Page 40 - TD-3-4
P. 40

Tumor Discovery                                                     HIF1α treatments in renal cell carcinoma





                 References  17-19  22,23  21,24,25  26,27  20,28,29  30,31  32,33  34,35  42  21,43  47,48






                      10% discontinued   dose reduction  38% required dose   interruption; 32%   Grade 3 or 4 – 79%   versus 61%  3% versus 1%   due to toxicities  versus 71.5%  Grade 3 or 4 – 67%   versus 68%  Grade 3 or 4 – 61%   versus 70%  versus 71.8%  Grade 3 or 4 – 67%   versus 78%  Grade 3 or 4 – 71%   versus 50%  Grade 3 or 4 – 15%
                 AE     treatment; 13% required   required dose reduction  discontinued treatment   Grade 3 or 4 – 71.2%   Grade 3 or 4 – 82.4%





                 FDA   Approval  2005  2006  2009  2009  2012  2017  2021  2021     2007  2009     2021





                      10% versus 2%  31% versus 6%  –  36% versus 23%  31.6% versus 12%  –  –  41% versus 6%  49%
                 PRR                             50.7% versus 23.4%        54.9% versus 331.9%





                      <1% versus 0%  0% versus 0%  –  0% versus 0%  4.4% versus 2.1%  1.3% versus 0%  –  –  2% versus 0%  0%
                 CRR                                                       16.1% versus 4.2%





                      10% versus 2%  31% versus 6%  31% versus 13%  36% versus 23%  33% versus 12%  71% versus 36%  8.6% versus 4.8%  43% versus 6%  49%
                 ORR                             55.2% versus 25.5%  33.1% versus 23.3%                   Abbreviations: CRR: complete response rate; ORR: objective response rate; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; PRR: partial response rate; IFN-α: Interferon-alpha,  VEGFR: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor; TKI: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor; HIF: Hypoxia-inducible factor; RCC: Renal cell carcinoma; ccRCC: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, mTOR:




                   (months)  19.3 versus   14.4 versus   11.6 versus   30.3 versus   29.3 versus   10.9 versus   25.5 versus
                 OS     15.9  –    –        8.9    10.7       21.8  28.8   –          7.3  17.5    –


                   (months)  5.5 versus 2.8  11 versus 5  10.2 versus 5.4  9.8 versus 4.3  13.8 versus 8.4  8.2 versus 5.6  11.9 versus 9.1  23.9 versus 9.2  3.8 versus 1.9  14.6 versus 5.5
                 PFS                                                                               VHL- syndrome 96% at 24   months
             Table 1. Comparison of HIF pathway inhibitors
                 Approved use  Advanced RCC  Advanced RCC  mRCC  mRCC  Advanced   ccRCC after   failure of one   prior systemic   therapy  Advanced RCC  Advanced   RCC following   two or more   prior systemic   therapies  Advanced RCC  mRCC  RCC following   prior TKI failure  associated solid   tumors Mammalian target of rapamycin, VHL: Von Hippel–Lindau, AE: Adverse events.





                 Therapy   target  VEGF   inhibitor  VEGFR   inhibitor  anti-VEGF   antibody  VEGFR   inhibitor  VEGFR   inhibitor  VEGFR   inhibitor  VEGFR   inhibitor  VEGFR   inhibitor  mTOR   inhibitor  mTOR   inhibitor  HIF2-α   inhibitor



                 Experimental arm  Sorafenib versus   placebo  Sunitinib versus IFN-α  Bevacizumab +IFN-α   versus single- agent   IFN-α  Pazopanib versus   sunitinib  Axitinib+ Avelumab   (anti-PD-L1 antibody)   versus sunitinib  Cabozantinib versus   sunitinib  Tivozanib versus   sorafenib  Lenvatinib+   Pembrolizumab   (immunotherapy)   versus sunitinib  Temsirolimus versus   IFN-α  Everolimus+   Lenvatinib   (VEGFR TKI)   versus single-agent   everolimus  Belzutifan









            Volume 3 Issue 4 (2024)                         5                                 doi: 10.36922/td.4346
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45