Search

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of human cancer, with a continually increasing annual incidence in the United States. When diagnosed early, the majority of BCCs are readily treated with office-based therapy, which is highly curative. In these evidence-based guidelines of care, we provide recommendations for the management of patients with BCC, as well as an in-depth review of the best available literature in support of these recommendations. We discuss biopsy techniques for a clinically suspicious lesion and offer recommendations for the histopathologic interpretation of BCC. In the absence of a formal staging system, the best available stratification based on risk for recurrence is reviewed. With regard to treatment, we provide recommendations on treatment modalities along a broad therapeutic spectrum, ranging from topical agents and superficially destructive modalities to surgical techniques and systemic therapy. Finally, we review the available literature and provide recommendations on prevention and the most appropriate follow-up for patients in whom BCC has been diagnosed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient survival with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved with the use of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy. Given the potential activity of these agents in treating brain metastases, the role of aggressive local management with surgery and/or radiation may diminish. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of aggressive local therapy for RCC brain metastasis in the setting of molecular targeted agents and/or checkpoint inhibitor therapy. A retrospective single-center review between 2011-2018 identified patients that developed brain metastasis from RCC. Data analyzed included demographic information, systemic treatments, intracranial interventions, progression free survival and overall survival (OS). Of 1194 patients, 108(9.0%) were diagnosed with brain metastasis from RCC. OS from diagnosis of brain metastasis (OS BM) was 12.3 months. OS BM was analyzed based on three treatment groups: systemic therapy (ST) only (2.0 months, n = 23), systemic and radiotherapy (RT + ST) (12.3 months, n = 52), and systemic and radiotherapy plus resection (Surg + RT + ST) (21.7 months, n = 33). Survival benefit was seen with Surg + RT + ST compared to ST (P = 0.001), but not RT + ST (P = 0.081). Progression free survival was significantly prolonged with Surg + RT + ST compared to RT + ST (10.9 vs 5.9 months, respectively, P = 0.04). Variables such as performance status and number of brain metastases at the time of brain metastasis diagnosis did not differ significantly. In the setting of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy, resection may benefit the appropriate surgical candidate. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to better understand the role of aggressive RCC brain metastasis treatment. Micro Abstract • Renal cell brain metastasis is often excluded from studies and brain metastases effect a large portion of RCC patients. • Retrospective study of 1194 RCC patients, 108 patients had brain metastasis, determination of the role of surgical resection in the setting of recent advances in checkpoint inhibitors. • A benefit was seen in overall survival in patients that had surgical while undergoing radiation therapy and systemic therapies. • In the setting of molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy, resection may benefit the appropriate surgical candidate(s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine that is converted to 5-fluorouracil by thymidine phosphorylase. In view of the recognized synergism of fluoropyrimidines with interferon-α (IFNα), a Phase II study to characterize the toxicity and efficacy of the combination of capecitabine and rHuIFNα-2a for the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was conducted. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had metastatic RCC, measurable disease, and no prior systemic therapy. A total of 32 patients were entered into the study. Histologic subtypes included clear cell (n = 28) and nonclear cell (n = 2). Histology was unknown for 2 patients. The first 14 patients were treated with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and 22–36, combined with IFNα-2a 3.0 MU/m2 subcutaneously 3 times weekly. Because of toxicity requiring dose reductions during the first cycle, the capecitabine dose was reduced to 825 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 and 22–36 in the subsequent 18 patients. Results: Responses were seen in 4 of 32 patients (12%) (95% confidence interval 4% to 29%), with 1 complete response and 3 partial responses. There were 3 responses that occurred at the higher capecitabine starting dose level. Median response duration was 12 months (range 4.6–15.0). There were 12 patients (38%) who had stable disease for at least 2 cycles (duration 2.9 to 33.6+ months). One-year survival was 63%. Toxicity was moderate to severe and required dose reductions in 88% of patients. There were 23 patients who had grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusion: The combination of capecitabine and IFNα-2a has limited activity in metastatic RCC and is associated with moderate-to-severe toxicity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy is a standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Treatment options after checkpoint inhibitor therapy include vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF-R) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, although no prospective data regarding their use in this setting exist. Axitinib is a VEGF-R inhibitor with clinical data supporting increased activity with dose titration. We aimed to investigate the activity of dose titrated axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor.Methods: We did a multicentre, phase 2 trial of axitinib given on an individualised dosing algorithm. Patients at least 18 years of age with histologically or cytologically confirmed locally recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology, a Karnofsky Performance Status of 70% or more, and measurable disease who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy as the most recent treatment were eligible. There was no limit on number of previous therapies received. Patients received oral axitinib at a starting dose of 5 mg twice daily with dose titration every 14 days in 1 mg increments (ie, 5 mg twice daily to 6 mg twice daily, up to 10 mg twice daily maximum dose) if there was no axitinib-related grade 2 or higher mucositis, diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, or fatigue. If one or more of these grade 2 adverse events occurred, axitinib was withheld for 3 days before the same dose was resumed. Dose reductions were made if recurrent grade 2 adverse events despite treatment breaks or grade 3-4 adverse events occurred. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. Analyses were done per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. Recruitment has been completed and the trial is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClincalTrials.gov, number NCT02579811.Findings: Between Jan 5, 2016 and Feb 21, 2018, 40 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. With a median follow-up of 8·7 months (IQR 3·7-14·2), the median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 5·7-16·6). Fatigue (83%) and hypertension (75%) were the most common all-grade adverse events. The most common grade 3 adverse event was hypertension (24 patients [60%]). There was one (3%) grade 4 adverse event (elevated lipase) and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Serious adverse events that were likely related to therapy occurred in eight (20%) patients; the most common were dehydration (n=4) and diarrhoea (n=2).Interpretation: Individualised axitinib dosing in patients with metastatic renal cell inoma previously treated with checkpoint inhibitors did not meet the prespecified threshold for progression free survival, but these data show that this individualised titration scheme is feasible and has robust clinical activity. These prospective results warrant consideration of axitinib in this setting.Funding: Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The randomised phase 2 CABOSUN trial comparing cabozantinib with sunitinib as initial therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of intermediate or poor risk met the primary end-point of improving progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by investigator. We report PFS by independent radiology review committee (IRC) assessment, ORR per IRC and updated overall survival (OS). Patients and methods Previously untreated patients with advanced RCC of intermediate or poor risk by IMDC criteria were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg daily or sunitinib 50 mg daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Stratification was by risk group and presence of bone metastases. Results A total of 157 patients were randomised 1:1 to cabozantinib (n = 79) or sunitinib (n = 78). Median PFS per IRC was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8–14.0) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 3.0–8.2) for cabozantinib versus sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.31–0.74]; two-sided p = 0.0008), and ORR per IRC was 20% (95% CI 12.0–30.8) versus 9% (95% CI 3.7–17.6), respectively. Subgroup analyses of PFS by stratification factors and MET tumour expression were consistent with results for the overall population. With a median follow-up of 34.5 months, median OS was 26.6 months (95% CI 14.6–not estimable) with cabozantinib and 21.2 months (95% CI 16.3–27.4) with sunitinib (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.53–1.21]. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 68% for cabozantinib and 65% for sunitinib. Conclusions In this phase 2 trial, cabozantinib treatment significantly prolonged PFS per IRC compared with sunitinib as initial systemic therapy for advanced RCC of poor or intermediate risk. Trial Registration Number NCT01835158 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma.Methods: In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742.Findings: Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0-84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response).Interpretation: The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331).Funding: Pfizer Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We performed a phase 1 study to determine the maximum tolerable dose and safety of ipilimumab with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients with brain metastases from melanoma.Methods and Materials: Based on the intracranial disease burden, patients underwent WBRT (arm A) or SRS (arm B). The ipilimumab starting dose was 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, starting on day 3 of WBRT or 2 days after SRS. The ipilimumab dose was escalated to 10 mg/kg using a 2-stage, 3+3 design. The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerable dose of ipilimumab combined with radiation therapy. The secondary endpoints were overall survival, intracranial and extracranial control, progression-free survival, and toxicity. The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT01703507.Results: The characteristics of the 16 patients enrolled between 2011 and 2014 were mean age, 60 years; median number of brain metastases, 2 (range 1->10); and number with EC disease, 13 (81%). Treatment included WBRT (n=5), SRS (n=11), and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (n=7) or 10 mg/kg (n=9). The median follow-up was 8 months (arm A) and 10.5 months (arm B). A total of 21 grade 1 to 2 neurotoxic effects occurred, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient experienced grade 3 neurotoxicity before ipilimumab administration. Ten additional grade 3 toxicities were reported, with gastrointestinal toxicities (n=5; 31%) the most common. No patient developed grade 4 or 5 toxicity. The median progression-free survival and overall survival in arm A was 2.5 months and 8 months and in arm B was 2.1 months and not reached, respectively.Conclusions: Concurrent ipilimumab 10 mg/kg with SRS is safe. The WBRT arm was closed early because of slow accrual but demonstrated safety with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg. No patient experienced dose-limiting toxicity. Larger studies, including those with combination checkpoint inhibitor therapy and SRS, are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: PurposeTo determine the benefit of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and the use of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classification system in patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma.: Methods and materialsWe identified 46 consecutive patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma who were treated with WBRT at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between 1983 and 2000. We reviewed their charts for patient and tumor characteristics and categorized them according to the RTOG RPA classes.: ResultsThe median follow-up and survival time for all 46 patients (15 women and 31 men) was 3.0 months. The median radiation dose was 3000 cGy in 10 fractions. Patients who received higher radiation doses (>3000 cGy) survived longer than those who received 3000 cGy or less than 3000 cGy (8.5 months vs. 2.7 months vs. 0.4 months, p = 0.0289). However, the Karnofsky performance status and RPA class were confounding factors in these data. The median survival for patients by RTOG RPA class was 8.5 months for Class I (n = 2), 3 months for Class II (n = 37), and 0.6 months for Class III (n = 7, p = 0.0834).: ConclusionDespite the relatively poor prognosis of patients who receive WBRT alone, it appears that they benefit from this palliative treatment. The RTOG RPA classification system may be a useful tool in assessing prognosis in this patient population. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]