BACKGROUND: : The standard of care for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed to favor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Differences in patterns of progression between patients treated with these 2 modalities, and the impact of disease stabilization on outcome, were investigated. METHODS: : Patients who progressed on first line antivascular therapy (AVT) or interferon were identified, and their medical records reviewed. RESULTS: : A total of 162 patients met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Patients in the AVT group had better baseline performance status, fewer liver metastases, and more responses (CR + PR) compared with the interferon group. Both groups were equally likely to develop distant metastases; however, for patients in the AVT group, these new metastases were more likely to arise in the setting of controlled disease at baseline sites (18% vs 4%, P = .012). There was no difference in anatomic sites of progression between the 2 groups. Patients responding (CR + PR) to AVT trended toward longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared with patients with stable disease (SD) (P = .06). No difference between responders and SD was seen in the interferon group. CONCLUSIONS: : Patients with RCC treated with antivascular therapy were more likely to progress at new sites in the setting of stable disease at baseline sites, suggesting that AVT may be more effective at controlling existing sites of disease than it is at preventing new metastases. Patients with SD on AVT had shorter PFS compared with responders (CR + PR). Whether this relationship extends to overall survival requires further study. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: : The standard of care for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed to favor targeted therapy over immunotherapy. Differences in patterns of progression between patients treated with these 2 modalities, and the impact of disease stabilization on outcome, were investigated. METHODS: : Patients who progressed on first line antivascular therapy (AVT) or interferon were identified, and their medical records reviewed. RESULTS: : A total of 162 patients met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Patients in the AVT group had better baseline performance status, fewer liver metastases, and more responses (CR + PR) compared with the interferon group. Both groups were equally likely to develop distant metastases; however, for patients in the AVT group, these new metastases were more likely to arise in the setting of controlled disease at baseline sites (18% vs 4%, P = .012). There was no difference in anatomic sites of progression between the 2 groups. Patients responding (CR + PR) to AVT trended toward longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared with patients with stable disease (SD) (P = .06). No difference between responders and SD was seen in the interferon group. CONCLUSIONS: : Patients with RCC treated with antivascular therapy were more likely to progress at new sites in the setting of stable disease at baseline sites, suggesting that AVT may be more effective at controlling existing sites of disease than it is at preventing new metastases. Patients with SD on AVT had shorter PFS compared with responders (CR + PR). Whether this relationship extends to overall survival requires further study. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David F McDermott; Meredith M Regan; Joseph I Clark; Lawrence E Flaherty; Geoffery R Weiss; Theodore F Logan; John M Kirkwood; Michael S Gordon; Jeffrey A Sosman; Marc S Ernstoff; Christopher P G Tretter; Walter J Urba; John W Smith; Kim A Margolin; James W Mier; Jared A Gollob; Janice P Dutcher; Michael B Atkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert S Benjamin; Haesun Choi; Homer A Macapinlac; Michael A Burgess; Shreyaskumar R Patel; Lei L Chen; Donald A Podoloff; Chuslip Charnsangavej Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James C Yang; Leah Haworth; Richard M Sherry; Patrick Hwu; Douglas J Schwartzentruber; Suzanne L Topalian; Seth M Steinberg; Helen X Chen; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Zhou; X-D Liu; M Sun; X Zhang; P German; S Bai; Z Ding; N Tannir; C G Wood; S F Matin; J A Karam; P Tamboli; K Sircar; P Rao; E B Rankin; D A Laird; A G Hoang; C L Walker; A J Giaccia; E Jonasch Journal: Oncogene Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Shuning He; Gerda Em Lamers; Jan-Willem M Beenakker; Chao Cui; Veerander Ps Ghotra; Erik Hj Danen; Annemarie H Meijer; Herman P Spaink; B Ewa Snaar-Jagalska Journal: J Pathol Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Karin Y van Spaendonck-Zwarts; Sadhanna Badeloe; Sjoukje F Oosting; Sjoerd Hovenga; Harry J F Semmelink; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Jan Hein van Waesberghe; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Fred H Menko Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: R J Motzer; B Escudier; R Bukowski; B I Rini; T E Hutson; C H Barrios; X Lin; K Fly; E Matczak; M E Gore Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 7.640