Neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies in renal cell carcinoma: more questions than answers.

The current standard treatment for early stage (I-III) renal cell cancer (RCC) is surgery. While the prognosis of stage I tumors is excellent, stage II and particularly stage III have a high risk of relapse. The adjuvant treatment of patients with RCC remains an area of investigation, with patient selection being a key aspect. There are currently two prognostic nomograms to establish the risk of relapse in patients with resected RCC. The results of earlier studies of adjuvant therapy, including the use chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy after nephrectomy have failed to show any benefit in the outcome of patients at risk of developing local recurrence or distant metastases. Two recent phase III trials with vaccines (autologous tumor cell vaccine and autologous tumor-derived heat shock protein peptide complex-96) have shown promising, albeit still preliminary, results. In the metastatic RCC setting, recent advances in the molecular understanding of oncogenic pathways have led to the development of new therapeutic strategies with the use of targeted therapies in the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant treatment is another treatment modality currently being evaluated for patients with early disease and in patients with metastatic RCC with inoperable primary tumors. The questions that remain unanswered include activity of these agents in early stages of the disease, patient selection, optimal start time of the adjuvant treatment, and finally, the optimal length of treatment.

Targeting renal cell carcinoma with NVP-BEZ235, a dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in combination with sorafenib.

Background: Targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), including mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and small-molecule multikinase inhibitors, have produced clinical effects. However, most patients acquire resistance over time. Thus, new therapeutic strategies need to be developed. Here, we evaluated the effect of the dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor NVP-BEZ235, in combination with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib on renal cancer cell proliferation and survival in vitro as well as on tumor growth in vivo.Methods: The renal carcinoma cell lines 786-0 and Caki-1 were treated with NVP-BEZ235 or sorafenib, either alone or in combination. Tumor cell proliferation and apoptosis were investigated in vitro. The anticancer efficacy of NVP-BEZ235 alone, or in combination with sorafenib, was also evaluated on RCC xenografts in nude mice.Results: Treatment of 786-0 and Caki-1 cells with NVP-BEZ235 or sorafenib resulted in reduced tumor cell proliferation and increased tumor cell apoptosis in vitro. The combination of NVP-BEZ235 and sorafenib was more effective than each compound alone. Similarly, in vivo, NVP-BEZ235 or sorafenib reduced the growth of xenografts generated from 786-0 or Caki-1 cells. The antitumor efficacy of NVP-BEZ235 in combination with sorafenib was superior to NVP-BEZ235 or sorafenib alone.Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the simultaneous use of NVP-BEZ235 and sorafenib has greater antitumor benefit compared to either drug alone and thus provides a treatment strategy in RCC.

Pretherapeutic gamma-glutamyltransferase is an independent prognostic factor for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) regulates apoptotic balance and promotes cancer progression and invasion. Higher pretherapeutic GGT serum levels have been associated with worse outcomes in various malignancies, but there are no data for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Pretherapeutic GGT serum levels and clinicopathological parameters were retrospectively evaluated in 921 consecutive RCC patients treated with nephrectomy at a single institution between 1998 and 2013. Gamma-glutamyltransferase was analysed as continuous and categorical variable. Associations with RCC-specific survival were assessed with Cox proportional hazards models. Discrimination was measured with the C-index. Decision-curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. The median postoperative follow-up was 45 months. RESULTS: Median pretherapeutic serum GGT level was 25 U l(-1). Gamma-glutamyltransferase levels increased with advancing T (P<0.001), N (P=0.006) and M stages (P<0.001), higher grades (P<0.001), and presence of tumour necrosis (P<0.001). An increase of GGT by 10 U l(-1) was associated with an increase in the risk of death from RCC by 4% (HR 1.04, P<0.001). Based on recursive partitioning-based survival tree analysis, we defined four prognostic categories of GGT: normal low (<17.5 U l(-1)), normal high (17.5 to <34.5 U l(-1)), elevated (34.5 to <181.5 U l(-1)), and highly elevated (⩾181.5 U l(-1)). In multivariable analyses that adjusted for the effect of standard features, both continuously and categorically coded GGT were independent prognostic factors. Adding GGT to a model that included standard features increased the discrimination by 0.9% to 1.8% and improved the clinical net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Pretherapeutic serum GGT is a novel and independent prognostic factor for patients with RCC. Stratifying patients into prognostic subgroups according to GGT may be used for patient counselling, tailoring surveillance, individualised treatment planning, and clinical trial design.

The T309G Murine Double Minute 2 Gene Polymorphism Is an Independent Prognostic Factor for Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of the T309G MDM2 gene polymorphism with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) risk, pathology, and cancer-specific survival (CSS). T309G MDM2 was genotyped in 449 Caucasians, including 240 with RCC and 209 cancer-free controls. The T309G MDM2 genotype was TT in 174 (38.8%), GT in 214 (47.7%), and GG in 61 (13.6%) subjects, without any significant differences between cases and controls on both univariable (p=0.58) and multivariable logistic regression (each p>0.25). Furthermore, T309G MDM2 was not linked with T stage (p=0.75), N stage (p=0.37), M stage (p=0.94), grade (p=0.21), and subtype (p=0.55). There was, however, a statistically significant association of T309G MDM2 with CSS (p=0.022): patients with TT had significantly worse survival than GG/GT (p=0.009), while those with GT and GG had similar outcomes (p=0.92). The 5-year survival rate for patients with TT, GT, and GG was 69.5%, 84.5%, and 89.7%, respectively. On the multivariable analysis, T309G was identified as an independent prognostic factor. The T309G MDM2 polymorphism is an independent prognostic factor for patients with RCC, with the TT genotype being associated with worse prognosis. In this study, there were no significant associations with RCC risk and pathology.

Effects of preset sequential administrations of sunitinib and everolimus on tumour differentiation in Caki-1 renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor) and everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) are both approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as first-line and second-line therapy, respectively. In the clinics, sunitinib treatment is limited by the emergence of acquired resistance, leading to a switch to second-line treatment at progression, often based on everolimus. No data have been yet generated on programmed alternating sequential strategies combining alternative use of sunitinib and everolimus before progression. Such strategy is expected to delay the emergence of acquired resistance and improve tumour control. The aim of our study was to assess the changes in tumours induced by three different sequences administration of sunitinib and everolimus. METHODS: In human Caki-1 RCC xenograft model, sunitinib was alternated with everolimus every week, every 2 weeks, or every 3 weeks. Effects on necrosis, hypoxia, angiogenesis, and EMT status were assessed by immunohisochemistry and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus programmed sequential regimens before progression yielded longer median time to tumour progression than sunitinib and everolimus monotherapies. In each group of treatment, tumour growth control was associated with inhibition of mTOR pathway and changes from a mesenchymal towards an epithelial phenotype, with a decrease in vimentin and an increase in E-cadherin expression. The sequential combinations of these two agents in a RCC mouse clinical trial induced antiangiogenic effects, leading to tumour necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our study showed that alternate sequence of sunitinib and everolimus mitigated the development of mesenchymal phenotype compared with sunitinib as single agent.

ATP-competitive inhibitors of mTOR: new perspectives in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

Targeting mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) is an effective approach in the treatment of advanced RCC (renal cell carcinoma). Rapamycin-like drugs (rapalogues) have shown clinical activities and have been approved for the treatment of RCC. Recently, with the development of ATP-competitive inhibitors of mTOR, therapies targeting mTOR have entered a new era. Here, we discuss the biological relevance of blocking mTOR in RCC and review the mechanisms of action of rapalogues in RCC. We also advance some perspectives on the use of ATP-competitive inhibitors of mTOR in RCC.

Successes and limitations of targeted therapies in renal cell carcinoma.

Until recently, the standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was nonspecific immunotherapy based on interleukin-2 or interferon-α. This was associated with a modest survival benefit and with significant clinical toxicities. The understanding of numerous molecular pathways in RCC, including HIF, VEGF, mTOR, and the consecutive use of targeted therapies since the beginning of 2005 have significantly improved outcomes for patients with metastatic RCC with an overall survival greater than 2 years. At present, at least 7 targeted agents are approved for first and consecutive lines of treatment of clear cell metastatic RCC. Long-term benefit and extended survival may be achieved through the optimal use of targeted therapies: optimal dosing, adverse event management and treatment duration and compliance. Advances in the finding of prognostic factors highlight the potential for personalizing treatment for patients with metastatic RCC. Data regarding the best sequencing of targeted therapies, predictive biomarkers, best timing of surgery, patient risk profiles, understanding of resistance mechanisms and safety of targeted therapies are growing and will provide a further step ahead in the management of advanced RCC. In parallel, a new class of therapeutics is emerging in RCC: immunotherapy; in particular check-point blockade antibodies are showing very promising results.

Diabetes mellitus and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies.

Diabetes has been associated to the risk of a few cancer sites, though quantification of this association in various populations remains open to discussion. We analyzed the relation between diabetes and the risk of various cancers in an integrated series of case-control studies conducted in Italy and Switzerland between 1991 and 2009. The studies included 1,468 oral and pharyngeal, 505 esophageal, 230 gastric, 2,390 colorectal, 185 liver, 326 pancreatic, 852 laryngeal, 3,034 breast, 607 endometrial, 1,031 ovarian, 1,294 prostate, and 767 renal cell cancer cases and 12,060 hospital controls. The multivariate odds ratios (OR) for subjects with diabetes as compared to those without-adjusted for major identified confounding factors for the cancers considered through logistic regression models-were significantly elevated for cancers of the oral cavity/pharynx (OR = 1.58), esophagus (OR = 2.52), colorectum (OR = 1.23), liver (OR = 3.52), pancreas (OR = 3.32), postmenopausal breast (OR = 1.76), and endometrium (OR = 1.70). For cancers of the oral cavity, esophagus, colorectum, liver, and postmenopausal breast, the excess risk persisted over 10 yr since diagnosis of diabetes. Our data confirm and further quantify the association of diabetes with colorectal, liver, pancreatic, postmenopausal breast, and endometrial cancer and suggest forthe first time that diabetes may also increase the risk of oral/pharyngeal and esophageal cancer. [Table: see text] [Table: see text].

Association of the hemochromatosis gene with pazopanib-induced transaminase elevation in renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pazopanib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and is generally well tolerated. However, transaminase elevations have commonly been observed. This 2-stage study sought to identify genetic determinants of alanine transaminase (ALT) elevations in pazopanib-treated white patients with RCC.¦METHODS: Data from two separate clinical studies were used to examine the association of genetic polymorphisms with maximum on-treatment ALT levels.¦RESULTS: Of 6852 polymorphisms in 282 candidate genes examined in an exploratory dataset of 115 patients, 92 polymorphisms in 40 genes were significantly associated with ALT elevation (p<0.01). Two markers (rs2858996 and rs707889) in the HFE gene, which are not yet known to be associated with hemochromatosis, showed evidence for replication. Because of multiple comparisons, there was a 12% likelihood the replication occurred by chance. These two markers demonstrated strong linkage disequilibrium (r(2)=0.99). In the combined dataset, median (25-75th percentile) maximum ALT values were 1.2 (0.7-1.9), 1.1 (0.8-2.5), and 5.4 (1.9-7.6)×ULN for rs2858996 GG (n=148), GT (n=82), and TT (n=1 2) genotypes, respectively. All 12 TT patients had a maximum ALT>ULN, and 8 (67%) had ALT≥3×ULN. The odds ratio (95% CI) for ALT≥3×ULN for TT genotype was 39.7 (2.2-703.7) compared with other genotypes. As a predictor of ALT≥3×ULN, the TT genotype had a negative predictive value of 0.83 and positive predictive value of 0.67. No TT patients developed liver failure.¦CONCLUSIONS: The rs2858996/rs707889 polymorphisms in the HFE gene may be associated with reversible ALT elevation in pazo-panib-treated patients with RCC.

Citrus fruit and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies.

BACKGROUND: Citrus fruit has shown a favorable effect against various cancers. To better understand their role in cancer risk, we analyzed data from a series of case-control studies conducted in Italy and Switzerland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The studies included 955 patients with oral and pharyngeal cancer, 395 with esophageal, 999 with stomach, 3,634 with large bowel, 527 with laryngeal, 2,900 with breast, 454 with endometrial, 1,031 with ovarian, 1,294 with prostate, and 767 with renal cell cancer. All cancers were incident and histologically confirmed. Controls were admitted to the same network of hospitals for acute, nonneoplastic conditions. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated by multiple logistic regression models, including terms for major identified confounding factors for each cancer site, and energy intake. RESULTS: The ORs for the highest versus lowest category of citrus fruit consumption were 0.47 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.36-0.61) for oral and pharyngeal, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.70) for esophageal, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.52-0.92) for stomach, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93) for colorectal, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.83) for laryngeal cancer. No consistent association was found with breast, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, and renal cell cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that citrus fruit has a protective role against cancers of the digestive and upper respiratory tract.

Maximising the duration of disease control in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with targeted agents: an expert agreement.

With six targeted agents approved (sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, bevacizumab [+interferon], everolimus and pazopanib), many patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) will receive multiple therapies. However, the optimum sequencing approach has not been defined. A group of European experts reviewed available data and shared their clinical experience to compile an expert agreement on the sequential use of targeted agents in mRCC. To date, there are few prospective studies of sequential therapy. The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus was approved for use in patients who failed treatment with inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptors (VEGFR) based on the results from a Phase III placebo-controlled study; however, until then, the only licensed agents across the spectrum of mRCC were VEGF(R) inhibitors (sorafenib, sunitinib and bevacizumab + interferon), and as such, a large body of evidence has accumulated regarding their use in sequence. Data show that sequential use of VEGF(R) inhibitors may be an effective treatment strategy to achieve prolonged clinical benefit. The optimal place of each targeted agent in the treatment sequence is still unclear, and data from large prospective studies are needed. The Phase III AXIS study of second-line sorafenib vs. axitinib (including post-VEGF(R) inhibitors) has completed, but the data are not yet published; other ongoing studies include the Phase III SWITCH study of sorafenib-sunitinib vs. sunitinib-sorafenib (NCT00732914); the Phase III 404 study of temsirolimus vs. sorafenib post-sunitinib (NCT00474786) and the Phase II RECORD 3 study of sunitinib-everolimus vs. everolimus-sunitinib (NCT00903175). Until additional data are available, consideration of patient response and tolerability to treatment may facilitate current decision-making regarding when to switch and which treatment to switch to in real-life clinical practice.

Clear Cell Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma and Renal Angiomyoadenomatous Tumor: Two Variants of a Morphologic, Immunohistochemical, and Genetic Distinct Entity of Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma (ccpRCC) and renal angiomyoadenomatous tumor (RAT) share morphologic similarities with clear cell (ccRCC) and papillary RCC (pRCC). It is a matter of controversy whether their morphologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular features allow the definition of a separate renal carcinoma entity. The aim of our project was to investigate specific renal immunohistochemical biomarkers involved in the hypoxia-inducible factor pathway and mutations in the VHL gene to clarify the relationship between ccpRCC and RAT. We investigated 28 ccpRCC and 9 RAT samples by immunohistochemistry using 25 markers. VHL gene mutations and allele losses were investigated by Sanger sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clinical follow-up data were obtained for a subset of the patients. No tumor recurrence or tumor-related death was observed in any of the patients. Immunohistochemistry and molecular analyses led to the reclassification of 3 tumors as ccRCC and TFE3 translocation carcinomas. The immunohistochemical profile of ccpRCC and RAT samples was very similar but not identical, differing from both ccRCC and pRCC. Especially, the parafibromin and hKIM-1 expression exhibited differences in ccpRCC/RAT compared with ccRCC and pRCC. Genetic analysis revealed VHL mutations in 2/27 (7%) and 1/7 (14%) ccpRCC and RAT samples, respectively. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis disclosed a 3p loss in 2/20 (10%) ccpRCC samples. ccpRCC and RAT have a specific morphologic and immunohistochemical profile, but they share similarities with the more aggressive renal tumors. On the basis of our results, we regard ccpRCC/RAT as a distinct entity of RCCs.

Comparison of the prognostic value of pretreatment measurements of systemic inflammatory response in patients undergoing curative resection of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Pretreatment measurements of systemic inflammatory response, including the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) have been recognized as prognostic factors in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), but there is at present no study that compared these markers. METHODS: We evaluated the pretreatment GPS, NLR, MLR, PLR and PNI in 430 patients, who underwent surgery for clinically localized CCRCC (pT1-3N0M0). Associations with disease-free survival were assessed with Cox models. Discrimination was measured with the C-index, and a decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the clinical net benefit. RESULTS: On multivariable analyses, all measures of systemic inflammatory response were significant prognostic factors. The increase in discrimination compared with the stage, size, grade and necrosis (SSIGN) score alone was 5.8 % for the GPS, 1.1-1.4 % for the NLR, 2.9-3.4 % for the MLR, 2.0-3.3 % for the PLR and 1.4-3.0 % for the PNI. On the simultaneous multivariable analysis of all candidate measures, the final multivariable model contained the SSIGN score (HR 1.40, P < 0.001), the GPS (HR 2.32, P < 0.001) and the MLR (HR 5.78, P = 0.003) as significant variables. Adding both the GPS and the MLR increased the discrimination of the SSIGN score by 6.2 % and improved the clinical net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinically localized CCRCC, the GPS and the MLR appear to be the most relevant prognostic measures of systemic inflammatory response. They may be used as an adjunct for patient counseling, tailoring management and clinical trial design.

La néphrectomie partielle dans le cancer du rein: un nouveau standard [Partial nephrectomy in renal cancer: a new standard?]

Rising renal cell carcinoma incidence is in relationship with early diagnosis during radiological exams. Radical nephrectomy was the gold standard treatment for 30 years. Partial nephrectomy is nowadays a validated therapeutic option for renal cell carcinoma up to 7 cm with comparable oncological results associated with better life quality and survival. Partial nephrectomy is tricky and laparoscopic approach remains reserved for expert centers.

MMP-9 as predictive factor for response and progression free survival in breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. A multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (SAKK24/06). On behalf of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

The benefit of bevacizumab (Bv) has been shown in different tumors including colorectal cancer, renal cancer, pulmonary non-small cell cancer and also breast cancer. However to date, there is no established test evaluating the angiogenic status of a patient and monitoring the effects of anti-angiogenic treatments. Tumor angiogenesis is the result of a balance between multiple pro- and anti¬angiogenic molecules. There is very little published clinical data exploring the impact of the anti-angiogenic therapy on the different angiogenesis-related molecules and the potential role of these molecules as prognostic or predictive factors.