Search

c-Met inhibitors are a class of drugs that include nonselective and selective molecules. These drugs can differ in terms of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that may be clinically relevant. c-Met inhibitors with high potency and selectivity may allow achieving optimal c-Met inhibition in c-Met-driven tumors while reducing unwanted off-target toxicities due to activation of multiple kinases. Nonselective drugs can instead be considered in tumors that also recognize other drivers (e.g., ALK, ROS, VEGF). Improved understanding of the clinical pharmacokinetics of c-Met inhibitors can help avoid drug-drug interactions and optimize schedules for continuous in vivo inhibition of c-Met phosphorylation. The current review article provides a detailed overview of the clinical pharmacology of molecules used in c-Met-driven tumors., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases, including AXL, MET and VEGF receptors. Here, we describe the rationale and design for the phase II CaboPoint trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03945773), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib as a second-line treatment in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease has progressed despite checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Patients will be recruited into two cohorts: prior ipilimumab plus nivolumab (cohort A) or prior checkpoint inhibitor-VEGF-targeted therapy (cohort B). All patients will receive once-daily oral cabozantinib 60 mg for up to 18 months. The primary end point is objective response rate. Secondary end points include overall survival, progression-free survival and safety.

Purpose: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been widely used in the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the use of systemic therapies in the adjuvant setting of localized and locally advanced RCC has shown conflicting results across the literature. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of TKIs in the adjuvant setting for patients with localized and locally advanced RCC., Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in December 2020 to identify phase III randomized controlled trials of patients receiving adjuvant therapies with TKI for RCC. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were the primary endpoints. The secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of high and any grade., Results: Five trials (S-TRAC, ASSURE, PROTECT, ATLAS, and SORCE) were included in our meta-analysis comprising 6,531 patients. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy was associated with a significantly longer DFS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, P= 0.004). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.51) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. Adjuvant TKI was not associated with improved OS compared to placebo (pooled HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83-1.04, P= 0.23). The Cochrane's Q test (P = 0.74) and I2 test (I2 = 0%) revealed no significant heterogeneity. The forest plot revealed that TKI therapy, compared to placebo, was associated with higher rates of high grade TRAEs (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 4.10-6.59, P< 0.00001) as well as any grade TRAEs (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.22-12.17, P= 0.02). The Cochrane's Q tests (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.00001, respectively) and I2 tests (I2 = 79% and I2 = 90%, respectively) revealed significant heterogeneity., Conclusions: The findings of our analyses suggest an improved DFS in patients with localized and locally advanced RCC receiving adjuvant TKI as compared to placebo; however, this did not translate into any significant OS benefit. Additionally, TKI therapy led to significant toxicity. Adjuvant TKI does not seem to offer a satisfactory risk and/orbenefit balance for all patients. Select patients with very poor prognosis may be considered in a shared decision-making process with the patient. With the successful arrival of immune-based therapies in RCC, these may allow a more favorable risk/benefit profile., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest All authors state that they have no conflict of interest that might bias this work., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anti-angiogenic treatment is an important option that has changed the therapeutic landscape in various tumors, particularly in patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Agents that block signaling pathways governing tumor angiogenesis have raised high expectations among clinicians. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) comprise a heterogeneous class of drugs with distinct pharmacological profiles, including potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions. Among them, tivozanib is one of the last TKIs introduced in the clinical practice; this drug selectively targets VEGFRs, it is characterized by a favorable pharmacokinetics and safety profile and has been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). In this article, we describe the clinical pharmacology of selected VEGFR-TKIs used for the treatment of mRCC, highlighting the relevant differences; moreover we aim to define the main pharmacologic characteristics of these drug., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Stefano Fogli reports no conflicts of interest; Camillo Porta: MSD, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Janssen, General Electrics, BMS, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer (consulting relationship, scientific advisory board, member of the speaker’s bureau, travel expenses); Marzia Del Re: Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Janssen (scientific advisory board, consulting relationship), Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Genzyme (travel, accommodation, expenses); Stefania Crucitta reports no conflicts of interest; Giulia Gianfilippo reports no conflicts of interest; Romano Danesi: Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Gilead, Lilly, Gilead, EUSA Pharma (scientific advisory board, consulting relationship), Ipsen, Sanofi Genzyme (travel, accommodation, expenses); Brian I. Rini: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, BMS (scientific advisory board, consulting relationship), Roche, BMS, Pfizer (research funding); Manuela Schmidinger: BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Exelixis, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche (scientific advisory board, consulting relationship), Roche (research funding), Pfizer, Roche (travel, accommodation, expenses)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Angiogenesis is a proven clinical target for the treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) offer patients potential new treatment regimens as they can be given as monotherapy, in combination with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, or with and following cytotoxic chemotherapy. If VEGFR-TKIs are licensed for use in ovarian cancer, patients will require prompt and effective management of adverse events, including diarrhea, to optimize compliance and benefit. As diarrhea is one of the most prevalent toxicities of this class of drug, it is important to consider the potential causes, be they disease related (bowel obstruction), treatment related (VEGFR-TKI-related or infective/neutropenic septic diarrhea when patients are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy combined with VEGFR inhibitor treatment), or incurred through diet. Here, we provide an overview of the possible mechanisms responsible for VEGFR-TKI-induced diarrhea. We review potential interventions that can help in the management of diarrhea induced by VEGFR-TKIs, when used in combination or as single agents, and we provide a diarrhea treatment algorithm to serve as a clinical reference point for the management of diarrhea in patients with ovarian cancer treated with a VEGFR-TKI in combination with chemotherapy or PARP inhibitors, or as monotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Axitinib is a potent, selective, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Analyses of axitinib drug exposures have demonstrated high interpatient variability in patients receiving the 5 mg twice-daily (b.i.d.) starting dose. Clinical criteria can be used to assess whether individual patients may benefit further from dose modifications, based on their safety and tolerability data. This review provides practical guidance on the 'flexible dosing' method, to help physicians identify who would benefit from dose escalations, dose reductions or continuation with manageable toxicity at the 5 mg b.i.d. dose. This flexible approach allows patients to achieve the best possible outcomes without compromising safety.

A number of treatments targeting VEGF or mTOR pathways have been approved for metastatic clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC), but the majority of patients show disease progression after first line therapy with a very low rate of complete or long-term responders. It has been shown that miRs may play a role in prediction of treatment response in various cancer types. The aim of our study was to identify a miR signature predictive for RCC patients' response to antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in the first line therapy. Sequencing of 40 paired normal/tumor formalin fixed and paraffin embedded ccRCC tissues revealed separate clustering via unsupervised dendrograms. With supervised analysis, the strongest differential expression was obtained with miR-99b-5p, which was significantly lower in patients with short progression free survival (<8 months) and TKI non-responders (progressive disease patients according to RECIST) (p<0.0001, each). Validation using RTqPCR and a second patient cohort compiled from three different hospitals (n=65) showed higher expression of miR-99b-5p in complete responders, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. It is concluded that low miR-99b-5p expression analyzed with sequencing methodology may correlate with tumor progression in TKI-treated ccRCC patients.

Purpose of Review: In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and favourable or intermediate risk, sunitinib, pazopanib, and bevacizumab along with interferon have been recommended with identical evidence level I, recommendation grade A. In clinical practice, most physicians and patients are likely to favour an oral treatment (i.e., sunitinib or pazopanib). Choosing between those two tyrosine kinase inhibitors may prove challenging. Two randomized trials have been conducted to facilitate treatment choices, COMPARZ, and PISCES. We discuss below the design of these trials, their results, their potential interpretation, and their clinical implications for selecting treatment., Recent Findings: Both trials were reported to meet the primary endpoint (i.e., noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib) and patient's preference of pazopanib over sunitinib. However, several methodological aspects have raised doubts about the reliability of these conclusions. Pitfalls include the patients selected for the final analysis, discrepancies of results between the per protocol and intention-to-treat populations, the time points at which quality of life and disease were assessed., Summary: A rigorous head-to-head comparison of pazopanib versus sunitinib is yet to be performed. Clinical considerations and physicans' experience, rather than the reported results of these trials, may continue to influence treatment choices.

Objective: To determine if mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor (everolimus or temsirolimus) rechallenge in the third- or fourth-line setting after sequential use of a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF)-targeted agent and an mTOR inhibitor is a feasible and effective treatment strategy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Methods: Patients who received a VEGF-targeted agent, an mTOR inhibitor and rechallenge with a second mTOR inhibitor at 2 institutions (Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou and Vienna Medical School) between 30 March 2001 and 15 September 2011 were included. Analyses of radiographic images were performed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.0, to determine the objective response rate and treatment duration (TD)., Results: Twelve patients met the inclusion criteria. Following 1 or 2 VEGF receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 7 patients firstly received everolimus and 5 patients received temsirolimus. Irrespective of treatment sequence, 6 of 12 patients (50%) responded to everolimus and 4 of 12 patients (33%) responded to temsirolimus; 3 patients (25%) did not respond to either. Median TDs (95% confidence interval) for everolimus → temsirolimus and temsirolimus → everolimus sequences were 10.3 months (8.8-19.2 months) and 5.8 months (2.9-19.3 months), respectively., Conclusions: Despite the limited number of patients, this highlights the feasibility of utilizing mTOR rechallenge as an integral part of sequential treatment strategies in mRCC., (Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Sunitinib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have considerable efficacy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. TKI-associated cardiotoxicity was reported in approximately 10% of the patients. Detailed cardiovascular monitoring during TKI treatment may reveal early signs of myocardial damage., Patients and Methods: In this observational, single-center study, all patients intended for TKI treatment were analyzed for coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors, history or evidence of CAD, hypertension, rhythm disturbances, and heart failure. Monitoring included assessment of symptoms, ECGs, and biochemical markers (ie, creatine kinase-MB, troponin T). Echocardiography was performed at baseline in selected patients and in all patients who experienced a cardiac event. A cardiac event was defined as the occurrence of increased enzymes if normal at baseline, symptomatic arrhythmia that required treatment, new left ventricular dysfunction, or acute coronary syndrome., Results: A total of 86 patients were treated with either sunitinib or sorafenib. Among 74 eligible patients, 33.8% experienced a cardiac event, 40.5% had ECG changes, and 18% were symptomatic. Seven patients (9.4%) were seriously compromised and required intermediate care and/or intensive care admission. All patients recovered after cardiovascular management (ie, medication, coronary angiography, pacemaker implantation, heart surgery) and were considered eligible for TKI continuation. Statistically, there was no significant survival difference between patients who experienced a cardiac event and those who did not experience a cardiac event., Conclusion: Our observations indicate that cardiac damage from TKI treatment is a largely underestimated phenomenon but is manageable if patients have careful cardiovascular monitoring and cardiac treatment at the first signs of myocardial damage.