Content uploaded by Ian D Davis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian D Davis on Nov 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial
Abstract and Figures
Purpose
Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
Patients and Methods
Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed.
Results
Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo.
Conclusion
Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.
Figures - uploaded by Ian D Davis
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Ian D Davis
Content may be subject to copyright.
... According to the prescribing information, a significant food effect was observed with pazopanib: when taken with a high-fat meal, pazopanib exposure was approximately doubled (two-fold increase in area under the curve and maximum concentration). The drug's approval was based on data from 435 patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center study of pazopanib vs. placebo in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma who had received either one or no prior systemic cytokine-based therapy (NCT00334282) [20]. The median progressionfree survival (PFS) was 9.2 months among patients treated with pazopanib, compared to a median PFS of 4.2 months among patients receiving placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62; ...
Simple Summary
The majority of oncology drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration over the past quarter century have been targeted therapies, designed to act on cancer cells with specific molecular abnormalities. Although these newer agents have different properties compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy, the same methodology used for dose-finding during drug development has continued to be used. Growing awareness of the inadequacy of traditional dose selection processes for modern cancer drugs has been the catalyst for the creation of new regulatory guidance aimed at reforming current practices. This review summarizes six cases, illustrating different approaches to targeted therapy dose optimization.
Abstract
Therapeutic advances in oncology in the 21st century have contributed to significant declines in cancer mortality. Notably, targeted therapies comprised the largest proportion of oncology drugs approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past 25 years and have become the standard of care for the treatment of many cancers. However, despite the metamorphosis of the therapeutic landscape, some aspects of cancer drug development have remained essentially unchanged. In particular, the dose-finding methodology originally developed for cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs continues to be implemented, even though this approach no longer represents the most appropriate strategy for modern cancer therapies. In recognition of the need to reconsider assumptions, adapt the dose selection process for newer drugs, and design alternative strategies, the FDA has undertaken several initiatives in recent years to address these concerns. These actions include the launch of Project Optimus in 2021 and the issuance of draft guidance for industry on dose optimization of oncology drugs in 2023. Amid this evolving regulatory environment, the present manuscript reviews case studies for six different targeted cancer therapies, highlighting how dose-finding challenges have been managed to date by oncologists, sponsors, and regulators.
... For almost two decades, the targeting of angiogenesis, a hallmark of cancer [1], has become a major therapeutic approach for the treatment of various advanced cancers [2][3][4][5][6]. Except for a few therapeutic antibodies, the majority of approved anti-angiogenic drugs are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), among which sorafenib was the first to be marketed in 2005 for the treatment of metastatic renal cancer [7]. ...
Targeting of angiogenesis has become a major therapeutic approach for the treatment of various advanced cancers. There are many unresolved questions on the toxicity of anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
We performed a meta-analysis to assess the toxicity prevalence of the different anti-angiogenic TKIs among cancer patients and in subpopulations of interest including patients with renal cell carcinoma.
We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases to November 2023. Clinical trials were eligible if they set out to report the grade ≥3 toxicities related to one of the seven currently approved anti-angiogenic TKIs as monotherapies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was applied with PROSPERO (CRD42023411946).
The 421 eligible studies included a total of 56,895 cancer patients treated with anti-angiogenic TKI monotherapy. Twenty-four different cancer types were identified, mainly renal cell carcinoma (41.9% of the patients). The anti-angiogenic TKI was sorafenib (34.5% of the patients), sunitinib (30.5%), regorafenib (10.7%), pazopanib (9.4%), cabozantinib (7.7%), axitinib (4.3%), and lenvatinib (2.9%). The pooled prevalence of grade 3 and 4 toxicities was 56.1% (95% confidence interval 53.5–58.6), with marked between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 96.8%). Toxicity profiles varied considerably depending on the type of TKI, the cancer type, and the specific patient characteristics. In particular, Asian patients and elderly people had higher prevalences of severe toxicities, with pazopanib being the best-tolerated drug. For patients treated with sunitinib, particularly those with metastatic RCC, there was no significant difference in terms of toxicity according to the regimen schedule.
This meta-analysis highlights the toxicity profiles of anti-angiogenic TKI monotherapies, and thus enables high-level recommendations for the choice of anti-angiogenic TKIs on the basis of the patient’s age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and comedications, for personalized treatment.
... Apatinib is an oral RTKI main targeting VEGFR2 which also used in many cancer treatment (Ferrara et al. 2003). Pazopanib monotherapy has been shown to treat renal cell carcinoma (Sternberg et al. 2010). Axitinib is more selective than sunitinib for VEGFR (Hu-Lowe et al. 2008). ...
Vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), a highly conserved dimeric glycoprotein, is a key regulatory gene and a marker molecule of angiogenesis. The upregulation of VEGF-A facilitates the process of tumor vascularization, thereby fostering the initiation and progression of malignant neoplasms. Many genes can adjust the angiogenesis of tumors by changing the expression of VEGF-A. In addition, VEGF-A also exhibits immune regulatory properties, which directly or indirectly suppresses the antitumor activity of immune cells. The emergence of VEGF-A-targeted therapy alone or in rational combinations has revolutionized the treatment of various cancers. This review discusses how diverse mechanisms in various tumors regulate VEGF-A expression to promote tumor angiogenesis and the role of VEGF-A in tumor immune microenvironment. The application of drugs targeting VEGF-A in tumor therapy is also summarized including antibody molecule drugs and traditional Chinese medicine.
Introduction:
Systemic and local therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are often challenging despite the evolution of multimodal cancer therapies in the last decade. In this review, we will focus on recent multidisciplinary approaches for patients with mRCC.
Areas covered:
Systemic therapies for patients with mRCC have been garnering attention particularly after the approval of immuno-oncology (IO) agents, including anti-programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1. IO combinations have significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with mRCC in the first-line setting. Regarding local therapies, cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) has become less common in the post-Cancer du Rein Metastatique Nephrectomie et Antiangiogéniques (CARMENA) trial era, even though CN may still benefit selected patients with mRCC. In addition, metastasis-directed local therapies, namely metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy, particularly for oligo-metastatic lesions or brain metastases, may have a prognostic impact. Several ablative techniques are also evolving while maintaining high local control rates with acceptable safety.
Expert opinion:
Multimodal cancer therapies are essential for conquering complex cases of mRCC. Modern systemic therapies including IO-based combination therapy as well as local therapies including CN, metastasectomy, stereotactic radiotherapy, and ablative techniques appear to improve oncologic outcomes of patients with mRCC, although appropriate patient selection is indispensable.
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains among the top 10 most common types of cancer in the USA with an estimated 13,920 deaths in 2022. Renal cell carcinoma represents a spectrum of tumors that are significantly different with respect to their cell type origin and type of genetic mutations. Metastatic lesions are quite common in RCC, with the lungs and bones being the most common site of metastases. One-third of patients with RCC present with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis, and up to a third of patients develop metastasis after surgical treatment for localized disease. RCC bone metastasis is osteolytic and can therefore cause skeletal-related events and are further associated with a poor prognosis. Historically, metastatic RCC (mRCC) has had a dismal prognosis, but in the last decade, systemic treatment has evolved to include anti-angiogenic targeted treatments and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Treatment of bone metastases in mRCC is an active area of investigation with consideration for systemic, radiotherapy, and surgical approaches.
Background
Pazopanib, an anti-angiogenic multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma. However, its recommended dose does not always produce consistent outcomes, with some patients experiencing adverse effects or toxicity. This variability is due to differences in the systemic exposure to pazopanib. This review aimed to establish whether sufficient evidence exists for the routine or selective therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib in adult patients with approved indications.
Methods
A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases using search terms related to pazopanib and therapeutic drug monitoring yielded 186 and 275 articles, respectively. Ten articles associated with treatment outcomes or toxicity due to drug exposure were selected for review.
Results
The included studies were evaluated to determine the significance of the relationship between drug exposure/C trough and treatment outcomes and between drug exposure and toxicity. A relationship between exposure and treatment outcomes was observed in 5 studies, whereas the trend was nonsignificant in 4 studies. A relationship between exposure and toxicity was observed in 6 studies, whereas 2 studies did not find a significant relationship; significance was not reported in 3 studies.
Conclusions
Sufficient evidence supports the therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib in adult patients to improve its efficacy and/or safety in the approved indications.
A diagnosis of brain metastasis (BM) significantly affects quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Although systemic treatments have shown efficacy in mRCC, active surveillance (AS) is still commonly used in clinical practice. In this single‐center cohort study, we assessed the impact of different initial treatment strategies for metastatic RCC (mRCC) on the development of BM. All consecutive patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2011 and 2022 were included at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, and a subgroup of patients with BM was selected. In total, 381 patients with mRCC (ECM, BM, or both) were identified. Forty‐six patients had BM of whom 39 had metachronous BM (diagnosed ≥1 month after ECM). Twenty‐five (64.1%) of these 39 patients with metachronous BM had received prior systemic treatment for ECM and 14 (35.9%) patients were treatment naive at BM diagnosis. The median BM‐free survival since ECM diagnosis was significantly longer ( p = .02) in previously treated patients (29.0 [IQR 12.6–57.0] months) compared to treatment naive patients (6.8 [IQR 1.0–7.0] months). In conclusion, patients with mRCC who received systemic treatment for ECM prior to BM diagnosis had a longer BM‐free survival as compared to treatment naïve patients. These results emphasize the need for careful evaluation of treatment strategies, and especially AS, for patients with mRCC.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the risk of early and late cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents in patients treated for breast or ovarian cancer, lymphoma, myeloma or sarcoma.
Randomized controlled trials were sought using comprehensive searches of electronic databases in June 2008. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also scanned for additional articles. Outcomes investigated were early or late clinical and sub-clinical cardiotoxicity. Trial quality was assessed, and data were pooled through meta-analysis where appropriate.
Fifty-five published RCTs were included; the majority were on women with advanced breast cancer. A significantly greater risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was found with anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline regimens (OR 5.43 95% confidence interval: 2.34, 12.62), anthracycline versus mitoxantrone (OR 2.88 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 6.44), and bolus versus continuous anthracycline infusions (OR 4.13 95% confidence interval: 1.75, 9.72). Risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was significantly lower with epirubicin versus doxorubicin (OR 0.39 95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.78), liposomal versus non-liposomal doxorubicin (OR 0.18 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.38) and with a concomitant cardioprotective agent (OR 0.21 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.33). No statistical heterogeneity was found for these pooled analyses. A similar pattern of results were found for subclinical cardiotoxicity; with risk significantly greater with anthracycline containing regimens and bolus administration; and significantly lower risk with epirubicin, liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin but not epirubicin, and with concomitant use of a cardioprotective agent. Low to moderate statistical heterogeneity was found for two of the five pooled analyses, perhaps due to the different criteria used for reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Meta-analyses of any cardiotoxicity (clinical and subclinical) showed moderate to high statistical heterogeneity for four of five pooled analyses; criteria for any cardiotoxic event differed between studies. Nonetheless the pattern of results was similar to those for clinical or subclinical cardiotoxicity described above.
Evidence is not sufficiently robust to support clear evidence-based recommendations on different anthracycline treatment regimens, or for routine use of cardiac protective agents or liposomal formulations. There is a need to improve cardiac monitoring in oncology trials.
Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a dermal sarcoma typically carrying a translocation between chromosomes 17 and 22 that generates functional platelet-derived growth factor B (PDGFB).
Two distinct phase II trials of imatinib (400 to 800 mg daily) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic DFSP were conducted and closed prematurely, one in Europe (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC]) with 14-week progression-free rate as the primary end point and the other in North America (Southwest Oncology Group [SWOG]) with confirmed objective response rate as the primary end point. In the EORTC trial, confirmation of PDGFB rearrangement was required, and surgery was undertaken after 14 weeks if feasible. The SWOG study confirmed t(17;22) after enrollment.
Sixteen and eight patients were enrolled onto the EORTC and SWOG trials, respectively. Tumor size ranged from 1.2 to 49 cm. DFSP was located on head/neck, trunk, and limb in seven, 11, and six patients, respectively, and was classic, pigmented, and fibrosarcomatous DFSP in 13, one, and nine patients, respectively. Metastases were present in seven patients (lung involvement was present six patients). Eleven patients (4%) had partial response as best response, and four patients had progressive disease as best response. Median time to progression (TTP) was 1.7 years. Imatinib was stopped in 11 patients because of progression, one patient because of toxicity, and two patients after complete resection of disease. Median overall survival (OS) time has not been reached; 1-year OS rate was 87.5%.
Imatinib is active in DFSP harboring t(17;22) including fibrosarcomatous DFSP, with objective response rate approaching 50%. Response rates and TTP did not differ between patients taking 400 mg daily versus 400 mg twice a day.
Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity—on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate—has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of trabectedin in a phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized study in adult patients with unresectable/metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of prior conventional chemotherapy including anthracyclines and ifosfamide.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of two trabectedin regimens (via central venous access): 1.5 mg/m(2) 24-hour intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks (q3 weeks 24-hour) versus 0.58 mg/m(2) 3-hour IV infusion every week for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (qwk 3-hour). Time to progression (TTP) was the primary efficacy end point, based on confirmed independent review of images.
Two hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned; 136 (q3 weeks 24-hour) versus 134 (qwk 3-hour). Median TTP was 3.7 months versus 2.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.734; 95% CI, 0.554 to 0.974; P = .0302), favoring the q3 weeks 24-hour arm. Median progression-free survival was 3.3 months versus 2.3 months (HR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.574 to 0.992; P = .0418). Median overall survival (n = 235 events) was 13.9 months versus 11.8 months (HR, 0.843; 95% CI, 0.653 to 1.090; P = .1920). Although somewhat more neutropenia, elevations in AST/ALT, emesis, and fatigue occurred in the q3 weeks 24-hour, this regimen was reasonably well tolerated. Febrile neutropenia was rare (0.8%). No cumulative toxicities were noted.
Prior studies showed clinical benefit with trabectedin in patients with sarcomas after failure of standard chemotherapy. This trial documents superior disease control with the q3 weeks 24-hour trabectedin regimen in liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas, although the qwk 3-hour regimen also demonstrated activity relative to historical comparisons. Trabectedin may now be considered an important new option to control advanced sarcomas in patients after failure of available standard-of-care therapies.
Established in 1987, the EuroQol Group initially comprised a network of international, multilingual and multi-disciplinary researchers from seven centres in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Nowadays, the Group comprises researchers from Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, Slovenia, Spain, the USA and Zimbabwe. The process of shared development and local experimentation resulted in EQ-5D, a generic measure of health status that provides a simple descriptive profile and a single index value that can be used in the clinical and economic evaluation of health care and in population health surveys. Currently, EQ-5D is being widely used in different countries by clinical researchers in a variety of clinical areas. EQ-5D is also being used by eight out of the first 10 of the top 50 pharmaceutical companies listed in the annual report of Pharma Business (November/December 1999). Furthermore, EQ-5D is one of the handful of measures recommended for use in cost-effectiveness analyses by the Washington Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. EQ-5D has now been translated into most major languages with the EuroQol Group closely monitoring the process.
Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy.
Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00410124.
All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 [37%] events in the everolimus group, 90 [65%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.40, p<0.0001; median progression-free survival 4.0 [95% CI 3.7-5.5] vs 1.9 [1.8-1.9] months). Stomatitis (107 [40%] patients in the everolimus group vs 11 [8%] in the placebo group), rash (66 [25%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (53 [20%] vs 22 [16%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity.
Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies.
Pazopanib is an oral, multi-targeted, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that binds to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) and several other key proteins responsible for angiogenesis, tumor growth and cell survival. Pazopanib exhibited in vivo and in vitro activity against tumor growth and, in early clinical trials, was well tolerated with the main side effects being hypertension, fatigue and gastrointestinal disorders. Pazopanib showed clinical activity in several tumors including renal cell cancer (RCC), breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, thyroid cancer, hepatocellular cancer and cervical cancer. A phase III clinical trial in metastatic RCC patients showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival, leading to its approval in the US. In metastatic breast cancer, the combination of pazopanib with lapatinib was more effective than lapatinib alone. At the time of the current publication, pazopanib is being evaluated in more than 35 phase II and III trials.