Second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer: experts’ consensus algorithms

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Rothermundt ◽  
J. von Rappard ◽  
T. Eisen ◽  
B. Escudier ◽  
V. Grünwald ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol Volume 10 ◽  
pp. 4885-4893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Koutsoukos ◽  
Aristotelis Bamias ◽  
Kimon Tzannis ◽  
Marta Espinosa Montaño ◽  
Vasiliki Bozionelou ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 617-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Di Lorenzo ◽  
S De Placido ◽  
C Buonerba

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. A427
Author(s):  
J. Mihajlović ◽  
P. Pechlivanoglou ◽  
A. Sabo ◽  
Z. Tomić ◽  
M.J. Postma

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 41-46
Author(s):  
M Pitt ◽  
L Crathorne ◽  
T Moxham ◽  
M Bond ◽  
C Hyde

This paper represents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which has progressed following or on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab), compared to BSC alone. The submitting manufacturer’s case for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was mainly based on a well-conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT), Renal Cell Cancer Treatment with Oral RAD001 Given Daily-1 (RECORD-1), comparing BSC plus everolimus with BSC plus placebo and a de novo economic model. The RCT indicated a marked statistically significant effect on progression-free survival. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimate was £52,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (this included a reduction in drug cost associated with an approved patient access scheme). The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG was generally in agreement with the submitting manufacturer concerning its estimates of effectiveness; however, there was greater concern surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness. The ERG judged that if potential errors in the model were corrected, the ICERs offered by the submitting manufacturer would overstate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the second-line treatment of metastatic RCC (that this ICER would be a higher value). Concerning the estimates of cost-effectiveness in RCC, the observations in the ERG report provide strong further support for research collecting rigorous estimates of utilities associated with the main health states likely to be experienced by patients with renal cell cancer. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the Appraisal Consultation Document for this appraisal.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e1115, C07
Author(s):  
M. Chocholatý ◽  
K. Havlová ◽  
M. Schmidt ◽  
M. Kalousová ◽  
M. Jáchymová ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
Grant D. Stewart ◽  
Sarah J. Welsh ◽  
Stephan Ursprung ◽  
Ferdia Gallagher ◽  
Iosif Mendichovszky ◽  
...  

275 Background: Venous tumor thrombus (VTT) extension occurs in 4-15% cases of renal cell cancer (RCC). The Mayo classification distinguishes 4 levels of VTT extension between the renal vein and supradiaphragmatic inferior vena cava (IVC). Although surgery is performed with curative intent, mortality is high (5-15%) with complications increasing with the level of the VTT. 5-year survival rates are poor; ~40-65% in non-metastatic RCC. It is hypothesised that neoadjuvant targeted therapy could downstage the VTT reducing the extent of surgery, leading to reduced surgical morbidity and mortality, and increased survival. However, level I or II evidence is lacking. NAXIVA provides the first level II evidence in this patient group, assessing the response of VTT to axitinib. Extensive translational sampling will provide in depth interrogation of VTT (using genomics, proteomics, immunophenotyping and metabolomics) to examine the role of the tumor microenvironment of VTT and response to axitinib. Methods: NAXIVA was a single arm, single agent, multi-center phase 2 feasibility study of axitinib in patients with both metastatic and non-metastatic clear cell RCC prior to nephrectomy and thrombectomy. A Simon two stage minimax design was adopted and the trial designed for adequate power to distinguish a <5% from a >25% improvement in the Mayo VTT level. 21 patients were recruited over a 24 month period between 15/Dec/2017 and 06/Jan/2020 at 5 sites across the UK. Patients were treated with 8 weeks of axitinib (starting dose 5mg bd, increasing to 10mg bd as tolerated) prior to planned surgery. The primary endpoint was the percentage of evaluable patients with an improvement in VTT according to the Mayo classification (assessed using MRI abdomen scans at screening and week 9, prior to surgery. Secondary endpoints were percentage change in surgical approach, percentage change in VTT height, response rate (by RECIST) and evaluation of surgical morbidity assessed by Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: The percentage of evaluable patients with an improvement in VTT according to the Mayo classification was 26.58% [80% CI: 15.76%, 39.74%] (6 of 21 evaluable patients). 35.29% (6 of 17 patients who progressed to surgery) had a change in surgical approach to a less invasive option. There was a median percentage reduction in VTT height of 21.49% (SD=27.60%). The response rate (by RECIST) in the evaluable population was 61.90% SD, 14.29% PR, 9.52% PD. In terms of surgical morbidity 11.76% (2 of 17 patients who progressed to surgery) experienced a Clavien-Dindo 3 or greater complication (0 CD3, 1 CD4, 1 CD5). Conclusions: NAXIVA provides unique prospective data on the feasibility of neoadjuvant axitinib administration to down stage IVC VTT and reduce the extent of surgery. Work is ongoing to establish predictors of response. Clinical trial information: NCT03494816 .


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document