Search

Up to 25% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer present with germline or somatic DNA damage repair alterations, some of which are associated with aggressive disease and poor outcomes. New data have brought poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors into sharp focus in the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Olaparib improved survival after at least one new hormonal therapy (NHT) in a cohort of patients harboring BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM mutations in the PROfound trial, while rucaparib, talazoparib and niraparib demonstrated compelling activity in phase II trials. While patients with prostate cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may derive greatest benefit of PARP inhibition, the magnitude of benefit seems much lower in the context of most other homologous recombination gene mutations. Several PARP inhibitors are currently developed in combination with conventional therapy, including chemotherapy, NHT, and alpha-particle emitters, at different disease stages. Herein, we review the rationale for PARP inhibition in patients with prostate cancer, discuss the impact of PARP inhibitors on outcomes, and explore underlying challenges for future developments.

Background The taxanes docetaxel and cabazitaxel prolong overall survival for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with cabazitaxel approved in the postdocetaxel setting only. Recent data suggest they have similar efficacy but a different safety profile in the first-line mCRPC setting. Objective To assess patient preference between docetaxel and cabazitaxel among men who received one or more doses of each taxane and did not experience progression after the first taxane. Design, setting, and participants Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) followed by cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) or the reverse sequence. Randomization was stratified by prior abiraterone or enzalutamide use. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed via a dedicated questionnaire after the second taxane. Secondary endpoints included reasons for patient preference, prostate-specific antigen response, radiological progression-free survival, and overall survival. This clinical trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02044354. Results and limitations Of 195 men randomized, 152 met the prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for analysis. Overall, 66 patients (43%) preferred cabazitaxel, 40 (27%) preferred docetaxel, and 46 (30%) had no preference (p = 0.004, adjusted for treatment period effect). More patients preferred treatment period 1 (43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36–52%) versus period 2 (27%, 95% CI 20–34%). Patient preference for cabazitaxel was mainly related to less fatigue (72%), better quality of life (64%), and other adverse events (hair loss, pain, nail disorders, edema). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of each drug. Conclusions A significantly higher proportion of chemotherapy-naive men with mCRPC who received both taxanes preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel. Less fatigue and better quality of life were the two main reasons driving patient choice. Patient summary Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel for chemotherapy, mainly because of less fatigue and better quality of life.

A post-hoc analysis of the phase-3 LATITUDE study assessed the impact of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P) on overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and visceral metastases (VM).Newly diagnosed mCSPC patients were randomized (1:1) to AA+P and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or placebo+ADT. Patients with VM in liver or lungs with or without other soft tissue and bone metastases (based on CT/MRI) at baseline were analyzed, after 51.8 months' median follow-up. Co-primary endpoints, OS and rPFS, were analyzed.Among 1199 patients enrolled, 228 (19%) had VM at baseline (114 each in AA+P and placebo groups), of which 53 (23.2%; AA+P = 29, Placebo = 24) had liver metastases and 117 (51.3%; AA+P = 60, Placebo = 57) had lung metastases. In patients with VM, treatment with AA+P versus placebo showed an improvement in OS (median 55.4 vs 33.0 months; HR = 0.582; 95%CI = 0.406-0.835;P = 0.0029) and rPFS (median 30.7 vs 18.3 months; HR = 0.527; 95%CI = 0.366-0.759;P = 0.0005), comparable to that of patients without VM. AA+P versus placebo in lung metastases patients was associated with greater improvement in OS (HR = 0.60; 95%CI = 0.35-1.04;P = 0.0678) than in liver metastases patients (HR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.41-1.66;P = 0.5814). AA+P versus placebo showed improvement in rPFS in lung metastases patients (HR = 0.50; 95%CI = 0.29-0.89;P = 0.0157), but not in liver metastases patients (HR = 1.05; 95%CI = 0.53-2.09; P = 0.8970).AA+P treatment improved both rPFS and OS in men with mCSPC and visceral disease, especially those with lung metastases. Men with liver metastases had a poorer prognosis and their optimal treatment remains to be defined.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285.

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.

Background Cabazitaxel was shown to improve overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after abiraterone/enzalutamine and docetaxel failure, though benefit by the presence of DNA damage repair (DDR) defects is unknown. With the advent of poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in partially overlapping indications with cabazitaxel, we aimed to determine cabazitaxel activity in men with mCRPC according to their DDR status. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter study that enrolled patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel who had undergone DDR tumour tissue profiling. Patients with at least one deleterious germline or somatic alterations were considered DDR positive (DDR+). Each DDR + patient has been matched with a DDR negative (DDR-) from the same institution who underwent the same test. An exploratory cohort of patients found to be DDR + by liquid biopsy was also included. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) decline≥50% (PSA50), PSA progression-free survival (PFS, PSA-PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), clinical PFS or radiographic PFS (c/rPFS) and OS were evaluated. Results Among 190 men (95 DDR+, 95 DDR-) with tissue sequencing, PSA50 was achieved with cabazitaxel in 29/92 (32%) and 33/92 (36%) in patients with DDR+ and DDR- (P = 0.64). The median rPFS was 5.33 months [95%CI 4.34–7.04] versus 5.75 months [95%CI 4.67–7.27] (P = 0.55). The median OS was 15.4 months [95%CI 12.16–26.6] and 11.5 months [95%CI 9.76–14.4] (P = 0.036), respectively. No PSA50 responses on cabazitaxel were observed in BRCA1/2 patients previously treated with PARPi (n = 10). Similar outcomes with cabazitaxel were observed in the liquid biopsy cohort (n = 63 DDR+). Conclusions Our study suggests that cabazitaxel is active in patients with mCRPC regardless of their DDR status, although its activity in men pretreated with a PARPi may be lower.

International guidelines recommend specific interventions to reduce cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Evidence suggests underutilization of these interventions among breast cancer survivors. The QualFatigue study aimed to explore the potential factors influencing the use of specific interventions, for relief, in patients with CRF through qualitative analyses. Patients with stage I–III breast cancer, and CRF ≥4 on a 10-point numerical scale were recruited within 6–24 months at the end of their primary treatment. Semi-structured interviews were performed. Emergent themes were identified using a stepped content analysis (QDA Miner software). Data saturation was achieved with 15 interviews. Four main themes emerged as potential sources of influence in the participants’ use of specific interventions: (1) expectations regarding the management of CRF, (2) representations of the benefits provided by the interventions, (3) individual physical and psychological conditions, and (4) social and environmental situations. Six key levers came out transversally to optimize the use of specific interventions to relieve CRF: (1) listening and recognition of the individual difficulties and needs; (2) individual and global health assessments; (3) information and advice on how to manage CRF; (4) discussion groups focused on the management of CRF; (5) group activities; and (6) professional and personalized guidance. This study calls for multi-level action to address many persistent barriers and exploit levers in the management of CRF.

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.

Patients with cancer are presumed to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to underlying malignancy and treatment-induced immunosuppression. Of the first 178 patients managed for COVID-19 at the Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 125 (70.2%) were hospitalized, 47 (26.4%) developed clinical worsening and 31 (17.4%) died. An age of over 70 years, smoking status, metastatic disease, cytotoxic chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of ≥2 at the last visit were the strongest determinants of increased risk of death. In multivariable analysis, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score remained the only predictor of death. In contrast, immunotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted therapy did not increase clinical worsening or death risk. Biomarker studies found that C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of clinical worsening, while C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels were associated with an increased risk of death. COVID-19 management impacted the oncological treatment strategy, inducing a median 20 d delay in 41% of patients and adaptation of the therapeutic strategy in 30% of patients. Barlesi and colleagues describe the determinants of severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer managed at the Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). Materials and Methods To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network–Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. Results Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19–positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. Conclusion Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) combined with prednisone is a standard of care in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Recently, benefit in overall survival was reported in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer also, and an extension of indication has been granted. Abiraterone is seldom associated with liver toxicity. The clinical management and the outcome of patients with transaminase increase while on abiraterone have not been described. Patients and method We identified 25 men with metastatic prostate cancer and liver function test disorders occurring while on abiraterone treatment from December 2009 to September 2017 in three oncology centres in France. Results Forty-six liver disorder events occurred in 25 patients while on abiraterone treatment. The median age at liver function test increase was 67 (55–85) years. The incidence of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (24 events) and that of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (22 events) increases were similar. Liver toxicity was of grade 1, 2 and 3 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. version 4) in 7 (32%), 6 (27%) and 9 (41%) patients for ALT, and in 12 (50%), 6 (25%) and 6 (25%) for AST, respectively. The median time from abiraterone initiation to the detection of liver toxicity was 7.1 (4–95) weeks. The median time from highest ALT/AST increase to normalisation was 6.2 [ [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] ] weeks. In 13 patients (52%), liver tests spontaneously returned to baseline values, while abiraterone was continued at full dose. Conclusion Liver function test increase is a rare event that typically occurs within the first two months on abiraterone. Most patients experience normalisation of the tests, either spontaneously or after dose reduction/discontinuation.

Although immunotherapy has recently revolutionized standard of care in different cancer types, prostate cancer has generally failed to show dramatic responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors. As in other tumors, the goal in prostate cancer is now to target treatments more precisely on patient’s individual characteristics through precision medicine. Defects in mismatch repair, mutations in the exonuclease domain of the DNA polymerase epsilon ( POLE), high tumor mutational burden and the presence of biallelic loss of CDK12 among others, are predictive biomarkers of response to immunotherapy. In the present review, we summarize the evolving landscape of immunotherapy in prostate cancer, including precision approaches and strategies to define classes of responsive patients and scale up resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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.

Metastatic testicular germ cell tumors are rare entities with a high cure rate owing to their major chemosensitivity. Current guidelines should be strictly followed to ensure maximal cure rate. Germ cell tumor treatment requires multidisciplinary skills and is based on cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The current challenge for these patients with favorable prognosis is to limit over- or under-treatment. Centralization of care for patients with these rare cancers is a key point to achieve the best chance of cure.

International audience; PURPOSE:A substantial proportion of cancer survivors experience fatigue after diagnosis. Physical activity (PA) can impact fatigue after cancer. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence and association of fatigue and the practice of PA in a population with early cancer.METHODS:Using the national population-based French cross-sectional study Vie après le cancer 2, we included 1984 patients with early breast (61.1%), prostate (21.5%), and colorectal (17.4%) cancer. Severe fatigue at 2 years postdiagnosis was defined by a score ≥40 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) fatigue subscale. PA was defined as (a) self-reported PA before diagnosis (active/inactive) and (b) change in PA since diagnosis (increased/maintained exposure vs decreased exposure/remaining inactive). Multivariate regression examined associations of severe fatigue with PA, adjusting for baseline clinical and treatment variables.RESULTS:Median age was 52 years. 51.5% of patients experienced severe fatigue 2 years post-diagnosis. 87.7% reported to be physically active before cancer diagnosis; 53.3% of patients either decreased PA or remained inactive at 2 years postdiagnosis. At 2 years postdiagnosis, severe fatigue was associated with a change in PA since diagnosis: patients with decreasing PA/remaining inactive from pre- to postdiagnosis had a higher risk of severe fatigue vs those with increasing/maintaining PA (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.32 [1.85-2.90]).CONCLUSION:Fatigue continues to be a substantial problem for cancer survivors 2 years after cancer diagnosis and is associated with PA decreasing/remaining inactive since diagnosis. Interventions to maintain or increase PA for cancer survivors should be tested to mitigate long-term fatigue after cancer.

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.

The concept of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) has evolved with the advent of medical oncology. CUP can be difficult to diagnose and represents 2 to 5% of new cancers, therefore not exceptionally rare. Within CUPs can be identified a subset of favourable prognosis tumours, however the vast majority of CUP patients belongs to a poor prognosis group. CUP features significant oncological challenges, such as unravelling biological and transversal issues, and most importantly, improving patient's outcomes. In that regard, CUP patients' outcomes regrettably showed minimal improvement for decades and CUP remains a cancer group of very poor prognosis. The biology of CUP has two main hypotheses. One is that CUP is a subgroup of a given primary cancer, where the primary is present but cannot be seen due to its small size. The other, the "true" CUP hypothesis, states that CUP share features that make them a specific entity, whatever their tissue of origin. A true biological signature has not yet been described, but chromosomal instability is a hallmark of poor prognosis CUP group. Precision oncology, despite achieving identifying the putative origin of the CUP, so far failed to globally improve outcomes of patients. Targeting molecular pathways based on molecular analysis in CUP management is under investigation. Immunotherapy has not shown ground-breaking results, to date. Accrual is also a crucial issue in CUP trials. Herein we review CUP history, biological features and remaining questions in CUP biology, the two main approaches of molecular oncology in CUP management, in order to draw perspectives in the enormous challenge of improving CUP patient outcomes.

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.

International guidelines recommend specific interventions to reduce cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Evidence suggests underutilization of these interventions among breast cancer survivors. The QualFatigue study aimed to explore the potential factors influencing the use of specific interventions, for relief, in patients with CRF through qualitative analyses.Patients with stage I-III breast cancer, and CRF ≥4 on a 10-point numerical scale were recruited within 6-24 months at the end of their primary treatment. Semi-structured interviews were performed. Emergent themes were identified using a stepped content analysis (QDA Miner software).Data saturation was achieved with 15 interviews. Four main themes emerged as potential sources of influence in the participants' use of specific interventions: (1) expectations regarding the management of CRF, (2) representations of the benefits provided by the interventions, (3) individual physical and psychological conditions, and (4) social and environmental situations. Six key levers came out transversally to optimize the use of specific interventions to relieve CRF: (1) listening and recognition of the individual difficulties and needs; (2) individual and global health assessments; (3) information and advice on how to manage CRF; (4) discussion groups focused on the management of CRF; (5) group activities; and (6) professional and personalized guidance.This study calls for multi-level action to address many persistent barriers and exploit levers in the management of CRF.

Patients with cancer are presumed to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to underlying malignancy and treatment-induced immunosuppression. Of the first 178 patients managed for COVID-19 at the Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 125 (70.2%) were hospitalized, 47 (26.4%) developed clinical worsening and 31 (17.4%) died. An age of over 70 years, smoking status, metastatic disease, cytotoxic chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of ≥2 at the last visit were the strongest determinants of increased risk of death. In multivariable analysis, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score remained the only predictor of death. In contrast, immunotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted therapy did not increase clinical worsening or death risk. Biomarker studies found that C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of clinical worsening, while C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels were associated with an increased risk of death. COVID-19 management impacted the oncological treatment strategy, inducing a median 20 d delay in 41% of patients and adaptation of the therapeutic strategy in 30% of patients.

Background Bone metastases (BMs) are associated with significant morbidity and shorter survival in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our purpose was to identify prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in RCC patients with BMs. Methods Data from patients with BMs from RCC treated at Gustave Roussy between April 1992 and March 2016 were retrospectively collected. Age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk groups, histology, number and site of bone lesions, concomitant metastases (presence and sites), therapy for BMs (radical resection or palliative surgery, radiotherapy and other local and systemic treatments) and time from diagnosis to BMs were analysed. Synchronous solitary bone metastasis (SSBM) was defined as a single BM without concomitant visceral lesions at the initial diagnosis of RCC. OS was calculated from the date of BMs diagnosis to death or last follow-up using Kaplan–Maier method and modelled with Cox regression analysis. Results From 1750 patients with diagnosis of RCC followed at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 300 patients with BMs were identified. Median time from diagnosis to BMs was 32.4 months (range 0–324 months). In 64 patients (21%), bone was the only metastatic site, and 22 patients (7%) had an SSBM and 236 patients (79%) had concomitant metastases in other sites. Median OS was 23.2 months (95% confidence interval 19.9–26.2). SSBM patients had better OS than those with concomitant metastases (40 vs 20 months; P Conclusions This study suggests that MSKCC score, numbers of BMs and radical resection are important prognostic factors for RCC patients with BMs. Additionally, in the presence of solitary BM without concomitant metastases at the initial diagnosis of RCC, bone surgery should be considered to achieve local tumour control and likely increase OS.

Until recently, continuing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and closely monitoring patients until evolution towards metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were recommended in men with non-metastatic CRPC (nmCRPC). Because delaying the development of metastases and symptoms in these patients is a major issue, several trials have investigated next-generation androgen receptor (AR) axis inhibitors such as apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide in this setting. This review summarizes the recent advances in the management of nmCRPC, highlighting the favourable impact of next-generation AR inhibitors on metastases-free survival, overall survival and other clinically meaningful endpoints.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer worldwide and is the most frequently detected cancer in the European Union in men over 50 years of age. Androgen deprivation therapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for recurrent or metastatic disease. Unfortunately, nearly all patients will develop resistance to androgen blockade leading to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Over the last 10 years, new treatments have dramatically improved overall survival of men with mCRPC. Current therapies are based on AR-axis inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapies, as well as radiopharmaceuticals and Sipuleucel T.The authors provide a review of the current field of systemic therapy in metastatic CRPC. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of recent developments in treatment, and the biological rationale behind these therapies.Since several trials with docetaxel or novel hormonal agents showed improvement in overall survival in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as in non-metastatic castration-resistant patients, it is expected that a growing subgroup of patients will be exposed earlier to chemotherapy and to AR targeted agents. It becomes then fundamental to find novel strategies to overcome drug resistance and further improve survival.

Hintergrund: Prostatakrebs ist eine der häufigsten Krebserkrankungen bei Männern und die vierthäufigste Ursache für Krebssterblichkeit weltweit. Obwohl in den letzten Jahren mit auf die Androgenrezeptorachse gezielten Wirkstoffen der nächsten Generation, Taxanen und auf die Knochen gerichteten Mitteln große Fortschritte bei Patienten mit metastasiertem kastrationsresistentem Prostatakrebs (mCRPC, metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer) erzielt wurden, ist die Immuntherapie noch nicht allgemein zur Behandlung von Prostatakrebs zugelassen und in Gebrauch. Zwei große Studien mit Ipilimumab, einem Antikörper gegen CTLA-4 (zytotoxisches T-Lymphozyten-Antigen 4), zeigten verbessertes progressionsfreies Überleben, aber kein statistisch verbessertes Gesamtüberleben bei der Primäranalyse (CA184 043 und CA184 095). Fallvorstellung: Hier berichten wir über zwei Patienten, die in diesen Studien Ipilimumab erhielten und immer noch in langfristiger Vollremission bei einer Nachbeobachtungszeit von 64 bzw. 52 Monaten nach Beginn der Behandlung mit Ipilimumab sind. Immunhistochemische Färbung auf hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6 und PMS2 wurde an archivierten Prostatabiopsieproben von einem der beiden Patienten durchgeführt; sie zeigten eine normale Proteinexpression. Interessanterweise wurde bei diesem Patienten in archivierten Prostatabiopsien hohe Infiltration mit CD3+- und CD8+-T-Zellen beobachtet, ebenso wie mit regulatorischen FoxP3+-Treg-Zellen. Schlussfolgerung: Ipilimumab zeigt klinische Aktivität bei Patienten mit CRPC, einschließlich Fällen sehr langen Ansprechens ohne nachweisbare Resterkrankung. Übersetzung aus J Immunother Cancer 2017;5:31.

Both docetaxel+androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and abiraterone acetate 1000mg/d+prednisone/prednisolone 5mg/d+ADT improved survival in patients with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Their use should be offered and guided by patient's own characteristics.

Introduction Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel and estramustine (DE) significantly improved relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years and a local treatment in the GETUG-12 phase III trial. We sought to explore whether the addition of DE impacts long-term treatment-related side effects. Patients and Methods Patients randomized within the UNICANCER GETUG-12 trial at Gustave Roussy who were alive when ADT was discontinued were followed-up prospectively. Serum testosterone levels and clinical data regarding body weight, libido, erection, and cardio-vascular events were collected. Results Seventy-eight patients were included: 36 patients had been treated with ADT plus a local treatment and 42 with ADT+DE plus a local treatment. With a median follow-up of 5.9 years after ADT discontinuation, serum testosterone levels returned to normal values (> 200 ng/mL) for 57 (78%) of 72 evaluable patients, and 29 (43%) of 68 evaluable patients reported erections allowing intercourse without medical assistance. No impact of DE on testosterone level recovery, libido, quality of erections, and changes in body weight after ADT discontinuation was detected. The incidence of cardiovascular events was low and similar in both treatment arms. Conclusion Treatment with DE was not associated with excess long-term castration-related toxicity in men with high-risk localized prostate cancer. The relapse-free survival improvement seen with DE in GETUG-12 is likely not related to differed testosterone recovery.

Background: The androgen receptor axis inhibitors (ARi) (e.g, enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate) are administered in daily practice for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, not all patients respond, and mechanisms of both primary and acquired resistance remain largely unknown. Methods: In a prospective trial MATCH-R (NCT02517892), 55 mCRPC patients underwent whole exome sequencing (WES) (n=45) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) (n=52) of metastatic biopsies before starting ARi. Also, 16 mCRPC patients underwent biopsy at time of resistance (WES=14, RNA-seq = 14). The objectives were to identify genomic alterations associated with resistance to ARi as well as to describe clonal evolution. Primary resistance was determined at 4 months of treatment using composite criteria for progression that included serum prostate specific antigen measurements, bone scan, CT imaging and symptom assessments. Acquired resistance was defined by occurrence of progressive disease after initial response or stable disease. Associations of genomic and transcriptomic alterations with primary resistance were determined using Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests. Results: At 4 months, 22/55 patients in the cohort had disease progression (primary resistance). No genomic alterations from WES analysis were significantly associated with primary resistance. Analysis of sequential biopsies suggests that mCRPC follows mainly a parallel evolution model and involve DNA-repair related mutational processes. At time of acquired resistance to ARi, most tumors acquired new drivers affecting AR pathway (e.g, AR, NCOR1/2) or lineage switching (e.g, RB1, PTEN, TP53). Using computational methods, we measured AR transcriptional function and performed gene set enrichment analysis to identify pathways whose activity state correlated with resistance. AR gene alterations and AR expression were similar between responding and non-responding patients. Transcriptional analysis demonstrated that multiple specific gene sets — including those linked to low AR transcriptional activity, stemness program, RB loss and homologous repair deficiency — were activated in both primary and acquired resistance. Conclusion: Resistance to AR axis inhibitors results from multiple transcriptional programs already activated in pre-treatment samples. Clonal evolution analysis along with RNA-seq data indicate the role of genomic instability and lineage switching in driving acquired resistance Citation Format: Naoual Menssouri, Loic Poiraudeau, Carole Helissey, Ludovic Bigot, Jonathan Sabio, Tony Ibrahim, Claudio Nicotra, Maud Ngocamus, Lambros Tselikas, Thierry De Baere, Etienne Rouleau, Ludovic Lacroix, Anne Chaucherau, Luc Friboulet, Ronan Flippot, Giulia Baciarello, Laurence Albiges, Emeline Colomba, Pernelle Lavaud, Stefan Michiels, Aline Maillard, Antoine Italiano, Fabrice Barlesi, Jean-Charles Soria, Jean-Yves Scoazec, christophe Massard, Benjamin Besse, Fabrice André, Karim Fizazi, Daniel Gautheret, Yohann Loriot. A prospective study of prostate cancer metastases identifies an androgen receptor activity-low, stemness program associated with resistance to androgen receptor axis inhibitors and unveils mechanisms of clonal evolution [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 358.

224 Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) detects ISUP grade≥ 2 prostate cancer (PC) with a sensitivity over 90%. mpMRI can be used for early detection in patients with a risk of clinically significant PC (csPC) either in combination with systematic biopsy (SB) to increase the detection rate of csPC, or to reduce the number of biopsy procedures by performing biopsies only in positive mpMRI patients. Methods: We estimated the numbers of PC diagnosed, PC deaths averted, and biopsy procedures performed with early diagnosis in a simulated population of men beginning at age 50 using a microsimulation model. The model simulates the natural history of PC and the impact of early diagnosis using epidemiological data from a systematic review of literature. Early diagnosis started at age 55 years, with a PSA threshold of 4 ng/mL. The strategies included (S1) SB alone, (S2) SB combined with mpMRI-targeted biopsy (SB/mpMRI-TB), and (S3) SB/mpMRI-TB following selection of patients based on positive mpMRI (PIRAD3-5) or PSA density (PSAd) < 0.15. A sensitivity of 0.92 and specificity of 0.48 for detecting ISUP grade ≥ 2 PC was used for mpMRI. Results: Compared to no early diagnosis, early diagnosis with SB alone (S1) was estimated to avoid 647 PC-related deaths per 100,000 men over their lifetimes. Using mpMRI was estimated to result in an additional 126 and 118 fewer deaths per 100,000 if mpMRI was used in conjunction with SB (S2) or with SB following patient selection for biopsy by mpMRI or PSAd (S3). To avoid a PC-related death was estimated to require screening of 145 men with SB alone, 121 with SB/mpMRI-TB, and 122 with mpMRI or PSAd followed by SB/mpMRI-TB. Adding mpMRI to SB was also found to reduce the predicted number of biopsies performed (21,821 for SB alone versus 16,510 for SB/mpMRI-TB and 15,385 for SB/mpMRI-TB following selection with mpMRI or PSAd). Conclusions: The results indicate that using mpMRI as a detection method will improve the effectiveness of early diagnosis. Compared to SB alone, using mpMRI through the SB/mpMRI-TB approach, with or without prior patient selection based on mpMRI or PSAd assessments, would result in a reduction in PC-related mortality and in the number of biopsies performed. [Table: see text]

Prostate cancer is initially responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, but most patients eventually develop castration-resistant disease. Enzalutamide is an androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor that targets several steps in the AR signaling pathway and has shown significant efficacy in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in patients with or without prior chemotherapy. To provide optimal treatment, it is important to understand the implications of enzalutamide use in the context of other therapies, as recent findings have suggested cross-resistance occurs between and within drug classes. Mutations and splice variants of AR also impact the course of prostate cancer. Future strategies involving enzalutamide should account for previous exposure to taxanes or antiandrogen therapies and the presence of AR variants that could affect efficacy.

Cancers of Unknown Primary Site (CUP) account for approximately 1-3 % of all malignant neoplasms. It represents a heterogeneous group of malignancies without a detectable primary and is characterized by aggressive clinical behavior. Patients with CUP are presumably categorized into prognostic subsets according to their clinical and pathological characteristics. The majority of these patients are chemoresistant and treated with empiric chemotherapy regimens which yield limited survival. Recent diagnostic advances have led to the identification of a higher percentage of culprit primaries among which colorectal, lung and renal tumors. The empiric CUP regimens may be suboptimal in these patients which explain in part their poor prognosis. In the absence of prospective randomized studies to prove the benefit of site-specific therapy in these subsets, we reviewed the literature to assess whether CUP with colorectal, lung and renal - profiles should be treated similarly to the correspondent primary tumors.

545 Background: Prognostic factors for survival in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) have been reported in patients (pts) treated with chemotherapy (Bellmunt and al, JCO 2010). However, no biomarkers have been clearly identified in the setting of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The Lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) was associated with clinical outcomes for ICI in lung cancer (Mezquita et al, Jama Oncol 2018) and other tumor types (Varga et al, TAT 2019). In this multicenter retrospective study, we correlated LIPI with outcomes in pts with mUC treated with ICI. Methods: Pts with mUC enrolled from May 2013 to July 2018 in 7 high volume centers were analysed. LIPI score includes: LDH > upper limit of normal and neutrophil/[leukocytes minus neutrophils] ratio (dNLR) > 3. The following LIPI subgroups were defined: good prognosis (0), intermediate prognosis (1) and poor prognosis (2 factors). Median (m) progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method, log rank test was used for statistical comparison. Cox model was used for multivariate analysis. Results: To date, 152 mUC pts have been enrolled and preliminary analysis have been performed in 135 pts. Median age was 67 years, 111 (82%) pts were male, 106 pts (79%) had ECOG PS 0-1, 31 pts (23%) had liver metastasis. Median follow-up was 21.1 months (mo) (95% CI; 16.3-24.5), mPFS was 3.6 mo (95% CI; 2.6-6.0) and mOS was 13.8 mo (95% CI; 11.5-23.2). LIPI classified the population in good (56%), intermediate (35%) and poor (9%) prognosis group. In multivariate analysis, estimated mPFS in good, intermediate and poor prognosis were 5.8 mo (95% CI; 2.6-6.0), 3.6 mo (95% CI; 3.3-16.2) and 1.2 mo (95% CI;0.1-NR), respectively (p = 0.001). Estimated mOS in good, intermediate and poor prognosis were 17.3 mo (95% CI; 13.0-36.8), 16.9 mo (95% CI; 6.9-NR) and 5.4 mo (95% CI;2.5-NR), respectively (p = 0.19). OS data will be validated on larger cohort. Conclusions: The LIPI score is associated with clinical outcome to ICI and may be a useful tool for identifying patients who may not benefit from ICI. Validation in independent prospective cohort is ongoing.

420 Background: Only scarce data exist on the management of residual masses in men who have received two lines of chemotherapy for advanced seminoma. Due to the lack of data, the role of PET scanning, surgery and other additional treatments is controversial in these men. Methods: Data from men with pure seminoma and residual masses after salvage chemotherapy were retrospectively collected from 10 high-volume centers in 3 European countries. We analyzed the clinical management of residual masses (imaging, surgery, pathological data, and additional treatment modalities) and long-term outcomes. Residual mass was defined as a lesion of ≥1 cm after two lines of platin-based chemotherapy. Results: To date, data from 48 patients (pts) with non-progressing residual masses after second line (salvage) chemotherapy have been collected and are included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 36 years (range 31; 42). A post-chemotherapy PET-FDG was performed in 32 (67%) pts. Surgery was performed in 20/48 (41%) pts irrespectively of FDG uptake (no, n=8; yes, n=5). Complete necrosis was found in 16 (80%), viable seminoma in 3 (15%), and teratoma in 1 pt, respectively. All pts with a negative PET (PET-) who underwent surgery (8/8) had complete necrosis. 5/11 pts with a positive PET (PET+) underwent surgery: 3 had a complete necrosis while 2 had viable seminoma. Among those with a PET+, 3 pts (28%) experienced either viable seminoma in residual masses or a subsequent relapse. The absence of FDG uptake correlated with absence of viable cancer (p=0.04). A second relapse occurred in 5/48 pts (10%). Only 2/20 pts who had residual masses resected post 1st salvage chemotherapy subsequently relapsed (one had viable seminoma in the residuals). At a median follow up of 4 years (IC95% [3.5-5.5]), 41/48 pts (87%) were alive. 7/48 patients died of cancer progression. Conclusions: Most men with residual masses after 1st salvage chemotherapy for advanced seminoma may achieve a cure. Pending validation with more pts in this rare situation, PET-FDG may help guide who should be selected for post-chemotherapy resection. Updated results will be presented at the congress.

Metastatic testicular germ cell tumors are rare entities with a high cure rate owing to their major chemosensitivity. Current guidelines should be strictly followed to ensure maximal cure rate. Germ cell tumor treatment requires multidisciplinary skills and is based on cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The current challenge for these patients with favorable prognosis is to limit over- or under-treatment. Centralization of care for patients with these rare cancers is a key point to achieve the best chance of cure.

Background The CUPISCO trial (NCT03498521) is an ongoing, phase II, randomised, multicentre study comparing molecularly-guided therapy with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed poor-risk CUP patients. Methods Eligible patients have poor-risk adeno- or undifferentiated CUP as defined by ESMO 2015 guidelines and tissue for molecular sequencing. Local sites initiate the screening process with potentially eligible patients. Patients then undergo central Eligibility Review (ER), a cooperative effort between a central pathology laboratory, external referent oncologists and each site’s investigator and pathology laboratory to confirm the diagnosis. Patients with favourable prognostic subsets or with a strong suspicion of an existing primary site of origin based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) signature and clinical picture are excluded. Results As of 19 March 2019, 157 patients had been screened, of whom 91 (58%) failed screening. Three patients were successfully re-screened. Of the 88 patients who permanently failed screening, 23 were due to technical reasons (e.g. insufficient quality/quantity of tissue for sequencing), 20 for failure to meet inclusion/exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis, and 14 for other reasons (e.g. declining health status). A set of 31 patients were not enrolled because the CUP diagnosis could not be confirmed at the IHC level, 19 of those after ER review. Central IHC review results included pathological signatures more typical of specific primary tumours (e.g. prostate cancer or melanoma), or marker combinations typically positive in favourable CUP subsets or rare tumour entities. Conclusions Experience with the CUPISCO study has highlighted challenges with standardised screening and diagnostic processes in an international clinical trial and the difficulties inherent in accurate diagnosis of poor-risk CUP. Confirming a CUP diagnosis for a clinical trial with multiple review checkpoints can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding and to improve diagnostic algorithms for CUP. Clinical trial identification NCT03498521. Editorial acknowledgement Medical writing assistance was provided by Ian Leighton, PhD, Nspm Ltd, Meggen, Switzerland, and supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland. Legal entity responsible for the study F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosure C. Pauli: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. T. Bochtler: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. L. Mileshkin: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Beigene. G. Baciarello: Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen Oncology; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas-Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen. F. Losa: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Servier. J.S. Ross: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Foundation Medicine Inc. S. Yalcin: Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): Sanofi; Honoraria (self): Amgen; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Lilly; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Merck Serono. A. Beringer: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.. S. Foser: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. J. Scarato: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.. M. Mueller-Ohldach: Full / Part-time employment: Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. H. Moch: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. A. Kramer: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

The optimal sequence of life-extending therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown.To evaluate outcomes among mCRPC patients treated with docetaxel (DOC), cabazitaxel (CABA), and a novel androgen receptor-targeted agent (ART; abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) according to three different sequences.Data from 669 consecutive mCRPC patients were retrospectively collected between November 2012 and October 2016.The primary endpoint was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (decrease ≥50% from baseline) to each therapy. Secondary endpoints included best clinical benefit, time to PSA progression, radiological progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.A total of 158 patients received DOC→CABA→ART (group 1), 456 received DOC→ART→CABA (group 2), and 55 received ART→DOC→CABA (group 3). At baseline, PSA progression only and Gleason8 were more common in group 3. PSA response on DOC was lower in group 3 than in other groups (p=0.02) and PSA response on CABA was higher in the second than in the third line (p=0.001). In Group 3, rPFS on ART (6.6 mo) and DOC (9.2 mo) was also shorter than in the other groups. OS calculated from the first life-extending therapy reached 34.8, 35.8, and 28.9 mo in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (p=0.007). Toxicity was comparable between the arms. The main limitations of the trial are its retrospective design and the low number of patients in group 3.In this retrospective trial, sequencing of DOC, CABA, and one ART, was associated with median OS of up to 35.8 mo. CABA seemed to retain its activity regardless of treatment sequence. DOC activity after ART appeared to be reduced, but the data are insufficient to conclude that cross-resistance occurs.The order of drugs administered to patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer could impact their efficacy, with cabazitaxel appearing to retain its activity whatever the therapeutic sequence.

Background Treatment option in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel (DOC), cabazitaxel (CABA) and new hormone therapy (NHT) is limited. Rechallenge with DOC is limited because of cumulative toxicities. This study investigated the activity and safety of CABA rechallenge in mCRPC. Patients and methods Clinical data were collected retrospectively in 17 centres in Europe. Eligible patients had undergone rechallenge with cabazitaxel after three previous lines of treatment (DOC, NHT and CABA, in any order). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Data on toxicities were collected. Results A total of 69 of 562 patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 69%) were rechallenged with CABA (25 mg/m2 q3w, 58%; 20 mg/m2 q3w, 27.5%; other, 14.5%) for 1–10 (median 6) cycles; 76.8% received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Median radiological or clinical PFS with CABA rechallenge was 7.8 months and 11.9 months with initial CABA therapy. OS was 13.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3–15.7) from the first CABA rechallenge cycle, 59.9 months (47.8–67.1) from the first life-extending therapy in mCRPC and 78.3 months (66.4–90.7) from mCRPC diagnosis. Best clinical benefit was improved (34.3%) or stable (47.8%). Lack of response to rechallenge occurred in 17.9% of patients (3.1% with initial CABA). The level of prostate-specific antigen decreased by ≥ 50% in 24% of patients at rechallenge (71% with initial CABA). There was no grade ≥III peripheral neuropathy or nail disorders. Conclusions CABA rechallenge may be a treatment option without cumulative toxicity in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC who are still fit and had a progression >3 months after the last CABA injections.

Background CUP are heterogeneous tumors that share the unique characteristic of metastases with no identifiable origin. The outcome of patients (pts) with CUP is poor despite empiric chemotherapy that has activity against a wide variety of neoplasms such as the cisplatin-gemcitabine combination (Culine S, JCO 2002). Molecular tests may identify primary sites in up to 80% of pts, and results suggest that at least 1/3 of identified primaries may not be sensitive to empiric chemotherapy used in CUPs (Gross-Goupil G 2012). In the GEFCAPI 04 phase III trial, we hypothesized that tailored treatment will improve outcomes. Methods Eligible pts had pathologically-confirmed metastatic CUPs and were treatment naive. Pts belonging to pre-defined favorable subsets were excluded. After relevant workup had identified no primary site, pts were randomized 1:1 to either Arm A (Cisplatin 100mg/m² d1+ Gemcitabine 1250mg/m², day 1 and 8, q3w) or Arm B (gene expression test followed by a la carte treatment according to the suspected primary). The test consisted of the Tissue Of Origin (Pathwork, n=21) or CancerTYPE ID (Biotheranostics, n=222). The primary endpoint was PFS (HR=0.625, power=80%, 5% bilateral test). Stratification was on site, PS and LDH level. Secondary endpoints were PFS in pts with pre-defined cancers likely insensitive to cisplatin-gemcitabine and OS. Results From 03/12 to 02/18, 243 pts from 4 EU countries were randomized (Arm A: 120, Arm B: 123). Primary cancers most often reported by tests were pancreatico-biliary cancer (19%), squamous cell carcinoma (11%, kidney cancer (8%), and lung cancer (8%). Treatment was tailored by molecular test results in 91/123 arm B pts (74%). PFS by central review was similar: HR=0.95 (0.72-1.25); p=0.7; medians: 5.3 m arm A vs 4.6 m arm B. PFS by local review also showed no significant difference: HR=0.80 (0.60-1.06); p=0.12; medians 5.8 vs 6.4 m. OS was also similar in the overall population (HR: 0.92 (0.69-1.23), medians: 10 vs 10.7 m) and in 60 pts with suspected cancers likely insensitive to GC. Conclusions In GEFCAPI 04, using a molecular test followed by tailored systemic treatment did not improve outcomes of pts with CUP. Clinical trial identification 2011-A01202-39. Legal entity responsible for the study Institut Gustave Roussy. Funding Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC) from the French Ministry of Health. Disclosure K. Fizazi: Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy: Curevac; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Orion; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi. R. Morales Barrera: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Astrazeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Asofarma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Johnson and Jonhson; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. C.A. Schnabel: Full / Part-time employment: bioTheranostics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.