OBJECTIVE: Retrospective data analyses have suggested that carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) may have a predictive role in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) receiving high doseinterleukin-2 or sorafenib. We examined the predictive value of CAIX in estimating treatment outcome in patients receivingsorafenib vs. placebo as part of the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paraffin embedded tumor tissues were collected from 133 patients from the TARGET study (n = 903). The percentage of CAIX-positive cells was assessed by a single pathologist. The impact of CAIX expression on progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) and tumor shrinkage (TS, secondary endpoint) was analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between patients with low vs. high CAIX staining, as well as patients with available CAIX data vs. not. Median PFS for patients with high CAIX vs. low CAIX expression was 5.5 and 5.4 months, respectively, on the sorafenib arm (P = 0.97), and 1.5 and 1.7 months on the placebo arm (P = 0.76). Median TS for patients with high CAIX status was -14.9% vs. -12.6% in patients with low CAIX status (P = 0.63) on the sorafenib arm, and +1.3% (high CAIX) vs. +4.8% (low CAIX) in patients on the placebo arm (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Despite suggestive retrospective evidence, data from the TARGET study did not find CAIX expression status to be either predictive of clinical benefit for treatment with sorafenib or of prognostic value in patients with metastatic ccRCC following cytokine therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Retrospective data analyses have suggested that carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) may have a predictive role in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) receiving high dose interleukin-2 or sorafenib. We examined the predictive value of CAIX in estimating treatment outcome in patients receiving sorafenib vs. placebo as part of the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Paraffin embedded tumor tissues were collected from 133 patients from the TARGET study (n = 903). The percentage of CAIX-positive cells was assessed by a single pathologist. The impact of CAIX expression on progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) and tumor shrinkage (TS, secondary endpoint) was analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between patients with low vs. high CAIX staining, as well as patients with available CAIX data vs. not. Median PFS for patients with high CAIX vs. low CAIX expression was 5.5 and 5.4 months, respectively, on the sorafenib arm (P = 0.97), and 1.5 and 1.7 months on the placebo arm (P = 0.76). Median TS for patients with high CAIX status was -14.9% vs. -12.6% in patients with low CAIX status (P = 0.63) on the sorafenib arm, and +1.3% (high CAIX) vs. +4.8% (low CAIX) in patients on the placebo arm (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Despite suggestive retrospective evidence, data from the TARGET study did not find CAIX expression status to be either predictive of clinical benefit for treatment with sorafenib or of prognostic value in patients with metastatic ccRCC following cytokine therapy.
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: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Georg A Bjarnason; Ulka Vaishampayan; Min-Han Tan; Jennifer Knox; Frede Donskov; Lori Wood; Christian Kollmannsberger; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Meredith M Regan; Jonathan E Rosenberg; William K Oh; Jessica Clement; Angela M Amato; David McDermott; Daniel C Cho; Michael B Atkins; Sabina Signoretti Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hai T Tran; Yuan Liu; Amado J Zurita; Ying Lin; Katherine L Baker-Neblett; Anne-Marie Martin; Robert A Figlin; Thomas E Hutson; Cora N Sternberg; Rafael G Amado; Lini N Pandite; John V Heymach Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Hashem O Alsaab; Samaresh Sau; Rami M Alzhrani; Vino T Cheriyan; Lisa A Polin; Ulka Vaishampayan; Arun K Rishi; Arun K Iyer Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: N Romero-Laorden; B Doger; M Hernandez; C Hernandez; J F Rodriguez-Moreno; J Garcia-Donas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Marina O Golovastova; Dmitry O Korolev; Larisa V Tsoy; Vladimir A Varshavsky; Wan-Hai Xu; Andrey Z Vinarov; Evgeni Yu Zernii; Pavel P Philippov; Andrey A Zamyatnin Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.092