Search

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5017 Background: Docetaxel and cabazitaxel represent now the standard of care in men with mCRPC with similar efficacy reported in metastatic first-line setting in the FIRSTANA phase 3 trial. We assessed patients’ preference between the two taxanes. Methods: Patients with taxane-naïve mCRPC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either docetaxel 75mg/m2/q3w x 4 followed by cabazitaxel 25mg/m2/q3w x 4 (DO-CA), or the reverse sequence (CA-DO). Randomization was stratified based on prior next generation AR axis inhibitors use. The primary endpoint was patient preference between taxanes, as assessed by questionnaires in patients who had received at least one cycle of each taxane and who had not experienced a progression while on the first taxane. Results: From June 2014 to October 2016, 195 men were randomized in 17 centers. After adjusting for the treatment period effect, more patients preferred cabazitaxel (43%) vs docetaxel (27%) (p < 0.004); 30% had no preference between taxanes. Fatigue, patient-defined quality of life, hair loss, and pain were the most common factors influencing patient preference. Febrile neutropenia was experienced by 5 (7.1%) men treated with cabazitaxel during the first period who received G-CSF and by 2 (7.1%) of those who did not. No febrile neutropenia was reported with docetaxel in both arms and with cabazitaxel during the 2nd period, irrespectively of the use of G-CSF. The incidence of diarrhea during the first 3-month period was slightly reduced with G-CSF use in men receiving cabazitaxel (32.1% vs 24.3%) but not in those receiving docetaxel (23.8% vs 25%). The median progression-free survival was 9.81 in the DO-CA arm and 9.33 months in the CA-DO arm. The median overall survival was also similar in the two groups (22.64 in the DO-CA arm and 20.73 months in the CA-DO arm. Conclusions: Although cabazitaxel and docetaxel have similar efficacy when used as first-line in mCRPC men, more patients prefer cabazitaxel. Clinical trial information: NCT02044354.

Background Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men and the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Although major progress has been achieved in the last years for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), thanks to next-generation androgen receptor axis targeted drugs, taxanes, and bone-targeted agents, immunotherapy has not been widely approved and used for the treatment of prostate cancer. Two large studies with ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4) antibody reported improved progression-free survival, but not statistically improved overall survival at the primary analysis (CA184 043 and CA184 095). Case presentation Here, we report on two patients who received ipilimumab in these trials and are still in long-term complete remission with a follow-up of 64 and 52 months respectively after the initiation of ipilimumab. Immunohistochemical staining for hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6 and PMS2 was performed on archival prostate biopsy samples from one of the two patients; they exhibited normal protein expression. Interestingly for this patient, a high CD3+ and CD8+ T cell infiltration was observed on archival prostate biopsies as well as Treg FoxP3+ T cells. Conclusion Ipilimumab produces clinical activity in patients with CRPC, including very long responders with no detectable residual disease.

Background Patients with germ cell tumours (GCT) receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy are at high risk of thromboembolic events (TEE). Previously, we identified serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and body surface area (BSA) as independent predictive factors for TEE. The aim of this study was to validate these predictive factors and to assess the impact of thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients at risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Methods Between 2001 and 2014, 295 patients received first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy for GCT. Preventive anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was progressively implemented in patients with predictive factors. Sixteen patients with evidence of TEE before starting chemotherapy were excluded from the analysis. Results Among 279 eligible patients, a TEE occurred in 38 (14%) consisting of DVT (n = 26), arterial thrombosis (n = 2), and superficial thrombophlebitis (n = 10). DVT occurred in 26 (12.7%) of 204 patients with risk factors versus two (2.6%) of 75 patients with no risk factors (p = 0.01). After a prevention protocol was progressively implemented from 2005, primary thromboprophylaxis was administered to 104 patients (68%) with risk factors. Among patients at risk (n = 151), the incidence of DVT decreased by roughly half when they received a LMWH: 9/97 (9.2%) and 9/54 (16.6%), respectively (p = 0.23). Conclusion Patients with GCT who receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy are at risk of developing a TEE which can be predicted by elevated serum LDH. To our knowledge this is the first study exploring LMWH as thromboprophylaxis in GCT patients. A prospective trial testing prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted.

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...

e24162Background: CUP represents a wide range of heterogeneous tumors with diverse genomic alterations (GAs) and high unmet clinical need. Molecular profiling of gene panels at diagnosis is increas...

TPS334Background: In recent years, the treatment of mCRPC has evolved and next-generation androgen receptor (AR)-axis targeting drugs (enzalutamide (ENZ), and abiraterone) have been approved and ar...

Prostate cancer disproportionately affects older men. Because age affects treatment decisions, it is important to understand the efficacy and tolerability of therapies for advanced prostate cancer in elderly men. This analysis describes efficacy and safety outcomes in men aged ≥75 years who received enzalutamide, an androgen receptor inhibitor, in the phase III PREVAIL trial.PREVAIL was a randomised, double-blind, multinational study of oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day (N = 872) versus placebo (N = 845) in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were coprimary end points. Subgroup analysis of men aged ≥75 years (elderly) and men aged75 years was pre-specified for the coprimary end points and adverse events (AEs).Among 609 elderly patients (35%) who participated in PREVAIL, median treatment duration was 16.6 and 5.0 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. In the elderly subgroup, OS was greater with enzalutamide than with placebo [32.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 27.7-not yet reached] versus 25.1 months (95% CI 22.6-28.0); hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61 (95% CI 0.47-0.79); P = 0.0001], as was rPFS [not yet reached (95% CI 12.3-not yet reached) versus 3.7 months (95% CI 3.6-5.3); HR = 0.17 (95% CI 0.12-0.24); P0.0001]. Irrespective of treatment assignment, incidence of AEs was similar between the two age groups, except for an overall higher incidence of falls among elderly patients than younger patients [84/609 (13.8%) versus 62/1106 (5.6%)] and among elderly patients receiving enzalutamide than those receiving placebo [61/317 (19.2%) versus 23/292 (7.9%)].Elderly men benefited from treatment with enzalutamide in terms of OS and rPFS. Enzalutamide was well tolerated in the elderly subgroup and those aged75 years. Age and enzalutamide treatment were associated with a higher incidence of falls.NCT01212991, ClinicalTrials.gov.

5033 Background: Only 2 chemotherapies have shown an overall survival (OS) benefit in mCRPC: docetaxel (DOC) and CABA. In patients (pts) previously treated with a new hormonal therapy (NHT: enzalutamide or abiraterone), DOC and CABA, therapeutic options are limited. We previously reported some activity of DOC rechallenge in good responders to first-line DOC. We present here the results of a retrospective study evaluating the efficacy and safety of CABA rechallenge. Methods: Records of 70 mCRPC pts rechallenged with CABA were collected in 17 centers (France, Italy, UK, Austria). To be included, pts should have previously received DOC, NHT and CABA with a good response to CABA. Results: Of these 70 pts, 52 received DOC-NHT-CABA, 15 DOC-CABA-NHT and 3 NHT-DOC-CABA. At rechallenge, 83% had a high-volume disease (CHAARTED definition), 10% had visceral mets, 66% consumed narcotic analgesics, 68 % were ECOG 0-1 and median neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was 3.1. CABA was rechallenged for a median of 6 cycles (25 mg/m2 q3w, 59%; 20 mg/m2, 27%; 16 mg/m2q3w 11%) with prophylactic G-CSF in 47%. Median time from last CABA cycle was 8.6 months (mo). CABA rechallenge had an acceptable tolerability: 7 pts (10%) had grade 3-4 toxicity (neutropenia). Data on efficacy are reported in Table 1. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.3 mo with DOC, 12 mo with NHT, 11.9 mo with first CABA (median 8 cycles), and 7.8 mo with CABA rechallenge. Median OS calculated from the first life-extending therapy was 59.9 mo (95% CI 47.8; 66.4). Conclusions: This retrospective cohort of heavily treated mCRPC pts suggests that CABA rechallenge has a good activity with a manageable toxicity. CABA rechallenge might be an option in heavily treated pts still fit to receive chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

10069 Background: A substantial proportion of breast, colo-rectal and prostate cancer patients (pts) can expect long term disease free survival after their primary treatment. Among those, fatigue commonly persists after diagnosis (dx) and can be debilitating. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of fatigue 2 years (y) after cancer dx and its association with health behaviors. Methods: We used a French population based cross-sectional study, which included a representative sample of pts from 12 cancer types (VICAN2). VICAN2 surveyed 4347 pts 2 y after dx. There is a 99% completion rate of fatigue related questions. For this study, we included 2017 pts with breast (1237), colo-rectal (348) and prostate (432) cancer without evidence of metastases at dx or relapse 2y after dx and with fatigue information. Severe fatigue was defined as average score of EORTC QLQC30 fatigue subscale ≥40 at 2y after dx. There were

462 Background: Preclinical data demonstrated that microbiota modulates activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICB) and broad-spectrum antibiotics (ATB) damper their efficacy. However, the impact of ATB in patients (pts) treated with ICB remains unknown. Our study evaluates the effect of ATB use in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) pts treated with ICB. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of mRCC pts treated in prospective trials at Gustave Roussy with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors alone or in combination. ATB (+)/(-) group were defined as pts treated or not with ATB at baseline (up to 1 month prior to the 1st injection of ICB). Progression-Free survival (PFS), Objective Response Rate (ORR), and Overall Survival (OS) were compared in each group (ATB (+) vs ATB (-)). Statistical analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression adjusted for risk factors. Results: We enrolled 80 mRCC pts treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy (n=67), anti-PD-1 plus CTLA-4 (n=10) or anti-PD-L1 plus bevacizumab (n=3) with available data on ATB. Majority of pts were male (65%), clear-cell histology (88%), and had prior nephrectomy (80%). With regard to IMDC risk groups, 21%, 57%, and 22% had favorable, intermediate, and poor-risk disease, respectively. Sixteen (20%) pts belonged to the ATB (+) group (mostly receiving beta-lactamases and fluoroquinolones). ATB (+) had decreased PFS compared to ATB (-), 2.3 vs. 8.1 months, p