Anne Sacré1, Philippe Barthélémy2, Clement Korenbaum2, Mickael Burgy2, Pascal Wolter1,3, Herlinde Dumez1,3, Evelyne Lerut4, Tine Loyson5, Steven Joniau6, Raymond Oyen7, Philip R Debruyne5,8, Patrick Schöffski1,3, Benoit Beuselinck1,3. 1. a Department of General Medical Oncology , University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium . 2. b Department of Medical Oncology , Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire , Strasbourg , France . 3. c Laboratory for Experimental Oncology , University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium . 4. d Department of Pathology , University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium . 5. e Department of Medical Oncology , AZ Groeninge , Kortrijk , Belgium . 6. f Department of Urology , University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium . 7. g Department of Radiology , University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium , and. 8. h Ageing & Cancer Research Cluster, Centre for Positive Ageing, University of Greenwich , London , UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 40% of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients receive a second-line targeted therapy after failure of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (anti-VEGFR-TKI). Efficacy of second-line therapy is usually limited and prognostic and predictive factors at the start of second-line therapy are lacking. To identify the subgroup of patients that will benefit from such treatment remains a challenge. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients who received a second-line therapy after progression on an anti-VEGFR-TKI. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to identify prognostic factors for progressive disease (PD) as best response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on second-line therapy. RESULTS: For the whole cohort of 108 patients, mOS from the start of second-line therapy was 8.9 months while mPFS on second-line therapy was 2.8 months. A total of 49/105 (47%) patients had PD, 50/105 (48%) stable disease (SD) and 6/105 (6%) a partial response (PR). On multivariate analysis, the following markers were associated with improved outcome on second-line therapy: a PFS on first-line therapy ≥12 months (HR for PFS: 1.961; p = 0.008) (HR for OS: 1.724; p = 0.037) and Fuhrman grade 1-2 tumors (HR for OS: 2.198; p = 0.007). Markers associated with poorer outcome on second-line therapy were: elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (HR for PFS: 0.511; p = 0.04) (HR for OS: 0.392; p = 0.017), low albumin (HR for OS: 0.392; p = 0.01) and elevated corrected calcium levels (HR for OS: 0.416; p = 0.01). The impact on OS of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) and International Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic scores as calculated at start of second-line therapy was validated in our patient series. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of first-line PFS, Fuhrman grade, serum LDH levels, albumin levels, corrected calcium levels and the MSKCC and IMDC scores calculated at start of second-line therapy are prognostic factors for m-ccRCC patients treated with second-line targeted therapy.
BACKGROUND: About 40% of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients receive a second-line targeted therapy after failure of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (anti-VEGFR-TKI). Efficacy of second-line therapy is usually limited and prognostic and predictive factors at the start of second-line therapy are lacking. To identify the subgroup of patients that will benefit from such treatment remains a challenge. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients who received a second-line therapy after progression on an anti-VEGFR-TKI. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to identify prognostic factors for progressive disease (PD) as best response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on second-line therapy. RESULTS: For the whole cohort of 108 patients, mOS from the start of second-line therapy was 8.9 months while mPFS on second-line therapy was 2.8 months. A total of 49/105 (47%) patients had PD, 50/105 (48%) stable disease (SD) and 6/105 (6%) a partial response (PR). On multivariate analysis, the following markers were associated with improved outcome on second-line therapy: a PFS on first-line therapy ≥12 months (HR for PFS: 1.961; p = 0.008) (HR for OS: 1.724; p = 0.037) and Fuhrman grade 1-2 tumors (HR for OS: 2.198; p = 0.007). Markers associated with poorer outcome on second-line therapy were: elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (HR for PFS: 0.511; p = 0.04) (HR for OS: 0.392; p = 0.017), low albumin (HR for OS: 0.392; p = 0.01) and elevated corrected calcium levels (HR for OS: 0.416; p = 0.01). The impact on OS of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) and International Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic scores as calculated at start of second-line therapy was validated in our patient series. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of first-line PFS, Fuhrman grade, serum LDH levels, albumin levels, corrected calcium levels and the MSKCC and IMDC scores calculated at start of second-line therapy are prognostic factors for m-ccRCC patients treated with second-line targeted therapy.