Categories
Uncategorized

Day 653: Global Group of Rare Kidney Cancer Specialists Meet in San Francisco

Global Group of Rare Kidney Cancer Specialists Meet in San Francisco

Discuss ways to speed delivery of new treatments

Due to their small population, few resources and fewer clinical trials are devoted exclusively to patients with rare kidney cancer (also call “non clear cell renal cell carcinoma” or nccRcc). To address this issue, Dr James Hsieh, a kidney cancer physician scientist, Deb Maskens, a patient advocate and Bill Paseman invited a global group of nccRcc physicians to meet on January 8, 2016 in San Francisco, to discuss the topic “How to improve outcomes for ‘rare kidney cancer’ patients around the world”.



Consulting physicians included Drs Laurence Albiges, Axel Bex, Rachel Giles, Danny Heng, Monty Pal, Lisa Pickering, Brian Shuch, Sandy Srinivas, Ram Srinivasan and Nizar Tannir.

Deb Maskens, board member of both Kidney Cancer Canada and the International Kidney Cancer Coalition (IKCC) and Dr. Rachel Giles, IKCC Board member,  provided a patient’s perspective.

The group agreed on the following Action Items.

  • A “consensus paper” containing the viewpoints of the members of the January 8, 2016 discussion.  Among other things, the paper will propose Clinical trial improvements including prioritization, strict peer review, recognition by bodies of interest, making them accessible and referrable, a strong pathologic, genomic, and biological program (pathology review, tissue banking, and genomics characterization) and international alternatives for countries with no trials.  Drs. Ram Srinivasan and Axel Bex volunteered to spearhead this.
  • A website listing “Centers of Excellence”, recognized experts and recommended clinical trials by subtype. Drs. Rachel Giles and James Hsieh volunteered to assist on this.
  • Investigating the feasibility of a patient registry. Dr. Sandy Srinivas volunteered to investigate the possibility of using Stanford’s RedCap implementation to host this.
  •  A clinical trial portal for nccRCC patients and treating physicians. Drs. Nizar Tannir and James Hsieh volunteered to assist on this.

Those interested in joining the discussion are invited to contact bill < at > rarekidneycancer < dot > org.

Categories
Clinical Trial

Day 84: Deciding on a clinical trial

Deciding on a clinical trial

Summary

I was eligible for the UCSF EVEREST (Everolimus/Affinitor) Clinical Trial within 84 days of my operation. I declined participation since the ESPN trial indicated that Everolimus is not effective against stage 4 papillary cancer, and I did not want to be a confound for a any (potential) upcoming clinical trials.

Discussion

So. How does one decide whether or not to participate in a clinical Trial? My approach was to ask 13 people and I figured that I’d go with the majority. Here is the question I asked.

“Should Bill participate in the EVEREST (Everolimus) Trial?”

The tally is below. Three said yes, five said no and five said I needed to decide myself. The ESPN clinical trial results were not yet reported, so I pestered the PI via email twice and used his answer to support my decision.

  • Yes- Gastro + Urologist
  • Yes – Stanford Oncologist – “If you are eligible always a good idea to partake on trials”
  • Yes – Sutter Primary Care Physician – “Minimal Downside”
  • No – M.D. Anderson Oncologist (ran ESPN trial) – “I do not recommend any adjuvant trial w/ mTOR inhibitors or VEGF targeted agents for papillary RCC. There will be trials w/ immune checkpoint agents in the near future but not soon enough to enroll on.”
  • No – Los Gatos Hematologist
  • No – Waco Oncologist
  • No – Danish Researcher
  • No – German General Practitioner (not yet translated)
  • Bill must decide – Parisian Oncologist
  • Bill must decide – HK Internist
  • Bill must decide – Radiation Oncologist
  • Bill must decide – UCSF Primary Care Physician
  • Bill must decide – MD Anderson Pharmacist
  • – JHH Hospitalist

Everest Details: Everolimus, the drug used in the Everest trial, has many side effects, and may damage my remaining kidney, which is already impaired (Creatinine level, a proxy for my kidney’s ability to function, is at 1.56. Normal is 1.0 eGFR is 46. Normal is >60.). Here is the NP’s response to this question:

  • What dosage would I be taking?The dose for the non metastatic patient, participating on the EVEREST clinical trial, is 10 mg daily (100% of patients participating in the trial have only 1 kidney)
  • What is the usual dosage for stage 4 RCC and for a kidney transplant?The dose of everolimus for treatment of metastatic kidney cancer (stage 4) is also 10 mg daily (probably well over 90-95% of these patients have only 1 kidney) The dose for kidney transplant is a completely different ball of wax and is not comparable to kidney cancer. It is given to patients at risk for rejection of their transplanted organ. I am less familiar with this usage but from what I understand, the dose starts at 0.75 mg and is adjusted daily based on blood concentration levels. This dosage would not be adequate to exert an anti-tumor effect.
  • How would you determine if renal failure is occuring?Renal failure in the setting of everolimus is uncommon, occurring in only 3% of patients. Elevations in serum creatinine levels have been observed in 19-50% of patients but this is not the same thing as renal failure. We monitor for elevations in one’s creatinine by following a monthly creatinine blood test along with other monthly lab tests.I understand your concern and desire to take care of your one remaining kidney but significant kidney toxicity from everolimus is not really that common. The message below mentions possibly starting at a lower dose than standard. The trial does not allow this. When it comes to cancer drugs, a certain level of drug needs to be present to exert an anti-tumor effect. If certain toxicities are observed, a small dose adjustment may be indicated but this may also sacrifice some of the anti-tumor effect.

Bibliography

  • 20140530 ESPN – Everolimus versus sunitinib prospective evaluation in metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (The ESPN Trial): A multicenter randomized phase 2 trial “E(verolimus) cannot be recommended as 1L option in nccRCC.” Nizar Tannir – “I do not recommend any adjuvant trial w/ mTOR inhibitors or VEGF targeted agents for papillary RCC. There will be trials w/ immune checkpoint agents in the near future but not soon enough to enroll on.” {BP: Read Somewhere that ESPN sample was too small to draw this conclusion, but also see ASPEN }
  • Everest
    • pdf Everolimus in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma and Neuroendocrine Tumors
    • pdf Everolimus or Affinitor in the adjuvant setting
    • pdf A Phase Ib Study of Combined VEGFR and mTOR Inhibition With Vatalanib and Everolimus in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
    • pdf Long lasting response to second-line everolimus in kidney cancer
    • pdf Impact of everolimus blood concentration on its anti‐cancer activity in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
    • pdf GOAL: An inverse toxicity-related algorithm for daily clinical practice decision making in advanced kidney cancer
    • pdf Everolimus
Categories
Uncategorized

Day 0: Operation

Operation

Summary:

My left kidney was totally removed on March 24, 2014.  In English, test results showed me to be “cancer free” with a “high risk of recurrence”. Technically, test results show I have pT3aN0M0 RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma), papillary type, (5.6 cm), Fuhrman grade 2, with focal extra capsular extension, margins negative.

Brief Explanation:

  • “Margins negative” is good. It means that the surgeon cut out the cancer he saw and he saw no cancer in the lymph nodes or artery/vein or organs surrounding the kidney.  Technically, this means I’m “cancer free”.
  • “Focal extra capsular extension” is bad.  It means that by looking under a microscope, some of the cancer has spread into the kidney’s perirenal fat.  This lab classified such a cancer  as “pT3aN0”.  “T3” means that the cancer is stage 3 (1-4 stages with 4 being the worst).  According to the lab’s statistics, the 5 year survival rate for this type of stage 3 kidney cancer is 59-70%.  This means I have a “high risk of recurrence”. “N0” means “Margins negative”. “M0” means “No remote metastasis”.

Detailed Explanation:

  • Kidney Cancer: Cancer is classified by the organ in which it first appears.  Since mine first appeared in the kidney, it is called kidney cancer even if it spreads (metastasizes) somewhere else.  Kidney cancer’s favorite places to spread include lungs, liver and brain.  CT and MRI Scans showed two millimeter size spots on the lungs and a (hopefully benign) brain tumor. If it is a brain tumor, hopefully it is a co-morbidity called a meningioma, not a metastasis. (Update: 20140515 MRI Brain scan and 20140605 Abdomen CT scan show no change.).
  • Kidney Cancer Treatment: Most cancer is treated by cutting out the tumor and then irradiating the site (radiation) or treating with chemicals (chemotherapy).  This approach does not work with kidney cancer.  Many “clinical trials” were performed to verify that “doing nothing” worked just as well as “radiation” and “chemotherapy”.  As such, the best kidney cancer treatment approach at this point is to remove the tumor and kidney and then periodically monitor the patient to see if the cancer has spread.  If it spreads, it’s still kidney cancer and does not respond to Lung cancer or Brain cancer treatments.  Once metastasis occurs, doctors often slow down the spread using targeted therapies or immunotherapies.Unfortunately, these approaches do not cure it.
  • Macroscopic examination: Once a cancer has been cut out, no doctor and no test can definitively determine if enough cancer cells were left behind to spread.  As such, they look at human visible and microscopic characteristics of the cancer once it has been removed and use statistics to predict the metastasis rate based on prior patient outcomes with similar characteristics.  Human visible characteristics include how big the tumor is and whether it has visibly spread to other areas (vein, artery, ureter, lymph nodes, adrenal gland, etc.).  In my case, it did not.  As such, the surgeon was initially quite hopeful.  
  • Microscopic examination: The lab report however, was not hopeful.  Fuhrman grade looks at how long the cancer has been around by looking at cell details under a microscope.  The grades go from 1-4.  My grade is 2.  Not great, but survivable.  The kidney has an inner layer of fat.  The lab said the fat was breached and that makes it Stage 3.  Their statistics for survivability of Stage 3 are 59-70% after 5 years.  I have looked at two other studies which classify this as stage 2.  Five year survivability of stage 2 is 90%!  Unfortunately, the lab stands by its analysis.
  • Clinical Trials: I am eligible for a clinical trial which would treat me with one of the molecular medicines (Everolimusbefore metastasis (I go onto my process for figuring this out here).  But, quoting a hematologist I consulted, “Kidney cancer has had no successful treatment (e.g. radiation, chemotherapy, immunosuppressants).  So patients with the affliction usually just wait, hope, and live out their lives.  If you participate in the trial, you would certainly further scientific knowledge, but chances of success are low.”  A big downside is that the trial is “double blind”.  That means I have a 50% chance of getting a sugar pill instead of real medicine. As I discuss in the day 84 post, I decided not to participate since Dr. Tannir noted that Everolimus did not work on papillary RCC after metastasis in the ESPN clinical trial.
  • Other: This whole adventure started when the question arose “Why does Bill still have blood clot symptoms after being on an anticoagulant (Warfarin) for two months?”.  Subsequent examination found the kidney cancer, lung spots and brain tumor.  Cancer often causes blood clots.  However several urologists have said that RCC is special and that it does not.  So another unpleasant possibility is that either I have another, undetected cancer, or that the brain or lung spots are cancerous. (Update: 20140515 MRI Brain scan shows no change. So the tumor is still diagnosed as benign. However a 20140612 ultrasound indicates that the DVT is still there). I am speaking to a hematologist to see if there might be another explanation for the clot.
  • More Detail on Steve Dunn’s site.