Search

Background The optimal therapeutic strategies for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) followed by metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), in terms of cost and effectiveness remains unknown. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various potential strategies, from the start of first-line treatment in mHSPC to the death of the patients. Methods Two Markov decision-analysis models were developed, one for cohort A “asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients in mCRPC” and one for cohort B “symptomatic patients in mCRPC”. Each strategy reflects daily practice for mHSPC until progression in mCRPC from the start of first treatment regimen with either docetaxel or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) in mHSPC to the death of the patient. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the French public healthcare system perspective. Only direct medical costs were included. Survival data were extracted from results of published randomized clinical trials. Results For cohort A, docetaxel followed by AA is the most cost-effective therapeutic strategy (€96,925 for 4.24 life-years). For cohort B, docetaxel followed by docetaxel is the most cost-effective therapeutic strategy (€81,463 for 4.05 life-years). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our results except for a price reduction of 70% for AA or enzalutamide. Conclusions Our approach is innovative to the extent that our analysis takes into account various potential strategies for mPC. Our economic evaluation suggests that a price reduction of AA or enzalutamide impacts on the results. This approach must continue, including new drugs for patients with mPC. MICRO-ABSTRACT This study aims to define optimal sequencing for patients moving from mHSPC to mCRPC based on their cost and effectiveness through literature publications. The results add useful information to clinician and patients facing treatment decisions in the real world.

Background The CARMENA trial in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) demonstrated that treatment with sunitinib alone was noninferior to cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) followed by sunitinib (nephrectomy⬜sunitinib). Objective The objective of this study was to provide updated overall survival (OS) outcomes of CARMENA and assess whether some subgroups may still benefit from upfront CN. Design, setting, and participants CARMENA was a phase III trial in 450 patients with mRCC enrolled from 2009 to 2017. Intervention Patients in the intention-to-treat population received nephrectomy⬜sunitinib (standard of care [SOC]; n = 226) or sunitinib alone (n = 224). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Primary endpoint was OS, assessed using an updated data cut-off (October 2018; median OS event-free follow-up, 36.6 mo). Patients were reclassified by risk using International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria. Results and limitations Sunitinib alone was noninferior to nephrectomy⬜sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.79⬜1.19; p = 0.8) and demonstrated longer median OS (19.8 mo vs 15.6 mo, respectively). For patients with two or more IMDC risk factors, OS was significantly longer with sunitinib alone than with nephrectomy⬜sunitinib (31.2 mo vs 17.6 mo, respectively; HR, 0.65; p = 0.03). For patients with one IMDC risk factor, OS was longer for nephrectomy⬜sunitinib versus sunitinib alone although not significantly (31.4 mo vs 25.2 mo; HR, 1.30; p = 0.2). The post hoc nature of the subgroup analyses may limit their interpretation. Conclusions Sunitinib alone was noninferior compared with nephrectomy⬜sunitinib, suggesting that CN should not be considered SOC in patients with mRCC requiring systemic treatment. Certain subgroups, including patients with one IMDC risk factor, may still benefit from upfront CN. Patient summary We assessed the survival of patients with metastatic kidney cancer in a clinical trial. Patients treated with sunitinib on its own had the same survival as patients who had surgery before sunitinib treatment. We conclude that surgery may not be necessary for some patients with metastatic kidney cancer.

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.

Summary Background PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Methods KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02853305 . Findings Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7–36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5–8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4–7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65–0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5–19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3–16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72–1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1–17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3–16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77–1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6–19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6–23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77–1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. Interpretation The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P

Summary Background: The nivolumab-ipilimumab combination provides an overall response rate of 42% in first-line metastatic treatment of clear cell renal carcinoma (mccRCC). To date, there is no robust predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). In addition, severe autoimmune disorders occur more frequently with ICI combination than with ICI alone. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of ICI alone or in combination in patients according to tumor molecular characteristics. Methods: Using a 35-gene expression mRNA signature, patients were divided into 4 molecular groups (1 to 4). Patients in groups 1 and 4 were randomized to receive nivolumab alone (arms 1A and 4A) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 injections followed by nivolumab alone (arms 1B and 4B). Patients in groups 2 and 3 were randomized to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab alone (arms 2B and 3B) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (sunitinib or pazopanib at the investigator’s choice (arms 2C and 3C)). The main objective is the overall response rate by treatment and molecular group. Discussion: BIONIKK is the first trial in mccRCC to study the personalization of treatment with ICI or TKI according to tumor molecular characteristics in mccRCC. This trial is the most appropriate to prospectively identify biomarkers of response to nivolumab used alone or in combination or TKI monotherapy in patients with mccRCC. NCT02960906.

Objective To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. Results Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusion PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-365 study (NCT02861573) previously showed that pembro+olaparib was associated with antitumor activity and acceptable safety in molecularly unselecte...

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of rechallenge with sunitinib and other targeted therapies (TTs) in patitents with relapsed recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the advanced setting. Methods: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, patients with relapsed RCC were rechallenged with sunitinib or other systemic TTs as a first-line therapeutic approach after failed adjuvant sunitinib treatment. Patient characteristics, treatments and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 34 patients with relapses were recorded, and 25 of these (73.5%) were men. Twenty-five patients were treated with systemic TT: 65% of patients received TT against the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (including sunitinib), 21.7% received mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and 13% received immunotherapy. The median (interquartile range) time to relapse was 20.3 (5.2–20.4) months from diagnosis, and 7.5 months (1.0–8.5) from the end of adjuvant suntinib treatment. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, 24 of the 25 patients had progressed on first-line systemic therapy. The median PFS was 12.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.78–18.2). There were no statistical differences in PFS between different treatments or sunitinib rechallenge. PFS was not statistically different in patients relapsing on or after adjuvant suntinib treatment (≤ 6 or >6 months after adjuvant suntinib ending). The ORR was 20.5%. The median OS was 29.1 months (95% CI 16.4–41.8). Conclusions: Rechallenge with sunitinib or other systemic therapies is still a feasible therapeutic option that provides patients with advanced or metastastic RCC with additional clinical benefits with regard to PFS and OS after failed response to adjuvant sunitinib.

Background: In the PROSELICA phase III trial (NCT01308580), cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (CABA20) was non-inferior to cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 (CABA25) in mCRPC patients previously treated with docetaxel (DOC). The present post hoc analysis evaluates how the type of progression at randomization affected outcomes. Methods: Progression type at randomization was defined as follows: PSA progression only (PSA-p, no radiological progression (RADIO-p), no pain), RADIO-p (±PSA-p, no pain), or pain progression (PAIN-p, ±PSA-p, ±RADIO-p). Relationships between progression type and overall survival (OS), radiological progression-free survival (rPFS), and PSA response (confirmed PSA decrease ≥ 50%) were analyzed. Results: All randomized patients (n = 1200) had received prior DOC, and 25.7% had received prior abiraterone or enzalutamide. Progression type at randomization was evaluable in 1075 patients (PSA-p = 24.4%, RADIO-p = 20.8%, PAIN-p = 54.8%). Pain progression was associated with clinical and biological features of aggressive disease. Median OS from CABA initiation or date of mCRPC diagnosis, all arms combined, was shorter in the PAIN-p group than in the RADIO-p or the PSA-p groups (12.0 versus 16.8 and 18.4 months, respectively, p &lt, 0.001). In multivariate analysis, all arms combined, PAIN-p was an independent predictor of poor OS (HR = 1.44, p &lt, 0.001). PSA response, rPFS, and OS were numerically higher with CABA25 versus CABA20 in patients with PAIN-p. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the PROSELICA phase III study shows that pain progression at initiation of CABA in mCRPC patients previously treated with DOC is associated with a poor prognosis. Disease progression should be carefully monitored, even in the absence of PSA rise.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257 ) are awaited.

Background Better blood tests to elucidate the behaviour of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are urgently needed to drive therapeutic decisions. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) comprises normal and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Low-pass whole-genome sequencing (lpWGS) of ctDNA can provide information on mCRPC behaviour. Objective To validate and clinically qualify plasma lpWGS for mCRPC. Design, setting, and participants Plasma lpWGS data were obtained for mCRPC patients consenting to optional substudies of two prospective phase 3 trials (FIRSTANA and PROSELICA). In FIRSTANA, chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomised to treatment with docetaxel (75 mg/m2) or cabazitaxel (20 or 25 mg/m2). In PROSELICA, patients previously treated with docetaxel were randomised to 20 or 25 mg/m2 cabazitaxel. lpWGS data were generated from 540 samples from 188 mCRPC patients acquired at four different time points (screening, cycle 1, cycle 4, and end of study). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis lpWGS data for ctDNA were evaluated for prognostic, response, and tumour genomic measures. Associations with response and survival data were determined for tumour fraction. Genomic biomarkers including large-scale transition (LST) scores were explored in the context of prior treatments. Results and limitations Plasma tumour fraction was prognostic for overall survival in univariable and stratified multivariable analyses (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.08–2.85; p = 0.024) and offered added value compared to existing biomarkers (C index 0.722 vs 0.709; p = 0.021). Longitudinal changes were associated with drug response. PROSELICA samples were enriched for LSTs (p = 0.029) indicating genomic instability, and this enrichment was associated with prior abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment but not taxane or radiation therapy. Higher LSTs were correlated with losses of RB1/RNASEH2B, independent of BRCA2 loss. Conclusions Plasma lpWGS of ctDNA describes CRPC behaviour, providing prognostic and response data of clinical relevance. The added prognostic value of the ctDNA fraction over established biomarkers should be studied further. Patient summary We studied tumour DNA in blood samples from patients with prostate cancer. We found that levels of tumour DNA in blood were indicative of disease prognosis, and that changes after treatment could be detected. We also observed a “genetic scar” in the results that was associated with certain previous treatments. This test allows an assessment of tumour activity that can complement existing tests, offer insights into drug response, and detect clinically relevant genetic changes., Take Home Message Tumour fraction, independent from cell-free DNA concentration and other clinical variables, is prognostic, with low-pass whole-genome sequencing profiles detecting abiraterone/enzalutamide-induced emerging genomic instability that is likely to be acquired as a result of tumour development.

Background The phase III PROSELICA (NCT01308580) and FIRSTANA (NCT01308567) trials investigated taxane chemotherapy among men with postdocetaxel metastatic, castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or chemotherapy‐naïve mCRPC, respectively. We present a post hoc analysis of patient‐reported health‐related quality of life (HRQL) among patients with or without a clinical (pain, tumor, or prostate‐specific antigen [PSA]) response. Materials and Methods PROSELICA and FIRSTANA HRQL and pain data were collected and analyzed using protocol‐defined Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate (FACT‐P) and McGill‐Melzack (Present Pain Intensity scale) questionnaires. Outcomes included definitive FACT‐P Total Score (TS) improvements and longitudinal assessment of FACT‐P TS. Results In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, the proportion of patients receiving taxane chemotherapy with a definitive FACT‐P TS improvement was significantly higher among patients with versus without a pain or PSA response (pain: PROSELICA: 67% vs. 33.5%; p, The phase III PROSELICA and FIRSTANA trials investigated taxane chemotherapy among men with post‐docetaxel metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or chemotherapy‐naïve mCRPC, respectively. This article analyzes patient‐reported health‐related quality of life among patients with or without a clinical (pain, tumor, or prostate‐specific antigen) response.

Summary Background: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care in localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, 60-70% of patients have residual tumor after NAC. Based on the overall response rate observed in the metastatic setting, ddMVAC is the most commonly used NAC regimen in Europe. The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in the metastatic setting raises the question if the combination of chemo plus ICI could increase the pCR rate. Methods/Design: NEMIO is a French open-label randomized phase I/II trial assessing in the neoadjuvant setting the combination of ddMVAC plus durvalumab alone or with tremelimumab: 4 cycles of ddMVAC/2 weeks + 2 cycles of Durvalumab +/– Tremelimumab/4 weeks. Cystectomy is performed 4-8 weeks after the last dose of ddMVAC. Six pts will be included in each arm in a safety run-in cohort to evaluate the toxicity rate. Each arm will be expanded to a maximum of 60 pts. The primary endpoint of the safety run-in phase will be the rate of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events G3/4 TRAE. The primary endpoint of the phase II will be the pathological response rate and G 3/4 TRAE. Exploratory endpoints will include biomarkers of response and resistance to the combo. A total of 120 patients will be included in 15 French centers and we expect the recruitment to be completed in 2021. Discussion: NEMIO trial will assess for the first time the tolerance and the efficacy of ddMVAC regimen associated with checkpoints inhibitors as neoadjuvant treatment in localized MIBC. NCT number: NCT03549715. Registered on June 8, 2018

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.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were evaluated in the phase III IMmotion151 trial (NCT02420821) to inform overall treatment/disease burden of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab 1,200 mg intravenous (i.v.) infusions every 3 weeks (q3w) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. q3w or sunitinib 50 mg per day orally 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at baseline, q3w during treatment, at end of treatment, and during survival follow-up. Longitudinal and time to deterioration (TTD) analyses for core and RCC symptoms and their interference with daily life, treatment side-effect bother, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated. Results: The intent-to-treat population included 454 and 461 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and sunitinib arms, respectively. Completion rates for each instrument were 83% to 86% at baseline and ≥ 70% through week 54. Milder symptoms, less symptom interference and treatment side-effect bother, and better HRQOL at most visits were reported with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib. The TTD HR (95% CI) favored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for core (HR, 0.50; 0.40–0.62) and RCC symptoms (HR, 0.45; 0.37–0.55), symptom interference (HR, 0.56; 0.46–0.68), and HRQOL (HR, 0.68; 0.58–0.81). Conclusions: PROs in IMmotion151 suggest lower overall treatment burden with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sunitinib in patients with treatment-naïve mRCC and provide further evidence for clinical benefit of this regimen.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we have shown a correlation between single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs307826 in vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3 (VEGFR3) and outcome in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to validate this finding in an independent patient series. METHODS: m-ccRCC patients receiving sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy were included in a validation cohort. Endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We also updated survival data of our discovery cohort as described previously. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in the validation cohort. rs307826 AG/GG-carriers had a shorter PFS (8 versus 12 months, p = 0.04) and a trend towards a shorter OS (18 versus 27 months, p = 0.22) compared to AA-carriers. In the total series of 168 patients (from the discovery cohort, as described previously, and the validation cohort), rs307826 AG/GG-carriers had a poorer RR (29% versus 53%, p = 0.008), PFS (8 versus 15 months, p = 0.0002) and OS (22 versus 31 months, p = 0.004) compared to AA-carriers. rs307826 was independently associated with PFS and OS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: VEGFR3 rs307826 seems to be associated with outcome on sunitinib in m-ccRCC. Its impact highlights the role of VEGFR3 in ccRCC pathogenesis and as a target of sunitinib.

International audience; BACKGROUND:Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the urinary bladder (NCUB) is rare, accounting for < 1% of bladder cancer cases, with scarce reported data available.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the data from patients with NCUB treated at French institutions. The objectives were to describe the patient characteristics, treatments received, and outcomes (ie, disease-free survival [DFS], progression-free survival, overall survival [OS]) and investigate the prognostic factors.RESULTS:From 1997 to 2017, we included 236 patients, 173 with early-stage NCUB and 63 with advanced-stage NCUB. For those with early-stage disease, the median DFS was better for the patients who had received cisplatin-based chemotherapy compared with carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.46), with no difference found between the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.61-1.97). The median OS was 36 months (95% CI, 29-43 months) for stage I and II, 26 months (95% CI, 18 months to not reached) for stage IIIA, 16 months (95% CI, 12-21 months) for stage IIIB. The HR for stage IIIB compared with stage I/II was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.4). The DFS at 6 months was associated with OS (HR, 7.8; 95% CI, 4.1-15.0). For patients with metastases at diagnosis who had received chemotherapy, the median progression-free survival was 9 months (95% CI, 8-11) for first-line cisplatin and 6 months (95% CI, 4-13 months) for carboplatin; the median OS was 13 months (95% CI, 9-15 months). A high-risk Bajorin score (HR, 11.5; 95% CI, 1.2-112.6) and the use of carboplatin (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.03-4.96) were associated with worse outcomes.CONCLUSIONS:In early-stage disease, a shorter DFS was associated with worse OS, and the use of cisplatin was associated with better OS. For the patients with metastases at diagnosis, a high-risk Bajorin score and the use of carboplatin were associated with worse outcomes.

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. Objective To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. Design, setting, and participants Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. Results and limitations Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel ( p =0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6–7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3–4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel ( p =0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3–4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. Conclusions Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. Patient summary Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Summary Background Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population. Methods We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m 2 , paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 , or 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells [IC2/3]), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807. Findings Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6–15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4–12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63–1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6–13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26–1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients). Interpretation Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Background The potential prognostic value of hypertension and proteinuria of anti- vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs has not been assessed in routine clinical practice so far in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objectives were to (i) assess the prevalence of proteinuria and hypertension at baseline; (ii) their incidence under anti-VEGF drug treatment; and (iii) evaluate a possible link with overall survival. Methods Patients from 8 centers were included between 2009 and 2011 with a follow-up of 1 year. They were naïve of any previous anti-VEGF drug treatment and planned to be started on one. The results of the group of patients with mRCC receiving sunitinib are presented. Results A total of 1,124 patients were included, among whom 137 had mRCC and 112 received sunitinib. At inclusion, hypertension prevalence was 44%, proteinuria 16%, hematuria 8%, mean modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) formula 69 mL/min/1.73m2. The incidence of de novo proteinuria and hypertension during follow-up was 75% and 21%, respectively. Among patients with de novo proteinuria, 76% afterwards improved/normalized. Mean MDRD was 72 at the end of follow-up. No thrombotic microangiopathy was reported. Baseline or de novo proteinuria or hypertension were not associated with OS in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. Conclusions These results showed that (i) hypertension and proteinuria were frequent at baseline in mRCC patients; (ii) de novo hypertension and proteinuria frequently occur under sunitinib treatment; and (iii) neither hypertension nor proteinuria, either at baseline or de novo, were associated with overall survival in our cohort of “real-life” patients.

Active surveillance has emerged as an alternative to immediate treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Accordingly, identification of environmental factors that facilitate progression to more aggressive stages is critical for disease prevention. Although calcium-enriched diets have been speculated to increase prostate cancer risk, their impact on early-stage tumors remains unexplored. In this study, we addressed this issue with a large interventional animal study. Mouse models of fully penetrant and slowly evolving prostate tumorigenesis showed that a high calcium diet dramatically accelerated the progression of prostate intraepithelial neoplasia, by promoting cell proliferation, micro-invasion, tissue inflammation, and expression of acknowledged prostate cancer markers. Strikingly, dietary vitamin D prevented these calcium-triggered tumorigenic effects. Expression profiling and in vitro mechanistic studies showed that stimulation of PC-3 cells with extracellular Ca2+ resulted in an increase in cell proliferation rate, store-operated calcium entry (SOCE) amplitude, cationic channel TRPC6, and calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) expression. Notably, administration of the active vitamin D metabolite calcitriol reversed all these effects. Silencing CaSR or TRPC6 expression in calcium-stimulated PC3 cells decreased cell proliferation and SOCE. Overall, our results demonstrate the protective effects of vitamin D supplementation in blocking the progression of early-stage prostate lesions induced by a calcium-rich diet. Cancer Res; 77(2); 355–65. ©2016 AACR.

INTRODUCTION: Recent trials have suggested predictive biomarkers in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC): International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) good risk or angiogenic gene signature for sunitinib and IMDC intermediate/poor risk for ipilimumab-nivolumab and T-effector cell signature or sarcomatoid dedifferentiation for atezolizumab-bevacizumab. We hypothesized that earlier described molecular subtypes, ccrcc1 to ccrcc4, could provide similar information as a single generic biomarker and molecularly characterize the heterogeneous intermediate-risk group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with accRCC treated with systemic therapies were included. We assessed associations between the 5 biomarkers and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) on first-line sunitinib or pazopanib. The cutoff percentage of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation with optimal discriminative value was determined. RESULTS: In total, 430 patients were included (163 with molecular data). The molecular ccrcc2 subtype identified tumors with higher angiogenic gene expression across IMDC risk groups: prevalence was high in IMDC good risk and low in IMDC poor risk (P < .001). Molecular subtype, IMDC, and angiogenic gene expression had comparable C-indices to predict PFS and RR (range, 60%-66%). The ccrcc2 subtype and angiogenic gene expression were positive predictors of PFS in IMDC intermediate-risk patients (P = .006; P = .04). Immune signature did not differ between IMDC groups, but was strongly correlated with molecular subtype (P = .8 and P = .0007). A cutoff value of 25% sarcomatoid differentiation discriminated tumors with distinct molecular characteristics and therapeutic sensitivity. CONCLUSION: In accRCC, molecular subtypes can explain differences in IMDC risk group, expression of angiogenesis and immune response genes, and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. They can identify molecularly different patient populations within the heterogeneous IMDC intermediate group and select patients for systemic therapies. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:17 issue:5 pages:E981-E994 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background From 10% to 26% of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) experience rapidly progressive disease (PD) on treatment with sunitinib. Objective To investigate the benefit of subsequent treatment with another tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) or a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in such primary refractory patients. Design, setting, and participants A total of 150 mRCC patients with rapidly PD on first-line sunitinib (within two cycles, n = 93, or four cycles, n = 57) were identified: median age 59 yr; nephrectomy 86%; histological subtypes: clear cell (77.8%), papillary (14%), and sarcomatoid features (18%); according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and French classifications: good risk (11% and 7%, respectively), intermediate (68% and 63%, respectively), and poor (21% and 29%, respectively). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Data were retrospectively collected by a questionnaire from 19 European oncology centers between March 2005 and March 2011. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated (Kaplan-Meier method). Results and limitations Median OS from the start of first-line treatment was 7.4 mo. Second-line treatment was administered to 86 (57%) patients (44 mTOR inhibitors: 23 everolimus and 21 temsirolimus; 39 TKIs alone or in combination; three chemotherapy). Second-line PFS was not significantly different between TKIs and mTOR inhibitors (2.0 vs 0.9 mo; p = 0.536). Median OS from the start of second-line treatment was 5.0 mo for mTOR inhibitors and 6.6 mo for TKIs (p = 0.15). Conclusions Treatment with further TKIs or mTOR inhibitors for mRCC patients primarily refractory to first-line sunitinib in the observed time period achieved very minimal benefit, suggesting avoiding TKI rechallenge and possibly preferring alternative strategies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, after PD to a treatment line including a TKI in this setting. Patient summary The present work collected data about 150 patients affected by metastatic renal cell carcinoma, who received one of the current standard of care as first-line treatment, namely, the antiangiogenic drug sunitinib, and experienced rapid worsening of the disease. We investigated and described the subsequent outcome of such patients treated with two different types of drug, administered as second-line therapy, to better understand the best strategy to adopt for patients who got no benefit from sunitinib and to describe the current therapeutic approach in such cases.

Background Cabazitaxel is a treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel failure. The FUJI cohort aimed to confirm the real-life overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS) and safety of cabazitaxel. Methods Multicentre, non-interventional cohort of French mCRPC patients initiating cabazitaxel between 2013 and 2015, followed 18 months. Results Four hundred one patients were recruited in 42 centres. At inclusion, median age was 70, main metastatic sites were bones (87%), lymph nodes (42%) and visceral (20%). 18% had cabazitaxel in 2nd-line treatment, 39% in 3rd-line and 43% in 4th-line or beyond. All had prior docetaxel, and 82% prior abiraterone, enzalutamide or both. Median duration of cabazitaxel treatment was 3.4 months. Median OS from cabazitaxel initiation was 11.9 months [95% CI: 10.1–12.9]. In multivariate analyses, grade ≥ 3 adverse events, visceral metastases, polymedication, and >5 bone metastases were associated with a shorter OS. Main grade ≥ 3 adverse events were haematological with 8% febrile neutropenia. Conclusion Real-life survival with cabazitaxel in FUJI was shorter than in TROPIC (pivotal trial, median OS 15.1 months) or PROSELICA (clinical trial 20 vs 25 mg/m2, median OS, respectively, 13.4 and 14.5 months). There was no effect of treatment-line on survival. No unexpected adverse concerns were identified. Study registration It was registered with the European Medicines Agency EUPASS registry, available at www.encepp.eu, as EUPAS10391. It has been approved as an ENCEPP SEAL study.

Introduction The sequential use of a number of new agents (NAs) have improved the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) whose disease progresses after docetaxel (DOC) treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cumulative survival outcomes of different sequencing strategies by evaluating the individual data from published studies of patients treated with a post-DOC sequence of two NAs. Patients and methods The patients’ Individual data were analysed in order to investigate whether different sequencing strategies lead to differences in OS. Results We analysed the data of 1,099 evaluable patients. Among the patients treated with a second-line new hormone agents (NHA), median OS from the start of third-line treatment was significantly longer in the patients treated with cabazitaxel (CABA) than in those treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) or enzalutamide (ENZA). Median cumulative OS from the start of second-line treatment (cumOS) was 21.1 months in the patients receiving NHA → NHA, 22.1 months in those receiving NHA → CABA, and 21.0 months in those receiving CABA → NHA. Among the patients with a second-line progression free survival of ≥6 months, median cumOS was significantly longer in patients receiving CABA-including sequences than in those treated with NHA → NHA sequences (29.5 vs 24.8 months; p = 0.03). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the sequential use of NAs with different mechanisms of action improves cumOS regardless of the order in which they are administered, thus supporting the hypothesis of cross-resistance between the two NHAs.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting.METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment.FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], pINTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories.FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

BACKGROUND: There are no validated markers that predict response or resistance in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) treated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sunitinib and pazopanib. Recently, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2981582 in Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 (FGFR2) was found to be associated with clinical outcome in patients with mccRCC treated with pazopanib and sunitinib. We aimed to validate these findings in patients treated with sunitinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Germline DNA was collected in patients with mccRCC starting first-line systemic therapy with sunitinib. SNP rs2981582 in FGFR2 C>T was genotyped. Association of the genotype with response rate, tumor shrinkage, median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS) was studied. RESULTS: We collected clinical data from 154 patients with available germline DNA. Baseline prognostic markers were well-balanced between both subgroups. Patients with the TT genotype had a poorer outcome compared with patients with the CT/CC genotype. The median shrinkage of selected tumor target lesions during treatment with sunitinib was -16% versus -31% (P = .002), mPFS was 8 versus 15 months (P = .0007), and mOS was 22 versus 33 months (P = .04), respectively. On multivariate analysis, rs2981582 remained an independent predictor of PFS (hazard ratio, 2.858; 95% confidence interval, 1.659-4.923; P < .0001) and OS (hazard ratio, 1.795; 95% confidence interval, 1.003-3.212; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Polymorphism rs2981582 in FGFR2 is correlated to PFS and OS in patients with mccRCC treated with sunitinib. Prospective validation of the impact of this SNP is warranted. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:17 issue:2 pages:E235-E246 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Importance Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in hormone-naive metastatic prostate cancer but is of uncertain benefit in a nonmetastatic, high-risk prostate cancer setting. Objective To assess the benefit of ADT plus docetaxel in patients presenting with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after primary local therapy and high-risk factors but no evidence of metastatic disease. Design, Setting, and Participants This open-label, phase 3, randomized superiority trial comparing ADT plus docetaxel vs ADT alone enrolled patients from 28 centers in France between June 4, 2003, and September 25, 2007; final follow-up was conducted April 12, 2017, and analysis was performed May 2 to July 31, 2017. Patients had undergone primary local therapy for prostate cancer, were experiencing rising PSA levels, and were considered to be at high risk of metastatic disease. Stratification was by prior local therapy and PSA-level doubling time (≤6 vs >6 months), and intention-to-treat analysis was used. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive ADT (1 year) plus docetaxel, 70 mg/m2(every 3 weeks [6 cycles]), or ADT alone (1 year). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). Secondary end points were PSA response, radiologic PFS, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. Results Overall, 254 patients were randomized (1:1) to the trial; median age, 64 years in the ADT plus docetaxel arm, 66 years in the ADT alone arm. At a median follow-up of 30.0 months, the median PSA-PFS was 20.3 (95% CI, 19.0-21.6) months in the ADT plus docetaxel arm vs 19.3 (95% CI, 18.2-20.8) months in the ADT alone arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.16;P = .31). At a median follow-up of 10.5 years, there was no significant between-arm difference in radiologic PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43;P = .88). Overall survival data were not mature. The most common grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in the ADT plus docetaxel arm were neutropenia (60 of 125 patients [48.0%]), febrile neutropenia (10 [8.0%]), and thrombocytopenia (4 [3.0%]). There was no significant between-arm difference in overall quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance Compared with ADT alone, combined ADT plus docetaxel therapy with curative intent did not significantly improve PSA-PFS in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and rising PSA levels and no evidence of metastatic disease. Trial Registration French Health Products Safety Agency identifier:030591; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT00764166

Background Microphthalmia Transcription Factor (MITF)family translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare RCC subtype harboring TFE3/TFEB translocations. The prognosis in the metastatic (m) setting is poor. Programmed death ligand-1 expression was reported in 90% of cases, prompting us to analyze the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in this population. Patients and methods This multicenter retrospective study identified patients with MITF family mtRCC who had received an ICI in any of 12 referral centers in France or the USA. Response rate according to RECIST criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Genomic alterations associated with response were determined for 8 patients. Results Overall, 24 patients with metastatic disease who received an ICI as second or later line of treatment were identified. Nineteen (82.6%) of these patients had received a VEGFR inhibitor as first-line treatment, with a median PFS of 3 months (range, 1–22 months). The median PFS for patients during first ICI treatment was 2.5 months (range, 1–40 months); 4 patients experienced partial response (16,7%) and 3 (12,5%) had stable disease. Of the patients whose genomic alterations were analyzed, two patients with mutations in bromodomain-containing genes (PBRM1 and BRD8) had a clinical benefit. Resistant clones in a patient with exceptional response to ipilimumab showed loss of BRD8 mutations and increased mutational load driven by parallel evolution affecting 17 genes (median mutations per gene, 3), which were enriched mainly for O-glycan processing (29.4%, FDR = 9.7 × 10− 6). Conclusions MITF family tRCC is an aggressive disease with similar responses to ICIs as clear-cell RCC. Mutations in bromodomain-containing genes might be associated with clinical benefit. The unexpected observation about parallel evolution of genes involved in O-glycosylation as a mechanism of resistance to ICI warrants exploration.

5037 Background: In the double-blind PBO-controlled ACIS study, investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was significantly improved with APA + AAP vs PBO + AAP in chemo-naive mCRPC, with no significant new safety signals (Rathkopf ASCO GU 2021). Among prespecified subgroups, efficacy and safety were explored in two difficult to treat subgroups: pts with visceral disease (VD; liver, lung, and/or adrenal gland metastasis) or age ≥ 75 y. Methods: Pts with mCRPC with ongoing ADT and no prior life-prolonging treatment were randomized 1:1 to APA (240 mg QD) + AA (1000 mg QD) + P (5 mg BID) or PBO + AAP. Stratified: presence or absence of VD, ECOG PS 0 or 1, geographic region. Primary end point: rPFS (randomization to radiographic progression or death); secondary end points: overall survival (OS), time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, time to chronic opioid use, time to pain progression, safety. Results: 982 pts enrolled. 14.6% had VD and 35.9% were ≥ 75 y. Median rPFS, OS, and time to pain progression favored APA + AAP vs AAP (HR < 1) in both subgroups (Table). For pts ≥ 75 y, rPFS and OS were ≥ 7 mo longer with APA + AAP. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar (all > 94%) in pts with VD, ≥ 75 y, and overall safety population; hypertension was more frequent with APA + AAP vs AAP mainly in pts ≥ 75 y (31.7% vs 17.6%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs (APA + AAP vs AAP): VD, 60.8%, n = 74 vs 48.5%, n = 68; ≥ 75 y, 71.5%, n = 186 vs 68.5%, n = 165; overall, 63.3%, n = 490 vs 56.2%, n = 489. TEAEs leading to discontinuation: VD, 17.6% vs 5.9%; ≥ 75 y, 26.3% vs 20.6%; overall, 16.9% vs 12.5%. TEAEs leading to death: VD, 6.8% vs 5.9%; ≥ 75 y, 5.4% vs 13.9%; overall, 3.5% vs 7.6%. Conclusions: In this analysis of two difficult to treat subgroups, addition of APA to AAP favored rPFS and OS. Safety, while generally consistent with the overall population, showed higher hypertension rate in ≥ 75 y and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in VD. Clinical trial information: NCT02257736. [Table: see text]

Background Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are living longer, therefore optimizing health-related quality of life (HRQL), as well as survival outcomes, is important for optimal patient care. The aim of this study was to assess the HRQL in patients with mCRPC receiving docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Patients and methods PROSELICA (NCT01308580) assessed the non-inferiority of cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) versus 25 mg/m2 (C25) in patients with mCRPC after docetaxel. FIRSTANA (NCT01308567) assessed the superiority of C25 or C20 versus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC. HRQL and pain were analyzed using protocol-defined, prospectively collected, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) and McGill-Melzack questionnaires. Analyses included definitive improvements in HRQL, maintained or improved HRQL, and HRQL over time. Results In total, 2131 patients were evaluable for HRQL across the two studies. In PROSELICA, 38.8% and 40.5% of patients receiving C20 and C25, respectively, had definitive FACT-P total score (TS) improvements. In FIRSTANA, 43.4%, 49.7%, and 44.9% of patients receiving D75, C20, and C25, respectively, had definitive FACT-P TS improvements. In both trials, definitive improvements started after cycle 1 and were maintained for the majority of subsequent treatment cycles. More than two-thirds of patients maintained or improved their FACT-P TS. Conclusions In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, >40% of the 2131 evaluable patients with mCRPC had definitive FACT-P TS improvements; improvements occurred early and were maintained. More than 75% of patients maintained or improved their FACT-P TS., Highlights • Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are living longer. • Optimizing health-related quality of life (HRQL), as well as survival outcomes, is important for optimal patient care. • This study analyzed the HRQL data from patients treated by cabazitaxel or docetaxel within the trials PROSELICA and FIRSTANA. • HRQL is often maintained or improved in patients with mCRPC who receive docetaxel or cabazitaxel. • This is the largest prospective clinical dataset assessing HRQL among patients with mCRPC treated with taxane chemotherapy.

9 Background: As mCRPC is driven by activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoral androgens, androgen annihilation may require dual inhibition. APA and AA are approved prostate cancer therapies that have distinct receptor inhibition and ligand suppression actions, respectively. ACIS compared radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) of APA + AAP vs PBO + AAP in chemo-naive mCRPC. Methods: mCRPC pts with ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) but no other life-prolonging treatment since diagnosis were randomized 1:1 to APA (240 mg po QD) + AA (1000 mg po QD) + P (5 mg po BID) or PBO + AAP (stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and geographic region). The primary end point was rPFS (investigator assessed; defined from randomization date to radiographic progression date or death). Secondary/other end points included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival (OS), safety, time to PSA progression, chronic opioid use, initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and pain progression. Results: 982 pts were enrolled (Dec 2014 to Aug 2016). Median rPFS was extended 6 mos with APA + AAP (22.6 mos) vs AAP (16.6 mos) (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.58-0.83]; p < 0.0001) at the final analysis for rPFS, coinciding with the first interim analysis of OS (median follow-up time 25.7 mo). At final analysis, treatment with APA + AAP vs AAP showed a significantly higher rate of confirmed ≥ 50% PSA decline. Although not statistically significant, treatment with APA + AAP vs AAP showed a longer median OS. Time to PSA progression, chronic opioid use, initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and pain progression did not differ statistically significantly between arms. The safety profile was consistent with prior drug experience, with no new safety concerns. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 63.3% (310/490) of APA + AAP–treated pts vs 56.2% (275/489) of AAP-treated pts, with more grade 3 (56.1%, 275/490 vs 45.6%, 223/489) and less grade 4 (7.1%, 35/490 vs 10.6%, 52/489) TEAEs, respectively. Results based on biomarker subpopulations and quality of life will be presented. Conclusions: The ACIS final analysis met the primary end point and demonstrated a 31% reduction in risk of radiographic progression or death in chemo-naive mCRPC pts treated with the combination of APA + AAP with ADT vs AAP with ADT. Funding: Janssen Research & Development. Trial registration: NCT02257736. Clinical trial information: NCT02257736. [Table: see text]

97 Background: Cabazitaxel rechallenge could be a more efficient therapy with an acceptable toxicity than docetaxel in the treatment of patients with a metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of cabazitaxel multiple rechallenge. Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including patients from 9 centers in France who received 3 lines or more of cabazitaxel from February 2012 to July 2020. Cabazitaxel schedule differed between patients: 25 mg/m2 q3w, 20 mg/m2 q3w, 16 mg/m2 q2w or 10 mg/m2 weekly. Efficacy was assessed by overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from each cabazitaxel line start. Only toxicities grade ≥ 3 were reported. Results: Twenty-two patients were included. The median follow-up from mCRPC was 94.7 months, median age at initial diagnosis was 59.5 years old, median ISUP score at diagnosis was 4 and median PSA at diagnosis was 55 ng/ml. Median number of cabazitaxel cycles was 7 at first-line, 6 at first rechallenge, and 5 for subsequent rechallenges. Median OS from mCRPC diagnosis was 105 months. Median PFS from cabazitaxel line start was 11.8 months at first use, 9.6 for first rechallenge and 5.6 in second rechallenge (table). Only one case of febrile neutropenia and 6 events of grade ≥ 3 toxicity were reported. Conclusions: Cabazitaxel multiple rechallenge could efficiently extend OS with manageable toxicities for patients. Even if anti-PARP therapy and immunotherapy are promising treatments, cabazitaxel rechallenge could be also a relevant therapeutic option for long responder patients. Specific biomarkers should be explored to predict the efficacy of cabazitaxel rechallenge. [Table: see text]

Summary Background In a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, overall survival was associated with T-cell responses against IMA901, a vaccine consisting of ten tumour-associated peptides. In this phase 3 trial, we aimed to determine the clinical effect of adding IMA901 to sunitinib, the standard first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma with postulated favourable immunomodulatory effects. Methods The IMPRINT study is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 124 clinical sites in 11 countries. HLA-A*02 -positive patients (aged ≥18 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed metastatic or locally advanced (or both) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (3:2) to receive sunitinib plus up to ten intradermal vaccinations of IMA901 (4·13 mg) and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (75 μg), with one dose of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m 2 ) 3 days before the first vaccination, or to receive sunitinib alone. Sunitinib (50 mg) was given orally once daily, with each cycle defined as 4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment, until progression of disease as determined by the investigator, death, or withdrawal of consent. Block randomisation (block size five) was done centrally using an interactive web response system, stratified by prognostic risk, geographical region, and previous nephrectomy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival from randomisation until death of any cause as determined by the investigator, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01265901. Findings Between Dec 22, 2010, and Dec 15, 2012, we screened 1171 patients, of whom 339 were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib plus IMA901 (n=204) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=135). Patients had a median follow-up of 33·27 months (IQR 29·92–35·64). Median overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (33·17 months [95% CI 27·81–41·36] in the sunitinib plus IMA901 group vs not reached [33·67–not reached] in the sunitinib monotherapy group; hazard ratio 1·34 [0·96–1·86]; p=0·087). 116 (57%) of 202 patients in the sunitinib plus IMA901 group and 62 (47%) of 132 in the sunitinib group had grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which were hypertension, neutropenia, and anaemia in both groups, and mild-to-moderate transient injection-site reactions (eg, erythema, pruritus) were the most frequent IMA901-related side-effect in the sunitinib plus IMA901 group. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in four (2%) patients (one respiratory failure and circulatory collapse [possibly related to sunitinib], one oesophageal varices haemorrhage [possibly related to sunitinib], one cardiac arrest [possibly related to sunitinib], and one myocardial infarction) and eight (6%) patients in the sunitinib group (one case each of renal failure, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, circulatory collapse, wound infection, ileus, cerebrovascular accident [possibly treatment related], and sepsis). Interpretation IMA901 did not improve overall survival when added to sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The magnitude of immune responses needs to be improved before further development of IMA901 in this disease is indicated. Funding Immatics Biotechnologies.

Background Sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, axitinib and bevacizumab are the five recommended antiangiogenic agents in first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Because these drugs underwent simultaneous clinical development, no direct efficacy and safety comparison was ever conducted, thus preventing optimal therapy choices. Methods We performed a traditional and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mRCC-recommended first-line antiangiogenic agents. After a systematic review of Medline and Embase up to July 2014, we identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the outcomes of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, axitinib and bevacizumab as first-line treatment. Endpoints of interest were response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results We screened 769 abstracts and included nine RCTs with a total of 4282 patients. In the weighted pooled analysis, first-line antiangiogenic agents showed significant improvement in PFS (HR = 0.6; 95% IC, 0.51–0.72) and OS (HR = 0.85; 95% IC, 0.78–0.93) compared to control (placebo or interferon-alpha2a (INF)). Network meta-analysis showed no significant differences among antiangiogenic drugs in 6-month PFS, 1-year OS, disease control rate and drug-related safety for all-grade hypertension, diarrhea, weight-loss, nausea or anorexia. However, pazopanib showed a lower incidence of fatigue, anemia and hand foot skin reaction. Conclusions This meta-analysis confirms the benefits of first-line antiangiogenic therapy in mRCC, with an improvement in OS. Sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib and bevacizumab + INF offer similar efficacy but different safety profiles which can help clinicians to better personalize treatment decisions in patients with mRCC.

Cancer immunotherapy has occupied a marginal therapeutic option in cancer despite strong arguments documenting the role of the immune system in controlling the proliferation of cancers. The recent success of immunotherapy results from a change in the past paradigm. From now on, the goal is not only to activate the immune system against tumor, but also to take account of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment Among these mechanisms, negative costimulatory molecules (CTLA-4, PD-1, etc.) expressed by T cells in the tumor could explain their lack of effectiveness in inhibiting tumor growth. Blocking these molecules allowed the reactivation of anti-tumor T cells. Clinically, the administration of anti-CTLA-4 antibody (ipilimumab: Yervoy®) was granted marketing authorization for patients with metastatic melanoma. The anti-PD-1 antibodies (nivolumab: Opdivo®, pembrolizumab: Keytruda®) have demonstrated clinical efficacy when compared to the standard therapy in metastatic melanomas, advanced lung cancers and metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In phase I and II clinical trials, other tumors (Hodgkin's disease, head and neck cancers, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, etc.) appear to be responsive to these immunomodulators. These treatments were associated with the occurrence of side effects dominated by autoimmunity predictable by unlocking the breaks exerted by immune system to maintain tolerance against self-antigen. The optimization of therapeutic combination based on these molecules and the search for biomarkers associated with these treatments constitute a challenge for the future for this new therapeutic class of drugs for oncology.

Context Recent developments in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have led to uncertainty about the optimal sequence of agents. Objective To review and assess treatment options and sequence in patients with mCRPC. Evidence acquisition To identify data on the optimal use of approved treatments, we searched PubMed for studies on the use of recently approved agents for men with mCRPC published before March 2015. Phase 3 and other key studies were included in the review of efficacy and safety. In this review, we offer our critical interpretation of potential treatment sequences for drug use in the light of our clinical experience. Evidence synthesis Since 2004, the treatment landscape for mCRPC has changed dramatically following the approval of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, denosumab, and radium-223 chloride. To date, only small-scale studies have been undertaken that provide evidence on the sequencing of these treatments. Ideally, randomised, prospective studies would evaluate different sequence options thoroughly so that physicians could make evidence-based decisions, but the number of new agents makes this impractical. When deciding which treatment to prescribe, physicians will need to use the available evidence combined with their own clinical judgement. The potential for cross-resistance between taxanes and hormonal therapies and the possibility that patients might not be suitable for aggressive therapies in later lines should be taken into account. Prevention of complications associated with bone metastases should also be a key consideration because of the major impact these events have on quality of life and healthcare costs. Conclusions The recent approval of numerous new agents has resulted in considerable improvements in outcomes for patients with mCRPC. Further studies determining the optimal treatment algorithm, in addition to open discussion of best practice among physicians, are required to ensure patients obtain the maximum possible benefit from their treatment. Patient summary In recent years a large number of new treatment options have been approved for use in men with prostate cancer. In the absence of clinical trials assessing the use of one option versus another in specific patient groups, it is important to review the currently published evidence to try to understand patients receive the best treatment options in the correct order.

Objectives To validate vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 (VEGFR1) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs9582036 as a potential predictive biomarker in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. Materials and Methods m-ccRCC patients receiving sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy were included. We assessed response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical and biochemical parameters associated with outcome. We genotyped five VEGFR1 SNPs: rs9582036, rs7993418, rs9554320, rs9554316 and rs9513070. Association with outcome was studied by univariate analysis and by multivariate Cox regression. Additionally, we updated survival data of our discovery cohort as described previously. Results Sixty-nine patients were included in the validation cohort. rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer PFS (8 vs 12 months, P = 0.02) and OS (11 vs 27 months, P = 0.003) compared to AC/AA-carriers. rs7993418 CC-carriers had a poorer OS (8 vs 24 months, P = 0.004) compared to TC/TT-carriers. rs9554320 AA-carriers had a poorer RR (0% vs 53%, P = 0.009), PFS (5 vs 12 months, P = 0.003) and OS (10 vs 25 months, P = 0.004) compared to AC/CC-carriers. When pooling patients from the discovery cohort, as described previously (n = 88), and the validation cohort, in the total series of 157 patients, rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer RR (8% vs 49%, P = 0.004), PFS (8 vs 14 months, P = 0.003) and OS (13 vs 30 months, P = 0.0004) compared to AC/AA-carriers. Unfavorable prognostic markers at start of sunitinib were well balanced between rs9582036 CC- and AC/AA-carriers. Conclusion VEGFR1 rs9582036 is a candidate predictive biomarker in m-ccRCC-patients treated with sunitinib.

Purpose To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare dual inhibition of PI3K/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) by apitolisib (GDC-0980) against single inhibition of mTORC1 by everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Patients and Methods Patients with clear-cell mRCC who progressed on or after vascular endothelial growth factor–targeted therapy were randomly assigned to apitolisib 40 mg once per day or to everolimus 10 mg once per day. End points included progression-free survival, safety, overall survival, and objective response rate. Biomarker assessments were conducted. Results Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned. After 67 events, stratified analysis revealed that median progression-free survival was significantly shorter for apitolisib than for everolimus (3.7 v 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.23 to 3.63; P < .01]); apitolisib was not favored in any stratification subgroup. Median overall survival was not significantly different but trended in favor of everolimus (16.5 v 22.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 0.97 to 3.24; P = .06]). The objective response rate was 7.1% for apitolisib and 11.6% for everolimus. Patients administered apitolisib with a greater incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more likely to discontinue treatment (31% v 12% for everolimus). No drug-related deaths were observed. Apitolisib in comparison with everolimus was associated with substantially more high-grade hyperglycemia (40% v 9%) and rash (24% v 2%). Apitolisib pharmacokinetics suggested a relationship between exposure, and rash and hyperglycemia. Retrospective biomarker analyses revealed a relationship between VHL mutation status and outcome with everolimus but not with apitolisib. High hypoxia-inducible factor 1α protein expression was associated with better outcome in both arms. Conclusion This study demonstrated that dual PI3K/mTOR inhibition by apitolisib was less effective than was everolimus in mRCC, likely because full blockade of PI3K/mTOR signaling resulted in multiple on-target adverse events. VHL mutation and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α expression may be predictive of an mTOR inhibitor benefit, although prospective validation is required.