Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  979 1030 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 979 1030 Next Page
Page Background

PFS (12.9 vs 1.9 mo)

[35]

. Unfortunately, a phase Ib study of

a dual PI3K–mTOR inhibitor in patients with advanced RCC

of any subtype revealed significant toxicity without

objective responses

[36–38] .

Collectively, data support

the notion that pRCC should be stratified according to

MET

alteration status. A randomized phase II study

projected to accrue 180 patients will perform comprehen-

sive genomic profiling and measure efficacy of MET kinase

inhibitors (cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib), each

compared with sunitinib in metastatic pRCC (PAPMET;

NCT02761057). Owing to its sample size, PAPMET will

establish a prognostic and predictive value of designation of

papillary subtype and markers of dysregulated MET

signaling. Similarly, gene expression studies revealed

MYC pathway activation in high-grade type 2 pRCCs,

suggesting that the aggressive phenotype of type 2 pRCCs

may be influenced by inhibition of components of the MYC

signaling pathway

[39]

.

In patients with HLRCC (with a distinct RCC entity

resembling pRCC type 2; pathological hallmark is large

nuclei with prominent orangeophilic nucleoli), a defect in

the gene encoding the Krebs cycle enzyme fumarate

hydratase

FH

, generates a pseudohypoxic state and

upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor target genes,

similar to ccRCCs. Germline mutations in succinate

dehydrogenase B are likewise associated with nonsyndro-

mic RCCs

[40]

. Dual VEGF/epidermal growth factor receptor

blockade with bevacizumab and erlotinib in patients with

advanced HLRCC-associated RCC or sporadic pRCC is

currently being tested in a phase II trial (NCT01130519;

Table 2

). Data from the first 41 patients enrolled were

recently presented, including 20 with HLRCC-associated

kidney cancer and 21 with sporadic forms of pRCCs. In

the HLRCC cohort, an overall response rate of 65% was

noted, while the response rate in the sporadic population

was 29%.

Further evidence has been gathered for chRCC and

translocation tumors. Pathway analysis highlighted clinical-

ly relevant dysregulated pathways of c-erbB2 and mTOR

signaling in chRCCs

[41]

. The chRCCs are associated with

germline

FLCN

loss in BHD syndrome and germline mutation

of

PTEN

in Cowden syndrome

[42] .

An FLCN-interacting

protein, FNIP1, interacts with 5

0

AMP-activated protein

kinase, a molecule for energy sensing that negatively

regulates mTOR activity

[43]

. In vivo BHD murine models

treated with rapamycin validate the potential of mTOR

inhibitors for treating patients with BHD syndrome,

although it is unclear whether this strategy is relevant for

the more common sporadic chRCCs

[44] .

As mentioned

above, molecular analysis of 66 sporadic chRCCs implicated

changes in mitochondrial function and elevated

TERT

expression in chRCCs. Only two significant genes were

found to be mutated in this cohort:

TP53

(32%) and

PTEN

(9%)

[23]

. In RCCs of all subtypes with sarcomatoid dedifferen-

tiation,

TP53

(42.3%),

VHL

(34.6%),

CDKN2A

(26.9%), and

NF2

(19.2%) were the most frequently altered genes

[45] .

Since

TP53

is relatively rarelymutated in ccRCCs

[46] ,

the presence

of such frequent mutations may suggest alternative

treatment pathways similar to other

TP53

-mutated tumors.

FLCN

inactivation and upregulation of

KIT

are also

associated with chRCCs

[47]

. KIT-targeting drugs, including

sorafenib, are not being currently tested in clinical trials

specifically involving chRCCs. In a phase II trial involving

14 patients with advanced RCC treated with imatinib, only

one patient had chRCC. This was the only KIT-positive

tumor, and treatment with imatinib resulted in SD for 6 mo

[48]

. An exploratory analysis in the ESPN trial showed that

median OS was longer with both sunitinib and everolimus

for patients with chRCCs. In one patient with chRCC, a

58% decrease in tumor diameter with everolimus appeared

to be associated with a

TSC2

mutation, which underscores

the need for molecular characterization of each tumor

[12]

. In the ASPEN study, a median PFS of 11.4 mo was

reported for chRCCs with everolimus versus 5.5 mo with

sunitinib

[13] .

Translocation RCCs (TRCCs) are characterized by trans-

locations resulting in gene fusions involving the

TFE3

transcription factor gene (Xp11.2)

[49]

,

TFEB

(6p21), or

MITF

(3p13) with other genes. TRCCs display a distinctive gene

expression signature as compared with other RCC types and

harbor activation of

MITF

, transforming growth factor

b

1,

and PI3K complex targets

[49]

. Tissue microarrays from

21 Xp11.2TRCCs, seven ccRCCs, and six pRCCs revealed

elevated expression of phosphorylated S6 in TRCCs,

suggesting that the mTOR pathway may be a potential

therapeutic target

[50] .

Furthermore, induction of

MET

by

translocation fusion gene products involved in TRCC results

in strong MET autophosphorylation and activation of

downstream signaling in the presence of HGF. In malignant

cell lines containing endogenous TFE3 fusion proteins,

inhibiting MET by RNA interference or by the inhibitor

PHA665752 abolishes HGF-dependent MET activation,

causing decreased cell growth. MET is thought to possibly

be an additional potential therapeutic target for this tumor

subtype

[51] .

Adult TRCCs appear to be different genetically

from pediatric TRCCs and are characterized genomically by

17q gain in addition to MITF-family translocation

[52]

. Choueiri et al

[53]

analyzed 15 adults with advanced

TRCCs of whom 10, three, and two received sunitinib,

sorafenib, and monoclonal anti-VEGF antibodies, respec-

tively. Three patients had a partial response (PR), seven SD,

and five progressive disease. The median tumor reduction

was 4.5% (range: 48% shrinkage to 67% growth). Median PFS

and OS of the entire cohort were 7.13 and 14.3 mo,

respectively. Malouf et al

[54]

reported on 21 patients with

metastatic TRCCs who received systemic therapy. Seven

patients achieved an objective response. In first line, median

PFS was 8.2 mo for sunitinib (

n

= 11) versus 2 mo for

cytokines (

n

= 9). In second line, three patients receiving

sunitinib had a PR (median PFS 11 mo), seven of eight

patients receiving sorafenib had SD (median PFS 6 mo), and

of seven patients receiving mTOR inhibitors one had a PR

and six SD. Median OS was 27 mo with a 19-mo median

follow-up

[54]

. Currently, patients of all age groups with

TRCCs are being enrolled in a randomized phase II trial of

axitinib with pembrolizumab versus single-agent axitinib

or pembrolizumab in a children’s oncology group study for

the treatment of TFE/TRCCs (AREN 1621)

[55]

.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 9 7 4 – 9 8 3

979