Roberto Iacovelli1, Giacomo Cartenì2, Michele Milella3, Rossana Berardi4, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo5, Elena Verzoni6, Mimma Rizzo2, Matteo Santoni4, Giuseppe Procopio6. 1. Sapienza University of Rome; Department of Radiology, Oncology and Human Pathology, Rome, Italy; 2. Oncology Unit, A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy; 3. Medical Oncology A, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy; 5. Medical Oncology, Genitourinary Cancer Section, University Federico II, Naples, Italy; 6. Medical Oncology Unit 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are little data on the clinical activity of temsirolimus (TM) and everolimus (EV) when used as second-line therapy after sunitinib (SU) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Patients with mRCC treated with EV or TM after SU were included in this retrospective analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to sequence failure (TTSF) from the start of SU to disease progression with EV/TM and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared across groups using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate predictors of TTSF and OS. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients (median age 60.0 years) were included. At baseline 43% were classified as MSKCC good-risk, 43% as intermediate-risk and 14% as poor-risk. Median OS was 36.3 months and median TTSF was 17.2 months. Sixty-five patients received SU-EV and 24 patients SU-TM. Median PFS after the second-line treatment was 4.3 months in the EV group and 3.5 months in the TM group (p = 0.63). Median TTSF was 17.0 and 18.9 months (p = 0.32) and the OS was 35.8 and 38.3 months (p = 0.73) with SU-EV and SU-TM, respectively. The prognostic role of initial MSKCC was confirmed by multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.85. p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show significant differences in terms of disease control and OS between EV and TM in the second-line setting. EV remains the preferred mTOR inhibitor for the treatment of mRCC patients resistant to prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment.
INTRODUCTION: There are little data on the clinical activity of temsirolimus (TM) and everolimus (EV) when used as second-line therapy after sunitinib (SU) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS:Patients with mRCC treated with EV or TM after SU were included in this retrospective analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to sequence failure (TTSF) from the start of SU to disease progression with EV/TM and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared across groups using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate predictors of TTSF and OS. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients (median age 60.0 years) were included. At baseline 43% were classified as MSKCC good-risk, 43% as intermediate-risk and 14% as poor-risk. Median OS was 36.3 months and median TTSF was 17.2 months. Sixty-five patients received SU-EV and 24 patientsSU-TM. Median PFS after the second-line treatment was 4.3 months in the EV group and 3.5 months in the TM group (p = 0.63). Median TTSF was 17.0 and 18.9 months (p = 0.32) and the OS was 35.8 and 38.3 months (p = 0.73) with SU-EV and SU-TM, respectively. The prognostic role of initial MSKCC was confirmed by multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.85. p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show significant differences in terms of disease control and OS between EV and TM in the second-line setting. EV remains the preferred mTOR inhibitor for the treatment of mRCC patients resistant to prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment.
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: Chi-Chang Chen; Gregory P Hess; Zhimei Liu; Dean H Gesme; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Carlos C Garay; Jerrold W Hill; Amy Guo Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: George V Thomas; Chris Tran; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Derek S Welsbie; Emily Chan; Barbara Fueger; Johannes Czernin; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Nat Med Date: 2005-12-11 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; Stephane Oudard; Thomas E Hutson; Camillo Porta; Sergio Bracarda; Viktor Grünwald; John A Thompson; Robert A Figlin; Norbert Hollaender; Andrea Kay; Alain Ravaud Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gary Hudes; Michael Carducci; Piotr Tomczak; Janice Dutcher; Robert Figlin; Anil Kapoor; Elzbieta Staroslawska; Jeffrey Sosman; David McDermott; István Bodrogi; Zoran Kovacevic; Vladimir Lesovoy; Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf; Olga Barbarash; Erhan Gokmen; Timothy O'Toole; Stephanie Lustgarten; Laurence Moore; Robert J Motzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; Stéphane Oudard; Thomas E Hutson; Camillo Porta; Sergio Bracarda; Viktor Grünwald; John A Thompson; Robert A Figlin; Norbert Hollaender; Gladys Urbanowitz; William J Berg; Andrea Kay; David Lebwohl; Alain Ravaud Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elisa Zanardi; Elena Verzoni; Paolo Grassi; Andrea Necchi; Patrizia Giannatempo; Daniele Raggi; Filippo De Braud; Giuseppe Procopio Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2015-06