Viktor Grünwald1, Marion Dietrich2, Gregory R Pond3. 1. Department of Hematology, Hemostasis, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. gruenwald.viktor@mh-hannover.de. 2. Department of Natural Sciences, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany. 3. Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early tumor shrinkage (eTS) has prognostic value in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to validate the role of eTS in first line treatment from the COMPARZ study (NCT00720941). METHODS: 1100 patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib were analyzed for tumor response according to RECIST 1.0. eTS was defined as tumor shrinkage by ≥ 10%. A landmark analysis was performed on day (d) 42 and 90 and Cox proportional hazards regression was computed for the prognostic effect of eTS. RESULTS: In patients with eTS median OS was 34.1 [CI 95% 28.4; not reached (NR)] and 33.6 (CI 95% 30.1; NR) months (mo) at d 42 and 90, respectively, compared to 19.6 (CI 95% 14.0; 28.9) and 15.1 (CI 95% 12.4; 18.7) mo for patients without eTS. There was no interaction between type of treatment and eTS (d 42 p = 0.79; d 90 p = 0.37). eTS ≥ 10% remained an independent prognostic marker in multivariable analyses at both d 42 and 90. CONCLUSIONS: Similar results were found for eTS at the 42 and 90 days landmarks. eTS ≥ 10% has prognostic relevance in mRCC and reflects a putative tool to guide future clinical treatment.
PURPOSE: Early tumor shrinkage (eTS) has prognostic value in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We aimed to validate the role of eTS in first line treatment from the COMPARZ study (NCT00720941). METHODS: 1100 patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib were analyzed for tumor response according to RECIST 1.0. eTS was defined as tumor shrinkage by ≥ 10%. A landmark analysis was performed on day (d) 42 and 90 and Cox proportional hazards regression was computed for the prognostic effect of eTS. RESULTS: In patients with eTS median OS was 34.1 [CI 95% 28.4; not reached (NR)] and 33.6 (CI 95% 30.1; NR) months (mo) at d 42 and 90, respectively, compared to 19.6 (CI 95% 14.0; 28.9) and 15.1 (CI 95% 12.4; 18.7) mo for patients without eTS. There was no interaction between type of treatment and eTS (d 42 p = 0.79; d 90 p = 0.37). eTS ≥ 10% remained an independent prognostic marker in multivariable analyses at both d 42 and 90. CONCLUSIONS: Similar results were found for eTS at the 42 and 90 days landmarks. eTS ≥ 10% has prognostic relevance in mRCC and reflects a putative tool to guide future clinical treatment.
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Bernard Escudier; Thomas Powles; Paul N Mainwaring; Brian I Rini; Frede Donskov; Hans Hammers; Thomas E Hutson; Jae-Lyun Lee; Katriina Peltola; Bruce J Roth; Georg A Bjarnason; Lajos Géczi; Bhumsuk Keam; Pablo Maroto; Daniel Y C Heng; Manuela Schmidinger; Philip W Kantoff; Anne Borgman-Hagey; Colin Hessel; Christian Scheffold; Gisela M Schwab; Nizar M Tannir; Robert J Motzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Hilary Glen; M Dror Michaelson; Ana Molina; Timothy Eisen; Jacek Jassem; Jakub Zolnierek; Jose Pablo Maroto; Begoña Mellado; Bohuslav Melichar; Jiri Tomasek; Alton Kremer; Han-Joo Kim; Karen Wood; Corina Dutcus; James Larkin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David F McDermott; Charles G Drake; Mario Sznol; Toni K Choueiri; John D Powderly; David C Smith; Julie R Brahmer; Richard D Carvajal; Hans J Hammers; Igor Puzanov; F Stephen Hodi; Harriet M Kluger; Suzanne L Topalian; Drew M Pardoll; Jon M Wigginton; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok Gupta; Dan McDonald; Vindira Sankar; Jeffrey A Sosman; Michael B Atkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Moshe C Ornstein; Laura S Wood; Paul Elson; Kimberly D Allman; Jennifer Beach; Allison Martin; Beth R Zanick; Petros Grivas; Tim Gilligan; Jorge A Garcia; Brian I Rini Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Jason Abel; Stephen H Culp; Nizar M Tannir; Pheroze Tamboli; Surena F Matin; Christopher G Wood Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Emiliano Calvo; Manuela Schmidinger; Daniel Y C Heng; Viktor Grünwald; Bernard Escudier Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2016-09-10 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Börje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven E Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Rachel H Giles; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fiona J Collinson; Walter M Gregory; Chris McCabe; Helen Howard; Catherine Lowe; DrBarbara Potrata; Sandy Tubeuf; Pat Hanlon; Lucy McParland; T Wah; Peter J Selby; Jenny Hewison; Julia Brown; Janet Brown Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: J J Ko; T K Choueiri; B I Rini; J-L Lee; N Kroeger; S Srinivas; L C Harshman; J J Knox; G A Bjarnason; M J MacKenzie; L Wood; U N Vaishampayan; N Agarwal; S K Pal; M-H Tan; S Y Rha; T Yuasa; F Donskov; A Bamias; D Y C Heng Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.640