Missing content? – Request curation!
Request curation for specific Genes, variants, or PubMed publications.
Have questions, comments or suggestions? - Let us know!
Email us at : firstname.lastname@example.org
|Ref Type||Journal Article|
|Authors||Powles T, Brown J, Larkin J, Jones R, Ralph C, Hawkins R, Chowdhury S, Boleti E, Bhal A, Fife K, Webb A, Crabb S, Geldart T, Hill R, Dunlop J, Hall PE, McLaren D, Ackerman C, Beltran L, Nathan P|
|Title||A randomized, double-blind phase II study evaluating cediranib versus cediranib and saracatinib in patients with relapsed metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (COSAK).|
|Journal||Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology|
|Abstract Text||Preclinical work suggests SRC proteins have a role in the development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (mRCC). This hypothesis was tested in this trial using the SRC inhibitor saracatinib and the VEGF inhibitor cediranib.Patients with disease progression after ≥1 VEGF-targeted therapy were eligible to participate in this double-blind, randomized (1:1) phase II study. The study compared the combination cediranib 30 mg once daily (o.d.) and saracatinib 175 mg o.d. (CS) (n = 69) or cediranib 45 mg o.d. and placebo o.d. (C) (n = 69). Archived tissue was used for biomarker analysis [SRC, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), von Hippel-Lindau, protein tyrosine phosphatase 1b and hypoxia-inducible factor 2α : n = 86]. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.Between 2010 and 2012, 138 patients were randomized across 16 UK sites. The characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. Partial responses were seen in 13.0% for C and 14.5% for CS (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in PFS [5.4 months (3.6-7.3 months) for C and 3.9 (2.4-5.3 months) for CS; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 (0.94-1.48)] or overall survival (OS) [14.2 months (11.2-16.8 months) for C and 10.0 (6.7-13.2 months) for CS; HR 1.28 (1.00-1.63)]. There was no significant difference in the frequency of key adverse events, dose reductions or drug discontinuations. None of the biomarkers were prognostic for PFS or OS. FAK overexpression correlated with an OS benefit [HR 2.29 (1.09-4.82), P > 0.05], but not PFS, for CS.Saracatinib did not increase the efficacy of a VEGF-targeted therapy (cediranib) in this setting. Biomarker analysis did not identify consistent predictive biomarkers.NCT00942877.|
|Molecular Profile||Treatment Approach|
|Gene Name||Source||Synonyms||Protein Domains||Gene Description||Gene Role|
|Therapy Name||Drugs||Efficacy Evidence||Clinical Trials|
|Drug Name||Trade Name||Synonyms||Drug Classes||Drug Description|
|Gene||Variant||Impact||Protein Effect||Variant Description||Associated with drug Resistance|
|Molecular Profile||Indication/Tumor Type||Response Type||Therapy Name||Approval Status||Evidence Type||Efficacy Evidence||References|
|Unknown unknown||clear cell renal cell carcinoma||not applicable||Cediranib + Saracatinib||Phase II||Actionable||In a Phase II clinical trial, Saracatinib (AZD0530) did not increase the efficacy of Recentin (cediranib) in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (n=69 for both trial arms) (PMID: 26802156).||26802156|
|SRC over exp||clear cell renal cell carcinoma||no benefit||Cediranib + Saracatinib||Phase II||Actionable||In a Phase II clinical trial, baseline expression of SRC was not predictive for response to Saracatinib (AZD0530) and Recentin (cediranib) relative to Recentin (cediranib) in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (PMID: 26802156).||26802156|
|VHL over exp||clear cell renal cell carcinoma||no benefit||Cediranib + Saracatinib||Phase II||Actionable||In a Phase II clinical study, baseline expression of VHL was not predictive for response to Saracatinib (AZD0530) and Recentin (cediranib) relative to Recentin (cediranib) in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (PMID: 26802156).||26802156|