BackgroundSunitinib is a protein tyrosine kinase-inhibitor targeting VEGFR, c-kit and PDGFR. It has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Although it has been shown to prolong disease-free and overall survival in renal-cell carcinoma patients, only 70% of the treated population receive a clinical benefit (CB) from the treatment. Markers that could predict clinical benefit to sunitinib would be an important aid in monitoring and following their treatment. We assessed the outcome and plasma proangiogenic factors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib in our institution.MethodsWe have treated 42 patients with metastatic clear-cell renal carcinoma with sunitinib. Plasma concentrations of VEGF-A, sVEGFR2 and PDGF were determined by ELISA.ResultsAt the time of analysis 39 patients were evaluable for response and 30 patients had obtained a clinical benefit (CB). Median progression-free survival was 268 days (8.93 months) and median overall survival was 487 days (16.23 months). Interestingly, disease stabilization or objective response resulted in comparable overall survival. Most treatment-related adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity with one treatment-related death. Plasma sVEGFR2 and PDGF levels had no predictive value. Fold-increase in plasma VEGF was significantly lower in patients that obtained a CB as compared to patients that progressed after two cycles of treatment. Plasma VEGF did not increase in patients with initial CB at the time of progression.ConclusionSunitinib showed substantial activity in mRCC. Disease stabilization or objective response resulted in comparable overall survival and both outcomes should be considered positive. Fold-increase in plasma VEGF predicts for CB and could be a candidate marker. Progression after initial CB is not associated with elevated plasma VEGF, implying a different mechanism of resistance.

Currently, there is uncertainity on the role of surgery in MRCC and on the choice of available guidelines in relapsed RCC. The best practice is individualization of targeted therapies. Systematic review of guidelines can help to identify unmet medical needs and areas of future research.

BackgroundThe treatment paradigm in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed in the recent years. Sunitinib has been established as a new standard for first-line therapy. We studied the prognostic significance of baseline characteristics and we compared the risk stratification with the established Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model.MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of patients treated in six Greek Oncology Units of HECOG. Inclusion criteria were: advanced renal cell carcinoma not amenable to surgery and treatment with Sunitinib. Previous cytokine therapy but no targeted agents were allowed. Overall survival (OS) was the major end point. Significance of prognostic factors was evaluated with multivariate cox regression analysis. A model was developed to stratify patients according to risk.ResultsOne hundred and nine patients were included. Median follow up has been 15.8 months and median OS 17.1 months (95% CI: 13.7-20.6). Time from diagnosis to the start of Sunitinib (<= 12 months vs. >12 months, p = 0.001), number of metastatic sites (1 vs. >1, p = 0.003) and performance status (PS) (<= 1 vs >1, p = 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Stratification in two risk groups ("low" risk: 0 or 1 risk factors; "high" risk: 2 or 3 risk factors) resulted in distinctly different OS (median not reached [NR] vs. 10.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.3-13.3], p < 0.001). The application of the MSKCC risk criteria resulted in stratification into 3 groups (low and intermediate and poor risk) with distinctly different prognosis underlying its validity. Nevertheless, MSKCC model did not show an improved prognostic performance over the model developed by this analysis.ConclusionsStudies on risk stratification of patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies are warranted. Our results suggest that a simpler than the MSKCC model can be developed. Such models should be further validated.

The impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) on cancer patients' survival has recently become a matter of extensive discussion. Studies in solid tumors demonstrated that ESA adversely affects survival. This issue has not been sufficiently studied in patients with multiple myeloma. In this study, which included 323 multiple myeloma patients followed in our Institution between 1988 and 2007, we demonstrated by using a proportional hazards model including multiple covariates (age, LDH, Hb, platelets, serum creatinine, ISS score, b2 microglobulin, and ESA administration) that ESA administration is associated with reduced survival (hazards ratio: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.28-2.77). Anemia, which is considered a predictor for survival, platelets, serum creatinine, ISS score, and LDH, were not significant, whereas, age and b2 microglobulin confirmed their predicting value in the multivariate analysis. With a median follow-up of 31 months (range 1-238), the median survival of patients in the ESA group was 31 months (95% CI: 25-37), whereas in the group without ESA administration it was 67 months (95% CI: 55-79) (P < 0.001). The median progressionfree survival for patients in the ESA group was 14 months (95% CI: 12-16), and for the group without ESA it was 30 months (95% CI: 24-36) (P < 0.001). These results indicate that ESA may have a detrimental impact on MM patients' outcomes and, thus, in this context, they should be used with rigorous criteria. Am. J. Hematol. 83:697-701, 2008. V