Search

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

e16577Background: Majority of patients (pts) with ccRCC at first line (1L) treatment are classified in the IR subgroup according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium...

Aim: To determine the clinical significance of early PSA response during the first 4 weeks of therapy with next-generation androgen pathway inhibitors (enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate [AA], TAK-700) for metastatic castration-resistance prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: Data from patients prospectively recruited in clinical trials were studied. PSA values were obtained at baseline and 28 days (+/- 7d) after treatment initiation. PSA response defined as a decline > 50% from baseline was calculated according to PCWG2 (Scher et al, 2008). The effects of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined using the Cox model. An independent cohort of patients treated with AA was used as validation population. Results: Early PSA response (EPR) was assessed in 118 patients treated with enzalutamide (AFFIRM and PREVAIL studies), AA (COU-AA-301 and 302 studies) and TAK-700 (C21004 and C21005 study). EPR was associated with longer PFS and OS (P Conclusions: Early PSA response is an independent prognostic factor in patients with mCRPC treated with next-generation androgen pathway inhibitors and may be useful for the therapeutic management of these patients. Disclosure: C. Massard: Consultant for Astellas Lectures for Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen; L. Albiges Sauvin: Advisory board Sanofi; K. Fizazi: Consultant Lectures for si, Astellas, Janssen, Takeda; Y. Loriot: Grant from Sanofi, Astelllas, Consultant for Astellas, Sanofi, Sellgene Lectures for Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.