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: 2.14). 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: We retrospectively analyzed metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with 3 targeted agents. Patients started the sequence with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), sunitinib or sorafenib, and were divided into 2 groups based on the order in which they received the other reciprocal TKI and everolimus (EVE): TKI-TKI-EVE group (n = 19) and TKI-EVE-TKI group (n = 14). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with first TKI was 13 months in the TKI-TKI-EVE group and 10 months in the TKI-EVE-TKI group. PFS with the second agent showed a trend in favor of the TKI-TKI-EVE sequence, with a median of 11 versus 6.5 months, whereas median PFS with the third agent was 6 months in both groups. Total PFS also showed a trend in favor of the TKI-TKI-EVE sequence with a median of 31 versus 23 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 38 months in both groups, with more patients receiving subsequent treatment in the TKI-EVE-TKI group. The subgroup of patients no long-term responders (≤9 months) to first TKI showed similar outcomes irrespective of the sequence. The subgroup of long-term responders to first TKI (>9 months) who received the other TKI instead of EVE had better outcomes in terms of median PFS with the second agent (13 vs. 5.5 months; p = 0.0271), median total PFS (39.5 vs. 23.5 months; p = 0.0415), and median OS (46 vs. 38 months). In conclusion, no apparent advantage was observed with early use of EVE in advanced RCC, even in those patients who did not benefit long from first-line TKI, whereas long-term duration of first-line TKI seems to be predictor of second-line TKI efficacy.
    Medical Oncology 06/2013; 30(2):578. · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORI) everolimus and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib are the only two post-first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) licensed at present. Extrapolation of robust phase III studies suggests that median progression-free survival (PFS) is similar between agents. This presents a dilemma for the physician planning treatment for their patients with mRCC: should they be treated with a TKI–mTORI or a TKI–TKI sequence? The lack of direct comparison between axitinib and everolimus leaves the clinician without clear guidance on the optimal choice in second-line therapy. In phase III studies, both post first-line everolimus and axitinib have been shown to delay disease progression; however, cumulative toxicity with sequential use of TKIs may result in more treatment interruptions or dose reductions or increased likelihood of adverse events. While everolimus exerts a tolerability advantage, axitinib is associated with higher response rate and a similar PFS benefit. Proven superiority cannot be used to guide treatment sequence selection in mRCC. Instead, therapeutic planning requires us to take a long-term view of our patient’s treatment that includes quality of life and a balance between symptom control, adverse event management and avoidance of unnecessary drug interruptions or dose reductions. In the absence of curative therapies, sustaining a patient’s quality of life is a major goal throughout the course of treatment and choosing a second-line agent that is able to adequately achieve this by limiting adverse events should be a priority.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 01/2014; · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Sunitinib is a standard agent for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of the study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of pazopanib in the treatment of patients whose mRCC either progressed on sunitinib or who discontinued sunitinib due to adverse effects. Material and methods. Thirty-one consecutive mRCC patients who received pazopanib after sunitinib failure were included in this retrospective single center study. Pazopanib was continued until disease progression or intolerance. Treatment response was evaluated every 8-12 weeks according to the RECIST criteria. Adverse events were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Results. Six patients (19%, 95% CI 12-26%) achieved partial response with pazopanib, 18 (58%) had stable disease, and seven (23%) progressive disease as their best response. Of the 14 patients who received pazopanib as their second-line therapy, six (43%) responded as compared with no responses among 17 patients treated in a later line (p = 0.004). The median progression-free survival time was 7.4 months after starting pazopanib (range, 0.9-15.6 months). Patients who received pazopanib as second-line treatment had median progression-free survival of 11.0 months as compared with 3.8 months among those who received pazopanib in a later line (p = 0.031). Only one (3%) patient discontinued pazopanib due to an adverse event. The most commonly recorded adverse events were anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and elevation of serum creatinine concentration. Six (19%) patients had one or more grade 3 or 4 adverse events recorded. Conclusion. Pazopanib has clinical activity in mRCC as second-line agent after sunitinib failure suggesting lack of complete cross-resistance. Pazopanib was associated with acceptable toxicity, and may be considered as an option after sunitinib failure.
    Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 05/2013; · 2.27 Impact Factor