P Ivanyi1, J Koenig1, A Trummer1, J F Busch2, C Seidel3, C W Reuter1, A Ganser1, V Grünwald4. 1. Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. 2. Clinic of Urology, University Hospital Berlin, Charité, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Oncology, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with Section Pneumology, University Medical Center Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Gruenwald.Viktor@mh-hannover.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of bone metastasis (BM) onset toward prognosis in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. METHODS: mRCC patients with BM and sunitinib as first targeted therapy between May 2005 and December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with synchronous (s) BM or metachronous (m) BM were compared with regard to treatment and outcome [time to clinical progression (TTcP), overall survival (OS), skeletal-related events (SRE)]. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimation of TTcP and OS, Cox regression analyses, and a landmark analysis were administered. RESULTS: BM was identified in 127 mRCC patients; thereof, 82 sunitinib-treated patients were analyzed [sBM n = 57 (69.5 %), mBM n = 25 (30.5 %)]. Higher tumor grading (p = 0.029), male predominance (p = 0.02), and less second-line therapy (p = 0.001) were detected in sBM compared to mBM. SRE remained similar between subgroups (p = 0.462). TTcP during sunitinib was similar [median sBM 8.1 (95 % CI 3.9-12.3) vs. mBM 8.7 (95 % CI 2.7-14.8) months, p = 0.903]. OS remained significantly inferior in sBM patients compared to mBM [median sBM 21.1 (95 % CI 16-26.2) months vs. mBM 38.5 (95 % CI 15-62) months, p = 0.001], which was confirmed by landmark analyses at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. However, OS after occurrence of BM was similar in both groups [median sBM 24.2 (95 % CI 17.3-31.1) months vs. mBM 17.2 (95 % CI 8.4-26) months, p = 0.519]. CONCLUSIONS: mBM is associated with an improved OS compared to sBM in mRCC with sunitinib treatment, despite similar efficacy of sunitinib treatment in both groups of patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of bone metastasis (BM) onset toward prognosis in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. METHODS: mRCC patients with BM and sunitinib as first targeted therapy between May 2005 and December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with synchronous (s) BM or metachronous (m) BM were compared with regard to treatment and outcome [time to clinical progression (TTcP), overall survival (OS), skeletal-related events (SRE)]. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimation of TTcP and OS, Cox regression analyses, and a landmark analysis were administered. RESULTS: BM was identified in 127 mRCC patients; thereof, 82 sunitinib-treated patients were analyzed [sBM n = 57 (69.5 %), mBM n = 25 (30.5 %)]. Higher tumor grading (p = 0.029), male predominance (p = 0.02), and less second-line therapy (p = 0.001) were detected in sBM compared to mBM. SRE remained similar between subgroups (p = 0.462). TTcP during sunitinib was similar [median sBM 8.1 (95 % CI 3.9-12.3) vs. mBM 8.7 (95 % CI 2.7-14.8) months, p = 0.903]. OS remained significantly inferior in sBM patients compared to mBM [median sBM 21.1 (95 % CI 16-26.2) months vs. mBM 38.5 (95 % CI 15-62) months, p = 0.001], which was confirmed by landmark analyses at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. However, OS after occurrence of BM was similar in both groups [median sBM 24.2 (95 % CI 17.3-31.1) months vs. mBM 17.2 (95 % CI 8.4-26) months, p = 0.519]. CONCLUSIONS: mBM is associated with an improved OS compared to sBM in mRCC with sunitinib treatment, despite similar efficacy of sunitinib treatment in both groups of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastasis; Renal cell carcinoma; Sunitinib; Survival
Authors: Daniel Keizman; Maya Ish-Shalom; Roberto Pili; Hans Hammers; Mario A Eisenberger; Victoria Sinibaldi; Ben Boursi; Natalie Maimon; Maya Gottfried; Henry Hayat; Avivit Peer; Svetlana Kovel; Avishay Sella; Raanan Berger; Michael A Carducci Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: S Patil; R A Figlin; T E Hutson; M D Michaelson; S Négrier; S T Kim; X Huang; R J Motzer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-07-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Philip J Saylor; Andrew J Armstrong; Karim Fizazi; Stephen Freedland; Fred Saad; Matthew R Smith; Bertrand Tombal; Kenneth Pienta Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Y C Heng; Wanling Xie; Meredith M Regan; Mark A Warren; Ali Reza Golshayan; Chakshu Sahi; Bernhard J Eigl; J Dean Ruether; Tina Cheng; Scott North; Peter Venner; Jennifer J Knox; Kim N Chi; Christian Kollmannsberger; David F McDermott; William K Oh; Michael B Atkins; Ronald M Bukowski; Brian I Rini; Toni K Choueiri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Robert L Satcher; Tianhong Pan; Chien-Jui Cheng; Yu-Chen Lee; Song-Chang Lin; Guoyu Yu; Xiaoxia Li; Anh G Hoang; Pheroze Tamboli; Eric Jonasch; Gary E Gallick; Sue-Hwa Lin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240