Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

36 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Novel therapeutic options for second-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has gained a variety of therapeutic options since the introduction of targeted therapy, starting in 2007. The basic molecular mechanisms included predominantly the targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor or the inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin. Recently, results from two randomized controlled trials, the CheckMate-25 and the METEOR trial, regarding therapy for RCC in the second-line setting have been published. In the present review, the current status of second-line therapy in mRCC is discussed, together with results from the two newly introduced substances, nivolumab and cabozantinib.

SUBMITTER: VON Klot CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4888023 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Novel therapeutic options for second-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

VON Klot C A CA Merseburger Axel S AS Kuczyk Markus A MA

Molecular and clinical oncology 20160408 6

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has gained a variety of therapeutic options since the introduction of targeted therapy, starting in 2007. The basic molecular mechanisms included predominantly the targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor or the inhibition of the mammalian target of rapamycin. Recently, results from two randomized controlled trials, the CheckMate-25 and the METEOR trial, regarding therapy for RCC in the second-line setting have been published. In the present review, ...[more]

PMID: 27313856

Similar Datasets

Current Options for Second-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Project description:Standard systemic therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) involves targeting angiogenesis, mainly through tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway and targeting the immune checkpoints, namely, programmed death-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4). With current strategies of combining these two approaches in the front-line setting, less is known about optimal selection of therapy upon development of resistance in the second and later lines of treatment for progressive disease. This review discusses currently available therapeutic options in patients who have progressive RCC after prior treatment with double immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) or ICI-TKI combinations.

| S-EPMC9551369 | biostudies-literature

Adjuvant therapy options in renal cell carcinoma - targeting the metastatic cascade.

Project description:Localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is primarily managed with nephrectomy, which is performed with curative intent. However, disease recurs in ~20% of patients. Treatment with adjuvant therapies is used after surgery with the intention of curing additional patients by disrupting the establishment, maturation or survival of micrometastases, processes collectively referred to as the metastatic cascade. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have shown efficacy in the treatment of metastatic RCC, increasing the interest in the utility of these agents in the adjuvant setting. Pembrolizumab, an inhibitor of the immune checkpoint PD1, is now approved by the FDA and is under review by European regulatory agencies for the adjuvant treatment of patients with localized resected clear cell RCC based on the results of the KEYNOTE-564 trial. However, the optimal use of immunotherapy and VEGFR-targeting TKIs for adjuvant treatment of RCC is not completely understood. These agents disrupt the metastatic cascade at multiple steps, providing biological rationale for further investigating the applications of these therapeutics in the adjuvant setting. Clinical trials to evaluate adjuvant therapeutics in RCC are ongoing, and clinical considerations must guide the practical use of immunotherapy and TKI agents for the adjuvant treatment of localized resected RCC.

| S-EPMC10921989 | biostudies-literature

Optimal first-line and second-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: current evidence.

Project description:Since 2005, an abundance of targeted agents has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), without any specification as to what may be the most optimal first-line and second-line sequence. Hence, our objective was to critically examine the evidence supporting the use of first-line and second-line agents in the management of mRCC. Our review suggests that in first line, sunitinib and pazopanib represent treatment options for patients with favorable or intermediate-risk features and clear cell histology. Unfortunately, the Phase III trial cannot conclusively prove the noninferiority of pazopanib relative to sunitinib. Hence, the use of sunitinib as first-line standard of care remains justified. Pazopanib represents an option for specific patients in whom sunitinib might not be tolerated. In patients with poor-risk features, temsirolimus represents the only option supported with level 1 evidence. Less optimal alternatives include sunitinib and bevacizumab combined with interferon, based on the minimal inclusion of poor-risk patients in pivotal Phase III studies of these two molecules. In patients with non-clear cell mRCC, the use of temsirolimus is supported by Phase III data, unlike for any other molecule. In second line, the options consist of everolimus and axitinib. However, the axitinib data are substantially more robust given the inclusion of more patients considered as true second-line, and validly justify the choice of axitinib over everolimus. Nonetheless, the Phase III trial of everolimus may be considered as level 1 evidence for use as third-line or subsequent lines of therapy.

| S-EPMC4219683 | biostudies-literature

Determining Front-Line Therapeutic Strategy for Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Project description:The therapeutic landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma has rapidly evolved over the years, and we are now in an era of combination therapy strategies employing immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis targeted therapy. Since 2018, we have gained regulatory approval for four distinct combination therapies, all with survival benefits, and with guideline recommendation for use in the front-line setting. As such, treatment selection has become increasingly complex with a myriad of treatment choices but little high-level head-to-head data to guide treatment selection. Heterogeneity in tumor biology further complicates treatment selection as tumors vary in behavior and treatment responsiveness. Ongoing development of biomarkers will certainly assist in this setting, and validation of predictive markers represents an unmet need. In their absence, we highlight features of disease and nuances to datasets from landmark prospective clinical trials to help inform treatment selection. There is growing evidence to support deferring upfront systemic therapy in some patients, with opportunities for active surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy. In others, upfront systemic therapy is warranted and necessitates thoughtful consideration of multiple clinicopathologic parameters to inform optimal patient-centered decision making.

| S-EPMC9559659 | biostudies-literature

New treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma with prior anti-angiogenesis therapy.

Project description:Angiogenesis is a critical process in the progression of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Agents targeting angiogenesis have played a primary role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. However, resistance to anti-angiogenesis therapy almost always occurs, and major progress has been made in understanding its underlying molecular mechanism. Axitinib and everolimus have been used extensively in patients whom have had disease progression after prior anti-angiogenesis therapy. Recently, several new agents have been shown to improve overall survival in comparison with everolimus. This review provides an in-depth summary of drugs employable in the clinical setting, the rationale to their use, and the studies conducted leading to their approval for use and provides perspective on the paradigm shift in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Highlighted are the newly approved agents cabozantinib, nivolumab, and lenvatinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients treated with prior anti-angiogenesis therapy.

| S-EPMC5288948 | biostudies-literature

First-line treatment options in metastatic renal cell cancer.

Project description:The introduction of targeted therapy a decade ago revolutionized the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The current standard of care focuses on the inhibition of angiogenesis through the targeting of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Currently recommended first-line treatments in Canada include sunitinib, pazopanib, and temsirolimus. With the heterogeneity of mRCC disease, the choice of treatment is driven largely by prognostic factors.

| S-EPMC5215299 | biostudies-other

Second-line treatment options in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Project description:For many years, sorafenib has been the only approved systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). For over a decade, randomized controlled trials exploring the efficacy of new drugs both in first- and second-line treatment have failed to prove any survival benefit. However, in the past few years, several advances have been made especially in pretreated patients; phase III trials of regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in patients with elevated α-fetoprotein have demonstrated efficacy in patients progressing after or intolerant to sorafenib. In addition, early phase I and II trials have shown promising results of immunotherapy alone or in combination with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies in the same setting of patients. In this review, we will discuss the evidence on second-line options for HCC, focusing on the latest results that are currently refining the treatment scenario.

| S-EPMC6469745 | biostudies-literature

The association of clinical outcome to first-line VEGF-targeted therapy with clinical outcome to second-line VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

Project description:There are many active drugs to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who progress through their first-line vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor. Many clinicians choose a second-line VEGF inhibitor based on the type of response to first-line VEGF inhibitor, without data supporting this practice. This study was conducted to determine the association of response to second-line VEGF inhibitor with response to first-line VEGF inhibitor. All mRCC patients in participating centers of the International mRCC Database Consortium who were treated from January 2004 through June 2011 with a second-line VEGF inhibitor after failure of a different first-line VEGF inhibitor were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome is objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS) in each line of therapy. Of 1,602 total database patients, 464 patients received a first- and second-line VEGF inhibitor. The ORR to first-line therapy was 22%, and the ORR to second-line therapy was 11%. The ORR to second-line therapy was not different among patients achieving partial response versus stable disease versus progressive disease to first-line therapy (14% vs. 10% vs. 11%, respectively; chi-squared trend test p=0.17). The median PFS on first-line VEGF-targeted therapy was 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.6-8.1), and the median PFS on second-line VEGF inhibitor was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.6-4.5). There was no correlation between first-line and second-line PFS (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.025; p=0.59). The clinical response to a second-line VEGF inhibitor is not dependent on response to the first-line VEGF-inhibitor. Further studies are needed to define clinical parameters that predict response to second-line therapy to optimize the sequence of VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic RCC patients.

| S-EPMC4144038 | biostudies-literature

Survival Benefits of Second-line Axitinib Versus Everolimus After First Line Sunitinib Treatment in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Targeted therapies significantly improve clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Several new agents have been approved for first- and second-line use. However, there is a lack of compelling evidence comparing sequencing strategies, and available comparative data regarding the real-world effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We identified mRCC patients who initiated targeted therapy between January 1, 2008 and May 31, 2017 from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database of Hungary. Overall survival (OS) and duration of first-line treatment (DFT) were obtained for patients receiving sunitinib-everolimus, sunitinib-axitinib, or pazopanib-everolimus treatment sequences. OS of sunitinib-everolimus and sunitinib-axitinib sequences was also determined for patients having better or worse response to sunitinib first-line therapy. RESULTS:Median OS was significantly longer among patients treated with sunitinib-axitinib compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus. Median DFT was also significantly longer in the sunitinib-axitinib vs. sunitinib-everolimus group. Sunitinib-axitinib was associated with significantly longer median OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus in patients with better response to first-line sunitinib in the pooled sunitinib population. In patients with worse response to sunitinib, sunitinib-axitinib was associated with a trend towards greater OS compared to sunitinib-everolimus, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:In this nationwide database analysis, mRCC patients treated with the sunitinib-axitinib sequence had significantly longer OS compared to those receiving sunitinib-everolimus therapy. The OS benefits of second-line axitinib were consistent among patients with better response to sunitinib defined by DFT values.

| S-EPMC7471136 | biostudies-literature

Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Project description:PurposeThis international phase III trial (Investigating Torisel As Second-Line Therapy [INTORSECT]) compared the efficacy of temsirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) and sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after disease progression on sunitinib.Patients and methodsIn total, 512 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly (n = 259) or oral sorafenib 400 mg twice per day (n = 253), with stratification according to duration of prior sunitinib therapy (≤ or > 180 days), prognostic risk, histology (clear cell or non-clear cell), and nephrectomy status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee assessment. Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points.ResultsPrimary analysis revealed no significant difference between treatment arms for PFS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07; two-sided P = .19) or ORR. Median PFS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms were 4.3 and 3.9 months, respectively. There was a significant OS difference in favor of sorafenib (stratified HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.63; two-sided P = .01). Median OS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms was 12.3 and 16.6 months, respectively. Safety profiles of both agents were consistent with previous studies.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC and progression on sunitinib, second-line temsirolimus did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with sorafenib. The longer OS observed with sorafenib suggests sequenced VEGFR inhibition may benefit patients with mRCC.

| S-EPMC5569683 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data