The standards of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have changed significantly from unsuccessful attempts of radiation and cytostatic therapy to the encouraging results of targeted therapy and specific immunotherapy. Sunitinib has got into the practice in 2006, and now it`s one of the most studied and approved. Sunitinib is one of the first oral targeted drugs for RCC. It affects such receptors as VEGFR1, 2, 3; PDGFR, FGFR, c-KIT, and RET, which take part in the pathologic angiogenesis, tumor growth, and metastasizing. Moreover, sunitinib stimulates the growth and development of lymphatic vessels, that deliver immunocytes to the tumor. The advantage of sunitinib over non-specific immunotherapy has been proven by Motzer et al. The randomized trials COMPARZ, RECORD-3, and SWITCH have confirmed that sunitinib is more effective than several targeted drugs (pazopanib, everolimus, and sorafenib respectively) as the first line of treatment for mRCC. The randomized trial of the 3rd phase CARMENA has demonstrated the importance of sunitinib monotherapy for mRCC of intermediate and poor prognosis. In general, sunitinib has been proven to be an effective first-line drug for mRCC, as it`s evidenced in the comprehensive metaanalysis of real-world data and randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2017. Nowadays, despite the success of the immunotherapeutic direction, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and particularly sunitinib, rightfully remain the standard for mRCC of favourable prognosis, the treatment option for worse prognosis in case of contraindications for other methods of therapy, and it` s also used in subsequent therapy lines.
Urothelial cancer occupies a significant place in the routine practice of cancer treatment. Systemic antitumor treatment of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer in the first line is currently well studied, has its own standards, implemented in clinical practice. However, the problem of choosing antitumor treatment for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer in the second line remains relevant. Vinflunine is one of the treatment options for such patients. This article presents the case of successful treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer in the second line with vinflunine. A 63-year-old patient with a diagnosis of C65 Urothelial cancer of the pelvis of the left kidney T3N0M1, stage IV, bone metastases. Condition after cytoreductive left-sided nephrectomy, para-aortic lymphadenectomy from 04/16/2021. Concomitant pathology: Anemia. Diabetes mellitus type 2 Hypertonic disease. As the 1st line of treatment, 6 courses of CT were performed according to the scheme: Cisplatin + Gemcitabine. The effect was evaluated according to MSCT data of 3 zones and bone scintigraphy in accordance with Recist 1.1. The best response was obtained after the 4th cycle in August 2021 in the form of stabilization. October 2021 follow-up examination revealed progression. Since October 2021, chemotherapy of the 2nd line with Vinflunin is carried out in mono mode. All AEs are well controlled and do not require discontinuation of the drug. According to the results of the control examination, stabilization was achieved. Thereby vinflunine has been shown to be effective as a second-line treatment for platinum-resistant recurrent urothelial cancer.
Introduction. Nowadays the standard of care for locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a combination of platinum-based drugs. However, such a therapy is characterized with high toxicity and selective efficacy. So, the question of the optimal alternative to the first line of therapy and the choice of drugs for the second line of therapy is currently relevant.Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of UC. Nevertheless, despite the fact that initially the drugs of this series showed a fairly high efficacy as a second-line therapy for metastatic UC, at present there is no unambiguous opinion about the correct tactics of their use. There is also no consensus on the predictive value of PD-L1 biomarkers and their significance in determining treatment tactics.Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of first-line atezolizumab therapy in 22 patients with unresectable forms of UC.Materials and methods. The experience of the State Clinical Hospital named after D.D. Pletnev on the example of 22 patients with advanced UC who received first-line therapy with atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously once every 21 days until progression or intolerable toxicity. Efficacy was assessed according to RECIST 1.1 criteria.Results and discussion. Median follow-up 16.3 months. The objective response rate (ORR) is estimated at 72.7%, 95% CI. A complete response according to RECIST 1.1 criteria was observed in 5 patients (22.7%). Median time to first response was 2.2 months (range 1.5-5.7), late responses (at 5 and 5.7 months) required space in 2 patients. Median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI) in all patients. Median overall survival (OS) 18.5 months (95% CI). Specific application-related events were required in 10 (45.4%) cases. All the side effects were managed by standard symptomatic therapy. The dosage of atezoli-zumab was reduced in 7 (32%) cases. Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 5 (23%) patients. No patient received systemic non-corticosteroid immunomodulatory agents for immune-mediated events. 2 (9%) patients received corticosteroids.Conclusions. Atezolizumab has shown high efficacy in the first line of treatment for advanced UC.
In recent years, the approach to the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has undergone significant changes. The introduction of targeted drugs in the systemic therapy of RCC in the 2000s began with tyrosine kinase inhibitors that replaced cytokines and had a revolutionary effect. Then the therapeutic arsenal was expanded with the introduction of doublets consisting of a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors continue to represent an effective treatment option for metastatic RCC (mRCC), maintaining their position as first-line therapy in patients with a favorable prognosis. According to the CheckMate study, targeted therapy is highly effective, and the incidence of complications is generally lower than with nivolumab/ipilimumab combination therapy. Unlike dual immunotherapy, sunitinib does not expose patients with a favorable prognosis to undue risk of adverse events, while leaving more options for subsequent lines of therapy, and it's also often more cost-effective. The presented clinical observation is an example of successful monotherapy with sunitinib in a previously untreated mRCC patient with a favorable prognosis. This case is of particular interest due to the lesion of a single kidney and the patient's polymorbidity. Effective targeted therapy in the postoperative period had a positive effect on the quality and life expectancy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.