Comparison of four tumor response criteria (RECIST 1.0, tumor shrinkage, radiodensity, and Choi) in assessing outcome to VEGF-targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4526-4526
Author(s):  
K. M. Krajewski ◽  
D. Y. Heng ◽  
I. Pedrosa ◽  
N. H. Ramaiya ◽  
J. P. Jagannathan ◽  
...  
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

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4636-4636
Author(s):  
Steffen Weikert ◽  
Viktor Grünwald ◽  
Ingo GH Schmidt-Wolf ◽  
Stefan Hauser ◽  
Kerstin Kapp ◽  
...  

4636 Background: MGN1601 was tested in the first-in-man phase I-II clinical study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who failed several previous therapy lines and had no further standard therapy available. MGN1601 consists of two active pharmaceutical ingredients in fixed combination: fourfold gene-modified allogeneic tumor cells expressing IL-7, GM-CSF, CD80 and CD154 through MIDGE vectors and a TLR-9 agonist, the immunomodulator dSLIM. Methods: The ASET study is a multicentric, single-arm phase I-II clinical trial. Clinical response was evaluated using CT scans (RECIST 1.1 or immune related Response Criteria, irRC). Efficacy data were evaluated in terms of PFS and OS for the intended to treat and the treated per protocol (TPP) populations, clinical parameters and quality of life. Immune response was determined using DTH to MGN1601, LTT assay, frequency and activation of blood cells, and mRNA, chemokine and cytotoxic T cells analysis as well as tumor tissue evaluation. Results: Nine of 19 included patients completed the TPP, the others discontinued the study earlier due to PD. Median PFS in the TPP group was 12 wks (3 months) and OS (not reached yet) 46 wks (11 months). Three patients achieved disease control (1 PR, 2 SD) after 12 wks. Two patients are continuing treatment in the extension phase and are progression free since 37 and 46 wks, respectively. Re-evaluation of tumor response data using irRC revealed 1 additional patient with a delayed tumor response 4 wks after treatment stop. Herewith, 4 out of 9 TPP patients (45%) achieved disease control. Of 7 patients receiving targeted therapy upon stop of study treatment, 4 had substantial objective responses, providing evidence that the study drug is able to render their tumors more vulnerable to subsequent therapies. Immune analysis showed trends towards increases of T-, NKT-cell and pDC frequencies and other immune parameters in those patients with clinical responses, indicating anti-tumor immunity of study treatment. Conclusions: The therapeutic cancer vaccine MGN1601 shows promising efficacy in late stage mRCC patients. Results warrant further clinical studies with MGN1601.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document