Search

Purpose of Review: In this review, we discuss which patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be most suitable for frontline tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, a treatment option supported by emerging long-term efficacy data including overall survival and quality of life. We specifically focus on tivozanib, a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, which has comparable efficacy to other single-agent TKIs in frontline treatment for mRCC while exhibiting fewer off-target side effects., Recent Findings: Combination therapy with TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and CPI/CPI combination therapies, as well as TKI monotherapy are recommended frontline treatment options for mRCC. Treatment decisions are complex and based on several factors, including the patient's International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk status, age, comorbidities, and personal preferences related to response, tolerability, and quality of life. TKIs not only serve as backbone of most combination therapies for mRCC, but also remain a viable monotherapy option in the first-line setting for patients in favorable risk groups and those with contraindications to CPI combination therapies. Given that overall survival benefits have not yet been confirmed for CPI-containing combination regimens in favorable risk patients, we argue that frontline single-agent TKI treatment remains a standard of care option for these patients. This is supported by treatment guidelines, even in the era of TKI/CPI combination therapies., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing Interests: RF: Consulting, Education or Advisory Role: BMS, Eisai, Ewopharma, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Recordati, Roche, Sanofi, Servier. JAA: Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas, AstraZeneca; Bayer; Bristol Myers Squibb; EUSA Pharma; Ipsen; Merck; MSD Oncology; Novartis; Pfizer. Speakers’ Bureau: Merck, Pfizer. Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst.). SVE: Consulting or Advisory Role: AAA, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, EUSA Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Speakers’ Bureau: AAA, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Organon, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. Travel: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche. OP: Education Conferences Sponsorship and Speaker Fees: Recordati, MSD, Janssen, AstraZeneca. LMK: Consulting Role, Advisory Role, Speakers’ Bureau or Travel support: Amgen, Apogepha, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Medac, Merck Healthcare, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen.de/.tv, Pfizer, Recordati, Roche, Sanofi. NSV: Consulting or Advisory Role: EUSA Pharma, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen. Speakers’ Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen. Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst.). Travel: EUSA Pharma, Ipsen. CD: Education or Advisory Role: Apogepha, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer. NM: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer. Research Funding: Bayer, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen; MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. TW: Honoraria: Pfizer, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma. Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai Europe, Merck. Research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Eisai. Travel and Accommodation: EUSA Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: the Christie Clinic LLP. WI: Honoraria: Ipsen, MSD, Merck. Speaker’s fees: AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Eisai, Astellas. Consulting fees: Recordati, Merck. Research grant: MSD. PJG: Honoraria or presentations: Accord, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Apogepha, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cepheid, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati, Roche, Sanofi. Travel support and honoraria for advisory role: Accord, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Apogepha, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cepheid, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati, Roche, Sanofi., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To describe the clinical management and PD-L1 testing of patients with newly diagnosed stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations in Spain., Methods: Multicenter, retrospective study., Results: Among 297 evaluated patients, 89.2% received systemic treatment for stage IV disease, of whom 53.6% received platinum doublet therapy, 26.8% immunotherapy as monotherapy and 14.7% immunotherapy + chemotherapy, with 9.4% receiving treatment as part of a clinical trial. Treatment was initiated 1 month after histological diagnosis, with PD-L1 test results available in most cases (92.6%). PD-L1 testing was performed in 287 patients, 95.1% by in-house tests, mostly with the 22C3 pharmDx assay. The factor most strongly associated with treatment selection was, as expected, the expression of PD-L1., Conclusion: PD-L1 testing is implemented in clinical practice and seems to guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC in Spain., Competing Interests: Financial & competing interests disclosure This study was funded by MSD Spain. B Rubio-Viqueira is a consultant for Roche, MSD, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer and BMS, and receieved non-financial support from MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Bristol and Lilly. M Majem is a consultant for BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Kyowa Kyrin, Pierre Fabre, Takeda and Bayer, and received non-financial support from MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Roche. M Lázaro is a consultant for Roche, Boehringer, Bristol, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Eusa Pharma and Pfizer, and is a speaker for Astellas, Vifor, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol, Janssen, Ipsen and Pfizer. M Lázaro received non-financial support from MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, Astellas, Lilly and AstraZeneca. S Vázquez is a consultant for BMS, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Kyowa Kyrin, Pierre Fabre, Takeda and Bayer, and received non-financial support from MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Roche. J García-González is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Rovi and Sanofi, and received non-financial support from BMS, Lilly, MSD and Roche. C González-Arenas is an MSD employee. The remaining authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. Medical writing support was provided by Sofia Perea, PharmD, PhD, and funded by MSD Spain., (© 2021 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.)

Nanoparticles are being actively developed for biomolecular profiling of cancer biomarkers, tumor imaging in vivo, and targeted drug delivery. These nanotechnology-based techniques can be applied widely in the management of different malignant diseases, such as breast cancer. Although the number of different types of nanoparticles is increasing rapidly, most can be classified into two major types: particles that contain organic molecules as a major building material (such as dendrimers, micelles, liposomes and carbon nanotubes, and other polymers); and those that use inorganic elements, usually metals, as a core. In particular, inorganic nanoparticles have received increased attention in the recent past as potential diagnostic and therapeutic systems in the field of oncology. This review primarily discusses progress in applications of inorganic nanoparticles for breast cancer imaging and treatment.

Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer amongst men. Until recently, only two therapeutic options, initial androgen-deprivation therapy in patients without castration-resistant prostate cancer, with addition of docetaxel when the disease becomes castration-resistant, were considered as standard. In the last years, new drugs (abiraterone, enzalutamide, Ra-223, Sipuleucel) have been developed for prostate cancer treatment with important advantages in safety and efficacy. Results from the recent Chaarted study, in patients that received docetaxel for the hormone sensitive disease, have contributed to change the initial treatment approach in metastatic prostate cancer, in order to adapt the best sequence for each patient. Those results have been supported by the Stampede trial. Stampede survival data showed not only a benefit in overall survival of adding docetaxel initially, but also a prolonged time to first skeletal related event. Now it is discussed in which setting the available drugs should be administered. This review article summarizes the treatment options for patients treated with docetaxel initially for hormone sensitive prostate cancer after developing progressive disease, and offers an algorithm proposal for treatment., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Enzalutamide (MDV3100), an androgen receptor-signalling inhibitor, represents the most recent compound added to the therapeutic armamentarium for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who progressed to docetaxel. The anti-tumour activity and safety of enzalutamide has been demonstrated in a phase III clinical trial, showing a benefit in overall survival, which was the primary endpoint. There are no head-to-head studies comparing the different treatment options in this subset of patients. In this article, most relevant data published in the literature have been reviewed, with special attention to the therapeutic alternatives currently available for postdocexatel mCRPC patients, emphasising the mechanisms of action of the different drugs, efficacy and quality of life-related aspects., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mutations in signalling pathways essential for embryonic development often lead to tumourigenesis, as is also true for Notch. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between Notch1 to -4 and their ligands with anatomopathological features of the patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Materials and Methods: This study investigated the pattern of protein expression in RCC specimens using tissue microarray technology. A total of 80 paraffin-embedded RCC samples were retrospectively analysed together with ACHN and A.704 cell lines., Results: Notch1 showed significant positive correlation with chromophobe RCC, no broken capsule, Furhman grade I and when the number of nodes involved was small [(N=1); p=0.039, 0.016, 0.037 and 0.001, respectively)]. Notch3 showed higher expression when the tumour was located in the right kidney (p=0.048)., Conclusion: Notch1 may be useful in the future as a biomarker for the differential diagnosis of different RCC histological subtypes. Notch1 to -3 may also have potential use as a strong prognostic factor.

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of a gemcitabine-cisplatin-vinorelbine combination in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients (n=46) with stage III NSCLC and naive of therapy were recruited into the trial to receive gemcitabine (G, 1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8, cisplatin (C, 100 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and vinorelbine (V, 25 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles., Results: Two patients achieved complete response (CR) and 23 partial response (PR), overall response 52%. Subsequent radical surgery included nine patients of whom four were non-resectable and five were resected and with 1 CR. Radiotherapy was administered to 31 patients, and two achieved CR. The median time to progression and overall survival were 37 and 50 weeks, respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 35% of cycles, with two toxic deaths. Severe non-haematological toxicity was uncommon., Conclusions: This GCV combination is effective in patients with stage III NSCLC, and with an acceptable toxicity.