Background Sunitinib and everolimus are standard first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Objective To conduct a randomized phase 2 trial comparing sunitinib and everolimus in non–clear cell RCC (non-ccRCC). Design, setting, and participants Patients with metastatic, non-ccRCC, or ccRCC with >20% sarcomatoid features (ccSRCC) were randomized to receive sunitinib or everolimus with crossover at disease progression. Outcome measurement and statistical analysis Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line therapy; 108 patients were needed to show improvement in median PFS (mPFS) from 12 wk with sunitinib to 20 wk with everolimus. Results and limitations Interim analysis of 68 patients (papillary [27], chromophobe [12], unclassified [10], translocation [7], ccSRCC [12]) prompted early trial closure. The mPFS in first-line therapy was 6.1 mo with sunitinib and 4.1 mo with everolimus (p = 0.6); median overall survival (mOS) was not reached with sunitinib and was 10.5 mo with everolimus, respectively (p = 0.014). At final analysis, mOS was 16.2 and 14.9 mo with sunitinib and everolimus, respectively (p = 0.18). There were four partial responses (PRs) in first-line therapy (sunitinib: 3 of 33 [9%]; everolimus, 1 of 35 [2.8%]) and four PRs in second-line therapy (sunitinib: 2 of 21 [9.5%]; everolimus, 2 of 23 [8.6%]), with mPFS of 1.8 mo and 2.8 mo, respectively. In patients without sarcomatoid features in their tumors (n = 49), mOS was 31.6 mo with sunitinib and 10.5 mo with everolimus (p = 0.075). Genomic profiling of a chromophobe RCC from a patient with a PR to first-line everolimus revealed a somatic TSC2 mutation. Conclusions In this trial, everolimus was not superior to sunitinib. Both agents demonstrated modest efficacy, underscoring the need for better therapies in non-ccRCC. Patient summary This randomized phase 2 trial provides the first head-to-head comparison of everolimus and sunitinib in patients with metastatic non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC). The observed very modest efficacy underscores the need to develop more effective therapies for non-ccRCC.

Background Sunitinib is a standard of care treatment in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Retrospective and expanded access data suggest sunitinib has activity in advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Objective To prospectively determine the clinical efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced nccRCC. Design, Setting, and Participants This is a single-arm phase 2 trial with a two-stage design. Eligibility criteria included pathologically confirmed nccRCC or ccRCC with ≥ 20 percent sarcomatoid histology, performance status 0–2, measurable disease, maximum 2 prior systemic therapies, and no prior treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Intervention Patients received sunitinib 50 mg daily on a 4-week on, 2-week off schedule. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were safety and overall survival (OS). Results and Limitations Fifty-seven patients were eligible [papillary (27), chromophobe (5), unclassified (8), collecting duct or medullary carcinoma (6), sarcomatoid (7), others (4)]. Median PFS for 55 evaluable patients was 2.7 months [95% CI: 1.4, 5.4]. Two patients with chromophobe and one patient with unclassified histology had a confirmed partial response (5% ORR). Median PFS for patients with papillary histology was 1.6 months (95% CI: 1.4, 5.4). Median PFS for patients with chromophobe histology was 12.7 months (95% CI: 8.5, NA). Median OS for all patients was 16.8 months (95% CI: 10.7, 26.3). Treatment emergent adverse events were consistent with sunitinib’s mechanism of action. The non-randomized design and small number of patients are limitations of this study. Conclusions The differential response of chromophobe histology to sunitinib suggests a therapeutically relevant biological heterogeneity exists within nccRCC. The low ORR and short PFS with sunitinib in the other nccRCC subtypes underscore the need to enroll patients with these diverse tumors on clinical trials.

Introduction Adult “translocation” renal cell carcinoma (RCC), bearing TFE3 gene fusions at Xp11.2, is a recently recognized unique entity for which prognosis and therapy remain poorly understood. We investigated the effect of vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in this distinct subtype of RCC. Patients and Methods We conducted a retrospective review to describe the clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients with metastatic Xp11.2 RCC, who had strong TFE-3 nuclear immunostaining, and received anti-VEGF therapy. Tumor response to anti-VEGF therapy was evaluated by RECIST. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) distributions. Results Fifteen patients were identified of which 10, 3, and 2 received sunitinib, sorafenib and monoclonal anti-VEGF antibodies, respectively. The median follow-up was 19.1 months, the median age of the patients was 41 years, and the female:male ratio was 4:1. Initial histologic description included clear cell (n=8), papillary (n=1) or mixed clear cell/papillary RCC (n=6). Five patients had prior systemic therapy. Five patients had FISH analysis and all demonstrated a translocation involving chromosome Xp11.2. When treated with VEGF-targeted therapy, 3 patients had a partial response, 7 patients had stable disease and 5 patients had progressive disease. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 7.1 months and 14.3 months respectively. Conclusion Adult-onset translocation-associated metastatic RCC is an aggressive disease that affects a younger population of patients with a female predominance. VEGF-targeted agents demonstrated some efficacy in this small retrospective series.

RMC carries a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy provides palliation and remains the mainstay of therapy, but <20% of patients survive for >24 months, underscoring the need to develop more effective therapy for this rare tumour. In this study, nephrectomy was associated with improved OS.

Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; =.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (=.032), and sex (=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; =.024). Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.