13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improved Long-Term Clinical Outcomes And Safety Profile Of Sunitinib Dosing Schedule With 4/2 Switched To 2/1 In Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose: This study aimed to identify the survival benefit and safety of alternative dosage schedules for sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

          Materials and Methods: Clinicopathologic and survival data of patients treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into three groups: a standard dosing schedule (4/2 schedule), alternative dosing schedule (2/1 schedule), and switched dosing schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule).

          Results: Ninety-nine patients were retrospectively included. Seventy-five (75.8%) patients were initially administrated with a 4/2 schedule of sunitinib, while 24 were started with the 2/1 schedule. During treatment, 45 (60.0%) patients with an initial 4/2 schedule switched to a 2/1 schedule (4/2-2/1 schedule) due to severe adverse events (AEs) or poor tolerance. Compared to that with a 4/2 schedule, patients with a 2/1 schedule had a much lower incidence of grade 3/4 AEs (69.6% vs. 40.6%, p=0.001). Overall, the 4/2-2/1 schedule was associated with the best survival benefits. Among the 4/2, 2/1, and 4/2-2/1 schedule groups, the median PFS was 12.5, 11.0, and 25.0 months, respectively (p=0.003), and the median OS was 21.0, 28.0, and 52.0 months, respectively (p=0.03). Multivariate analysis identified the 4/2-2/1 schedule as an independent factor predicting favorable PFS. Although without statistical significance, 4/2-2/1 schedule could decrease 55% risk of death. Furthermore, patients with unfavorable IMDC risk seemed to have more opportunity to achieve better survival from the 4/2-2/1 dosing schedule.

          Conclusion: Patients with a 4/2-2/1 schedule could minimize treatment-related toxicities; more importantly, patients with 4/2-2/1 schedule could achieve a superior survival benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Hypertension as a Biomarker of Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Sunitinib

          Background Hypertension (HTN) is an on-target effect of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, sunitinib. We evaluated the association of sunitinib-induced HTN with antitumor efficacy and HTN-associated adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods This retrospective analysis included pooled efficacy (n = 544) and safety (n = 4917) data from four studies of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib 50 mg/d administered on a 4-week-on 2-week-off schedule (schedule 4/2). Blood pressure (BP) was measured in the clinic on days 1 and 28 of each 6-week cycle. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods; hazard ratios (HRs) for survival were also estimated by a Cox proportional hazards models using HTN as a time-dependent covariate. Efficacy outcomes were compared between patients with and without HTN (maximum systolic BP [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg). Adverse events were also compared between patients with and without HTN (mean SBP ≥140 mm Hg or mean DBP ≥90 mm Hg). All P values were two-sided. Results Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP had better outcomes than those without treatment-induced HTN (objective response rate: 54.8% vs 8.7%; median PFS: 12.5 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.9 to 13.7 vs 2.5 months, 95% CI = 2.3 to 3.8 months; and OS: 30.9 months, 95% CI = 27.9 to 33.7 vs 7.2 months, 95% CI = 5.6 to 10.7 months; P < .001 for all). Similar results were obtained when comparing patients with vs without sunitinib-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP. In a Cox proportional hazards model using HTN as a time-dependent covariate, PFS (HR of disease progression or death = .603, 95% CI = .451 to .805; P < .001) and OS (HR of death = .332, 95% CI = .252 to .436; P < .001) were improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum SBP; OS (HR of death = .585, 95% CI = .463 to .740; P < .001) was improved in patients with treatment-induced HTN defined by maximum DBP, but PFS was not. Few any-cause cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, ocular, and renal adverse events were observed. Rates of adverse events were similar between patients with and without HTN defined by mean SBP; however, hypertensive patients had somewhat more renal adverse events (5% vs 3%; P = .013). Conclusions In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib-associated HTN is associated with improved clinical outcomes without clinically significant increases in HTN-associated adverse events, supporting its viability as an efficacy biomarker.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relationship between exposure to sunitinib and efficacy and tolerability endpoints in patients with cancer: results of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic meta-analysis.

            In this pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic meta-analysis, we investigated relationships between clinical endpoints and sunitinib exposure in patients with advanced solid tumors, including patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pharmacodynamic data were available for 639 patients of whom 443 had pharmacokinetic data. Sunitinib doses ranged from 25 to 150 mg QD or QOD. Models to express endpoint values and/or changes from baseline by the highest-correlating exposure measures were developed in S-PLUS or NONMEM using fixed- and mixed-effects modeling. Tentative relationships were identified between (1) steady-state AUC of total drug (sunitinib + its active metabolite SU12662) and time to tumor progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), with AUC significantly associated with longer TTP and OS in patients with GIST and mRCC, and incidence, but not severity, of fatigue; (2) steady-state AUC of sunitinib and response probability, with AUC significantly associated with objective response in patients with mRCC and stable disease in patients with both mRCC and GIST (with no such correlations in patients with solid tumors); (3) dose and tumor size reductions; (4) total drug concentration and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), with a typical patient on sunitinib 50 mg QD (the recommended dose) predicted to experience a maximum DBP increase of 8 mmHg; and (5) cumulative AUC of total drug and absolute neutrophil count (ANC), with ANC reductions occurring predominantly after one treatment cycle. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that increased exposure to sunitinib is associated with improved clinical outcomes (longer TTP, longer OS, greater chance of antitumor response), as well as some increased risk of adverse effects. A sunitinib 50-mg starting dose seems reasonable, providing clinical benefit with acceptably low risk of adverse events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis of sunitinib malate (SU11248) and its primary metabolite (SU12662) in healthy volunteers and oncology patients.

              Sunitinib malate is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma and imatinib-resistant or imatinib-intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Following administration, sunitinib is metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 to an active metabolite (SU12662). The objective of this analysis was to assess sunitinib and SU12662 pharmacokinetics and to identify covariates that might explain variability in exposure following oral administration. Data from 590 subjects (73 volunteers and 517 patients) in 14 studies were analyzed. Plasma concentration-time data were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling to estimate population pharmacokinetic parameters, as well as relationships between these parameters and gender, race, age, weight, creatinine clearance, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, and tumor type. Simulations were done to determine the predicted effect of these covariates on exposure. Separate models were developed for sunitinib and SU12662 (each a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination). Sunitinib parameters were estimated as CL/F, 51.8 L/h and Vd/F(central), 2,030 liters. SU12662 parameters were estimated as CL/F, 29.6 L/h and Vd/F(central), 3,080 liters. Tumor type (except acute myeloid leukemia), Asian race, gender, body weight, and elevated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score described a portion of the variability in CL/F for sunitinib and metabolite; gender and body weight explained some of the variability in Vd/F(central) for sunitinib and metabolite. Among patients, the predicted changes in sunitinib and metabolite AUC and C(max) as a result of the individual covariates ranged up to 17%. The magnitude of the predicted changes in exposure with the covariates studied minimizes the necessity for dose adjustment in any of these subpopulations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Cancer
                J Cancer
                jca
                Journal of Cancer
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                1837-9664
                2018
                7 September 2018
                : 9
                : 18
                : 3303-3310
                Affiliations
                Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding authors: Jia Wang and Hao Zeng. Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 610041; Tel.: +86 18980602129; E-mail: cdhx510@ 123456foxmail.com (Hao zeng); Fax: +86 2885422451.

                *These three authors are co-first authors of the manuscript

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                Article
                jcav09p3303
                10.7150/jca.25693
                6160671
                30271490
                0e5b460c-59d3-429f-98bc-d2a6731fde18
                © Ivyspring International Publisher

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.

                History
                : 23 February 2018
                : 16 June 2018
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                clinical outcome, dosing schedule, metastatic renal cell carcinoma,sunitinib,safety profile

                Comments

                Comment on this article