Background: Recent data have shown that cardiotoxicity represents a potentially important side-effect in patients treated with sunitinib. We reviewed cardiac adverse events in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who underwent treatment with this agent. Patients and methods: The medical records of 175 patients with metastatic RCC treated with sunitinib at eight Italian institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Alterations in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and blood pressure were evaluated. Patients with preexisting cardiac risk factors were specifically scrutinized for increased expression of cardiac changes. Results: Grade 3 hypertension was seen in 17 patients (9.7%); in 12 of these 17, hypertension developed after receiving the third sunitinib cycle. Among these 17 patients, 12 (70.6%) also experienced left ventricular systolic (LVEF) dysfunction; in all, 33 of the 175 patients (18.9%) developed some degree of cardiac abnormality, of which 12 were classified as grade 3 LVEF dysfunction and/or congestive heart failure (CHF) (6.9%). Significant univariate associations for predictors of CHF were history of hypertension (P = 0.008), history of coronary heart disease (P = 0.0005) and prior treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis suggested that a history of coronary artery disease [odds ratio (OR) 18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4–160, P = 0.005] and hypertension (OR 3, 95% CI 1.5–80, P = 0.04) was the only significant independent predictors of CHF. Conclusions: Patients undergoing sunitinib, especially those with a previous history of hypertension and coronary heart disease, are at increased risk for cardiovascular events and should be monitored for exacerbations of their hypertension and for evidence of LVEF dysfunction during treatment.

The exponential growth of novel therapies for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) over the last decade has created an acute need for education and guidance of clinicians regarding optimal strategies for patient management. A multidisciplinary panel of 21 European experts in mCRPC assembled for comprehensive discussion and consensus development, seeking to move the field forward and provide guidance and perspectives on optimal selection and sequencing of therapeutic agents and monitoring of response to treatment and disease progression. A total of 110 clinically-relevant questions were addressed and a modified Delphi method was utilised to obtain a consensus. The panel reached a consensus on several important issues, providing recommendations on appropriate phase III clinical trial end-points and optimal strategies for imaging and monitoring of bone metastases. Guidance regarding selection and sequencing of therapy in patients with newly diagnosed or progressive mCRPC is emphasised, including the use of novel bone-targeted agents, chemotherapy, androgen receptor pathway-targeted agents and immunotherapy. The impact of drug resistance and prostate-specific antigen flare on treatment decisions was also addressed. Ultimately, individualised therapy for patients with mCRPC is dependent on continued refinement of clinical decision-making based on patient and disease characteristics. This consensus statement offers clinicians expert guidance on the implementation of recent advances to improve patient outcome, focusing on the future of prostate cancer care.

Purpose: No previous prospective trials have been reported with sorafenib in patients with sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell cancer (MRCC). We conducted a multicenter study to determine the activity and tolerability of sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib progression in MRCC. Patients and Methods: Between January 2006 and September 2008, 52 patients were enrolled onto this single-arm phase II study. All patients received sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete or partial response) evaluated every 8 weeks by use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; secondary end points were toxicity, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Results: All patients were included in response and safety analyses. Partial responses were observed in 9.6% of patients (five of 52 patients; 95% CI, 5% to 17%) after two cycles. Grade 1 to 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, rash, and neutropenia were the most common side effects, noted in 16 (30.8%), 19 (36.5%), 20 (38.5%), 19 (36.5%), and 20 patients (38.5%), respectively. The most common grade 3 toxicity was diarrhea, noted in six patients (11.5%). Median TTP was 16 weeks (range, 8 to 40 weeks), and median OS was 32 weeks (range, 16 to 64 weeks). Conclusion: Although well tolerated, sorafenib shows limited efficacy in sunitinib-refractory MRCC. Further randomized trials comparing sorafenib with other drugs that target different biologic pathways are needed to define the best second-line treatment option in these patients.