Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  69 148 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 69 148 Next Page
Page Background

Platinum Priority

Editorial

Referring to the article published on pp. 62

68 of this issue

Are We Ready for Adjuvant Sunitinib in High-risk Renal Cell

Carcinoma?

Jozefina Casuscelli

a , * , James J. Hsieh b

a

Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany;

b

Molecular Oncology, Department of Medicine, Siteman Cancer Center,

Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is predominantly of clear

cell renal histology (ccRCC), is among the most lethal of

urologic malignancies. Despite advances in diagnostic and

surgical techniques, the prognosis for high-risk localized

RCC has seen little improvement in the last decades, and

disease recurrence may occur in as many as 35

40% of

patients harboring high-risk features

[1] .

Once relapse leads to a metastatic stage after tumor

surgery

[2] ,

several novel targeted treatment options can be

offered. However, although the prognosis for metastatic

disease has improved in the past decade, no curative

therapy is currently available. There is therefore an urgent

need to develop strategies to reduce metastatic recurrence

by targeting unrecognized micrometastatic residual disease

in patients with high-risk RCC.

Compared to other malignancies, for which adjuvant

therapy has been extensively studied, limited data are

available on the efficacy of adjuvant treatment in prevent-

ing RCC relapse. The only management currently available

for patients with high risk is close follow-up.

A natural consideration for the design of adjuvant trials in

RCC is to

[6_TD$DIFF]

employ the VEGF pathway inhibitors sunitinib,

sorafenib, and pazopanib following tumor resection. These

first-generation antiangiogenic compounds have revolution-

ized the treatment of metastatic ccRCC in the past decade,

and were therefore chosen in three adjuvant trials shortly

after their approval in 2006 and 2010. In all studies, patients

were treated for 1 yr with either a VEGF inhibitor or placebo.

The first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized,

phase 3 trial (ASSURE, NCT00326898) assigned 1943 patients

1:1:1 to sunitinib, sorafenib, or placebo following resection

of locally advanced RCC

[3] .

The results showed no difference

in the primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS)

and overall survival (OS) in the overall population, even after

risk stratification with a focus on high-risk ccRCC

[4] .

The recently presented preliminary results from the

PROTECT trial (NCT01235962) evaluating the efficacy and

safety of adjuvant pazopanib versus placebo in 1538 patients

did not meet the primary endpoint of disease-free survival

(DFS) for 600 mg pazopanib

[5]

.

Surprisingly, the second prospective study of this type

(S-TRAC, NCT00375674) with adjuvant sunitinib versus

placebo in high-risk ccRCC met its primary endpoint of

improving DFS (6.8 vs 5.6 yr)

[6]

. However, the authors were

not able to provide results on the secondary endpoint of OS.

One potential explanation for the differences in ASSURE

and S-TRAC regarding the benefit of sunitinib is the patient

stratification strategy, namely the relatively higher risk

population enrolled in the S-TRAC trial. These patients are

more likely to harbor micrometastases and therefore

potentially benefit from adjuvant therapy.

In this issue of

European Urology

, Motzer and colleagues

[7]

present exploratory subgroup analyses for the S-TRAC

study to precisely define which patients could benefit most

from adjuvant sunitinib, and updated OS data after an

additional 10 mo of follow-up. They showed that the

previously reported positive effect of sunitinib on DFS

persisted in the majority of subgroups, but in particular in

those with high-risk baseline characteristics, defined as T3

stage, no or undetermined nodal involvement, Fuhrman

E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 3 ( 2 0 18 ) 6 9 7 0

ava ilable at

www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage:

www.eu ropeanurology.com

DOI of original article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.008

.

* Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany. Tel. +49 4400 0;

Fax: +49 4400 78890.

E-mail address:

jozefina.casuscelli@med.uni-muenchen.de

(J. Casuscelli).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.026

0302-2838/© 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.