Pulmonary artery thrombosis mimicking disease progression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma on Sunitinib

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 112 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ahmad ◽  
SVSS Prasad ◽  
MV Krishna ◽  
V Lavingia
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Pulmonary Artery ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Artery Thrombosis

Comparison of First-line Pazopanib and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experiences of the Urologic Cancer Centre for Research and Innovation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C.L. Wong ◽  
Camilla Tajzler ◽  
Gaurav Vasisth ◽  
Amanda Zhu ◽  
Mathilda Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Sunitinib and pazopanib are orally-administered tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitors (TKIs) approved as first-line therapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The IMDC criteria are a predictive prognostic model for patients with mRCC when stratified into three prognosis groups: favourable, intermediate and poor. We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy for patients with mRCC in our single institution database. Methods: Retrospective analysis was done to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects of sunitinib and pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC. Patients were stratified into prognosis groups according to IMDC criteria. Disease assessment was performed on measurable aspects of disease based on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging reports. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression, with disease progression as the endpoint.Results: Data was obtained from 228 patients with mRCC who were treated with either pazopanib (n=57) or sunitinib (n=171). No significant difference in PFS was found between sunitinib and pazopanib (HR for disease progression or all-cause death, 1.10; 95%CI: 0.76-1.57, p=0.62). Median PFS time for patients receiving sunitinib was 9.4 months and for pazopanib, 8.5 months. Median PFS for patients with intermediate-risk disease was similar between groups (9.4 months vs. 9.2 months, respectively, p=0.93). However, patients treated with sunitinib experienced a greater number of side effects compared to pazopanib. Conclusions: Sunitinib and pazopanib are similarly efficacious as first-line therapy for mRCC. However, adverse events are lower with pazopanib.

scholarly journals Dose escalation of axitinib on disease progression as a strategy in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

ESMO Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. e000445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Joseph Doherty ◽  
Deirdre Lynskey ◽  
Athena Matakidou ◽  
Kate Fife ◽  
Tim Eisen
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Drug Label ◽  
Entire Cohort

IntroductionThe AXIS trial established axitinib as a standard of care treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after failure of a prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Axitinib dosing begins at 5  mg twice daily, with escalation of doses to 7  and 10  mg after consecutive 2-week intervals if tolerated (as per the drug label). Given clinical concerns about drug-related toxicity, we have used a pragmatic strategy where dose escalations were made only after disease progression or where rapid responses were clinically required.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of electronic health records and radiology of all patients with mRCC treated with axitinib for >2 weeks at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK, over a 37 -month period to determine the clinical and radiological effects of dose escalations made according to the above strategy.Results42 patients fitting these criteria were identified, 29 having ≥1  dose escalation event (DEE). 60 DEEs were identified (median of two per patient), and the objective radiological consequences of 53 DEEs could be evaluated. The disease control rate (partial response or stable disease) after the first DEE instituted for disease progression was similar to that after the second DEE (68.8% vs 70%). 56.6 % of all DEEs and 63.6 % of DEEs made as a result of disease progression resulted in disease control. The median OS from the commencement of axitinib for all dose-escalated patients was 19.9 months, and 16.5 months for the entire cohort. The mean dose (for all patients) at 90 days after starting axitinib was 5.92  mg.ConclusionThese data suggest that dose escalation of axitinib after disease progression may be an effective dosing strategy for patients with mRCC, and this may be a preferred option in patients in whom there are particular concerns about drug-related toxicity, quality of life optimisation or healthcare-associated costs.

Clinical Effect of Dose Escalation After Disease Progression in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. e275-e280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe C. Ornstein ◽  
Laura Wood ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Kimberly Allman ◽  
Jennifer Beach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clinical Effect

A phase I study of BMS-936558 plus sunitinib or pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2614-TPS2614
Author(s):  
Hans J. Hammers ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Gary R. Hudes ◽  
Marc S. Ernstoff ◽  
Christian K. Kollmannsberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Treatment Naïve

TPS2614 Background: Standard treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) block the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (eg, sunitinib, pazopanib) or mammalian target of rapamycin pathway (e.g., temsirolimus, everolimus). However, most patients (pts) develop resistance and complete responses are rare. Upregulation of programmed death-1 (PD-1) in tumor infiltrating lymphoctyes, and its ligand PD-L1 in tumors, is associated with more aggressive disease and poor prognosis. Blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is a novel immunotherapeutic approach for mRCC. In preliminary results of a phase I trial, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody BMS-936558 had antitumor activity in pts with advanced tumors, including objective responses (ORs) in 6 of 18 pts with mRCC. Here we describe a phase I study planned to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BMS-936558, when combined with sunitinib or pazopanib in pts with mRCC. Methods: This open-label study will have two parallel treatment arms (BMS-936558 plus sunitinib and BMS-936558 plus pazopanib) conducted in two parts (dose escalation and dose expansion). Pts must have received ≥1 prior systemic therapy to be eligible for dose escalation. Only treatment-naïve pts will be eligible for dose expansion. Up to 36 pts (18 per arm) will be treated in the dose-escalation phase. After determining the MTD of BMS-936558, treatment-naïve pts will be enrolled to expansion cohorts allowing 24 pts to be treated at the MTD of each arm. Each treatment cycle will be 6 weeks, with BMS-936558 dosed on Days 1 and 22 and sunitinib or pazopanib given according to product label. Adverse events will be graded according to NCI CTCAE v4.0. Disease will be assessed every 6 weeks for the first four assessments and then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Pts will be treated until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal of consent. The safety profile in pts treated at the MTD will be used to determine the recommended phase II study dose of BMS-936558 in each combination arm. Secondary objectives will include OR rate and duration of response based on RECIST 1.1. Exploratory analyses will investigate predictive biomarkers of BMS-936558.

Clinical effect of TKI dose-escalation after disease progression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4562-4562
Author(s):  
Moshe Chaim Ornstein ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Jorge A. Garcia ◽  
Timothy D. Gilligan ◽  
Laura S. Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clinical Effect

Clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who interrupted VEGFR-TKI after achieving stable disease or better response.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 459-459
Author(s):  
Dong Hoe Koo ◽  
Inkeun Park ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Jin-Hee Ahn ◽  
Dae Ho Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival

459 Background: The purpose of the this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of VEGFR-TKIs interruption in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after achieving stable disease (SD) or better response. Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records and imaging studies was performed on all patients with mRCC treated with VEGFR-TKIs between January 2008 and July 2014 (n=505). Patients who achieved SD or better response under VEGFR-TKI and later discontinued VEGFR-TKIs for any reason with the exception of disease progression were included in the analysis. Outcomes analyzed were progression free survival (PFS) after VEGFR-TKIs discontinuation, patterns of disease progression, time to subsequent therapy (TST), response to VEGFR-TKI resumption, and time to treatment failure (TTF) after TKI resumption. Results: We identified 32 patients (sunitinib=20, sorafenib=7, and pazopanib=5). The responses to VEGFR-TKIs were CR (n=4), PR (n=11), SD (n=15), and controlled but non-measurable (n=2). Median time to interruption from the initiation of VEGFR-TKI therapy was 16.6 months (95% CI, 12.8-20.3). The main causes of VEGFR-TKI interruption was toxicity (n=19, 59.4%), will to have treatment holiday (n=7, 21.8%), patient’s refusal (n=3, 9.4%), and others (n=3, 9.4%). At the time of analysis, 16 patients had disease progression and 1 patient was dead. With a median follow-up duration of 56.6 months (range, 12.6-167.4), median PFS from VEGFR-TKI interruption was 23.8 months (95% CI, 12.5-35.0), and the median TST was 26.2 months (95% CI, 15.9-36.6). The progression was observed in pre-existing lesions in 7 patients (43.7%) or new lesions developed in 9 (56.3%). Among 11 patients who received VEGFR-TKI resumption, 2 patients (18.2%) achieved a PR and the stable disease was observed in 9 (81.8%) with a median TTF of VEGFR-TKI resumption of 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.0-8.4). Conclusions: In patients with mRCC controlled with VEGFR-TKIs, VEGFR-TKI could be interrupted at least temporarily when clinically warranted.

FDA analysis of treatment beyond disease progression disease (PD) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with nivolumab vs. everolimus.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4508-4508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chana Weinstock ◽  
Virginia Ellen Maher ◽  
Lijun Zhang ◽  
James Xunhai Xu ◽  
Shenghui Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell

A novel strategy for axitinib dosing in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 464-464
Author(s):  
Gary Doherty ◽  
Deirdre Lynskey ◽  
Athena Matakidou ◽  
Kate Fife ◽  
Tim Eisen
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Drug Exposure ◽  
Dosing Strategy

464 Background: The AXIS trial established axitinib as an effective second line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The dosing schedule of axitinib in this trial begins at 5mg twice daily, with escalation of individual doses to 7mg and 10mg after consecutive 2 week intervals if tolerated. We observed significant drug-related toxicity using this dosing strategy, particularly after dose escalations, while clinical responses were often observed at the starting dose. We therefore switched to a pragmatic strategy where dose escalations were made only after disease progression or where a rapid response was deemed clinically pertinent. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of electronic health records and radiology of all patients with mRCC treated with axitinib for greater than 2 weeks at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK (a tertiary referral center), over a 40 month period to determine the clinical and radiological effects of dose escalations made according to the above strategy. Results: 42 patients fitting these criteria were identified; of these, 29 had at least one dose escalation event (DEE). A total of 58 DEEs were identified, with a median of 2 per patient, and the objective radiological consequences of 50 of these could be determined. The disease control rate (partial response or stable disease) after the first DEE instituted for disease progression was similar to that after the second DEE (68.8% versus 70%). 56% of all DEEs, and 62.5% of DEEs made as a result of disease progression, resulted in disease control. The median overall survival from the commencement of axitinib for all dose-escalated patients was 19.9 months, and 6.7 months for non-dose-escalated patients. The median survival for dose-escalated patients with a higher than median time on a prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor has not been reached at the time of data cut-off. The mean dose (for all patients) at 90 days after starting axitinib was 5.92 mg. Conclusions: These data suggest that dose escalation of axitinib after disease progression may be an effective dosing strategy for patients with mRCC, and may reduce toxicity through lower drug exposure. Our survival data compares favourably to the AXIS trial in a real practice population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document