Search

Few prognostic factors have been identified in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) was associated with clinical outcomes for ICIs in several tumor types. We aim to assess the value of the LIPI in patients with mUC treated with ICIs. A retrospective ICI cohort and a validation cohort (SAUL cohort) included, respectively, patients with mUC treated with ICI in 8 European centers (any line) and patients treated with atezolizumab in a second or further line. A chemotherapy-only cohort was also analyzed. The LIPI score was based on 2 factors, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR) > 3 and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal, and defined 3 prognostic groups. The association of LIPI with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed. In the ICI and SAUL cohorts, 137 and 541 patients were respectively analyzed. In the ICI cohort, mPFS and mOS were 3.6 mo (95% CI; 2.6–6.0) and 13.8 mo (95% CI; 11.5–23.2) whereas in the SAUL cohort the mPFS and mOS were 2.2 mo (95% CI; 2.1–2.3) and 8.7 mo (95% CI; 7.8–9.9) respectively. The LIPI classified the population of these cohorts in good (56%; 52%), intermediate (35%; 36%) and poor (9%; 12%) prognostic groups (values for the ICI and SAUL cohorts respectively). Poor LIPI was associated with a poorer OS in both cohorts: hazard ratio (HR) for the ICI cohort = 2.69 (95% CI; 1.24–5.84, p = 0.035); HR = 2. 89 for the SAUL cohort (CI 95%: 1.93–4.32, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found in the chemo cohort. The LIPI score allows to identify different subgroups in patients with good prognostis according to the Bellmunt score criteria, with a subset of patients with poorer outcomes having an mOS of 3.7 mo compared to the good and intermediate LIPI subgroups with mOS of 17.9 and 7.4 mo, respectively. The LIPI score was associated with survival in mUC patients treated by ICIs. Future prospective studies will be required to test the combination of Bellmunt score and the LIPI score as a more accurate prognosis tool.

Purpose: Radiation therapy is a possible treatment strategy for patients with testicular seminoma after orchiectomy in clinical stage I or II disease. Little is known about the outcome of patients who experience a relapse after radiation therapy. ----- Methods and materials: Data from 61 patients who relapsed after adjuvant or curative radiation therapy from 17 centers in 11 countries were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were disease-free and overall survival. Secondary outcomes were time to relapse, stage at relapse, treatment for relapse, and rate of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy for relapse. ----- Results: With a median follow-up of 9.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.5-10.9), we found a 5-year disease-free survival of 90% (95% CI, 79-95) and a 5-year overall survival of 98% (95% CI, 89-100). Sixty-six percent of patients had stage III disease at time of relapse and 93% of patients fell into the good prognosis group per the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification. The median time to relapse after radiation therapy was 15.6 months (95% CI, 12-23). Twenty-two (36%) patients relapsed more than 2 years after radiation therapy and 7 (11.5%) patients relapsed more than 5 years after radiation therapy. One-third of relapses was detected owing to patients' symptoms, whereas two-thirds of relapses were detected during routine follow-up. The majority (93%) of cases were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The rate of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy was 35%. Five patients experienced a second relapse. At last follow-up, 55 patients (90%) were alive without disease. Only 1 patient died owing to disease progression. ----- Conclusions: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with seminoma who have relapsed after treatment with radiation therapy alone leads to excellent outcomes. Patients and physicians should be aware of possible late relapses after radiation therapy.

Background Carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) accounts for 2%–5% of newly diagnosed advanced malignancies, with chemotherapy as the standard of care. CUPISCO (NCT03498521) is an ongoing randomized trial using comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to assign patients with CUP to targeted or immunotherapy treatment arms based on genomic profiling. We performed a retrospective analysis of CUP cases referred for CGP to determine how many were potentially eligible for enrollment into an experimental CUPISCO arm. Materials and Methods Centrally reviewed adenocarcinoma and undifferentiated CUP specimens in the FoundationCore database were analyzed using the hybrid capture‐based FoundationOne CDx assay (mean coverage, >600×). Presence of genomic alterations, microsatellite instability (MSI), tumor mutational burden (TMB), genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH), and programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) positivity were determined. Results A total of 96 of 303 patients (31.7%) could be matched to an experimental CUPISCO arm. Key genomic alterations included ERBB2 (7.3%), PIK3CA (6.3%), NF1 (5.6%), NF2 (4.6%), BRAF (4.3%), IDH1 (3.3%), PTEN, FGFR2, EGFR (3.6% each), MET (4.3%), CDK6 (3.0%), FBXW7, CDK4 (2.3% each), IDH2, RET, ROS1, NTRK (1.0% each), and ALK (0.7%). Median TMB was 3.75 mutations per megabase of DNA; 34 patients (11.6%) had a TMB ≥16 mutations per megabase. Three patients (1%) had high MSI, and 42 (14%) displayed high PD‐L1 expression (tumor proportion score ≥50%). gLOH could be assessed in 199 of 303 specimens; 19.6% had a score of >16%. Conclusions Thirty‐two percent of patients would have been eligible for targeted therapy in CUPISCO. Future studies, including additional biomarkers such as PD‐L1 positivity and gLOH, may identify a greater proportion potentially benefiting from CGP‐informed treatment. Clinical trial identification number. NCT03498521 Implications for Practice The findings of this retrospective analysis of carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) cases validate the experimental treatment arms being used in the CUPISCO study (NCT03498521), an ongoing randomized trial using comprehensive genomic profiling to assign patients with CUP to targeted or immunotherapy treatment arms based on the presence of pathogenic genomic alterations. The findings also suggest that future studies including additional biomarkers and treatment arms, such as programmed death‐ligand 1 positivity and genomic loss of heterozygosity, may identify a greater proportion of patients with CUP potentially benefiting from comprehensive genomic profiling‐informed treatment., This article focuses on the ability of comprehensive genomic profiling to identify potentially targetable genetic alterations in cancers of unknown primary, based on the inclusion criteria for the CUPISCO clinical trial and aiming for more effective therapeutic options for patients.

Biochemical recurrence is an evolving space in prostate cancer, with increasing multidisciplinary involvement. Androgen deprivation therapy has shown proof of its value in complementing salvage radiotherapy in high-risk biochemical relapsing patients; ongoing trials aim to further refine this treatment combination. As systemic treatments, and notably next-generation androgen receptor targeted agents, have moved towards early hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic stages, the prostate specific antigen (PSA)-relapse disease stage will be undoubtedly challenged by future evidence from such ongoing clinical trials. With the use of modern imaging and newer molecular technologies, including integration of tumoral genomic profiling and liquid biopsies in risk stratification, a path towards a precision oncology-focused approach will become a reality to guide in the future decisions for patients with a diagnosis of biochemical recurrence.

The circulating metabolome provides a snapshot of the physiological state of the organism responding to pathogenic challenges. Here we report alterations in the plasma metabolome reflecting the clinical presentation of COVID-19 patients with mild (ambulatory) diseases, moderate disease (radiologically confirmed pneumonitis, hospitalization and oxygen therapy), and critical disease (in intensive care). This analysis revealed major disease- and stage-associated shifts in the metabolome, meaning that at least 77 metabolites including amino acids, lipids, polyamines and sugars, as well as their derivatives, were altered in critical COVID-19 patient’s plasma as compared to mild COVID-19 patients. Among a uniformly moderate cohort of patients who received tocilizumab, only 10 metabolites were different among individuals with a favorable evolution as compared to those who required transfer into the intensive care unit. The elevation of one single metabolite, anthranilic acid, had a poor prognostic value, correlating with the maintenance of high interleukin-10 and -18 levels. Given that products of the kynurenine pathway including anthranilic acid have immunosuppressive properties, we speculate on the therapeutic utility to inhibit the rate-limiting enzymes of this pathway including indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase.

Background CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum‐based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with “unfavorable” cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Materials and Methods Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work‐up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with “favorable” CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. Results As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno‐ or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. Conclusion Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. Implications for Practice A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients’ unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision‐making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far‐reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much‐needed treatment strategies., Effective therapeutic regimens are lacking for patients with cancers of unknown primary (CUP). This article reports the clinic‐pathological challenges associated with diagnosis of unfavorable CUP in the CUPSICO trial and suggests refinements for diagnostic algorithms.

Objective Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is among the most common and distressing side effects of cancer treatment. Different types of interventions, including physical activity (PA), psychosocial and mind-body interventions, have been shown to reduce CRF. We aimed to explore HCPs' practices and barriers to refer patients towards interventions to reduce CRF. Methods We performed a qualitative study using key informant interviews among a sample of 20 HCPs including medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, pain specialists, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists and physiotherapists recruited from breast, prostate and colorectal cancer disease groups from a comprehensive cancer centre. Results Most interviewees reported not to address CRF spontaneously during consultations. When the topic of CRF was brought up by patients, all interviewees acknowledged to recommend PA, whereas few would recommend psychosocial or mind-body interventions. Barriers to recommend interventions to manage CRF included: lack of knowledge about CRF and its treatment, lack of time and complexity of the referral due to their accessibility and cost. Conclusion In a diverse sample of HCPs, most acknowledged not to address CRF proactively with their patients, but identified several actionable barriers. Specific training on screening and management of CRF and improving the referral network dedicated to interventions need to be implemented.

533 Background: Preclinical data clearly demonstrated that cyclooxigenase activates growth-promoting and anti-apoptotic pathways as well as aromatase. However, data from clinical trial are poor, ma...