Search

Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Methods: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445.Findings: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none).Interpretation: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors.Funding: Novartis and Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Transperineal prostate brachytherapy (TPPB) can be used with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to provide a high-dose conformal boost to the prostate. The results of a multicenter Phase II trial assessing safety of combination of EBRT and TPPB boost with androgen suppression (AST) in treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer are present here. Materials and Methods: Patients had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Six months of AST was administered. EBRT to the prostate and seminal vesicles was administered to 45Gy followed by TPPB using either 125I or 103Pd to deliver an additional 100Gy or 90Gy. Toxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute CTC version 2 and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group late radiation morbidity scoring systems. Results: Sixty-three patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 38 months. Side effects of AST including sexual dysfunction and vasomotor symptoms were commonly observed. Apart from erectile dysfunction, short-term Grade 2 and 3 toxicity was noted in 21% and 7%, primarily genitourinary related. Long-term Grade 2 and 3 toxicities were noted in 13% and 3%. Two patients had Grade 3 dysuria that resolved with longer follow-up. The most common Grade 2 long-term toxicity was urinary frequency (5%). No biochemical or clinical evidence of progression was noted for the entire cohort. Conclusions: In a cooperative group setting, combination EBRT and TPPB boost with 6 months of AST was generally well tolerated with expected genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities. Further follow-up will be required to fully assess long-term toxicity and cancer control. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Institution of early hormone therapy in the PSA era coupled with demonstration of clinical benefit with chemotherapy in hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) and acceptance of PSA decline as a surrogate for response has resulted in introduction of chemotherapy earlier in the natural history of disease. There now exists a need to identify, effective agents for second line chemotherapy. 9-Nitrocamptothecin (9-NC) a novel, oral camptothecin analogue was tested as second line chemotherapy for patients with progressive hormone refractory prostate cancer.Patients and methods: Eligible patients had metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer with performance status (0–1) following progression on at least 1 prior cytotoxic chemotherapy. 9-NC was administered orally at the dose of 1.5 mg/m2/d for 5 days each week for 3 weeks, followed by rest for 1 week. Response was evaluated after 2 cycles according to the guidelines set forth for Phase II trials in HRPC by the PSA working group.Results: Thirty-five patients were recruited to the study within a period of 6 months; 33 were evaluable for analysis. No patients had a >50% decline in PSA levels. Two out of 8 (25%) patients with measurable disease and 5/25 (20%) patients with nonmeasurable disease showed stable disease. The median time to disease and PSA progression was 2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9–2.8]. The median overall survival was 10 months (95% CI = 5–12). Seven patients are alive after a median follow-up of 23 months.Conclusions: 9-Nitrocamptothecin failed to elicit clinical or PSA responses. Further study in pretreated HRPC patients is not warranted. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]