a (IFN) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

5020

Background: In the AVOREN trial, BEV (Avastin) + IFN significantly improved PFS and ORR compared with placebo + IFN in pts with mRCC [Escudier, Lancet. 2007]. The study was unblinded after interim analysis due to significant superiority of BEV + IFN and the DSMB recommended crossover of pts from placebo to BEV (n = 13). We report here the results of the final analysis. Methods: Eligible pts had predominantly clear-cell mRCC, prior nephrectomy, no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease, KPS ≥70%, no CNS metastases and adequate organ function. Pts were randomised to IFN (9MIU tiw) + BEV (10 mg/kg q2w) or placebo until disease progression. Primary endpoint was OS, with pre-planned stratified and unstratified analyses according to regional regulatory requirements. Results: 649 pts were randomised to BEV + IFN (n = 327) or placebo + IFN (n = 322). An independent radiological review confirmed previous investigator assessments, showing PFS of 10.4 vs 5.5 months (HR 0.57) and a response rate of 31% vs 12% in the two arms, verifying the robustness of the investigator analysis. At the time of final OS analysis (444 events), median follow-up was 22.9 months in the BEV arm and 20.6 months in the placebo arm. Final median OS stratified for region and Motzer score was 23.3 months in the BEV + IFN arm and 21.3 months in the IFN + placebo arm (HR 0.86 [95% CI: 0.72–1.04], p = 0.1291). No new or unexpected AEs were observed. More pts in the IFN + placebo arm than the BEV + IFN arm received post-protocol therapy, including TKIs, mTOR inhibitors, cytokines and chemotherapy: 180 (55%) in the BEV + IFN arm and 202 (63%) in the IFN + placebo arm. Exploratory analysis showed that median OS in pts receiving second-line TKI therapy (BEV + IFN, n = 96; IFN + placebo, n = 81) was 38.6 months vs 33.2 months (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.51–1.15], p = 0.1948). Further subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusions: BEV + IFN is a first-line standard of care for pts with mRCC, improving PFS and ORR, with a trend toward improved OS, compared with IFN. The observed OS results may have been influenced by subsequent anti-neoplastic therapy, which was not prespecified in the protocol and represents an uncontrolled element of the OS analysis.

[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]

Sequential sorafenib and sunitinib for renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Sorafenib and sunitinib are 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors that were recently approved for renal cell carcinoma. In many patients sequential administration of the 2 drugs occurs because of the lack of sustained efficacy of the first agent. We determined the efficacy and safety of sequential administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To determine whether cross-resistance occurs between these 2 drugs we analyzed the outcome in 90 consecutive patients with renal cell carcinoma from 4 sites in France who had received the 2 drugs sequentially. All patients received sorafenib followed by sunitinib or vice versa. From 2003 to 2006, 68 patients received sorafenib, while 22 received sunitinib first.

RESULTS

In the sorafenib-sunitinib group median progression-free survival was 26 weeks with sorafenib and 28 with sunitinib. In the sunitinib-sorafenib group median progression-free survival was 22 weeks with sunitinib and 17 with sorafenib. Median overall survival was 135 weeks in the sorafenib-sunitinib group and 82 weeks in the sunitinib-sorafenib group (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96, p = 0.04). The average duration of sequential administration was 61 and 49 weeks, respectively, in the sorafenib-sunitinib and sunitinib-sorafenib groups. Each sequence was well tolerated and no increase in grade 3-4 toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall this retrospective study supports the conclusion of the lack of absolute cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In this renal cell carcinoma population sorafenib followed by sunitinib was associated with longer survival than sunitinib followed by sorafenib. However, this observation needs further confirmation.

Breast cancer predictions by neural networks analysis: a comparison with logistic regression

This paper presents an exploratory fixed time study to identify the most significant covariates as a precursor to a longitudinal study of specific mortality, disease free survival and disease recurrences. The data comprise consecutive patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer and entered into the study from 1996 at a single French clinical center, Centre Léon Bérard, based in Lyon, where they received standard treatment. The methodology was to compare and contrast multi-layer perceptron neural networks (NN) with logistic regression (LR), to identify key covariates and their interactions and to compare the selected variables with those routinely used in clinical severity of illness indices for breast cancer. The Logistic regression in this work was chosen as an accepted standard for prediction by biostatisticians in order to evaluate the neural network. Only covariates available at the time of diagnosis and immediately following surgery were used. We used for comparison classification performance indices: AUROC (AREA Under Receiver-Operating Characteristics) curves, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value for the two following events of interest: Specific Mortality and Disease Free Survival.