Treatment outcome for metastatic papillary and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sunitinib and sorafenib

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5037-5037 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Plantade ◽  
T. Choueiri ◽  
B. Escudier ◽  
B. Rini ◽  
S. Negrier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc ◽  
Tki Treatment

5037 Background: Sunitinib (SUNI) and sorafenib (SORAF) are novel TKIs that have shown significant clinical activity in metastatic clear-cell RCC. Papillary (PAP) and chromophobe (CHRM) histologies represent the majority non-clear-cell RCC. The activity of SUNI and SORAF in non-clear cell histologies has not been evaluated. Methods: Clinical features at study entry and treatment outcomes were evaluated in all patients (pts) with metastatic PAP and CHRM RCC who received either SUNI or SORAF as their initial TKI treatment at one of five different cancer centers in France and USA between 2002 and 2006. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the collected data. Overall Response rate (ORR) was investigator-assessed per RECIST criteria. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival (Overall Survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)). Results: Median age for the 53 patients was 59 years and 64% were male. The number of patients with PAP and CHRM histologies were 41 (77%) and 12 (23%), respectively. Nephrectomy was performed in 87% of patients and 33/53 (62%) of pts were previously treated (26/33, 79%, with cytokines). ORR, PFS and OS for the entire cohort were 10%, 8.9 months (m) and 12.2 m, respectively. Twenty (38%) and 33 (62%) pts were treated with SUNI and SORAF, respectively. 3/12 (25%) of CHRM pts had an ORR vs. 2/41(4.8%) with PAP histology (P=0.07). PFS for CHRM pts was 9.3 m compared to 6.6 m for PAP pts (p=0.07). OS was not different across histologies and type of TKI received. SUNI treated pts had an ORR of 15% and PFS of 11.9 m compared to 6% (p=0.3) and 5.5 m for SORAF pts (p=0.002), respectively. Other factors found to be associated with shorter PFS include ECOG PS >0 (p=0.03) and hemoglobin< normal (p=0.02). Conclusions: TKI may have activity in metastatic CHRM RCC, similar to what is seen in clear-cell histology. Minimal activity however is noted in PAP RCC, justifying continued investigations of novel agents in this histology. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Efficacy of Sunitinib and Sorafenib in Metastatic Papillary and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Anne Plantade ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Sylvie Negrier ◽  
Alain Ravaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Number Of Patients

Purpose Sunitinib and sorafenib are novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have shown significant clinical activity in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The activity of sunitinib and sorafenib in non–clear cell histologies has not been evaluated. Patients and Methods Clinical features at study entry and treatment outcomes were evaluated in patients with metastatic papillary RCC (PRCC) and chromophobe RCC (ChRCC) who received either sunitinib or sorafenib as their initial TKI treatment in five US and French institutions. Response rate and survival were documented. Fisher's exact test was used for categoric variables, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results Fifty-three patients were included. The number of patients with papillary and chromophobe histologies was 41 (77%) and 12 (23%), respectively. Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) time, and overall survival time for the entire cohort were 10%, 8.6 months, and 19.6 months, respectively. Three (25%) of 12 ChRCC patients achieved a response (two patients treated with sorafenib and one treated with sunitinib), and PFS was 10.6 months. Two (4.8%) of 41 PRCC patients achieved a response (both patients were treated with sunitinib). PFS for the whole cohort was 7.6 months. Sunitinib-treated PRCC patients had a PFS of 11.9 months compared with 5.1 months for sorafenib-treated patients (P < .001). Conclusion Patients with PRCC and ChRCC may have prolonged PFS from sunitinib and sorafenib, although clinical responses remain overall low in PRCC. Additional prospective trials with these agents in non–clear cell RCC will further clarify their use in the future.

Outcomes with novel combinations in non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma(nccRCC): ORACLE study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4580-4580
Author(s):  
Deepak Kilari ◽  
Aniko Szabo ◽  
Pooja Ghatalia ◽  
Tracy L Rose ◽  
Nicole Weise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clear Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
New Combination ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc ◽  
Rhabdoid Differentiation

4580 Background: Despite advances in the treatment of clear cell RCC, there is a paucity of data to guide management of nccRCC due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these tumors. The clinical activity of new combination therapies (including immunotherapy (IO), anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF), and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors) in metastatic nccRCC is not known. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we explored the efficacy of combination systemic therapies in patients with nccRCC. Baseline and follow-up demographic, clinical, treatment, and radiographic data were collected. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by investigator review. Secondary endpoints include progression- free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), median duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and biomarker correlates. Results: Among 66 included patients, median age was 59 yr; 60% were male and 62% white. Histologies included papillary (38%), chromophobe (17%), unclassified (24%), translocation (12%), and other (9 %). Sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation was present in 18%, 70% had prior nephrectomy, 86% were IMDC intermediate/poor risk, 29% and 32% had liver and bone metastasis respectively. 67% received combination treatment in the first line. Comparison of outcomes based on treatment regimen is shown in the table. Conclusions: Antitumor activity was observed with novel combinations in nccRCC which warrants further prospective studies. Response rates and survival with combination therapy in this dataset remain inferior to rates seen in clear cell RCC.[Table: see text]

A randomized, phase II efficacy assessment of multiple MET kinase inhibitors in metastatic papillary renal carcinoma (PRCC): SWOG S1500.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4599-TPS4599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
Catherine M. Tangen ◽  
Ian Murchie Thompson ◽  
Brian M. Shuch ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc

TPS4599 Background: PRCC constitutes approximately 15% of RCC cases, and no standard of care exists for metastatic disease. Approved VEGF- and mTOR-directed therapies for clear cell RCC in metastatic PRCC (mPRCC) have generally been ineffective. Trials assessing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC show a numerical advantage in progression-free survival (PFS) with sunitinib therapy. Prospective studies evaluating sunitinib in mPRCC show a broad range of efficacy, with PFS ranging from 1.6-6.6 months. Another possible approach to treating mPRCC is to target the MET protooncogene, which is frequently altered across both type I and type II disease. SWOG 1500 is a randomized, phase II study which will compare sunitinib to three MET-directed therapies in pts with mPRCC. Methods: Eligible pts will have PRCC (type I, type II or NOS), Zubrod performance status 0-1, and measurable metastatic disease. Pts may have received up to 1 prior systemic therapy, with the exception of prior VEGF-directed treatments. Treated brain metastases are allowed. Tissue must be available for central pathologic review of papillary subtype. Pts will receive either oral sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib or savolitinib in a 1:1:1:1 randomization, with stratification by (1) prior therapy (0 vs 1) and (2) PRCC subtype (type I vs type II vs NOS). The primary endpoint of the study is to compare PFS with sunitinib to PFS with MET-directed therapies. Secondary endpoints in the study include comparison of response rate, overall survival and safety profile. Translational aims of the study include correlation of clinical outcome with MET mutation, copy number and other markers of MET signaling. Radiographic assessment will be performed every 12 wks. Interim analyses are planned for each arm. A total of 275 pts will be enrolled, with 26 pts registered as of Jan 30, 2017. Clinical trial information: NCT02761057.

Sorafenib fourth-line treatment in imatinib-, sunitinib-, and nilotinib-resistant metastatic GIST: A retrospective analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10564-10564 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Reichardt ◽  
M. Montemurro ◽  
H. Gelderblom ◽  
J. Blay ◽  
P. Rutkowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Mesenchymal Tumors ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Tki Treatment

10564 Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal tumors usually caused by mutations in the KIT or PDGFRA gene. Advanced disease generally cannot be cured by surgery nor by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), but TKIs have considerably improved outcome for patients (pts) with advanced GIST. Patients failing TKI treatment with imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU) or nilotinib (NI) have a poor prognosis. Sorafenib is a multi kinase inhibitor that blocks not only receptor tyrosine kinases such as KIT, VEGFR and PDGFR but also serine/threonine kinases along the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Recently, clinical activity of sorafenib in third-line treatment in patients with GIST after IM and SU failure has been shown (Wiebe et al. ASCO 2008, #10502). Methods: We report herein preliminary data of 32 pts treated with sorafenib in nine European centers. Centers were selected based on their previous and known experience in GIST and reported all pts treated. Pts received sorafenib after failure of IM, SU and NI in fourth-line treatment. Baseline characteristics and treatment details have been retrieved via questionary. Results: Median age at sorafenib treatment start was 62 years (range 33–81 y), and the majority of pts were male (63 %). Primary tumor site was gastric or small intestine in 25% and 41% of pts, respectively. All pts had failed IM, SU, NI. 19 % of pts achieved partial remission and 44% disease stabilization. Approximately half of the pts had an improvement of symptoms and/or performance. Half of the pts were on treatment longer than 4 months (actuarial data) and 41% of pts continue to receive sorafenib. Median progression-free survival is 20 weeks and median overall survival 42 weeks (Kaplan-Meier), at a median follow-up of 22 weeks (range 3–54). Conclusions: This is the largest series assessing efficacy of sorafenib fourth-line treatment for IM, SU and NI refractory GIST reported yet. Sorafenib displays significant clinical activity in this heavily pretreated group of patients. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Characteristics and Treatment Challenges of Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 3807
Author(s):  
Pierangela Sepe ◽  
Arianna Ottini ◽  
Chiara Carlotta Pircher ◽  
Andrea Franza ◽  
Melanie Claps ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCC) comprise several rare and poorly described diseases, often characterized by bad prognosis and with no standard treatments available. The gap in their clinical management is linked to the poor molecular characterization in handling the treatment of non clear-cell RCC with untailored therapies. Due to their rarity, non-clear RCC are in fact under-represented in prospective randomized trials. Thus, treatment choices are based on extrapolating results from clear cell RCC trials, retrospective data, or case reports. Over the last two decades, various options have been considered as the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC), including angiogenesis inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), as well as MET inhibitors and mammalian targeting of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. More recently, the therapeutic armamentarium has been enriched with immunotherapy, alone or in combination with targeted agents that have been shown to significantly improve outcomes of mRCC patients, if compared to TKI single-agent. It has been widely proven that non-clear cell RCC is a morphologically and clinically distinct entity from its clear cell counterpart but more knowledge about its biology is certainly needed. Histology-specific collaborative trials are in fact now emerging to investigate different treatments for non-clear cell RCC. This review summarizes pathogenetic mechanisms of non-clear cell RCC, the evolution of treatment paradigms over the last few decades, with a focus on immunotherapy-based trials, and future potential treatment options.

Denosumab and pembrolizumab in clear cell renal carcinoma (KEYPAD): A phase II trial (ANZUP1601).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS367-TPS367
Author(s):  
Craig Gedye ◽  
Abhishek Jagdish Joshi ◽  
Alison Yan Zhang ◽  
Andrew James Martin ◽  
Anthony M. Joshua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Tumour Response ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Progression Free Survival

TPS367 Background: Inhibitors of the programmed death-1 pathway (PD-1) are effective in clear cell renal cell cancer (ccRCC). Preclinical data and case reports suggest that denosumab, an inhibitor of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor κ-B Ligand (RANKL) signaling, could potentiate the anti-tumour effects of anti-PD1 inhibitors without overlapping toxicities. We aim to determine the activity and safety of combining denosumab and pembrolizumab in advanced ccRCC. Methods: This single arm, multi-center, phase II trial will recruit 70 participants with metastatic or unresectable ccRCC, progressing during or after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and with no prior treatment with immunotherapy or denosumab. Participants will receive pembrolizumab 200mg IV every 3 weeks plus denosumab 120mg SC on days 1, 8 and 22 and then every 3 weeks until disease progression, prohibitive toxicity or maximum treatment of 24 months. Response will be assessed at weeks 12, 18, 24, then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Bloods for translational studies are collected at baseline, week 6 and on disease progression. The primary endpoint is objective tumour response rate (OTRR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include OTRR per iRECIST, progression free survival (PFS), time to OTRR, time to first skeletal related event, adverse events, and frequency of treatment delays/discontinuations. Correlative studies will include identification of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers relating to immune and RANKL signaling. A sample size of 70 provides 90% power with a 1-sided type 1 error rate of 10% to distinguish the observed OTRR (and PFS at 6 months) from an OTRR of 40% (worthy of pursuit) versus 25% (not worthy of pursuit). 15 sites are open across Australia. As of September 23, 2020, 40 patients have been recruited. Clinical trial information: NCT03280667 .

Evaluation of different MET genotypes as biomarkers for immunotherapy outcomes in NSCLC patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21032-e21032
Author(s):  
Xuanzong Li ◽  
Linlin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Tumor Mutational Burden ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e21032 Background: Previous studies suggested that MET exon 14 ( METex14) mutation regarding as a distinct subset was sensitive to MET-inhibitors, but poorly response to immunotherapy. Conversly, MET non-exon-14 (non-ex14) mutations including those undetermined functions and affecting the kinase or extracellular domains were found to be associated with the resistance to MET-inhibitors. However, therapeutic strategies for MET-non-ex14 mutant cancer are still largely unknown, and the relationship between MET-non-ex14 mutations and the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has never been reported. Using two public ICIs-treated cohorts, we aimed to assess the role of MET mutations including both METex14 and MET-non-ex14 mutations in NSCLC patients undergoing ICIs therapy. Methods: A total of 385 ICIs-treated NSCLC patients were enrolled to our study. MET mutations were defined as any nonsynonymous mutations, and we divided them into METex14 and MET-non-ex14 mutation subsets according to the mutated-position on MET. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the difference of tumor mutational burden (TMB) score, and the Fisher’s exact test was applied to compare the rates of durable clinical benefit (DCB). Log-rank test was used to analyze the differences between Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: In the entire cohort, we found that 17 patients (17/385, 4.4%) had MET mutations, most of which were pure METex14 mutations (10/17, 58.8%). The median TMB of patients in the entire NSCLC cohort was 6.89 mut/Mb. MET-non-ex14 mutant patients (7/385, 1.8%) possessed a significantly higher TMB than METex14-mutant (10/385, 2.6%) and MET wild-type (368/385, 95.6%) sub-cohorts, respectively (median TMB, 17.92 mut/Mb versus 4.17 mut/Mb, p = 0.008; 17.92 mut/Mb versus 6.96 mut/Mb, p = 0.01, respectively). DCB was more common in patients harbored MET-non-ex14 mutations than patients with METex14 mutations and MET wild-type (66.7% versus 14.3%, p = 0.103; 66.7% versus 29.9%, p = 0.075, respectively). We found that patients with MET-non-ex14 mutations had a numerically longer progression free survival (PFS) than those with METex14 mutations and MET wild-type (p = 0.169). Moreover, the PFS was significantly longer in MET-non-ex14-mutant subgroup than patients with METex14 mutations (median PFS, 9.1 versus 2.1 months, p = 0.025). Correspondingly, the overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in MET-non-ex14-mutant subgroup than their wild-type counterparts (median OS, not reached versus 11 months, p = 0.039). Additionally, patients with MET-non-ex14 mutations exhibited relatively better OS versus METex14-mutant patients (median OS, not reached versus 18 months, p = 0.175). Conclusions: MET-non-ex14 mutations were associated with higher TMB, improved DCB rate, and could act as a favorable prognostic biomarker in ICIs-treated NSCLC patients.

scholarly journals erbB in NSCLC as a molecular target: current evidences and future directions

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e000724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
Federico Cucchiara ◽  
Iacopo Petrini ◽  
Stefano Fogli ◽  
Antonio Passaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Epidermal Growth Factor ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clonal Selection ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Signal Transduction Pathway ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Medical Need ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Epidermal Growth

A number of treatments have been developed for HER1, 2 and 3-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), of which the most successful have been the epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in HER1-mutant tumours resulting in highly improved progression-free survival. Human epidermal growth factor (HER)2 and 3-driven tumours represent the minority of NSCLC, and effective therapies in these patients still represent an unmet medical need. The encouraging results seen with anti-HER2 and anti-HER3 monoclonal antibodies need to be validated in larger studies, even if the greatest obstacle is represented by the exiguous number of patients bearing deregulated HER2/3 system and abnormalities of signal transduction pathway. Considering NSCLC tumour heterogeneity, which affects response and resistance to treatment, combined multiparametric approaches, such as liquid biopsy together with radiomics, may provide a better understanding of the tumour dynamics and clonal selection during the treatments.

scholarly journals A descriptive report of outcomes of primary mucinous ovarian cancer patients receiving either an adjuvant gynecologic or gastrointestinal chemotherapy regimen

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 904-909
Author(s):  
Brooke A Schlappe ◽  
Qin C Zhou ◽  
Roisin O'Cearbhaill ◽  
Alexia Iasonos ◽  
Robert A Soslow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Kaplan Meier

ObjectiveWe described progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with primary mucinous ovarian cancer receiving adjuvant gynecologic versus gastrointestinal chemotherapy regimens.MethodsWe identified all primary mucinous ovarian cancer patients receiving adjuvant gynecologic or gastrointestinal chemotherapy regimens at a single institution from 1994 to 2016. Gynecologic pathologists using strict pathologic/clinical criteria determined diagnosis. Adjuvant therapy was coded as gynecologic or gastrointestinal based on standard agents and schedules. Clinical/pathologic/treatment characteristics were recorded. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Progression-free and overall survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, applying landmark analysis.ResultsOf 62 patients identified, 21 received adjuvant chemotherapy: 12 gynecologic, 9 gastrointestinal. Median age (in years) at diagnosis: 58 (range 25–68) gynecologic cohort, 38 (range 32–68) gastrointestinal cohort (p=0.13). Median body mass index at first post-operative visit: 25 kg/m2(range 18–31) gynecologic cohort, 23 kg/m2(range 18–31) gastrointestinal cohort (p=0.23). History of smoking: 6/12 (50%) gynecologic cohort, 3/9 (33%) gastrointestinal cohort (p=0.66). Stage distribution in gynecologic and gastrointestinal cohorts, respectively: stage I: 9/12 (75%) and 3/9 (33%); stage II: 2/12 (17%) and 1/9 (11%); stage III: 1/12 (8%) and 5/9 (56%) (p=0.06). Grade distribution in gynecologic and gastrointestinal cohorts, respectively: grade 1: 8/12 (67%) and 1/9 (13%); grade 2/3: 4/12 (33%) and 7/9 (88%) (p=0.03). Three-year progression-free survival: 90.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 98.7 %) gynecologic, 53.3% (95% CI 17.7% to 79.6%) gastrointestinal. Three-year overall survival: 90.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 98.7%) gynecologic, 76.2% (95% CI 33.2% to 93.5%) gastrointestinal.ConclusionOngoing international collaborative research may further define associations between chemotherapy regimens and survival.

A multicentered population-based analysis of outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Lauren Christine Harshman ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Number Of Patients

353 Background: Clinical trials have strict eligibility criteria to maintain internal validity. These criteria exclude many patients to whom the trial results are later applied to in clinical practice. Patients that do not meet eligibility criteria are poorly characterized. Methods: mRCC patients treated with VEGF targeted therapy were retrospectively deemed ineligible for clinical trials (according to commonly used inclusion/exclusion criteria) if they had a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) < 70%, brain metastases, non-clear cell histology, hemoglobin ≤ 9 g/dL, creatinine > 2x the upper limit of normal, platelet count of < 100x103/uL, neutrophil count < 1500/mm3 or corrected calcium ≤ 12 mg/dL. Results: 894/2076 (43%) patients were deemed ineligible for clinical trials by the above criteria. Between ineligible versus eligible patients, the response rate, median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival of first-line targeted therapy were 21% vs 29%, 5.2 vs 8.8 months and 14.5 vs 28.8 months (all p < 0.0001), respectively. Second-line PFS (if applicable) was 3.2 months in the trial ineligible vs 4.4 months in the trial eligible patients (p = 0.0074). When adjusted by the Heng et al prognostic categories, the hazard ratio for death between trial ineligible vs trial eligible patients was 1.621 (95% CI = 1.431–1.836, p < 0.0001). If only KPS, brain metastases and non-clear cell histology were used as exclusion criteria, 672 (32%) patients were excluded and the results were similar. Conclusions: The number of patients that are ineligible for clinical trials is high and their outcomes are inferior. Designing more inclusive clinical trials for this “ineligible” patient population are needed. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document