Search

Background: As use of oral cancer therapies increases, patient adherence has become critical when evaluating the effectiveness of therapy. In a phase III trial for renal cell carcinoma, we: (a) characterized adherence to sorafenib, sunitinib, and/or placebo and (b) identified factors associated with non‐adherence. Methods: ECOG‐ACRIN E2805 was a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial comparing adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma at high risk for recurrence. We used patient‐completed pill diaries to measure adherence as the number of pills taken divided by the number of pills prescribed. Log‐binomial regression was used to identify correlates of non‐adherence (<80% of prescribed pills reported as taken). Results: Mean adherence was 90.7% among those assigned to sunitinib (n = 613) and 84.8% among those assigned to sorafenib (n = 616). Among those assigned to placebo, mean adherence was 94.9% and 92.4% to sunitinib and sorafenib placebo, respectively. Non‐adherence was associated with race/ethnicity (non‐Hispanic Black: prevalence ratio [PR] 2.22, 95% CI 1.63, 3.01; Hispanic: PR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05, 2.26), high volume enrollment (≥10 patients: PR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.64), treatment group (sunitinib: PR 2.24, 95% CI 1.66, 3.02; sorafenib: PR 2.37, 95% CI 1.74, 3.22), and skin rash (PR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.80). Conclusion: Among patients participating in a randomized clinical trial, adherence to oral cancer therapies was lower compared to placebo. Adherence was also worse in racial/ethnic minorities, those experiencing toxicities, and high volume enrolling sites. Our findings highlight several challenges to address in clinical practice as use of oral therapies continues to increase. Clinical trial registration number: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in advanced renal cell cancer (RCC) research have produced new drugs and therapies for patients with metastatic disease leading to higher response rates, improvements in progression-free survival, and longer overall survival. These advances have yet to be realized in patients with early-stage kidney cancer, and to date, no drug has been approved for the adjuvant treatment of localized kidney cancer. The current standard of care for localized high-risk kidney cancers is resection of the primary tumor. Here, we review the results of recently completed adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) trials in RCC that have been reported, or are awaiting results. Further, we discuss the new immune checkpoint inhibitor adjuvant trials planned. There is hope that these trials may lead to new options and longer survival for patients with localized high-risk kidney cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Lymphadenectomy is a well established practice for many urological malignancies but its role in renal cell carcinoma is less clear. Our primary objective was to determine whether lymphadenectomy impacted survival in patients with fully resected, high risk renal cell carcinoma. Materials and Methods Patients with fully resected, high risk, nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomized to adjuvant sorafenib, sunitinib or placebo in the ASSURE (Adjuvant Sorafenib and Sunitinib for Unfavorable Renal Carcinoma) trial. Lymphadenectomy was performed for cN+ disease or at surgeon discretion. Patients treated with lymphadenectomy were compared to patients in the trial who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The primary outcome was overall survival associated with lymphadenectomy. Secondary outcomes were disease free survival, factors associated with performing lymphadenectomy and surgical complications. Results Of the 1,943 patients in ASSURE 701 (36.1%) underwent lymphadenectomy, including all resectable patients with cN+ and 30.1% of those with cN0 disease. A median of 3 lymph nodes (IQR 1–8) were removed and the rate of pN+ disease in the lymphadenectomy group was 23.4%. There was no overall survival benefit for lymphadenectomy relative to no lymphadenectomy (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93–1.39, p = 0.20). In patients with pN+ disease who underwent lymphadenectomy no improvement in overall or disease-free survival was observed for adjuvant therapy relative to placebo. Lymphadenectomy did not confer an increased risk of surgical complications (14.2% vs 13.4%, p = 0.63). Conclusions The benefit of lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing surgery for high risk renal cell carcinoma remains uncertain. Future strategies to answer this question should include a prospective trial in which patients with high risk renal cell carcinoma are randomized to specific lymphadenectomy templates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence.Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898.Findings: Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6-8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85-1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7-not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80-1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5-NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue 110 [18%] patients on sunitinib [corrected]. There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity.Interpretation: Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis.Funding: US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the mechanisms of apoptosis resistance and treatment strategies to overcome them in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Researchers focused on the aberrations of apoptsis in hormone-refractory prostate cancer, and have recommended treatment strategies to overcome apoptosis resistance. A chart is presented that shows possible therapeutic agents targeting different components of apoptic signaling pathways in hormone-refractory prostate cancer cells.

Abstract 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. Take Home Message Adjuvant targeted therapy following complete resection of localized renal cell carcinoma have not consistently demonstrated clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]