Article

Evaluation of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line treatment

Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Passeig de la Vall d'Hebron, 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain.
CANCER AND METASTASIS REVIEW (Impact Factor: 7.23). 06/2012; 31 Suppl 1(S1):S3-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10555-012-9353-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

The approval and use of molecular targeted agents for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has substantially improved the clinical outcome of patients. Although eventually all patients progress, hopes have been renewed with the approval of everolimus for patients who progress on or after treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In order to improve the prognosis for these patients, it is imperative to understand the reasons why patients with mRCC fail on first-line treatment. Currently, progression is assessed on the basis of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, but it is known that targeted agents tend to cause disease stabilization rather than a significant decrease in tumor mass. Therefore, it may be time to evaluate the need to incorporate additional diagnostic methods in the assessment of disease response. Equally important is the study of the factors that determine the success or failure of second-line therapy in order to increase the chances of delivering the most effective and personalized therapy possible. In this article, we review the evidence related to the evaluation of patients with mRCC who fail on first-line treatment with targeted agents, including the systems to assess response and progression, the prognostic factors, the prognostic models that have been created based on these factors, and what is known about predictive biomarkers of disease outcome.

0 Followers
 · 
7 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To investigate associations between computed tomographic (CT) features of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and mutations in VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, KDM5C, or BAP1 genes. Materials and methods: The institutional review board approved this retrospective, hypothesis-generating study of 233 patients with clear cell RCC and waived the informed consent requirement. The study was HIPAA compliant. Three radiologists independently reviewed pretreatment CT images of all clear cell RCCs without knowledge of their genomic profile. One radiologist measured largest diameter and enhancement parameters of each clear cell RCC. Associations between CT features and mutations in VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, KDM5C, and BAP1 genes were tested by using the Fisher exact test. Associations between mutations and size and enhancement were assessed by using the independent t test. Interreader agreement was calculated by using the Fleiss κ. Results: Mutation frequencies among clear cell RCCs were as follows: VHL, 53.2% (124 of 233); PBRM1, 28.8% (67 of 233); SETD2, 7.3% (17 of 233); KDM5C, 6.9% (16 of 233); and BAP1, 6.0% (14 of 233). Mutations of VHL were significantly associated with well-defined tumor margins (P = .013), nodular tumor enhancement (P = .021), and gross appearance of intratumoral vascularity (P = .018). Mutations of KDM5C and BAP1 were significantly associated with evidence of renal vein invasion (P = .022 and .046, respectively). The genotype of solid clear cell RCC differed significantly from the genotype of multicystic clear cell RCC. While mutations of SETD2, KDM5C, and BAP1 were absent in multicystic clear cell RCC, mutations of VHL (P = .016) and PBRM1 (P = .017) were significantly more common among solid clear cell RCC. Interreader agreement for CT feature assessments ranged from substantial to excellent (κ = 0.791-0.912). Conclusion: This preliminary radiogenomics analysis of clear cell RCC revealed associations between CT features and underlying mutations that warrant further investigation and validation.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2013 · Radiology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current paradigm in attempting to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a first line treatment with a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antagonist and second and subsequent treatments with either a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) or a mTOR (mammalian Target of Rapamycin) inhibitor, while conventional chemotherapeutic and hormonal treatment do not play a role in the management of mRCC. Several drugs directed against VEGF and VEGFR have been developed in recent times. Based on phase III data, sunitinib, pazopanib and sorafenib represent the best-supported drugs in first-line therapy. Second-line treatment possibilities are axitinib, everolimus and sorafenib. Choosing the right combination of first and second line treatments, however, is difficult, because the success of treatment depends on the individual precondition of the patient. Hence, biomarkers indicating the best choice of therapy in individual patients are searched and newer trials are set to determine the role of surgery and vaccination together with anti-angiogenic drugs in the treatment of mRCC. In this review, current guidelines in mRCC management are summarized and possibilities of future personalized therapies are pointed out.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2014 · Current Vascular Pharmacology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: We developed an outcomes model to select patients for renal cell cancer vaccine immunotherapy. Materials and methods: We examined clinical data from 2 phase II studies of modified vaccinia Ankara as vector to express 5T4 (MVA-5T4), calculated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and created risk groups based on the number of factors involved. Results: Median OS was 12.4 months; median PFS was 3.6 months. Significant factors (p<0.05) included neutrophils (both), bone metastases (OS), ECOG performance status (OS), lactate dehydrogenase levels (both), prior therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors plus immunotherapy (OS), Fuhrman grade (OS), and 5T4-specific ELISPOT response (PFS). By group, median OS was not reached in patients with favorable risk (censored at cutoff), was 13.7 months in those with intermediate risk and 4.0 months in those with poor risk. Conclusions: Further validation of this model will identify the patients most likely to respond to MVA-5T4 and provide a framework for outcomes models for other vaccine therapies.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2014 · The International journal of biological markers