Viktor Grünwald1, Rana R McKay2, Katherine M Krajewski3, Daniel Kalanovic4, Xun Lin4, Julia J Perkins4, Ronit Simantov4, Toni K Choueiri5. 1. Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Pfizer Oncology, Pfizer Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: toni_choueiri@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Response remains an important endpoint in clinical cancer trials. However, the prognostic utility of best tumor response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains vague. OBJECTIVE: To define the prognostic relevance of the depth of remission in mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled data from the Pfizer database for 2749 patients from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials in mRCC were analyzed. Tumor shrinkage was categorized according to the best percentage change in the sum of the largest diameter of target lesions. Outcome was computed using Kaplan-Meier curves and correlation was assessed via Cox regression, including a 6-mo landmark. INTERVENTION: Sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, temsirolimus, or temsirolimus and interferon-α. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Categorized tumor shrinkage, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Major tumor shrinkage of 60% or more occurred in approximately 10% of patients and was associated with median OS of 54.5 mo. OS expectations steadily decreased with depth of remission (26.4, 16.6, 10.4, and 7.3 mo). The association was maintained when stratified by type of therapy, line of therapy, and performance status. Cox proportional regression analyses for the 6-mo landmark confirmed the prognostic relevance of major tumor shrinkage (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.39; p<0.001). The major limitation of our study is the variability of imaging intervals among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and largest analysis of best tumor response in mRCC. We demonstrate that depth of remission is an independent prognostic factor in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: It remains unknown whether tumor shrinkage during therapy is needed to achieve clinical activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Our analysis shows that the magnitude of tumor shrinkage correlates with better survival in patients. This observation may be used as a clinical research tool in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00054886, NCT00077974, NCT00267748, NCT00338884, NCT00137423, NCT00083889, NCT00065468, NCT00678392.
BACKGROUND: Response remains an important endpoint in clinical cancer trials. However, the prognostic utility of best tumor response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains vague. OBJECTIVE: To define the prognostic relevance of the depth of remission in mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pooled data from the Pfizer database for 2749 patients from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials in mRCC were analyzed. Tumor shrinkage was categorized according to the best percentage change in the sum of the largest diameter of target lesions. Outcome was computed using Kaplan-Meier curves and correlation was assessed via Cox regression, including a 6-mo landmark. INTERVENTION: Sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, temsirolimus, or temsirolimus and interferon-α. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Categorized tumor shrinkage, overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Major tumor shrinkage of 60% or more occurred in approximately 10% of patients and was associated with median OS of 54.5 mo. OS expectations steadily decreased with depth of remission (26.4, 16.6, 10.4, and 7.3 mo). The association was maintained when stratified by type of therapy, line of therapy, and performance status. Cox proportional regression analyses for the 6-mo landmark confirmed the prognostic relevance of major tumor shrinkage (hazard ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.39; p<0.001). The major limitation of our study is the variability of imaging intervals among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and largest analysis of best tumor response in mRCC. We demonstrate that depth of remission is an independent prognostic factor in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: It remains unknown whether tumor shrinkage during therapy is needed to achieve clinical activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Our analysis shows that the magnitude of tumor shrinkage correlates with better survival in patients. This observation may be used as a clinical research tool in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00054886, NCT00077974, NCT00267748, NCT00338884, NCT00137423, NCT00083889, NCT00065468, NCT00678392.
Authors: Lori E Dodd; Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin; C Carl Jaffe; Lawrence V Rubinstein; Janet Dancey; Margaret M Mooney Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine M Krajewski; Mengye Guo; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Nikhil Ramaiya; Jyothi Jagannathan; Daniel Y C Heng; Michael B Atkins; David F McDermott; Fabio A B Schutz; Ivan Pedrosa; Toni K Choueiri Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jonas Busch; Christoph Seidel; Irena Goranova; Barbara Erber; Robert Peters; Frank Friedersdorff; Ahmed Magheli; Kurt Miller; Viktor Grünwald; Steffen Weikert Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Andrew Stein; Joaquim Bellmunt; Bernard Escudier; Dennis Kim; Sotirios G Stergiopoulos; William Mietlowski; Robert J Motzer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Keith T Flaherty; Mark A Rosen; Daniel F Heitjan; Maryann L Gallagher; Brian Schwartz; Mitchell D Schnall; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Saskia Litière; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Lesley Seymour; Dan Sargent; Lalitha Shankar; Jan Bogaerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Nizar M Tannir; Robert A Figlin; Martin E Gore; M Dror Michaelson; Robert J Motzer; Camillo Porta; Brian I Rini; Caroline Hoang; Xun Lin; Bernard Escudier Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Brian I Rini; Victor Gruenwald; Eric Jonasch; Mayer N Fishman; Yoshihiko Tomita; M Dror Michaelson; Jamal Tarazi; Laura Cisar; Subramanian Hariharan; Angel H Bair; Brad Rosbrook; Thomas E Hutson Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Kyo Chul Koo; Kwang Suk Lee; Kang Su Cho; Koon Ho Rha; Sung Joon Hong; Byung Ha Chung Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 2.370