726 DIFFERENCE OF RESPONSE TO TARGETED THERAPY BETWEEN THE PRIMARY TUMOR AND METASTATIC LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-232
Author(s):  
M. Nozawa ◽  
N. Matsumura ◽  
M. Yasuda ◽  
Y. Okuda ◽  
H. Uemura
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengxiang Li ◽  
Yu‐Ning Wong ◽  
Katrina Armstrong ◽  
Naomi Haas ◽  
Prasun Subedi ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 185 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Karam ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Leticia Varella ◽  
Jorge A. Garcia ◽  
Robert Dreicer ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
C Coppin ◽  
F Porzolt ◽  
L Le ◽  
M Autenrieth ◽  
T Wilt

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (36) ◽  
pp. 3615-3623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rana R. McKay ◽  
Dominick Bossé ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri

Purpose To outline current practices and challenges in the systemic management of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Design We conducted a focused review of hallmark randomized controlled trials informing the systemic treatment of patients with RCC. We concentrated on trials informing the use of combination therapies, therapy in both treatment-naïve and previously treated patients, sequential treatment strategies, and schedules. Results The systemic treatment of advanced RCC has experienced tremendous progress over the past 15 years. An improved understanding of the canonical pathways implicated in RCC pathogenesis has resulted in the development of molecularly targeted and immunotherapy options for patients. These therapies have replaced cytokine-based treatments as the standard of care for patients with advanced RCC. Until recently, sequential vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–targeted therapy or VEGF-targeted therapy followed by mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition has been the prevailing treatment paradigm for patients. However, newer agents such as cabozantinib and nivolumab have challenged this traditional approach. In addition, combination treatments including nivolumab plus ipilimumab and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab have transformed the RCC treatment landscape, and other doublet combinations in clinical testing will likely continue to alter the treatment paradigm in RCC. Currently, factors that inform treatment selection between different therapy options include performance status, comorbidities, prognostic risk stratification, treatment adverse event profile, and mode of administration, with no Level I evidence for predictive biomarker use in clinic. Conclusions The treatment options for advanced RCC are rapidly evolving since the introduction of VEGF-targeted therapy, immunotherapy with checkpoint blockade and, more recently, combination regimens. Despite the success of these regimens, advanced RCC remains a largely incurable disease, and additional strategies are warranted.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chih-Hsun Yang ◽  
Cheng-Keng Chuang ◽  
Jia-Juan Hsieh ◽  
John Wen-Cheng Chang

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 442-442
Author(s):  
Masayuki Takahashi ◽  
Kei Daizumoto ◽  
Megumi Tsuda ◽  
Yoshito Kusuhara ◽  
Hidehisa Mori ◽  
...  

442 Background: Axitinib has demonstrated high efficacy with well-controlled adverse events (AEs) for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Recently, nivolumab has been approved for advanced RCC. However, it is very expensive in Japan and may cause severe immune-related AEs. There is no clue to choose axitinib or nivolumab as the second-line for advanced RCC. Previously we identified the gene set which may predict poor prognosis of RCC patients (Takahashi m et.al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 98: 9754, 2001) and have sought to elucidate whether insulin receptor (INSR) expression in the gene set may predict the resistance for axitinib as a biomarker. Methods: Axitinib was administered in 36 patients in our department between January 2008 and April 2015. Median age was 70 (36-84) years old with 22 males and 14 females. Histological subtype included clear cell RCC (n=27, 75.0%), clear cell + sarcomatoid component (n=3), collecting duct carcinoma (n=2), papillary, sarcomatoid, mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma (MTSCC), and unknown in each one. Axitinib was administered in two patients as the first line, 21 patients as the second line, and 13 patients as ≥ the third line. Tissue of primary tumor was available in 20/36 patients, including 16 clear cell RCC and 4 other subtypes. Immunohistochemical INSR expression was examined and correlated with survival of the patients with axitinib. Results: Objective response rate was 27.6%, progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.3 months, and overall survival (OS) was 41.9 months in clear cell RCC patients. Patients with low INSR expression (n=7) had significantly shorter PFS (68 vs. 586 days, p<0.001) and OS (169 vs. 1027 days, p=0.004) compared with those with high INSR expression (n=13). If only clear cell RCC was evaluated, patients with low INSR expression (n=3) had significantly shorter PFS (77 vs. 586 days, p=0.008) and OS (294 vs. 1027 days, p=0.016) compared with those with high INSR expression (n=13). Conclusions: Axitinib was highly effective for advanced clear cell RCC. However, immunohistochemically low expression of INSR in the primary tumor may predict the resistance for axitinib and those patients may be more suitable for immune checkpoint inhibitors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document