Sequential use of sorafenib and sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: does the order of sequencing matter?

Medical Oncology Division and Breast Unit, Sen. Antonio Perrino Hospital, state street 7 to Mesagne, 72100 Brindisi, Italy.
Medical Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.06). 08/2011; 29(3):1908-13. DOI: 10.1007/s12032-011-0048-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate the sequential use of two tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI), sorafenib (SOR) and sunitinib (SUN), in advanced renal carcinoma. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcome of 33 patients who had experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity after receiving either sorafenib or sunitinib and then switched to the other reciprocal agent. Progression-free survival (PFS) during the first TKI was similar regardless of drug with a median of 6 months in the SOR-SUN group (n = 15) and 7.5 months in the SUN-SOR group (n = 18). Interestingly, PFS during the second TKI was significantly longer in the SOR-SUN group as compared to the SUN-SOR group with median values of 11 and 3 months, respectively (P = 0.0377; HR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.16-0.95). As a consequence, total PFS (sum of PFS on first and second TKI) was significantly longer in the SOR-SUN group than in the SUN-SOR group with medians of 20 versus 10 months, respectively (P = 0.0393; HR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.18-0.96). Median wash-out period between the two TKI was 3 weeks in both groups. Differences in baseline characteristics, including histology and line of treatment, were not significant, and toxicity was not increased during the second part of the sequence. Here, we show that responses can be achieved when a second TKI is given soon after a TKI failure in renal cancer with apparent more durable disease control when SOR is followed by SUN.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Angiogenesis constitutes a major process in cancer progression, especially by promoting the growth of malignant cells and dissemination of metastases. The development of anti-angiogenic targeted therapies has made significant progress over the last decade. Since the discovery of bevacizumab, numerous therapies have been designed. Among them, small molecules that inhibit the tyrosine-kinase activity of pro-angiogenic receptors such as VEGFR, are the most studied today. Current research focuses on the development of new targeted-therapies, able to inhibit the activity of several receptors at the same time and with a greater affinity. This article reviews the data on anti-angiogenic targetedtherapies, from available molecules to drugs still in the process of development.
    Oncologie 04/2012; 14(4). DOI:10.1007/s10269-012-2142-4 · 0.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Introduction: Currently, the best sequence of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has not been sufficiently defined and is based on the patient's and physician's decision, which may be influenced by comorbidities and toxicity profiles. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of target therapies on clinical practice after the era of cytokine-based therapy in mRCC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients with mRCC treated at our Clinical Oncology Unit from June 1998 to September 2010. Results: We evaluated 61 patients: 21 (34.4%) with only cytokine-based therapy (95.2% interferon-α), 24 (39.3%) with target therapies in first line (100% sunitinib), and 16 (26.2%) with target therapies in second or subsequent line. Median time follow-up was 16.18 months (range 2.1-171.1). Considering the type of therapy, the univariate analysis for overall survival showed statistically significant advantages for the use of target therapies in second or subsequent line (p=0.024). Conclusions: Our data and consequently our proposal to revaluate the role of immunotherapy (also with the possibility of adding bevacizumab) in the first line are heavily provocative to point out the attention to this actually partially unsolved question; other larger experiences, pre-eminent opinion, and clinical trials are needed.
    Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals 06/2012; 27(8):513-8. DOI:10.1089/cbr.2012.1250 · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We performed a literature search that shed light on the signaling pathways involved in the sorafenib activity as first- or subsequent-line treatment, taking into account its toxicity profile. Sorafenib appears to have better tolerability when compared with other agents in the same indication. Cross-resistance between tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be limited, even after failure with a previous VEGFR inhibitor, but the optimal sequence with TKIs remains to be determined. Randomized trials of second-line treatment options have showed either modest or no differences in terms of progression-free and overall survival (OS). Direct comparison between sorafenib and axitinib demonstrated differences in terms of PFS in favor of axitinib, but not in terms of OS as second-line treatment. In contrast, a phase III study showed a benefit in OS, favoring sorafenib when compared with temsirolimus. In conclusion, after using other VEGF inhibitor such as sunitinib, sorafenib is active and safe for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC.
    Clinical and Translational Oncology 02/2013; 15(6). DOI:10.1007/s12094-012-0985-x · 1.60 Impact Factor