User login
PFS better with first-line pazopanib vs. sorafenib in mRCC
MADRID – The drug sequence matters when it comes to the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) investigators have found.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with first-line pazopanib (Votrient) followed by sorafenib (Nexavar) as a second-line therapy at the time of first progression was 12.9 months, compared with 8.6 months for patients started on sorafenib and then crossed over to pazopanib at progression, reported Margitta Retz, MD, of the Technical University of Munich.
The trial design specified that to show noninferiority for the sorafenib-pazopanib combination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio would have to be less than 1.225, but the upper limit was instead 1.68.
However, two key secondary endpoints – progression-free survival during first line-therapy and disease-control rate – clearly favored the pazopanib-first sequence, although there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS), Dr. Retz said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
SWITCH-2 was a phase 3, randomized, open-label crossover trial designed to test the combination and sequencing of sorafenib and pazopanib, each of which is approved for the treatment of mRCC.
In the SWITCH-1 trial, investigators looked at sorafenib followed by sunitinib (Sutent) or vice-versa and found no significant differences in either total PFS or OS. Based on these results, they conducted a similar trial using sorafenib and pazopanib.
A total of 377 patients in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands with mRCC who were not good candidates for cytokines and had no prior systemic therapies were enrolled and randomly assigned to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or pazopanib 800 mg once daily until progression or intolerable toxicity. In each arm, patients were crossed over to the other drug at the time of first progression.
After 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of total PFS was 1.36 trending in favor of pazopanib.
For the secondary endpoint of first-line PFS, pazopanib-first was clearly superior, with a median PFS of 9.3 months, compared with 5.6 months for sorafenib-first (HR, 1.56, P = .0017). There was no difference in second-line PFS, at 2.2 vs. 2.9 months, respectively.
Overall survival trended in favor of up-front pazopanib, with a median of 28 months vs. a median of 22.7 months for up-front sorafenib, but this difference, as noted before, was not significant.
An analysis of tumor response and disease-control rates showed that in the first line, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence was associated with a disease-control rate (composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease) of 77.7%, compared with 67.7% for sorafenib-pazopanib (P = .0304).
In the second line, however, the disease control rate favored the sorafenib-followed-by-pazopanib arm, at 56.6% vs. 43.6% (P = .0112).
A subgroup analysis showed that, in terms of total PFS, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence offered greater benefit to patients older than 65, those with favorable Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC/Motzer) scores, patients with good Karnofsky Performance Status, and patients whose tumors had a non–clear cell histology.
In each study arm, adverse events were more commonly seen during first-line therapy. With sorafenib, the most frequent adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction, alopecia, and rash. For pazopanib, the most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, nausea, abdominal pain, and elevation of liver enzymes.
Although the investigators reported no differences in overall survival, “I question that: I think half a year of survival is a meaningful difference. Although it’s statistically insignificant, it might be important for the patients,” he said.
He suggested that ESMO guidelines regarding treatment of patients with mRCC should be revised to reflect data from this and other trials suggesting that sorafenib should be dropped as a treatment option in either first- or second-line therapy.
The trial was supported by grants from Bayer and Novartis. Dr. Retz disclosed honoraria from those companies and others, and advisory board participation for other drug makers. Dr. Staehler disclosed but did not specify relationships with Bayer, Novartis, and others.
MADRID – The drug sequence matters when it comes to the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) investigators have found.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with first-line pazopanib (Votrient) followed by sorafenib (Nexavar) as a second-line therapy at the time of first progression was 12.9 months, compared with 8.6 months for patients started on sorafenib and then crossed over to pazopanib at progression, reported Margitta Retz, MD, of the Technical University of Munich.
The trial design specified that to show noninferiority for the sorafenib-pazopanib combination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio would have to be less than 1.225, but the upper limit was instead 1.68.
However, two key secondary endpoints – progression-free survival during first line-therapy and disease-control rate – clearly favored the pazopanib-first sequence, although there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS), Dr. Retz said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
SWITCH-2 was a phase 3, randomized, open-label crossover trial designed to test the combination and sequencing of sorafenib and pazopanib, each of which is approved for the treatment of mRCC.
In the SWITCH-1 trial, investigators looked at sorafenib followed by sunitinib (Sutent) or vice-versa and found no significant differences in either total PFS or OS. Based on these results, they conducted a similar trial using sorafenib and pazopanib.
A total of 377 patients in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands with mRCC who were not good candidates for cytokines and had no prior systemic therapies were enrolled and randomly assigned to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or pazopanib 800 mg once daily until progression or intolerable toxicity. In each arm, patients were crossed over to the other drug at the time of first progression.
After 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of total PFS was 1.36 trending in favor of pazopanib.
For the secondary endpoint of first-line PFS, pazopanib-first was clearly superior, with a median PFS of 9.3 months, compared with 5.6 months for sorafenib-first (HR, 1.56, P = .0017). There was no difference in second-line PFS, at 2.2 vs. 2.9 months, respectively.
Overall survival trended in favor of up-front pazopanib, with a median of 28 months vs. a median of 22.7 months for up-front sorafenib, but this difference, as noted before, was not significant.
An analysis of tumor response and disease-control rates showed that in the first line, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence was associated with a disease-control rate (composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease) of 77.7%, compared with 67.7% for sorafenib-pazopanib (P = .0304).
In the second line, however, the disease control rate favored the sorafenib-followed-by-pazopanib arm, at 56.6% vs. 43.6% (P = .0112).
A subgroup analysis showed that, in terms of total PFS, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence offered greater benefit to patients older than 65, those with favorable Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC/Motzer) scores, patients with good Karnofsky Performance Status, and patients whose tumors had a non–clear cell histology.
In each study arm, adverse events were more commonly seen during first-line therapy. With sorafenib, the most frequent adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction, alopecia, and rash. For pazopanib, the most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, nausea, abdominal pain, and elevation of liver enzymes.
Although the investigators reported no differences in overall survival, “I question that: I think half a year of survival is a meaningful difference. Although it’s statistically insignificant, it might be important for the patients,” he said.
He suggested that ESMO guidelines regarding treatment of patients with mRCC should be revised to reflect data from this and other trials suggesting that sorafenib should be dropped as a treatment option in either first- or second-line therapy.
The trial was supported by grants from Bayer and Novartis. Dr. Retz disclosed honoraria from those companies and others, and advisory board participation for other drug makers. Dr. Staehler disclosed but did not specify relationships with Bayer, Novartis, and others.
MADRID – The drug sequence matters when it comes to the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) investigators have found.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with first-line pazopanib (Votrient) followed by sorafenib (Nexavar) as a second-line therapy at the time of first progression was 12.9 months, compared with 8.6 months for patients started on sorafenib and then crossed over to pazopanib at progression, reported Margitta Retz, MD, of the Technical University of Munich.
The trial design specified that to show noninferiority for the sorafenib-pazopanib combination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio would have to be less than 1.225, but the upper limit was instead 1.68.
However, two key secondary endpoints – progression-free survival during first line-therapy and disease-control rate – clearly favored the pazopanib-first sequence, although there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS), Dr. Retz said at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
SWITCH-2 was a phase 3, randomized, open-label crossover trial designed to test the combination and sequencing of sorafenib and pazopanib, each of which is approved for the treatment of mRCC.
In the SWITCH-1 trial, investigators looked at sorafenib followed by sunitinib (Sutent) or vice-versa and found no significant differences in either total PFS or OS. Based on these results, they conducted a similar trial using sorafenib and pazopanib.
A total of 377 patients in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands with mRCC who were not good candidates for cytokines and had no prior systemic therapies were enrolled and randomly assigned to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or pazopanib 800 mg once daily until progression or intolerable toxicity. In each arm, patients were crossed over to the other drug at the time of first progression.
After 42 months of follow-up, the hazard ratio for the primary endpoint of total PFS was 1.36 trending in favor of pazopanib.
For the secondary endpoint of first-line PFS, pazopanib-first was clearly superior, with a median PFS of 9.3 months, compared with 5.6 months for sorafenib-first (HR, 1.56, P = .0017). There was no difference in second-line PFS, at 2.2 vs. 2.9 months, respectively.
Overall survival trended in favor of up-front pazopanib, with a median of 28 months vs. a median of 22.7 months for up-front sorafenib, but this difference, as noted before, was not significant.
An analysis of tumor response and disease-control rates showed that in the first line, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence was associated with a disease-control rate (composite of complete and partial responses and stable disease) of 77.7%, compared with 67.7% for sorafenib-pazopanib (P = .0304).
In the second line, however, the disease control rate favored the sorafenib-followed-by-pazopanib arm, at 56.6% vs. 43.6% (P = .0112).
A subgroup analysis showed that, in terms of total PFS, the pazopanib-sorafenib sequence offered greater benefit to patients older than 65, those with favorable Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC/Motzer) scores, patients with good Karnofsky Performance Status, and patients whose tumors had a non–clear cell histology.
In each study arm, adverse events were more commonly seen during first-line therapy. With sorafenib, the most frequent adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction, alopecia, and rash. For pazopanib, the most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, nausea, abdominal pain, and elevation of liver enzymes.
Although the investigators reported no differences in overall survival, “I question that: I think half a year of survival is a meaningful difference. Although it’s statistically insignificant, it might be important for the patients,” he said.
He suggested that ESMO guidelines regarding treatment of patients with mRCC should be revised to reflect data from this and other trials suggesting that sorafenib should be dropped as a treatment option in either first- or second-line therapy.
The trial was supported by grants from Bayer and Novartis. Dr. Retz disclosed honoraria from those companies and others, and advisory board participation for other drug makers. Dr. Staehler disclosed but did not specify relationships with Bayer, Novartis, and others.
AT ESMO 2017
Key clinical point: than when the drug sequence was reversed.
Major finding: Total PFS with sorafenib-pazopanib did not meet its primary endpoint of noninferiority to pazopanib-sorafenib.
Data source: Randomized, sequential open-label, phase 3 trial in 377 patients with advanced/metastatic RCC.
Disclosures: The trial was supported by grants from Bayer and Novartis. Dr. Retz disclosed honoraria from those companies and others, and advisory board participation for other drug makers. Dr. Staehler disclosed but did not specify relationships with Bayer, Novartis, and others.
Checkmate 214: Upfront nivo/ipi bests TKI in advanced RCC
MADRID – A combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors was superior to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib (Sutent) in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), investigators reported
Median overall survival (OS) among 425 patients with intermediate- or poor-risk treatment-naive advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC treated with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) was not reached after 32 months of follow-up. In contrast, the median OS for 422 patients treated with sunitinib was 26 months, reported Bernard Escudier, MD from the Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Similarly tipping the balance toward the combination, the ORR was 42%, compared with 27% in the sunitinib group (P less than .0001).
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi [nivolumab/ipilimumab] as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Escudier said at a briefing prior to presenting the data in a presidential symposium.
Patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, a Karnofsky Performance Score of at least 70%, and tumor tissue available for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) typing were enrolled in Checkmate 214, .
The patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic score and by region (U.S. versus Canada/Europe versus the rest of the world) and then randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses then 3 mg/kg nivolumab every other week or to receive 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Patients remained on treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The results for the coprimary endpoints are noted above.
Duration of response trended toward superior with the checkpoint inhibitor duo. At 2-year follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached with nivo/ipi, vs. 18.2 months with sunitinib. In all, 72% of patients on the combination had an ongoing response at 2 years, compared with 63% of patients on the TKI, but the upper level of the confidence interval in both trial arms had not been reached at the time of the data cutoff, so statistical significance of the difference in duration cannot be determined.
For the secondary endpoints of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included 550 patients assigned to nivo/ipi and 546 to sunitinib, the ORR was 39% for patients assigned to the checkpoint inhibitors, compared with 32% for sunitinib (P = .0191). The median respective PFS numbers, however, were virtually identical at 12.4 vs. 12.3 months.
The median OS in the intention-to-treat population was not reached with the combination, versus 32.9 months with the TKI (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0003).
In the intermediate- or poor-risk population, PFS was significantly better with nivo/ipi among patients with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells but not in patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression.
There were more adverse events leading to discontinuation among patients on the dual checkpoint inhibitors at 22% vs. 12% with sunitinib. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the combination group were fatigue and diarrhea in 4% each and rash and nausea in 2% each, while incidences of pruritus, hypothyroidism, vomiting, and hypertension occurred in fewer than 1% of patients.
In the sunitinib group, the most common grade 3 or greater events were hypertension in 16%, fatigue in 9%, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 9%, stomatitis in 3%, mucosal inflammation in 3%, and vomiting in 2%. Nausea, decreased appetite, hypothyroidism, and dysgeusia occurred in 1% or fewer of patients in this arm.
“The combination, I think, is really beneficial, because with immunotherapy we have seen that patients who respond usually have long-term benefit, and in this case high-response rate seems to be important and translates into a long-term for patients,” commented Maria de Santis, MD, from the University of Warwick, U.K., who was an invited discussant at the briefing.
“This data is clearly important and practice changing, and it challenges the former standard of care with TKI monotherapy treatment,” she added.
The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; Dr. Escudier disclosed honoraria from BMS. Dr. de Santis did not disclose potential conflicts of interest.
MADRID – A combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors was superior to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib (Sutent) in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), investigators reported
Median overall survival (OS) among 425 patients with intermediate- or poor-risk treatment-naive advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC treated with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) was not reached after 32 months of follow-up. In contrast, the median OS for 422 patients treated with sunitinib was 26 months, reported Bernard Escudier, MD from the Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Similarly tipping the balance toward the combination, the ORR was 42%, compared with 27% in the sunitinib group (P less than .0001).
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi [nivolumab/ipilimumab] as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Escudier said at a briefing prior to presenting the data in a presidential symposium.
Patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, a Karnofsky Performance Score of at least 70%, and tumor tissue available for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) typing were enrolled in Checkmate 214, .
The patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic score and by region (U.S. versus Canada/Europe versus the rest of the world) and then randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses then 3 mg/kg nivolumab every other week or to receive 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Patients remained on treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The results for the coprimary endpoints are noted above.
Duration of response trended toward superior with the checkpoint inhibitor duo. At 2-year follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached with nivo/ipi, vs. 18.2 months with sunitinib. In all, 72% of patients on the combination had an ongoing response at 2 years, compared with 63% of patients on the TKI, but the upper level of the confidence interval in both trial arms had not been reached at the time of the data cutoff, so statistical significance of the difference in duration cannot be determined.
For the secondary endpoints of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included 550 patients assigned to nivo/ipi and 546 to sunitinib, the ORR was 39% for patients assigned to the checkpoint inhibitors, compared with 32% for sunitinib (P = .0191). The median respective PFS numbers, however, were virtually identical at 12.4 vs. 12.3 months.
The median OS in the intention-to-treat population was not reached with the combination, versus 32.9 months with the TKI (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0003).
In the intermediate- or poor-risk population, PFS was significantly better with nivo/ipi among patients with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells but not in patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression.
There were more adverse events leading to discontinuation among patients on the dual checkpoint inhibitors at 22% vs. 12% with sunitinib. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the combination group were fatigue and diarrhea in 4% each and rash and nausea in 2% each, while incidences of pruritus, hypothyroidism, vomiting, and hypertension occurred in fewer than 1% of patients.
In the sunitinib group, the most common grade 3 or greater events were hypertension in 16%, fatigue in 9%, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 9%, stomatitis in 3%, mucosal inflammation in 3%, and vomiting in 2%. Nausea, decreased appetite, hypothyroidism, and dysgeusia occurred in 1% or fewer of patients in this arm.
“The combination, I think, is really beneficial, because with immunotherapy we have seen that patients who respond usually have long-term benefit, and in this case high-response rate seems to be important and translates into a long-term for patients,” commented Maria de Santis, MD, from the University of Warwick, U.K., who was an invited discussant at the briefing.
“This data is clearly important and practice changing, and it challenges the former standard of care with TKI monotherapy treatment,” she added.
The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; Dr. Escudier disclosed honoraria from BMS. Dr. de Santis did not disclose potential conflicts of interest.
MADRID – A combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors was superior to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib (Sutent) in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), investigators reported
Median overall survival (OS) among 425 patients with intermediate- or poor-risk treatment-naive advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC treated with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) was not reached after 32 months of follow-up. In contrast, the median OS for 422 patients treated with sunitinib was 26 months, reported Bernard Escudier, MD from the Institut Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France.
Similarly tipping the balance toward the combination, the ORR was 42%, compared with 27% in the sunitinib group (P less than .0001).
“These results support the use of nivo/ipi [nivolumab/ipilimumab] as a new first-line standard of care option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Escudier said at a briefing prior to presenting the data in a presidential symposium.
Patients with treatment-naive advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC with measurable disease, a Karnofsky Performance Score of at least 70%, and tumor tissue available for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) typing were enrolled in Checkmate 214, .
The patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic score and by region (U.S. versus Canada/Europe versus the rest of the world) and then randomly assigned to receive either 3 mg/kg nivolumab and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses then 3 mg/kg nivolumab every other week or to receive 50 mg oral sunitinib once daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle. Patients remained on treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The results for the coprimary endpoints are noted above.
Duration of response trended toward superior with the checkpoint inhibitor duo. At 2-year follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached with nivo/ipi, vs. 18.2 months with sunitinib. In all, 72% of patients on the combination had an ongoing response at 2 years, compared with 63% of patients on the TKI, but the upper level of the confidence interval in both trial arms had not been reached at the time of the data cutoff, so statistical significance of the difference in duration cannot be determined.
For the secondary endpoints of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, which included 550 patients assigned to nivo/ipi and 546 to sunitinib, the ORR was 39% for patients assigned to the checkpoint inhibitors, compared with 32% for sunitinib (P = .0191). The median respective PFS numbers, however, were virtually identical at 12.4 vs. 12.3 months.
The median OS in the intention-to-treat population was not reached with the combination, versus 32.9 months with the TKI (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0003).
In the intermediate- or poor-risk population, PFS was significantly better with nivo/ipi among patients with PD-L1 expression in 1% or more of cells but not in patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression.
There were more adverse events leading to discontinuation among patients on the dual checkpoint inhibitors at 22% vs. 12% with sunitinib. The most common grade 3 or greater adverse events in the combination group were fatigue and diarrhea in 4% each and rash and nausea in 2% each, while incidences of pruritus, hypothyroidism, vomiting, and hypertension occurred in fewer than 1% of patients.
In the sunitinib group, the most common grade 3 or greater events were hypertension in 16%, fatigue in 9%, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 9%, stomatitis in 3%, mucosal inflammation in 3%, and vomiting in 2%. Nausea, decreased appetite, hypothyroidism, and dysgeusia occurred in 1% or fewer of patients in this arm.
“The combination, I think, is really beneficial, because with immunotherapy we have seen that patients who respond usually have long-term benefit, and in this case high-response rate seems to be important and translates into a long-term for patients,” commented Maria de Santis, MD, from the University of Warwick, U.K., who was an invited discussant at the briefing.
“This data is clearly important and practice changing, and it challenges the former standard of care with TKI monotherapy treatment,” she added.
The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; Dr. Escudier disclosed honoraria from BMS. Dr. de Santis did not disclose potential conflicts of interest.
AT ESMO 2017
Key clinical point: The combination of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab was efficacious in frontline therapyfor advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Major finding: The trial met its coprimary endpoints of overall response rate and progression-free survival, as well as its secondary endpoint of overall survival.
Data source: Randomized open-label study in 1096 patients with advanced/metastatic RCC, including 847 with intermediate- to poor-risk disease.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; Dr. Escudier disclosed honoraria from BMS. Dr. de Santis did not disclose potential conflicts of interest.
FDA approves biosimilar to bevacizumab
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of certain colorectal, lung, brain, kidney, and cervical cancers.
Bevacizumab-awwb is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for the treatment of cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
Approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrate bevacizumab-awwb is biosimilar to bevacizumab, the FDA said.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for first- or second-line treatment.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan–based or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of patients who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.
• Non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel for first line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.
• Glioblastoma with progressive disease following prior therapy, based on improvement in objective response rate.
• Metastatic renal cell carcinoma, in combination with interferon alfa.
• Cervical cancer that is persistent, recurrent, or metastatic, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan.
Common expected side effects of the biosimilar include epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.
Serious expected side effects include perforation or fistula, arterial and venous thromboembolic events, hypertension, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, proteinuria, infusion-related reactions, and ovarian failure. Women who are pregnant should not take bevacizumab-awwb.
The biosimilar to bevacizumab carries a similar boxed warning regarding the increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations; surgery and wound healing complications; and severe or fatal pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and vaginal hemorrhage.
The biosimilar approval was granted to Amgen, which will market the drug under the trade name Mvasi.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of certain colorectal, lung, brain, kidney, and cervical cancers.
Bevacizumab-awwb is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for the treatment of cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
Approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrate bevacizumab-awwb is biosimilar to bevacizumab, the FDA said.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for first- or second-line treatment.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan–based or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of patients who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.
• Non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel for first line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.
• Glioblastoma with progressive disease following prior therapy, based on improvement in objective response rate.
• Metastatic renal cell carcinoma, in combination with interferon alfa.
• Cervical cancer that is persistent, recurrent, or metastatic, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan.
Common expected side effects of the biosimilar include epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.
Serious expected side effects include perforation or fistula, arterial and venous thromboembolic events, hypertension, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, proteinuria, infusion-related reactions, and ovarian failure. Women who are pregnant should not take bevacizumab-awwb.
The biosimilar to bevacizumab carries a similar boxed warning regarding the increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations; surgery and wound healing complications; and severe or fatal pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and vaginal hemorrhage.
The biosimilar approval was granted to Amgen, which will market the drug under the trade name Mvasi.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of certain colorectal, lung, brain, kidney, and cervical cancers.
Bevacizumab-awwb is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for the treatment of cancer, the FDA said in a press release.
Approval is based on structural and functional characterization, animal study data, human pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data that demonstrate bevacizumab-awwb is biosimilar to bevacizumab, the FDA said.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for first- or second-line treatment.
• Metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan–based or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of patients who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.
• Non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel for first line treatment of unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.
• Glioblastoma with progressive disease following prior therapy, based on improvement in objective response rate.
• Metastatic renal cell carcinoma, in combination with interferon alfa.
• Cervical cancer that is persistent, recurrent, or metastatic, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan.
Common expected side effects of the biosimilar include epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.
Serious expected side effects include perforation or fistula, arterial and venous thromboembolic events, hypertension, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, proteinuria, infusion-related reactions, and ovarian failure. Women who are pregnant should not take bevacizumab-awwb.
The biosimilar to bevacizumab carries a similar boxed warning regarding the increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations; surgery and wound healing complications; and severe or fatal pulmonary, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and vaginal hemorrhage.
The biosimilar approval was granted to Amgen, which will market the drug under the trade name Mvasi.
PROTECT trial: No DFS benefit with adjuvant pazopanib for high-risk RCC
Adjuvant pazopanib provided no disease-free survival benefit compared with placebo in the randomized phase 3 PROTECT trial of patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy.
In the primary analysis for disease-free survival among 571 patients treated for 1 year with 600 mg of pazopanib and 564 who received placebo, no significant improvement was seen with pazopanib (hazard ratio, 0.86). In a follow-up analysis 12 months later, the hazard ratio was 0.94. Secondary analysis in 403 additional patients who were treated with 800 mg of pazopanib before the dose was lowered to 600 mg due to intolerance and toxicity attrition showed a benefit with pazopanib (HR, 0.69), but this group represented only a third of the study population, reported Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues. The study results were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation included increased alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels, which occurred in 16% and 5% of patients treated with 600 mg, respectively, and in 18% and 7% of patients treated with 800 mg, respectively. Four grade 5 adverse events occurred in the pazopanib groups (vs. 2 in the placebo group), and one of the deaths (in a patient who received 800 mg dosing) involved cardiomyopathy that was considered to be related to treatment, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.5324).
The study comprised adults with resected pT2 or pT3 and greater disease, including N1, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, who were enrolled between Dec. 9, 2010, and Sept. 10, 2013, from 263 centers in 26 countries. Primary analysis was done after 350 disease-free events occurred in the intent-to-treat population receiving 600 mg.
The difference in treatment effect between those receiving 600 mg and 800 mg of pazopanib could be explained by the different starting dose, or by better performance of the placebo arm in the 600 mg group, the investigators noted.
As for overall survival, the results are inconclusive, because the data are not mature, they said.
Novartis supported the study. Dr. Mercer reported consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, and Exelixis, and research funding to his institution from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, and Genentech. Numerous coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Adjuvant pazopanib provided no disease-free survival benefit compared with placebo in the randomized phase 3 PROTECT trial of patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy.
In the primary analysis for disease-free survival among 571 patients treated for 1 year with 600 mg of pazopanib and 564 who received placebo, no significant improvement was seen with pazopanib (hazard ratio, 0.86). In a follow-up analysis 12 months later, the hazard ratio was 0.94. Secondary analysis in 403 additional patients who were treated with 800 mg of pazopanib before the dose was lowered to 600 mg due to intolerance and toxicity attrition showed a benefit with pazopanib (HR, 0.69), but this group represented only a third of the study population, reported Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues. The study results were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation included increased alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels, which occurred in 16% and 5% of patients treated with 600 mg, respectively, and in 18% and 7% of patients treated with 800 mg, respectively. Four grade 5 adverse events occurred in the pazopanib groups (vs. 2 in the placebo group), and one of the deaths (in a patient who received 800 mg dosing) involved cardiomyopathy that was considered to be related to treatment, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.5324).
The study comprised adults with resected pT2 or pT3 and greater disease, including N1, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, who were enrolled between Dec. 9, 2010, and Sept. 10, 2013, from 263 centers in 26 countries. Primary analysis was done after 350 disease-free events occurred in the intent-to-treat population receiving 600 mg.
The difference in treatment effect between those receiving 600 mg and 800 mg of pazopanib could be explained by the different starting dose, or by better performance of the placebo arm in the 600 mg group, the investigators noted.
As for overall survival, the results are inconclusive, because the data are not mature, they said.
Novartis supported the study. Dr. Mercer reported consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, and Exelixis, and research funding to his institution from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, and Genentech. Numerous coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Adjuvant pazopanib provided no disease-free survival benefit compared with placebo in the randomized phase 3 PROTECT trial of patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy.
In the primary analysis for disease-free survival among 571 patients treated for 1 year with 600 mg of pazopanib and 564 who received placebo, no significant improvement was seen with pazopanib (hazard ratio, 0.86). In a follow-up analysis 12 months later, the hazard ratio was 0.94. Secondary analysis in 403 additional patients who were treated with 800 mg of pazopanib before the dose was lowered to 600 mg due to intolerance and toxicity attrition showed a benefit with pazopanib (HR, 0.69), but this group represented only a third of the study population, reported Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his colleagues. The study results were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation included increased alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels, which occurred in 16% and 5% of patients treated with 600 mg, respectively, and in 18% and 7% of patients treated with 800 mg, respectively. Four grade 5 adverse events occurred in the pazopanib groups (vs. 2 in the placebo group), and one of the deaths (in a patient who received 800 mg dosing) involved cardiomyopathy that was considered to be related to treatment, the investigators said (J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.5324).
The study comprised adults with resected pT2 or pT3 and greater disease, including N1, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, who were enrolled between Dec. 9, 2010, and Sept. 10, 2013, from 263 centers in 26 countries. Primary analysis was done after 350 disease-free events occurred in the intent-to-treat population receiving 600 mg.
The difference in treatment effect between those receiving 600 mg and 800 mg of pazopanib could be explained by the different starting dose, or by better performance of the placebo arm in the 600 mg group, the investigators noted.
As for overall survival, the results are inconclusive, because the data are not mature, they said.
Novartis supported the study. Dr. Mercer reported consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, and Exelixis, and research funding to his institution from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, and Genentech. Numerous coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In the primary analysis for disease-free survival, no significant improvement was seen with pazopanib vs. placebo (hazard ratio, 0.86).
Data source: The phase 3 PROTECT study of 1,538 patients.
Disclosures: Novartis supported the study. Dr. Mercer reported consulting or advisory roles with Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, and Exelixis, and research funding to his institution from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Novartis, and Genentech. Numerous coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Pembrolizumab, nivolumab linked to 3% rate of neurologic events
Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.
These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.
Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).
Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.
If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.
The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
Neurologic symptoms have been and continue to be one of the most common reasons for admission to a cancer center. Neurotoxic chemotherapy, direct invasion of cancer, and other neurologic complications of treatment contribute to the substantial cross talk between oncologists and neurologists. Over the past 5 years, oncology has witnessed an explosion of new immunotherapeutics that are revolutionizing drug development and patient care in oncology today. In contrast to traditional chemotherapy, which targets rapidly dividing cancer cells and can lead to adverse effects in other organs with rapid cell turnover, immunotherapies target and activate the immune system, potentially leading to a wide range of inflammatory and immune-mediated adverse events, including those in the nervous system.
Only 5 of the 10 patients described by Kao et al. experienced nonneurologic immune-related adverse events, suggesting that neurologic complications may be the only defining symptom of an immune-related reaction. Consultation calls from the cancer center are all too familiar for neurologists, and this pattern appears likely to persist in the era of immunotherapy. The horizon of new checkpoint targets continues to expand, and combination therapies are beginning to emerge. Neurologists and oncologists need to be aware of the important checkpoints ahead in patient care.
Roy E. Strowd III, MD, is with the section on hematology and oncology, department of neurology and internal medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. He reported having no conflicts of interest. These comments are excerpted from his editorial (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1916).
Neurologic symptoms have been and continue to be one of the most common reasons for admission to a cancer center. Neurotoxic chemotherapy, direct invasion of cancer, and other neurologic complications of treatment contribute to the substantial cross talk between oncologists and neurologists. Over the past 5 years, oncology has witnessed an explosion of new immunotherapeutics that are revolutionizing drug development and patient care in oncology today. In contrast to traditional chemotherapy, which targets rapidly dividing cancer cells and can lead to adverse effects in other organs with rapid cell turnover, immunotherapies target and activate the immune system, potentially leading to a wide range of inflammatory and immune-mediated adverse events, including those in the nervous system.
Only 5 of the 10 patients described by Kao et al. experienced nonneurologic immune-related adverse events, suggesting that neurologic complications may be the only defining symptom of an immune-related reaction. Consultation calls from the cancer center are all too familiar for neurologists, and this pattern appears likely to persist in the era of immunotherapy. The horizon of new checkpoint targets continues to expand, and combination therapies are beginning to emerge. Neurologists and oncologists need to be aware of the important checkpoints ahead in patient care.
Roy E. Strowd III, MD, is with the section on hematology and oncology, department of neurology and internal medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. He reported having no conflicts of interest. These comments are excerpted from his editorial (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1916).
Neurologic symptoms have been and continue to be one of the most common reasons for admission to a cancer center. Neurotoxic chemotherapy, direct invasion of cancer, and other neurologic complications of treatment contribute to the substantial cross talk between oncologists and neurologists. Over the past 5 years, oncology has witnessed an explosion of new immunotherapeutics that are revolutionizing drug development and patient care in oncology today. In contrast to traditional chemotherapy, which targets rapidly dividing cancer cells and can lead to adverse effects in other organs with rapid cell turnover, immunotherapies target and activate the immune system, potentially leading to a wide range of inflammatory and immune-mediated adverse events, including those in the nervous system.
Only 5 of the 10 patients described by Kao et al. experienced nonneurologic immune-related adverse events, suggesting that neurologic complications may be the only defining symptom of an immune-related reaction. Consultation calls from the cancer center are all too familiar for neurologists, and this pattern appears likely to persist in the era of immunotherapy. The horizon of new checkpoint targets continues to expand, and combination therapies are beginning to emerge. Neurologists and oncologists need to be aware of the important checkpoints ahead in patient care.
Roy E. Strowd III, MD, is with the section on hematology and oncology, department of neurology and internal medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. He reported having no conflicts of interest. These comments are excerpted from his editorial (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1916).
Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.
These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.
Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).
Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.
If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.
The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
Three percent of patients developed immune-related adverse neurologic events within 12 months of receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.
These syndromes included myopathy, axonal thoracolumbar polyradiculopathy, severe demyelinating length-dependent peripheral neuropathy with axonal loss, a facial diplegic variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome, asymmetric vasculitic neuropathy, cerebellar ataxia with dysarthria, autoimmune retinopathy, bilateral internuclear ophthalmoplegia, and headache, reported Justin C. Kao, MD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his coinvestigators. Most patients improved after stopping treatment and starting corticosteroids, but one patient developed necrotizing myopathy and died after withdrawal of ventilator support.
Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, which inhibit the programmed death–1 (PD-1) receptor, are approved for treating metastatic melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancers, and urothelial carcinoma. In response to a surge in reports of neurologic events associated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the investigators searched the Mayo Clinic pharmacy database and identified 347 patients treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab between 2014 and 2016. Ten patients (2.9%) developed neurologic complications within 12 months of anti–PD-1 exposure, including eight men and two women. The median age was 71 years. None of their neurologic symptoms could be directly attributed to other treatments or to metastatic disease. Most had mild to moderate disability, with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 2, and symptom severity peaked between 1 day and more than 3 months after starting anti–PD-1 treatment (JAMA Neurol. 2017 Sep 5. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.1912).
Stopping anti–PD-1 treatment and starting high-dose corticosteroids led to substantial neurologic improvements (mRS scores, 0-3), except in the case of fatal necrotizing myopathy, the researchers said. That patient, who was receiving pembrolizumab for stage 4 melanoma, developed extraocular, bulbar, and proximal limb girdle weakness that worsened over a period of 3 weeks and did not respond to prednisone (80 mg daily) or to three sessions of plasmapheresis.
If a patient on anti–PD-1 therapy develops neurologic symptoms, clinicians should promptly stop treatment and pursue a full work-up, including electrodiagnostic studies and consideration of muscle or nerve biopsy to clarify underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, the researchers said. “If the clinical examination demonstrates severe clinical deficits at onset or worsens despite medication discontinuation, additional immune suppressant treatment should be considered,” they said. They recommended prednisone (1 mg/kg) with a taper over a 1-month period. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy or plasma exchange may be warranted if patients continue to worsen, they said.
The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: Watch for immune-related adverse effects of nivolumab and pembrolizumab.
Major finding: Ten of 347 patients (2.9%) developed subacute neurologic immune-related adverse events, typically neuromuscular syndromes.
Data source: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of 347 patients who received pembrolizumab or nivolumab for metastatic melanoma or solid tumors.
Disclosures: The investigators did not report external funding sources. Mr. Kao had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the American Academy of Neurology, the Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Alnylam, and Oxford University Press. The remaining coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
Tivozanib gets EU approval for advanced RCC
The European Commission has approved tivozanib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adult patients in the European Union, Norway, and Iceland.
Tivozanib (Fotivda) is a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, taken orally once daily. It is indicated for first-line treatment of patients, naive to both vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and mTOR pathway inhibitors, experiencing disease progression following one cytokine therapy treatment, according to the press release.
Its approval is based on superior progression-free survival (PFS) in TIVO-1, a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of tivozanib (1.5 mg once daily) with that of sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). In the overall trial population of 517 patients with advanced RCC, PFS was 11.9 months for patients treated with tivozanib, compared with 9.1 months for those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.797; 95% confidence interval, 0.639-0.993; P = .042).
Patients in the tivozanib arm also experienced fewer cases of diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome, and required fewer dose reductions because of adverse effects than did those taking sorafenib.
The approval follows a recommendation from the Committee for Medical Products for Human Use.
The Food and Drug Administration rejected the New Drug Application for tivozanib in 2013, based on TIVO-1 data. Aveo Oncology plans to reapply in the United States with data from TIVO-3, expected in early 2018, they said in the press release.
The European Commission has approved tivozanib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adult patients in the European Union, Norway, and Iceland.
Tivozanib (Fotivda) is a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, taken orally once daily. It is indicated for first-line treatment of patients, naive to both vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and mTOR pathway inhibitors, experiencing disease progression following one cytokine therapy treatment, according to the press release.
Its approval is based on superior progression-free survival (PFS) in TIVO-1, a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of tivozanib (1.5 mg once daily) with that of sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). In the overall trial population of 517 patients with advanced RCC, PFS was 11.9 months for patients treated with tivozanib, compared with 9.1 months for those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.797; 95% confidence interval, 0.639-0.993; P = .042).
Patients in the tivozanib arm also experienced fewer cases of diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome, and required fewer dose reductions because of adverse effects than did those taking sorafenib.
The approval follows a recommendation from the Committee for Medical Products for Human Use.
The Food and Drug Administration rejected the New Drug Application for tivozanib in 2013, based on TIVO-1 data. Aveo Oncology plans to reapply in the United States with data from TIVO-3, expected in early 2018, they said in the press release.
The European Commission has approved tivozanib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in adult patients in the European Union, Norway, and Iceland.
Tivozanib (Fotivda) is a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, taken orally once daily. It is indicated for first-line treatment of patients, naive to both vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and mTOR pathway inhibitors, experiencing disease progression following one cytokine therapy treatment, according to the press release.
Its approval is based on superior progression-free survival (PFS) in TIVO-1, a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of tivozanib (1.5 mg once daily) with that of sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). In the overall trial population of 517 patients with advanced RCC, PFS was 11.9 months for patients treated with tivozanib, compared with 9.1 months for those treated with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.797; 95% confidence interval, 0.639-0.993; P = .042).
Patients in the tivozanib arm also experienced fewer cases of diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome, and required fewer dose reductions because of adverse effects than did those taking sorafenib.
The approval follows a recommendation from the Committee for Medical Products for Human Use.
The Food and Drug Administration rejected the New Drug Application for tivozanib in 2013, based on TIVO-1 data. Aveo Oncology plans to reapply in the United States with data from TIVO-3, expected in early 2018, they said in the press release.
Adverse effects of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors varied by tumor type in systematic review
The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.
Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.
“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).
The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.
Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).
The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.
“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.
The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.
The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.
Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.
“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).
The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.
Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).
The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.
“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.
The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.
The immune-related adverse effects of inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand varied by tumor type in a large systematic review and meta-analysis.
Patients with melanoma were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8) compared with patients with non–small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis, reported Leila Khoja, MBChB, PhD, of AstraZeneca UK, Melbourn, England, and associates. Patients with melanoma also were significantly more likely to develop arthralgia, hypothyroidism, rash, pruritus, and diarrhea compared with patients with renal cell carcinoma, who were more likely to develop pneumonitis and dyspnea.
“In light of this study, we should be mindful that different tumor types may have different immune-related adverse effect patterns when treated with the same immune checkpoint inhibitor,” the reviewers noted (Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx286).
The review included 48 trials of nearly 7,000 patients with solid tumors who received CTLA-4 inhibitors (26 studies), PD-1 inhibitors (17 studies), PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors (two trials), or both CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors (three trials). The reviewers identified the studies by searching the Medline, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases for prospective trials published from 2003 through November 2015.
Severe or life-threatening immune-related adverse effects developed in 31% of patients who received CTLA-4 inhibitors and 10% of patients who received PD-1 inhibitors. Inhibitors of CTLA-4 were significantly more likely to cause all grades of colitis (OR, 8.7), hypophysitis (OR, 6.5), and rash (OR, 2.0), while PD-1 inhibitors were more strongly linked with pneumonitis (OR 6.4), hypothyroidism (OR 4.3), arthralgia (OR, 3.5), and vitiligo (OR, 3.5).
The reviewers also looked for significant predictors of immune-related colitis and pneumonitis, because these are potentially fatal. They found that pneumonitis was significantly linked to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and colitis to CTLA-4 treatment (P = .04), even after accounting for therapeutic dose and tumor type. No other factors reached significance in this multivariable model.
“Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms of immune-related adverse effects is needed, which may lead to the identification of biomarkers to predict the occurrence of toxicity in patients or predict those who have immune-related adverse effects that are unlikely to respond to corticosteroids,” the reviewers concluded. Researchers should also study whether clinical factors such as treatment history or comorbidities affect the risk of immune-related adverse effects from immune checkpoint inhibitors, they said.
The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Immune-related adverse effects varied by tumor type in patients receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 inhibitors.
Major finding: Patients with melanoma who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were significantly more likely to develop colitis (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 14.0), diarrhea (OR, 1.9), pruritus (OR, 2.4), and rash (OR, 1.8), compared with patients with non-small cell lung cancer, who were significantly more likely to develop pneumonitis.
Data source: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 48 prospective trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in of 6,938 adults with solid tumors.
Disclosures: The reviewers reported having no funding sources and no relevant conflicts of interest.
Exelixis seeks expanded indication for cabozantinib in RCC
Exelixis has submitted a supplemental New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration for cabozantinib (Cabometyx) for the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The application, announced on Aug. 16, seeks to allow the manufacturer to modify the label. Cabozantinib was approved in April 2016 for treatment of patients with advanced RCC who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy.
The results of the trial were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Feb 20;35[6]:591-7). An independent review committee confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint results in June 2017.
Exelixis has submitted a supplemental New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration for cabozantinib (Cabometyx) for the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The application, announced on Aug. 16, seeks to allow the manufacturer to modify the label. Cabozantinib was approved in April 2016 for treatment of patients with advanced RCC who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy.
The results of the trial were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Feb 20;35[6]:591-7). An independent review committee confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint results in June 2017.
Exelixis has submitted a supplemental New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration for cabozantinib (Cabometyx) for the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
The application, announced on Aug. 16, seeks to allow the manufacturer to modify the label. Cabozantinib was approved in April 2016 for treatment of patients with advanced RCC who had previously received antiangiogenic therapy.
The results of the trial were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017 Feb 20;35[6]:591-7). An independent review committee confirmed the primary efficacy endpoint results in June 2017.
FDA advisory committee to consider adjuvant sunitinib for RCC
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
Sequential pazopanib and everolimus nets good survival in metastatic RCC
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
[email protected]
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
[email protected]
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
[email protected]
FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Median overall survival with first-line pazopanib followed by second-line everolimus was 26.5 months.
Data source: A real-world prospective multicenter cohort study of 31 patients with untreated metastatic RCC.
Disclosures: Dr. Rossetti and colleagues disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was supported by Novartis Farma SpA.