Search

Background: In a randomised phase III trial of treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with interferon (IFN)-α. We assessed between-treatment differences in overall benefit using a quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease progression or Toxicity of treatment (TWiST; Gelber and Goldhirsch) analysis.Methods: In this analysis, in which only grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were included, overall survival was partitioned into three health states: toxicity (time with toxicity after randomisation and before progression), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity, and time from progression until death. Between-treatment differences in the mean duration of each state were calculated. A threshold utility analysis was used to assess quality-adjusted TWiST (Q-TWiST) outcomes.Results: Q-TWiST scores showed that quality-adjusted survival time was greater with sunitinib than with IFN-α, even though certain grade 3/4 toxicities occurred more frequently with sunitinib. For both treatments, the mean number of days with toxicity was small compared with PFS. This effect was more pronounced with sunitinib in which time spent without progression or toxicity was 151 days greater than with IFN-α.Conclusion: Patients randomised to sunitinib had longer clinical benefit, defined as Q-TWiST scores, than patients randomised to IFN-α. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since sunitinib malate has shown activity in two uncontrolled studies in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, a comparison of the drug with interferon alfa in a phase 3 trial is warranted.Methods: We enrolled 750 patients with previously untreated, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma in a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial to receive either repeated 6-week cycles of sunitinib (at a dose of 50 mg given orally once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment) or interferon alfa (at a dose of 9 MU given subcutaneously three times weekly). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety.Results: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group (11 months) than in the interferon alfa group (5 months), corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.54; P<0.001). Sunitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate than was interferon alfa (31% vs. 6%, P<0.001). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related fatigue was significantly higher in the group treated with interferon alfa, whereas diarrhea was more frequent in the sunitinib group (P<0.05). Patients in the sunitinib group reported a significantly better quality of life than did patients in the interferon alfa group (P<0.001).Conclusions: Progression-free survival was longer and response rates were higher in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who received sunitinib than in those receiving interferon alfa (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098657 and NCT00083889 [ClinicalTrials.gov]). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Between 20% and 30% of patients with advanced germ cell tumors (GCTs) fail to have durable complete response to conventional cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy. However, third-line therapy with high-dose carboplatin and etoposide plus autologous bone marrow transplantation (AuBMT) has induced durable complete response in 10%-20% of patients with cisplatin-resistant GCT.Purpose: We conducted a phase II trial of first-line therapy that included high-dose carboplatin and etoposide plus AuBMT in untreated men with advanced GCTs and unfavorable prognosis (i.e., "poor-risk" patients).Methods: Twenty-eight patients were treated with a conventional-dose, cisplatin-containing regimen (VAB-6 [cisplatin, vinblastine, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin]) with or without high-dose carboplatin (1500 mg/m2) and etoposide (1200 mg/m2) plus AuBMT. Twenty-two of these patients were selected for treatment with two cycles of high-dose carboplatin and etoposide plus AuBMT when reduced clearance of serum tumor markers (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] or human chorionic gonadotropin [HCG]), as evidenced by prolonged half-life (> 7 days for AFP and > 3 days for HCG), was observed after two cycles of conventional treatment.Results: Fifteen (56%) of 27 patients considered assessable for response achieved a complete response (12 treated with high-dose chemotherapy plus AuBMT). Sixteen (57%) are alive; 13 (46%) are free of disease at a median follow-up of 31.2 months. For 36 cycles of high-dose chemotherapy, the median duration from bone marrow infusion until a granulocyte count of 0.5/mm3 and a platelet count of 50,000/mm3 was 16 days (range, 7-41 days and 8-30 days, respectively). Analysis showed a trend toward improved survival (P = .07) in patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy in this study, compared with 68 poor-risk patients with GCT treated with conventional-dose therapy alone in two earlier studies. Toxicity was not cumulative, and recovery of blood counts after AuBMT was generally rapid.Conclusions: Inclusion of high-dose carboplatin-containing chemotherapy in treatment of poor-risk GCT patients is feasible when serum tumor marker half-life is used to predict resistance to standard cisplatin-based therapy. High-dose therapy in this setting was well tolerated.Implications: Early use of a dose-intensive regimen may increase survival compared with conventional-dose therapy alone. Further studies with standard induction therapy and intensive high-dose therapy using hematopoietic growth factor support are warranted, followed by a randomized trial comparing this strategy with standard therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) was developed to assess patients' kidney-cancer-related symptoms. The Rasch rating scale, a one-parameter logistic item response model, may enhance FKSI-DRS interpretation and validate its measurement properties.Methods: We applied the Rasch model to FKSI-DRS data from a randomized phase 3 trial in which first-line sunitinib therapy showed superiority to interferon-alfa in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Of 750 enrolled patients, 668 patients completed the questionnaire on cycle 1, day 28 and were evaluated in the current study. The nine FKSI-DRS items were analyzed to enhance interpretation of the summary score by using an item characteristic curve that related score to probability of reporting specific symptoms.Results: The Rasch model fitted the FKSI-DRS well: 8 of 9 items had acceptable infit and outfit statistics (<1.5, >0.5); item difficulty spanned a wide range (-3.23 to 1.64 logits); and the five response categories performed adequately. The item characteristic curve offered enhanced interpretation of FKSI-DRS: For example, an FKSI-DRS score of 27 (mean baseline score for total sample) indicated a 47% chance of reporting "no" to "lack of energy," although a two-point difference between sunitinib and interferon-alfa, averaged across all assessments (29 vs. 27), corresponded to sunitinib achieving a 28% increase (13% absolute difference) in the probability of reporting "no" to "lack of energy" (60% vs. 47%).Conclusions: Data suggest that the FKSI-DRS is an adequate measure of symptom status in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Rasch model supports its validation and enhances its interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Axitinib (AG-013736) is an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of axitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer who had failed on previous cytokine-based treatment.Methods: Between Oct 3, 2003, and April 7, 2004, 52 patients were enrolled. All patients who had at least one measurable target lesion received axitinib orally (starting dose 5 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint was objective response (ie, percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or partial response by use of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] criteria. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, time to progression, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported health-related quality of life. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076011.Findings: In an intention-to-treat analysis, two complete and 21 partial responses were noted, for an objective response rate of 44.2% (95% CI 30.5-58.7). Median response duration was 23.0 months (20.9-not estimable; range 4.2-29.8). However, 12 of 23 initial responders progressed with response duration ranging from 4.2 months to 26.5 months. Additionally, 22 patients showed stable disease for longer than 8 weeks, including 13 patients with stable disease for 24 weeks or longer. Four patients had early disease progression. Three patients had missing response data. Median time to progression was 15.7 months (8.4-23.4, range 0.03-31.5) and median overall survival was 29.9 months (20.3-not estimable; range 2.4-35.8). Treatment-related adverse events included diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, and hoarseness. Treatment-related hypertension occurred in 30 patients and resolved with antihypertensive treatment in all but eight patients, of whom seven patients had a history of hypertension at baseline.Interpretation: Axitinib shows clinical activity in patients with cytokine-refractory metastatic renal-cell cancer. Although 28 patients had grade 3 or grade 4 treatment-related adverse events, these adverse events were generally manageable and controlled by dose modification or supportive care, or both. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]