Search

CONTEXT: Contradictory data exist with regard to adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy in surgically managed patients for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic benefit (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]) and grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) for adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy for resected localized RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A critical review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in January 2018 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was performed. We identified reports and reviewed them according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria. Of eight full-text articles that were eligible for inclusion, five studies (two of five were updated analyses) were retained in the final synthesis. Study characteristics were abstracted and the number needed to treat (NNT) per trial was estimated. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The three randomized controlled phase III trials included the following comparisons: sunitinib versus placebo or sorafenib versus placebo (Adjuvant Sorafenib or Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma [ASSURE] study, n = 1943), sunitinib versus placebo (S-TRAC, n = 615), and pazopanib versus placebo (Pazopanib As Adjuvant Therapy in Localized/Locally Advanced RCC After Nephrectomy study, n = 1135). The NNT ranged from 10 (S-TRAC) to 137 (ASSURE study). The pooled analysis showed that VEGFR-targeted therapy was not statistically significantly associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR(random)]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–1.03, p = 0.16) or OS (HR(random): 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15, p = 0.84) compared with the control group. The adjuvant therapy group experienced significantly higher odds of grade 3–4 AEs (OR(random): 5.89, 95% CI: 4.85–7.15, p < 0.001). In exploratory analyses focusing on patients who started on the full-dose regimen, DFS was improved in patients who received adjuvant therapy (HR(random): 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.95, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of reported randomized trials did not reveal a statistically significant effect between adjuvant VEGFR-targeted therapy and improved DFS or OS in patients with intermediate/high-risk local or regional fully resected RCC. Improvement in DFS may be more likely with the use of full-dose regimens, pending further results. However, adjuvant treatment was associated with high-grade AEs. PATIENT SUMMARY: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapy after nephrectomy for localized kidney cancer is not associated with consistent improvements in delaying cancer recurrence or prolonging life and comes at the expense of potentially significant side effects.

The product of a proto-oncogene, the c-Met protein is a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase. Its only known ligand, hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor, regulates cell growth, motility, migration, invasion, proliferation, and angiogenesis. Dysregulation of c-Met and hepatocyte growth factor have been observed in both clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), although only papillary RCCs harbor activating mutations in the MET gene. In clear cell RCC, there is evidence of a direct link between loss of von Hippel-Lindau and up-regulation of c-Met. As in other cancers, high expression of c-Met correlates with worse outcomes in RCC. In vitro and in vivo preclinical RCC models demonstrate cancer control with small molecule and antibodies against c-Met. Given these findings, the c-Met pathway is a logical therapeutic target in RCC, and several agents are in clinical testing with early signs of efficacy.

Objective: Despite the introduction of newer treatment approaches in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), overall survival remains disappointing and further exploration of current chemotherapeutic agents for second or third-line treatment is imperative. We conducted a phase II trial to determine the efficacy and safety of the combination of thalidomide and capecitabine in mRCC. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 13 eligible patients, who had progressive measurable metastatic disease, between May 2003 and January 2005. Treatment consisted of thalidomide 200 mg daily for 21 days per cycle, and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days per cycle. The primary end point was response rate. Secondary endpoints included overall survival and toxicity assessment. Results: Twelve patients were eligible for statistical analysis. The median age was 59 years, and most patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 (92%). Nine patients had previous nephrectomy. The median number of administered cycles was 4 (range 2–10). Anemia was the only grade 3 toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities included fatigue, constipation, anemia, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy. Although no radiographic responses were observed, 5 patients (42%) achieved stable disease. Seven patients (58%) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 10.2 months. Conclusion: Despite being well tolerated with manageable side effects, the use of thalidomide and capecitabine in patients with mRCC did not significantly impact response or survival.

Purpose Previous studies suggest that some common medications alter prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. It remains unclear whether these reported medication effects are due to clinicodemographic factors or concurrent use of other medications. We investigated the impact of individual and combinations of common medications on PSA in a large cross-sectional study of the United States population. Patients and Methods The study included men ≥ 40 years old without prostate cancer from the 2003 to 2004 and 2005 to 2006 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Men with recent prostate manipulation, prostatitis, and those on hormone therapy were excluded. Weighted multivariate linear regression was performed on log-transformed total PSA to determine the effect of the 10 most commonly prescribed medication classes, adjusting for potential confounders including demographics, clinical characteristics, physical examination, laboratory studies, and duration of medication use. Results In total, 1,864 men met inclusion criteria. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID; P = .03), statin (P = .01), and thiazide diuretic (P = .025) intake was inversely related to PSA levels. Five years of NSAID, statin, and thiazide diuretic use was associated with PSA levels lower by 6%, 13%, and 26%, respectively. The combination of statins and thiazide diuretics showed the greatest reduction in PSA levels: 36% after 5 years. Concurrent calcium channel blocker use minimizes or negates the inverse relationship of statin use and PSA level. Conclusion We found that men using NSAIDs, statins, and thiazide diuretics have reduced PSA levels by clinically relevant amounts. The impact of regularly consuming these common medications on prostate cancer screening is unknown.