Article

Sequential therapy with sorafenib and sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.
Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.9). 01/2009; 115(1):61-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sunitinib and sorafenib are small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) with antitumor activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma. A retrospective study was conducted to assess the response of renal cell carcinoma to sequential treatment with these two agents.
Tumor response was evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria in patients failing first-line therapy with either sunitinib or sorafenib and subsequently receiving second-line therapy with the other TKI agent.
Twenty-nine patients received sorafenib followed by sunitinib (Group A), and 20 patients received sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Group B). TKI drugs were terminated in 6 (12%) patients in Group A and 4 (8%) in Group B because of toxicity. Median duration of stable disease for Groups A and B was 20 and 9.5 weeks, respectively. Median time from starting first TKI to disease progression after second TKI (time to progression) in Groups A and B was 78 and 37 weeks, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that Group B had a shorter time to progression than Group A (risk ratio [RR] 3.0; P=.016). Median overall survival was 102 and 45 weeks in Groups A and B, respectively (P=.061).
The longer duration of disease control in patients who received sorafenib followed by sunitinib warrants further investigation.

0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Because of the rare occurrence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) among children very little is known about this malignancy in pediatric age. We aimed adding knowledge on the clinical characteristics and outcome of metastatic (m) RCC in children and adolescents. Patients and Methods: The series included 14 stage 4 RCC patients with a median age at diagnosis of 155.5 months, observed at the Italian Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Association (AIEOP) centers from January 1973 to November 2010. We were able to reevaluate histopatology of 11 out of the 14 patients and perform immunostaining for TFE3 in 9 out of the 11 patients. Results: Of the 14 patients under study, 5 (3 girls) had a translocation morphology TFE+ RCC, 2 were reassigned as papillary type 1 or 2, respectively, 2 tumor specimens with primary clear cell histology had confirmed the initial histologic diagnosis, and 2—whose biopsy specimen was insufficient—had the diagnosis of RCC not further specified with subtyping. In the remaining 3 cases, the initial diagnosis of clear cell carcinoma was left. Overall, 6 patients received chemotherapy, 9 immunotherapy, and 2 adjuvant antiangiogenic therapy. Overall, 11 patients (78.5%) never achieved complete remission and died from progressive disease 1 to 16 months after diagnosis (median overall survival 5.5 mo). Three patients, 2 of whom received adjuvant antiangiogenic therapy, relapsed to lung at 3, 6, and 8 months after diagnosis, and died 18, 32, and 33 months after diagnosis, respectively. Conclusions: Despite their possibly different biology, childhood and adult mRCC seems to be sharing comparable outcomes. Because of the very low incidence of mRCC (about 20%) in children and adolescents, an international pediatric cooperation to address biological studies and assess the novel targeted approaches is needed.
    Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 01/2012; 34(7):e277-e281. DOI:10.1097/MPH.0b013e318267fb12 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since 2005, an abundance of targeted agents has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), without any specification as to what may be the most optimal first-line and second-line sequence. Hence, our objective was to critically examine the evidence supporting the use of first-line and second-line agents in the management of mRCC. Our review suggests that in first line, sunitinib and pazopanib represent treatment options for patients with favorable or intermediate-risk features and clear cell histology. Unfortunately, the Phase III trial cannot conclusively prove the noninferiority of pazopanib relative to sunitinib. Hence, the use of sunitinib as first-line standard of care remains justified. Pazopanib represents an option for specific patients in whom sunitinib might not be tolerated. In patients with poor-risk features, temsirolimus represents the only option supported with level 1 evidence. Less optimal alternatives include sunitinib and bevacizumab combined with interferon, based on the minimal inclusion of poor-risk patients in pivotal Phase III studies of these two molecules. In patients with non-clear cell mRCC, the use of temsirolimus is supported by Phase III data, unlike for any other molecule. In second line, the options consist of everolimus and axitinib. However, the axitinib data are substantially more robust given the inclusion of more patients considered as true second-line, and validly justify the choice of axitinib over everolimus. Nonetheless, the Phase III trial of everolimus may be considered as level 1 evidence for use as third-line or subsequent lines of therapy.
    International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease 01/2014; 7:401-7. DOI:10.2147/IJNRD.S48496
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the approval of Sorafenib and Sunitinib, many advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients have been empirically treated by using the two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in sequence with the aim of prolonging the stabilization of their disease. This strategy is supported by the results of few small prospective and several small retrospective studies, all indicating that there is limited or no cross-resistance between the two TKIs. On the other hand, data from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III RECORD-1 trial showed that the mTOR inhibitor Everolimus is as effective after one TKI as it is after both TKIs. In this review we comment all the available evidence on this important subject*irrespective of its formal relevance*critically discussing the results obtained so far, with the aim of helping us to make the best clinical decisions possible.