Explore the vast range of titles available.

The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544–0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·56–7·56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4·2 months (3·75–5·46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·50–0·93]; p=0·014). Median TTP was 2·8 months (2·63–3·58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1·4 months (1·35–1·55) in the placebo group (HR 0·57 [0·42–0·79]; p=0·0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10·7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6·0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3·4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11·4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7·4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

To the Editor: Llovet et al. (July 24 issue) 1 report that their study of sorafenib therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma showed a higher overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events with sorafenib than with placebo (80% vs. 52%), although the difference was not noted to be significant. The availability of new therapies, with expected small variations in objective end points, has heightened awareness of the importance of the impact of treatment on patients' overall lives. 2 Besides the traditional end points (e.g., median overall survival and time to radiologic progression), quality of life has been acknowledged as an important issue in . . .

No effective therapy is available for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this randomized trial involving 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of Raf, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, improved median survival by 3 months, as compared with placebo (10.7 vs. 7.9 months, P<0.001). Adverse events, including diarrhea and weight loss, were more frequent in patients receiving sorafenib. No effective therapy is available for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this trial involving patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib improved median survival by 3 months, as compared with placebo. Hepatocellular carcinoma is a major health problem, accounting for more than 626,000 new cases per year worldwide. 1 The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing in the United States and Europe, and it is the third highest cause of cancer-related death globally, behind only lung and stomach cancers. 1 In the West, the disease is diagnosed in 30 to 40% of all patients at early stages and is amenable to potentially curative treatments, such as surgical therapies (resection and liver transplantation) and locoregional procedures (radiofrequency ablation). 2 Five-year survival rates of up to 60 to 70% can be achieved in well-selected patients. 2 However, . . .

Sorafenib induces frequent dose limiting toxicities (DLT) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sarcopenia has been associated with poor performance status and shortened survival in cancer patients. The characteristics of Child Pugh A cirrhotic patients with HCC receiving sorafenib in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Sorafenib plasma concentrations were determined at each visit. Toxicities were recorded during the first month of treatment, and sarcopenia was determined from baseline CT-scans. Forty patients (30 males) were included. Eleven (27.5%) were sarcopenic. Eighteen patients (45%) experienced a DLT during the first month of treatment. Sarcopenic patients experienced significantly more DLTs than non-sarcopenic patients did (82% versus 31%, p = 0.005). Grade 3 diarrhea was significantly more frequent in sarcopenic patients than in non-sarcopenic patients (45.5% versus 6.9%, p = 0.01), but not grade 3 hand foot syndrome reaction (9% versus 17.2%, p = 1). On day 28, median sorafenib AUC (n = 17) was significantly higher in sarcopenic patients (102.4 mg/l.h versus 53.7 mg/l.h, p = 0.013). Among cirrhotic Child Pugh A patients with advanced HCC, sarcopenia predicts sorafenib exposure and the occurrence of DLT within the first month of treatment.

Antiangiogenic agents that target the VEGF pathway have become an important part of standard therapy in multiple cancer indications. Although most adverse effects of VEGF inhibitors are modest and manageable, some are associated with serious and life-threatening consequences. This Review examines the toxicity profiles of anti-VEGF monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule inhibitors and considers the potential mechanisms of the adverse effects, risk factors, and the implications for patient management. Antiangiogenesis agents that target the VEGF/VEGF receptor pathway have become an important part of standard therapy in multiple cancer indications. With expanded clinical experience with this class of agents has come the increasing recognition of the diverse adverse effects related to disturbance of VEGF-dependent physiological functions and homeostasis in the cardiovascular and renal systems, as well as wound healing and tissue repair. Although most adverse effects of VEGF inhibitors are modest and manageable, some are associated with serious and life-threatening consequences, particularly in high-risk patients and in certain clinical settings. This Review examines the toxicity profiles of anti-VEGF antibodies and small-molecule inhibitors. The potential mechanisms of the adverse effects, risk factors, and the implications for selection of patients and management are discussed. Key Points Adverse effects associated with both VEGF- and VEGFR-targeting monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors are diverse, and include hypertension, arterial thromboembolic events, proteinuria, bowel perforation, reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome, wound complications and hemorrhage Risk of serious adverse events may be increased by a multitude of risk factors related to the tumor characteristics and locations, comorbidities, and prior or concurrent anticancer therapy Risk–benefit assessment is important for individual patients considering antiangiogenesis therapy In order to provide evidence-based guidance for risk identification, toxicity management and treatment adjustment for antiangiogenesis agents further research in this area is warranted

The prognosis in metastatic renal-cell cancer, especially of the dominant clear-cell type, is dismal. This trial compared sorafenib, an orally active inhibitor of the proliferation of cancer cells and tumor angiogenesis, with placebo in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cancer. The results with sorafenib were modest but encouraging enough to test the drug as an initial adjuvant treatment. This trial compared sorafenib, an orally active inhibitor of the proliferation of cancer cells and tumor angiogenesis, with placebo in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cancer. The results with sorafenib were modest but encouraging enough to test the drug as an initial adjuvant treatment. The 5-year survival rate for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma is less than 10%. 1 High-dose interleukin-2 therapy rarely induces a durable complete response, and interferon alfa provides only a modest survival advantage. Until recently, there have been no other treatments for patients with renal-cell carcinoma who are ineligible for, or unable to tolerate, these cytokines. 2 – 6 Sorafenib, an orally active multikinase inhibitor with effects on tumor-cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis, was initially identified as a Raf kinase inhibitor. 7 It also inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor β (PDGFRβ); FMS-like tyrosine kinase . . .

Summary Sorafenib (Nexavar®) is an orally active multikinase inhibitor that is approved in the EU for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Monotherapy with sorafenib prolongs overall survival and delays the time to progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who are not candidates for potentially curative treatment or transarterial chemoembolization. Sorafenib is generally well tolerated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, sorafenib represents an important advance in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and is the new standard of care for this condition. Pharmacological Properties The bi-aryl urea sorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that inhibits cell surface tyrosine kinase receptors (e.g. vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β) and downstream intracellular serine/threonine kinases (e.g. Raf-1, wild-type B-Raf and mutant B-Raf); these kinases are involved in tumour cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. In vitro , dose-dependent inhibition of cell proliferation and induction of apoptosis was seen with sorafenib in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells lines. Sorafenib demonstrated dose-dependent antitumour activity in a murine xenograft model of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Steady-state plasma concentrations were reached within 7 days in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours who received twice-daily oral sorafenib. Metabolism of sorafenib occurs primarily in the liver and is mediated via cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A9. In advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, differences in sorafenib pharmacokinetics between Child-Pugh A and B patients were not considered clinically significant. Sorafenib may be associated with drug interactions. For example, sorafenib exposure was reduced by an average 37% with concomitant administration of the CYP3A4 inducer rifampicin (rifampin); sorafenib concentrations may also be decreased by other CYP3A4 inducers. Therapeutic Efficacy Monotherapy with oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily prolonged median overall survival and delayed the median time to progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase III trials (the SHARP trial and the Asia-Pacific trial). There was no significant difference between sorafenib and placebo recipients in the median time to symptomatic progression in either trial. The vast majority of patients included in these trials were Child-Pugh A. Combination therapy with sorafenib plus doxorubicin did not delay the median time to progression to a significant extent compared with doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial. However, the median durations of overall survival and progression-free survival were significantly longer in patients receiving sorafenib plus doxorubicin than in those receiving doxorubicin alone. Combination therapy with sorafenib plus tegafur/uracil or mitomycin also showed potential in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of noncomparative trials. Tolerability Monotherapy with oral sorafenib was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, with a manageable adverse effect profile; diarrhoea and hand-foot skin reaction were consistently the most commonly occurring drug-related adverse events in clinical trials. In the SHARP trial, drug-related adverse events of any grade occurring in significantly more sorafenib than placebo recipients included diarrhoea, hand-foot skin reaction, anorexia, alopecia, weight loss, dry skin, abdominal pain, voice changes and ‘other’ dermatological events. A similar tolerability profile was seen in the Asia-Pacific trial. As expected given the addition of a chemotherapy agent, the adverse event profile in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received combination therapy with sorafenib plus doxorubicin differed somewhat to that seen with sorafenib monotherapy in the SHARP trial. In patients receiving sorafenib plus doxorubicin, the most commonly occurring all-cause adverse events (all grades) included fatigue, neutropenia, diarrhoea, elevated bilirubin levels, abdominal pain, hand-foot skin reaction, left ventricular dysfunction, hypertension and febrile neutropenia.

Two phase 3 clinical trials (SAINT I and SAINT II) evaluated the free-radical–trapping agent NXY-059 for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The SAINT I trial, reported last year, suggested that NXY-059 might be effective. The authors now report the results of the SAINT II trial, which clearly shows that NXY-059 is not effective for ischemic stroke. The discrepancy in the findings of the two trials is best explained by chance false positive findings in the SAINT I trial. The authors report the results of the SAINT II trial, which clearly shows that the free-radical–trapping agent NXY-059 is not effective for ischemic stroke. Currently, thrombolysis with alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [rt-PA]) is the only widely approved treatment for acute stroke, and it is underused. There is an urgent need for new therapies that are safer and can be offered to a higher percentage of patients. Cerebral tissue can be protected in animal models by a variety of agents that attenuate neuronal injury after ischemia, 1 but none of these putative neuroprotectants have been confirmed as an effective therapy in clinical trials. NXY-059, a free-radical–trapping agent, has been extensively tested in animal models of focal ischemic stroke and has been shown to improve functional recovery . . .

Key Points Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment of several malignancies, converting lethal diseases into manageable, if not curable, chronic diseases. This makes it essential to limit toxicities of these agents. The goal of tumour-cell killing by TKIs must be balanced against cardiotoxicity, because in some instances tumour cell death and preservation of cardiomyocyte health may be mutually exclusive. Cardiomyocytes are contractile and have an extremely high demand for ATP. As a result, they might be particularly susceptible to agents that perturb mitochondrial function, either as a primary or secondary effect. Therefore, alterations in mitochondrial function could have a role in the cardiotoxicities of some currently approved agents. Very few clinical trials have examined cardiotoxicities of TKIs in a prospective fashion with predefined cardiac endpoints, including left ventricular function. Therefore, there is a wide gap in our knowledge regarding the types of, and risk of, cardiotoxicity for most of these agents. Some current kinase targets in cancer are not expressed in cardiomyocytes and therefore have little or no direct role in cardiomyocyte survival. However, the current generation of TKIs is inherently non-selective, and the purposeful design of multi-targeted TKIs might allow a single agent to be more effective, and to be used in more types of cancer, but with this comes an increased risk of cardiotoxicity. In some cases this will probably be due to inhibition of 'bystander' targets that are not essential for the killing of tumour cells but that are involved in cardiomyocyte survival. Identification of the kinase that, when inhibited, is responsible for cardiotoxicity of an agent is important for future drug design, which should avoid these kinases where possible. Thus, greater selectivity of individual agents may require the use of more agents to treat a particular cancer, but cardiotoxicity as an 'off-target' effect should be minimized. Although inhibition of tyrosine kinases has revolutionized cancer therapy, some of the inhibitors used have now been associated with cardiotoxicity. How does inhibition of cancer-relevant signalling pathways affect heart cells, and how can these effects be minimized? Cancer therapy has progressed remarkably in recent years. In no area has this been more apparent than in the development of 'targeted therapies', particularly those using drugs that inhibit the activity of certain tyrosine kinases, activating mutations or amplifications of which are causal, or strongly contributory, to tumorigenesis. However, some of these therapies have been associated with toxicity to the heart. Here we summarize what is known about the cardiotoxicity of cancer drugs that target tyrosine kinases. We focus on basic mechanisms through which interruption of specific signalling pathways leads to cardiomyocyte dysfunction and/or death, and contrast this with therapeutic responses in cancer cells.