Keller, Evan T.

ABSTRACT The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell‐released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV‐associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

265 Background: UC response to CT is not durable. Angiogenesis may play a role in the progression of UC. We evaluated whether maintenance sunitinib delays progression after response to CT. Methods: Pts with ECOG PS 0-2, adequate organ function, stable disease, partial or complete response (SD, PR, CR) after 4-6 cycles of CT for advanced UC were randomized to oral sunitinib 50 mg/day, 28 days on, 14 days off (6-week cycle) or placebo. Disease was assessed every 12 wks. At progression, placebo pts were offered open label sunitinib. Primary endpoint: progression rate at 6 months (ms); secondary endpoints: safety, objective response rate, survival, VEGF/sVEGFR2 serum level changes. Using a randomized selection design 42 pts/arm has 90% probability of selecting sunitinib if true reduction in 6-ms progression rate is 15% (from 50% to 35%). Results: Study was closed early due to slow accrual. 54 pts with median age 69 years, median ECOG PS 1, 70% with bladder primary, 26 with SD, 23 with PR, 5 with CR to CT were randomized to sunitinib (26) or placebo (28). The median number of cycles was 2/arm (sunitinib 0-15, placebo 0-13). The 6-ms progression rate was 81% (95%CI 61-93%), median time-to-progression (TTP) 5 ms (0.3-22.2, 95%CI 2.4-6.3) for sunitinib and 75% (95%CI 55-89%), 2.7 ms (0.8-19.6, 95%CI 2.5-7.4) for placebo. Response rate in pts with SD at enrollment was 9% for sunitinib and 7% for placebo. Most common G3/4 AEs on sunitinib were diarrhea (15.4%/0%), fatigue (15.4%/3.8%), thrombocytopenia (15.4%/7.7%), hypertension (11.5%/0%). 16 placebo pts received sunitinib with best response 1 PR (6.25%), 6 SD (37.5%), 5 PD (31.25%); 4 not response evaluable. Median TTP was 3.4 ms (0.1-22, 95%CI 1.6-5.5). 11 pts had G3/4 AEs, 5 pts discontinued sunitinib due to AEs (4 related, 1 unrelated). Placebo pts had no change in VEGF/sVEGFR2 over time. Sunitinib pts had no change in VEGF but sVEGFR2 significantly decreased after 1 cycle (p<0.0001) and at progression (p=0.0002). VEGF/sVEGFR2 did not correlate with TTP. Conclusions: Maintenance sunitinib was feasible but did not improve 6-ms progression rate; open label sunitinib had limited activity. sVEGFR-2 decreased on sunitinib.

BACKGROUNDAngiogenesis contributes to the progression of urothelial carcinoma (UC). In the current study, the authors investigated the role of maintenance sunitinib in patients with advanced UC.METHODSPatients with locally recurrent/metastatic UC and adequate organ function who achieved stable disease or a partial or complete response after 4 to 6 chemotherapy cycles were randomized to sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day (28 days on and 14 days off) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the 6‐month progression rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, survival, change in serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/soluble VEGF receptor‐2 (sVEGFR2), and the activity of sunitinib in patients who developed disease progression while receiving placebo. A total of 38 eligible patients per treatment arm were required to select better therapy with 90% probability (α = .05).RESULTSA total of 54 eligible patients were randomized to either the sunitinib arm (26 patients) or the placebo arm (28 patients). The median number of cycles received was 2 cycles per treatment arm. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (graded according to version 3.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) among patients receiving sunitinib were thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, and hypertension. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events noted among > 5% of patients receiving placebo. The 6‐month progression rate was 72% versus 64%. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months (range, 0.5 months‐32.5 months) versus 2.7 months (range, 0.8 months −65 months) for the sunitinib versus placebo arms, respectively. Patients receiving placebo were found to have no changes in their serum VEGF/sVEGFR2 levels over time. Patients treated with sunitinib had no significant change in their VEGF level, but the sVEGFR2 level significantly decreased after cycles 1 and 2 (P < .0001) and at the time of disease progression (P = .0002). A baseline VEGF level that was at or greater than the median was found to be correlated with a longer PFS. Sixteen patients who were receiving placebo received sunitinib at the time of disease progression, with the best responses being 1 partial response (6.3%), 6 cases of stable disease (37.5%), and 5 cases of progressive disease (31.3%); 4 patients were not evaluable for response. The median PFS was 3.7 months (range, 0.1 months‐22 months).CONCLUSIONSThe current multicenter study was limited by premature closure and a small sample size. Maintenance sunitinib did not appear to improve the 6‐month progression rate. Open‐label sunitinib was found to have only modest activity. The sVEGFR2 level decreased among patients receiving sunitinib. Cancer 2014;120:692–701. © 2013 American Cancer Society.