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.

Background : Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy before surgery is the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. However, the optimal chemotherapy modalities have not been precisely defined to date. Patients and Methods : In the VESPER trial, patients received after randomization either gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 4 cycles) or methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dose dense [dd]-MVAC, 6 cycles). Creatinine clearance (CrCl) was calculated before each cycle according to the Cockroft and Gault formula. Definition criteria for local control after neoadjuvant chemotherapy included pathological complete response (ypT0N0), pathological downstaging ( Results : A total of 2,128 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered, including 2,120 (99.6%) with cisplatin. Full doses of cisplatin were given in 1866 (88%) cycles. Twenty-three (4.7%) patients had to stop chemotherapy (12 GC, 11 dd-MVAC) because of renal failure. No difference in CrCl median values was observed between the two regimens during the first four cycles. A mild decrease occurred thereafter in patients treated with two additional cycles of dd-MVAC. A minimum total dose of 270 mg/m2 for cisplatin was mandatory to optimize pathological complete responses. Conclusion : At least 4 cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy should be delivered before cystectomy. Increasing the number of cycles beyond 4 cycles does not lead to a clinically significant deterioration in renal function but without obvious gain on local control. MicroAbstractCGC : A deep analysis of data from a randomized trial of perioperative chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer shows that a minimum number of 4 cycles is required to optimize the chances of pathological complete response at cystectomy. Increasing the number beyond 4 cycles does not lead to a clinically significant deterioration in renal function without any obvious gain on pathological complete response.

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.

Introduction Cabazitaxel multiple rechallenges may be a treatment option in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had a good initial response to cabazitaxel and who are still fit to receive it. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of multiple rechallenges. Patients and methods We retrospectively identified 22 mCRPC patients previously treated with docetaxel and/or androgen receptor‐targeted agents who received multiple cabazitaxel rechallenges in 9 French centers. Cabazitaxel was initiated at a dose of 25 mg/m2 q3week. A reduced dose (20 mg/m2 q3w) or an alternative schedule (mainly 16 mg/m2 q2w) was increasingly used for subsequent rechallenges. Progression‐free survival, prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) response, best clinical response, and grade ≥3 toxicities were collected. Overall survival was calculated from various time points. Results Twenty‐two patients with an initial response to cabazitaxel were rechallenged at least twice. The median number of cabazitaxel cycles was 7 at first cabazitaxel treatment, 6 at first rechallenge, and 5 at subsequent rechallenges. Median progression‐free survival at first rechallenge was 9.6 months and 5.6 months at second rechallenge. Median overall survival was 50.9 months from the first cabazitaxel dose, 114.9 months from first life‐extending therapy initiation in mCRPC, and 105 months from mCRPC diagnosis. There was no cumulative grade ≥3 neuropathy or nail disorder and one case of febrile neutropenia. Conclusion Cabazitaxel multiple rechallenges may be a treatment option without cumulative toxicity in heavily pretreated patients having a good response to first cabazitaxel use and still fit to receive it. Novelty & Impact Statements Patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer can be treated with Cabazitaxel after docetaxel and androgen receptor‐targeted agent. This chemotherapy can be used multiple times with efficacy and manageable toxicity., We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of multiple rechallenges with cabazitaxel for 22 patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Median overall survival was 50.9 months from the first cabazitaxel dose, 114.9 months from first life‐extending therapy initiation in mCRPC, and 105 months from mCRPC diagnosis. Cabazitaxel rechallenge may be an effective option in heavily pretreated mCRPC patients with a good initial response to cabazitaxel and still fit to receive it, without cumulative grade ≥3 toxicity.

This study looked at whether epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition by the monoclonal antibody panitumumab could increase the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer. Results were disappointing, with higher toxicity and no improvement in efficacy in the combination arm. Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression is frequent and associated with poor outcome in urothelial carcinoma. EGFR inhibition could improve the antitumor activity of chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced, treatment-naive, histologically confirmed advanced urothelial carcinoma and no HRAS or KRAS mutation in the primary tumor received dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) without or with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab (Pmab). A randomized (1:2) phase II design was used with progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint. Results: Ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized; 96 patients were evaluable for toxicity and 87 for efficacy. The median PFS were 6.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-9.2) for dd-MVAC and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6-6.4 months) for dd-MVAC+Pmab. For both immunohistochemical and molecular definition of basal/squamous-like (BASQ) tumors, no difference was observed in objective response rates or PFS between the two arms in BASQ and non-BASQ tumors. Conclusion: dd-MVAC+Pmab was associated with more serious adverse events and no improvement in efficacy outcomes.

We describe a large series of patients with solid tumors in an early COVID‐19 cluster in the eastern part of France. From February to May 2020, this multicenter retrospective study enrolled 212 patients with cancer under treatment or on follow‐up for any type of malignant solid tumor and positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. The mortality rate was 30%. Patients with gastrointestinal cancers were identified as a subset of more vulnerable patients; immunotherapy and radiotherapy within 3 months from COVID‐19 diagnosis were risk factors for death. The reported data support the essential need to be proactive and weigh the risks of morbidity from COVID‐19 against the magnitude of benefits of intended cancer therapies during this pandemic. Implications for Practice This article supports the essential need to be proactive (treatment delay or modification) in oncology in the setting of pandemic. This study identified patients with gastrointestinal cancers as a more vulnerable subset of patients with cancer and found that immunotherapy and radiotherapy within 3 months from COVID‐19 diagnosis to be risk factors for death. The reported data indicate the necessity of weighing the risks of morbidity from COVID‐19 against the magnitude of benefits of intended cancer therapies in any future wave of COVID‐19., In the light of a local experience in an area of France, this article describes disease characteristics, management, and outcomes in patients with cancer and confirmed or highly suspected COVID‐19.

The impact of single-agent antibodies against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) as maintenance therapy is unknown in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The SAFIR02-BREAST IMMUNO substudy included patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (Her2)-negative metastatic breast cancer whose disease did not progress after six to eight cycles of chemotherapy. Patients (n = 199) were randomized to either durvalumab (10 mg kg−1 every 2 weeks) or maintenance chemotherapy. In the overall population, durvalumab did not improve progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–1.96; P = 0.047) or overall survival (OS; adjusted HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54–1.29; P = 0.423). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, durvalumab improved OS in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; n = 82; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30–0.97, P = 0.0377). Exploratory analysis showed that the HR of death was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.12–1.13) for patients with PD-L1+ TNBC (n = 32) and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.18–1.34) for those with PD-L1− TNBC (n = 29). In patients with TNBC, exploratory analyses showed that the HR for durvalumab efficacy (OS) was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.05–0.71; log-rank test, P = 0.0059) in patients with CD274 gain/amplification (n = 23) and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.42–2.99; log-rank test, P = 0.8139) in patients with CD274 normal/loss (n = 32). Tumor infiltration by lymphocytes (CD8, FoxP3 and CD103 expressions) and homologous recombination deficiency did not predict sensitivity to durvalumab in exploratory analyses. This latter finding should be interpreted with caution since only one patient presented a germline BRCA mutation. The present study provides a rationale to evaluate single-agent durvalumab in maintenance therapy in patients with TNBC. Exploratory analyses identified CD274 amplification as a potential biomarker of sensitivity. Maintenance chemotherapy was more effective than durvalumab in patients with hormone receptor-positive and Her2-negative disease. Exploratory analyses from the phase 2 randomized SAFIR02-IMMUNO trial identify biomarkers associated with improved outcomes to durvalumab as compared to maintenance chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Background Treatment with tivozanib, a highly selective and potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated single-agent efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) along with minimal off-target toxicities and a favorable adverse event (AE) profile. We report final results from TiNivo, a phase Ib/II study of tivozanib combined with nivolumab. Patients and methods In phase Ib, patients with metastatic RCC received tivozanib 1.0 mg once daily (QD) for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment (n = 3) or tivozanib 1.5 mg QD (n = 3) plus nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be tivozanib 1.5 mg, and 22 additional patients were enrolled at the maximum tolerated dose for phase II. Primary end points included safety and tolerability, with secondary end points of objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival. Results In total, 25 patients were treated with tivozanib 1.5 mg QD [12 (48%) treatment-naive; 13 (52%) previously treated]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 20 patients (80%); 4 patients (17%) experienced AEs that led to dose reduction, and 8 (32%) discontinued due to AEs. The objective response rate was 56% (including one complete response) and disease control rate was 96%, with a median time to best response of 7.9 weeks. Twenty patients (80%) had tumor shrinkage. With a median follow-up of 19.0 months (range, 12.6–22.8), median progression-free survival was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval 16.4–not reached) in all patients and was similar in treatment-naive and previously treated patients. Conclusions Tivozanib plus nivolumab combination therapy showed a generally tolerable AE profile and promising antitumor efficacy. These results support further development of tivozanib combined with nivolumab as a treatment option in patients with treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic RCC. Clinical Trial number NCT03136627.

Purpose: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. Patients and Methods: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. Results: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3–22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3–0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33–0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusions: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population. See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5

International audience; Background: Real-world data on cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is limited. This study (CABOREAL) reports treatment patterns and outcomes for patients treated with cabozantinib through the French Early Access Program.Patients and methods: This multicentre (n = 26), observational, retrospective study enrolled patients with mRCC who had received ≥1 dose of cabozantinib. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; subgroups were compared using the log-rank test. A multiple Cox regression model assessed predictive factors of OS after cabozantinib initiation.Results: Four hundred and ten recruited patients started treatment between September 2016 and February 2018: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, 39.3%; poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk, 31.7%; 0-1, 2 and ≥3 previous treatment lines, 25.3%, 33.4% and 41.2%, respectively; bone metastases, 55.9%; brain metastases, 16.8%. Median (min-max) follow-up was 14.4 (0-30) months. Overall, 57.0% of patients had a dose reduction, 15.6% an alternative dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg. Median (quartile [Q]1-Q3) treatment duration was 7.6 (0.1-29.1) months, median OS was 14.4 months, and the 12-month OS rate was 56.5% (95% confidence interval: 51.5-61.2). Most patients (54.4%) received subsequent treatment. Predictive factors associated with longer OS were body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (p = 0.0021), prior nephrectomy (p = 0.0109), favourable or intermediate IMDC risk (p < 0.0001) and cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (p = 0.0486).Conclusions: In the largest real-world study to date, cabozantinib was effective in unselected, heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. Initiation at 60 mg/day was associated with improved outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40–1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. Patient summary: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction.

Several interventional treatments have recently been integrated into the therapeutic armamentarium available for the treatment of bone tumors. In some scenarios (e.g., osteoid osteoma), interventional treatments represent the sole and definitive applied treatment. Due to the absence of widely shared protocols and the complex multivariate scenarios underlying the clinical presentation of the remaining bone tumors including metastases, therapeutic strategies derived from a multidisciplinary tumor board are essential to provide effective treatments tailored to each patient. In the present review, we present the multidisciplinary therapeutic strategies commonly adopted for the most frequent bone tumors.

Introduction Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Unfortunately, many patients are not candidates to receive cisplatin due to renal impairment. Additionally, no predictive biomarkers for pathological complete response (pCR) are currently validated in clinical practice. Studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors in the peri-operative setting are emerging with promising results. Clinical trials are clearly required in the neoadjuvant setting in order to improve therapeutic strategies. Methods and analysis Oncodistinct 004 – AURA is an ongoing multicenter phase II randomized trial assessing the efficacy and safety of avelumab single-agent or combined to different NAC regimens in patients with non-metastatic MIBC. Patients are enrolled in two distinct cohorts according to their eligibility to receive cisplatin-based NAC. In the cisplatin eligible cohort, patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive avelumab combined with cisplatin-gemcitabine or with dose-dense methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin. In the cisplatin ineligible cohort, patients are randomized at a 1:1 ratio to paclitaxel-gemcitabine associated to avelumab or avelumab alone. Primary endpoint is pCR. Secondary endpoints are pathological response and safety. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by ethics committee from all participating centers. All participants provide informed consent prior inclusion to the study. Once completed, results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03674424).

International audience; A prognostic model based on the population of the ASSURE phase 3 trial has recently been described. The ASSURE model stratifies patients into risk groups to predict survival after surgical resection of intermediate-and high-risk localised kidney cancer. We evaluated this model in an independent cohort of 1372 patients using discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Regarding diseasefree survival, the ASSURE model showed modest discrimination (65%), miscalibration, and poor net benefit compared with the UCLA Integrated Staging System (UISS) and Leibovich 2018 models. Similarly, the ability of the ASSURE model to predict overall survival was poor in terms of discrimination (63%), with overestimation on calibration plots and a modest net benefit for the probability threshold of between 10% and 40%. Overall, our results show that the performance of the ASSURE model was less optimistic than expected, and not associated with a clear improvement in patient selection and clinical usefulness in comparison to with available models. We propose an updated version using the recalibration method, which leads to a (slight) improvement in performance but should be validated in another external population. Patient summary: The recent ASSURE model evaluates survival after surgery for nonmetastatic kidney cancer. We found no clear improvement in patient classification when we compared ASSURE with older models, so use of this model for patients with nonmetastatic kidney cancer still needs to be clarified.

Simple Summary Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) represents 5 to 10% of urothelial carcinoma. Their mutational profile is different as compared to bladder urothelial carcinoma (UC). While immune checkpoint inhibitors are now part of the therapeutic landscape of urothelial carcinoma, data concerning their use in UTUC patient’s treatment remain scarce. The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence and the biological rationale of using immune checkpoint inhibitors in high-grade UTUC. We reviewed the latest molecular characterization data and proposed an insight for future therapeutic strategies based on molecular alteration profiles. Abstract Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) represents a rare and aggressive malignancy arising from the renal pelvis or ureter. It can develop sporadically or have a hereditary origin, such as Lynch syndrome, caused by DNA mismatch repair deficiency, leading to microsatellite instability phenotype. According to molecular characterization studies, UTUC presents different mutational profiles as compared to urinary bladder urothelial carcinomas. In particular, it has been reported that UTUC harbored a higher level of FGFR3 alterations associated with a T-cell depleted immune microenvironment. The therapeutic landscape in urothelial carcinoma is rapidly evolving, with immune checkpoint inhibitors forming part of the standard of care. A greater understanding of the molecular alterations and immune microenvironment leads to the development of new treatment combinations and targeted therapy. This review summarizes the available evidence concerning the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the biological rationale underlying their use in high-grade UTUC.

PURPOSE Nivolumab is standard of care for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after failure of antiangiogenic therapies, but its activity on brain metastases from ccRCC remains unknown, because these patients were excluded from pivotal studies. We aimed to assess the activity of nivolumab in this population. METHODS The GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase II trial assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic ccRCC who failed vascular endothelial growth factor–directed therapies ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013335 ). Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases were prospectively identified and underwent dedicated brain evaluation. Two cohorts were constituted: cohort A comprised patients with previously untreated brain metastases, and cohort B comprised patients whose brain metastases underwent prior therapy. The primary end point was intracranial response rate in cohort A. RESULTS Seventy-three patients with brain metastases were included: 39 in cohort A and 34 in cohort B. Intracranial response rate was 12% in cohort A; no objective response was reported in patients with brain lesions that were multiple or larger than 1 cm. Median intracranial progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 4.6 months) in cohort A and 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 8.0 months) in cohort B, with adjusted hazard ratio of 2.04 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.83). Overall survival rate at 12 months was 67% (95% CI, 49.6% to 79.1%) in cohort A and 59% (95% CI, 40.6% to 73.2%) in cohort B. Most patients in cohort A (72%) needed subsequent focal brain therapy. Nivolumab was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicity. CONCLUSION Nivolumab activity is limited in patients with untreated brain metastases from ccRCC. Brain imaging and focal therapy should be considered before immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

Correction: Volume: 119 Pages: 200-201 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.012 Published: SEP 2019 Background: Nivolumab-ipilimumab demonstrated a survival benefit over sunitinib in first-line setting for metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCCs) and is becoming a new standard of care for naive patients with intermediate or poor risk prognosis (International mRCC Database Consortium). The efficacy of subsequent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after nivolumab-ipilimumab failure remains unclear. Methods: Medical records of mRCC patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab, who received subsequent TKI, as part of Checkmate 214 study were reviewed in 13 institutions. Baseline characteristics, outcome data including progression-free survival (PFS), response, overall survival (OS) and toxicities were retrospectively collected. Results: Overall 33 patients received subsequent TKI after nivolumab-ipilimumab failure. Median follow-up from start of subsequent TKI is 22 months (19-NR). Best response was assessed in 30 patients: 12 partial responses (36%), 13 stable diseases (39%) and five progressive diseases (15%). Median PFS from start of TKI was 8 months [5-13]. Median PFS with first-generation (sunitinib/pazopanib) and second-generation TKI (axitinib/cabozantinib) was 8 months [5-16] and 7 months (5-NA), respectively. PFS in second line was significantly longer in patients with a long first-line duration of response to the double immune checkpoint blockade (>= 6 months) with 8 versus 5 months for short responder (= 3. Conclusion: This is the first report of outcomes with TKI, after first-line nivolumab-ipilimumab failure. Median PFS suggests a sustained benefit of TKI and supports trials investigating the optimal sequence. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

International audience; Heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) has an established role in tumor progression and chemo-resistance of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Hsp27 protects eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) from degradation, thereby maintaining survival during treatment. Phenazine derivative compound #14 was demonstrated to specifically disrupt Hsp27/eIF4E interaction and significantly delay castration-resistant tumor progression in prostate cancer xenografts. In the present work, various strategies of encapsulation of phenazine #14 with either DOTAU (N-[5′-(2′,3′-dioleoyl)uridine]-N′,N′,N′-trimethylammonium tosylate) and DOU-PEG2000 (5′-PEG2000-2′,3′-dioleoyluridine) nucleolipids (NLs) were developed in order to improve its solubilization, biological activity, and bioavailability. We observed that NLs-encapsulated phenazine #14-driven Hsp27-eIF4E interaction disruption increased cytotoxic effects on castration-resistant prostate cancer cell line and inhibited tumor growth in castration-resistant prostate cancer cell xenografted mice compared to phenazine #14 and NLs alone. Phenazine #14 NL encapsulation might represent an interesting nanostrategy for CRPC therapy.

Primary tumour response may impact therapeutic strategies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but remains unknown in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. We aimed to describe the response of the primary tumour in patients who did not undergo upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (uCN) and were treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial. Primary tumour response was prospectively assessed, as well as the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Among 720 patients, 111 did not undergo uCN, mainly patients with intermediate (45%) and poor (49%) International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk. In the 111 patients, nivolumab was used in the second line for 63% of patients and the third line or more for 37%, with an ORR of 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1025%); with a median follow-up of 24.5 mo (95% CI 21.6-27.1), median PFS was 2.7 mo (95% CI 2.5-4.0) and median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI 9.5-19.8). A total of 67 patients had an evaluable primary renal lesion, four of whom (6%) experienced shrinkage of more than 30%. Overall, patients who did not undergo uCN had adverse baseline characteristics and nivolumab activity against the primary tumour was limited. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we observed that nivolumab was associated with a limited response of the primary tumour in previously treated patients with metastatic kidney cancer.

The appropriate management of localized or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients harboring tumor BRCA mutations (tBRCAm) is not well-characterized. We sought to evaluate the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients with tBRCAm and localized or de novo metastatic HSPC. We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study of localized (cohort 1) and de novo metastatic (cohort 2) HSPC patients who underwent tumor BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing from 2013 to 2019. Primary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS) and metastases-free survival (MFS) for cohort 1, and time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTCRPC) and overall survival (OS) for cohort 2. Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression models estimated the association of endpoints with tBRCA status. Of 399 identified patients with localized and de novo metastatic HSPC who underwent tumor BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing, 3.1% (8/258) patients of cohort 1 and 10.6% (15/141) patients of cohort 2 harbored tBRCAm. The median follow-up was 33 and 36 months, respectively. In cohort 1, median EFS was 18.1 vs. 57 months (p = 0.28) and MFS was 37 vs. 153.4 months (p = 0.08) for patients with tBRCAm compared to patients with no tBRCAm. In cohort 2, the TTCRPC was 24 vs. 19 months (p = 0.65) and OS was 64 vs. 60 months (p = 0.95) in patients with and without tBRCAm, respectively. While tBRCAm seems to be associated with greater relapse risk in localized disease, tBRCAm did not influence the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with de novo metastatic HSPC treated with conventional therapies. tBRCAm may exert different prognostic effects across the clinical spectrum of prostate cancer.

Dysregulation of MET signaling has been implicated in tumorigenesis and metastasis. ARGX-111 combines complete blockade of this pathway with enhanced tumor cell killing and was investigated in 24 patients with MET-positive advanced cancers in a phase 1b study at four dose levels (0.3–10 mg/kg). ARGX-111 was well tolerated up to 3 mg/kg (MTD). Anti-tumor activity was observed in nearly half of the patients (46%) with a mean duration of treatment of 12 weeks. NHance® mutations in the Fc of ARGX-111 increased affinity for the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) at acidic pH, stimulating transcytosis across FcRn-expressing cells and radiolabeled ARGX-111 accumulated in lymphoid tissues, bone and liver, organs expressing FcRn at high levels in a biodistribution study using human FcRn transgenic mice. In line with this, we observed, in a patient with MET-amplified (>10 copies) gastric cancer, diminished metabolic activity in multiple metastatic lesions in lymphoid and bone tissues by 18F-FDG-PET/CT after two infusions with 0.3 mg/kg ARGX-111. When escalated to 1 mg/kg, a partial response was reached. Furthermore, decreased numbers of CTC (75%) possibly by the enhanced tumor cell killing witnessed the modes of action of the drug, warranting further clinical investigation of ARGX-111., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Three drug combinations, ipilimumab-nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo), pembrolizumab-axitinib (Pembro-Axi), and avelumab-axitinib (Ave-Axi), have received regulatory approval in the USA and Europe for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with clear cell component (mRCC). However, no head-to-head comparison data are available to identify the best option. Therefore, we aimed to compare these new treatments in a first-line setting. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov for any randomized controlled trials of treatment-na&iuml, ve patients with mRCC, from January 2015 to October 2019. The process was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis with two different approaches, a contrast-based model comparing HRs and ORs between studies and arm-based using parametric modeling. The outcomes for the analysis were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate. Our search identified 3 published phase 3 randomized clinical trials (2835 patients). In the contrast-based model, Ave-Axi (SUCRA = 83%) and Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 80%) exhibited the best ranking probabilities for PFS. For overall survival (OS), Pembro-Axi (SUCRA = 96%) was the most preferable option against Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo. Objective response rate analysis showed Ave-Axi as the best (SUCRA: 94%) and Pembro-Axi as the second best option. In the parametric models, the risk of progression was comparable for Ave-Axi and Ipi-Nivo, whereas Pembro-Axi exhibited a lower risk during the first 6 months of treatment and a higher risk afterwards. Furthermore, Pembro-Axi exhibited a net advantage in terms of OS over the two other regimens, while Ave-Axi was the least preferable option. Overall evidence suggests that pembrolizumab plus axitinib seems to have a slight advantage over the other two combinations.

BackgroundThe extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.MethodsPatients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.ResultsAmong ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55–0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77–1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46–0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%–12.8% vs 1.4%–5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months’ minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.Trial registration numberNCT02231749.

Background Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Pivotal studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors mostly excluded nccRCC. The aim of this retrospective and multicentre study was to evaluate the activity of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors specifically in metastatic pRCC. Methods The primary end-point was time to treatment failure (TTF). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results From 02/2016 to 01/2019, 57 patients with pRCC were included. Histology included 16 (28%) type 1 pRCC, 34 (60%) type 2 pRCC and 7 (12%) unclassified pRCC. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors was used in the first-line setting in 4 patients (7%), in the second-line setting in 32 patients (56%) and in the third-line setting or more in 21 patients (37%). With a median follow-up of 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9–21.0), the median TTF was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.7–5.0). Among the 55 patients evaluable for ORR, best response was complete response/partial response in 6 patients (11%), stable disease in 18 patients (33%) and progressive disease in 31 patients (56%). The median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI: 9.0- not reached). TRAEs of grade III–IV were noted in 6 patients (10%) leading to treatment discontinuation, and no grade V TRAEs were observed. Conclusion PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibit limited activity as monotherapy in this pRCC population, which remains an unmet need. Our findings underline the need for further prospective clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in patients with pRCC.

The majority of patients with prostate cancer who later develop lethal metastatic disease have high-risk localized disease at presentation, emphasizing the importance of effective treatment strategies at this stage. Multimodal treatment approaches that combine systemic and local therapies offer a promising strategy for improving the clinical outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Combinations of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or chemohormonal therapy are considered to be the standard of care in most solid tumours and should be investigated in the future for the treatment of prostate cancer to improve patient outcomes. However, although the combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy is a standard of care in high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, the benefit of chemotherapy or chemohormonal therapy has yet to be demonstrated outside of the metastatic setting. Moreover, the benefit of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy has not been proved. The development of next-generation hormonal agents, which have been approved for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer, offers further therapeutic possibilities that are being assessed in early-phase clinical trials.

Emerging evidence from population-based and retrospective series suggests a potential improvement of clinical outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer. Moreover, metastasis-directed treatment has shown encouraging results in this setting. There is an increasing interest in exploring the potential of local therapies in advanced prostate cancer, but this has rarely been specifically addressed in the castration-resistant state, whether non-metastatic or metastatic. A review of relevant articles was performed on the oncologic benefit of local treatment of the primary tumor or metastasis-targeted treatment in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The main goal of this strategy is to delay introduction of a new systemic agent to maintain quality of life and potentially to limit resistance. Further investigation is required to provide high-level evidence for the oncologic benefit of this treatment modality.

Importance Patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been underrepresented in clinical trials, and effective systemic therapy is lacking. Cabozantinib shows robust clinical activity in metastatic RCC, but its effect on brain metastases remains unclear. Objective To assess the clinical activity and toxic effects of cabozantinib to treat brain metastases in patients with metastatic RCC. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic RCC and brain metastases treated in 15 international institutions (US, Belgium, France, and Spain) between January 2014 and October 2020. Cohort A comprised patients with progressing brain metastases without concomitant brain-directed local therapy, and cohort B comprised patients with stable or progressing brain metastases concomitantly treated by brain-directed local therapy. Exposures Receipt of cabozantinib monotherapy at any line of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures Intracranial radiological response rate by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and toxic effects of cabozantinib. Results Of the 88 patients with brain metastases from RCC included in the study, 33 (38%) were in cohort A and 55 (62%) were in cohort B; the majority of patients were men (n = 69; 78%), and the median age at cabozantinib initiation was 61 years (range, 34-81 years). Median follow-up was 17 months (range, 2-74 months). The intracranial response rate was 55% (95% CI, 36%-73%) and 47% (95% CI, 33%-61%) in cohorts A and B, respectively. In cohort A, the extracranial response rate was 48% (95% CI, 31%-66%), median time to treatment failure was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.9-12.3 months), and median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI, 9.0-30.0 months). In cohort B, the extracranial response rate was 38% (95% CI, 25%-52%), time to treatment failure was 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.0-13.2 months), and median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI, 12.0-21.9 months). Cabozantinib was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxic effects or neurological adverse events reported. No treatment-related deaths were observed. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, cabozantinib showed considerable intracranial activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with RCC and brain metastases. Support of prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of cabozantinib for brain metastases in patients with RCC is critical.

Background: TALAPRO-1 enrolled patients (pts) with RECIST1.1-measurable disease, progressive mCRPC, and tumor DDRalt (tDDRalt) considered sensitizing to PARP inhibitors (ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C). Pts had received ≥1 taxane-based chemotherapy and progressed on ≥1 novel hormonal therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR per RECIST1.1; central review). Exploratory ad hoc biomarker analyses assessed germline/somatic origin and zygosity of tDDRalt and associations with antitumor activity. Data cutoff was Sept 4, 2020. Methods: Tumor tissue was tested using FoundationOne®, and saliva using an Ambry CustomNext-Cancer panel. Known/likely pathogenic tDDRalt variants were categorized as germline (also present in saliva), somatic (not present in saliva), or unknown origin (ATR and FANCA not in germline panel). tDDRalt zygosity was assessed using somatic-germline-zygosity (SGZ). Categorization was limited to short variants. Results: 128 pts were enrolled and 127 received ≥1 TALA dose (safety population). Of 52 enrolled tumor DDR-deficient pts evaluable for both germline and tumor DDR mutations and associated comparisons, 27 (52%) had ≥1 tDDRalt of germline origin, 24 (46%) of somatic origin, and 2 (4%) of unknown origin. One pt had both germline and somatic tDDRalt. The most common tDDRalt were BRCA2 (14 germline; 10 somatic) and ATM (4 germline; 7 somatic). ORR was 25.9% (7/27) in pts with tDDRalt of germline origin and 9.1% (2/22) in pts with only somatic tDDRalt (P = 0.159, 2-sided Fisher's exact test). ORR was 50.0% (7/14) in pts with tumor BRCA2alt of germline origin and 20.0% (2/10) in pts with somatic BRCA2alt (not significantly different; P = 0.210). Overall, of 77 pts in the safety population evaluable for SGZ, tDDRalt were predicted to be with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in 16 (20.8%) pts, heterozygous in 17 (22.1%) pts and with zygosity unknown in 44 (57.1%) pts. ORR in tumors categorized as tDDRalt with LOH was 43.8% (7/16) and for those categorized as heterozygous tDDRalt was 11.8% (2/17) (odds ratio [95% CI] 5.83 [0.811-65.84]; P = 0.057). Conclusions: In this heavily pretreated mCRPC population, based on this retrospective ad hoc exploratory subgroup analysis, pts with germline and/or homozygous tDDRalt appeared to be numerically most likely to respond to TALA. Potential reasons include gene-specific imbalances in origin/zygosity of alterations and/or sensitivity to TALA. Further investigation in larger data sets is warranted. Citation Format: Johann S. de Bono, A. Douglas Laird, Niven Mehra, Philippe Barthelemy, Remy Delva, Tanya Dorff, Umberto Basso, Adam Stirling, Jean-Pascal Machiels, Herlinde Dumez, Vincent Renard, Julia Hopkins, Lee A. Albacker, Hsiang-Chun Chen, Marielena Mata, Nicola Di Santo, Cynthia Healy, Inge M. van Oort, Giorgio Scagliotti, Karim Fizazi. TALAPRO-1 final data: Talazoparib (TALA) monotherapy in men with DNA damage response alterations (DDRalt) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Exploration of DDRalt germline/somatic origin and zygosity [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 CT027.

International audience; Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (nccRCC) represent a highly heterogeneous group of kidney tumors, consisting of the following subtypes: papillary carcinomas, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, so-called unclassified carcinomas or aggressive uncommon carcinomas such as Bellini carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with ALK rearrangement or fumarate hydratase-deficient RCC. Although non-clear cell cancers account for only 15 to 30% of renal tumors, they are often misclassified and accurate diagnosis continues to be an issue in clinical practice. Current therapeutic strategy of metastatic nccRCC is based primarily on guidelines established for clear cell tumors, the most common subtype, however this approach remains poorly defined. To date, published clinical trials for all histological nccRCC subtypes have been collectively characterized into one group, in contrast to clear cell RCC, and given the small numbers of cases, the interpretation of study results continues to be challenging. This review summarizes the available literature for each nccRCC subtype and highlights the lack of supportive evidence from prospective clinical trials and retrospective studies. Future trials should evaluate treatment approaches which focus on a specific histological subtype and progress in treating nccRCC will be contingent on understanding the unique biology of their individual histologies.

International audience; This article present data related to the publication entitled "Iron oxide core oil-in-water nanoemulsion as tracer for atherosclerosis MPI and MRI imaging" (Prévot et al., 2017) [1]. Herein we describe the engineering in the baculovirus-insect cell system and purification processes of the human scFv-Fc TEG4-2C antibody, specific of platelets within the atheroma plaque. For molecular targeting purpose, atheroma specific antibody was conjugated to nanoemulsions (NEs) using a heterobifunctional linker (DSPE-PEG-maleimide). Atheroma labelling was assayed by immunochemistry on arterial sections from rabbits.

Le cancer de la prostate constitue un probleme sanitaire majeur puisqu’il represente le cancer le plus frequent chez l’homme de plus de 50 ans et la troisieme cause de deces par cancer chez l’homme. Le traitement des patients atteints d’un cancer de la prostate avance repose sur une castration medicale ayant pour consequence une deprivation androgenique. L’emergence de mutations, ou de variants d’epissage, du recepteur des androgenes est cependant une caracteristique de l’histoire naturelle du cancer de la prostate. Cette revue se focalise sur les variants constitutivement actifs du recepteur des androgenes, responsables de la resistance de la tumeur a la castration medicale.

Sarcomatoid features in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have long been associated with dismal prognosis and poor response to therapy, while biological mechanisms underpinning sarcomatoid dedifferentiation remained obscure. Several efforts have been conducted to break down the molecular profile of sarcomatoid RCC and investigate different targeted therapeutic approaches. Mutations enriched for in sarcomatoid RCC involve, notably, TP53, BAP1, cell cycle, and chromatin-remodeling genes. The immunological landscape of these tumors is also gradually being uncovered, showing frequent expression of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. These features may be major determinants for the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this population, which has been confirmed by retrospective studies and subgroup analyses of large randomized phase 3 trials. Combinations based on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition have demonstrated response rates and complete responses in >50% and >10% of patients in the first-line metastatic setting, respectively, with median overall survival exceeding two years. This remarkable improvement in outcomes effectively establishes immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations as a new standard of care in patients with sarcomatoid RCC. New research fields, including epigenetic regulations and tumor−microenvironment interactions, may further sharpen understanding of sarcomatoid RCC and advance therapeutic developments.