Search

Introduction: Rechallenge with antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein‐1 or its ligand (PD‐1/L1) after discontinuation or disease progression in solid tumors following a prior PD‐1/L1 treatment is often practiced in clinic. This study aimed to investigate if adding PD‐1/L1 inhibitors to cabozantinib, the most used second‐line treatment in real‐world patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), offers additional benefits. Methods: Using de‐identified patient‐level data from a large real‐world US‐based database, patients diagnosed with mccRCC, who received any PD‐1/L1‐based combination in first‐line (1L) setting, followed by second‐line (2L) therapy with either cabozantinib alone or in combination with PD‐1/L1 inhibitors were included. Patients given a cabozantinib‐containing regimen in 1L were excluded. The study end points were real‐world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real‐world overall survival (rwOS) by 2L. Results: Of 12,285 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the data set, 348 patients met eligibility and were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching weighting, cabozantinib with PD‐1/L1 inhibitors versus cabozantinib (ref.) had similar rwTTNT and rwOS in the 2L setting. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for rwTTNT and rwOS are 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49–1.12) and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73–1.79), respectively. Conclusion: In this study, the results align with the phase 3 CONTACT‐03 trial results, which showed no additional benefit of adding PD‐L1 inhibitor to cabozantinib compared to cabozantinib alone in 2L following PD‐1/L1–based therapies in 1L. These results from real‐world patients strengthen the evidence regarding the futility of rechallenge with PD‐1/L1 inhibitors. This study reports, in a large real‐world data set, that there is no survival benefit of adding a PD‐1/L1 inhibitor to cabozantinib given in a second‐line setting in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma with prior treatment with a PD‐1/L1 inhibitor. The real‐world data concur with the results reported in the phase 3 CONTACT‐03 clinical trial further questioning the common practice of PD‐1/L1 inhibitors rechallenge in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Older adults with metastatic cancer of the urinary tract often do not receive optimal cancer treatments. Through our real-world study at a tertiary cancer center, we investigated the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes among older patients compared to younger adults receiving first-line systemic treatment. We found that older patients tend to be more suited to receiving immunotherapy and lower amounts of chemotherapy. When treated with regimens tailored to their overall health, they tolerate treatment as well as younger patients and experience similar life-prolonging benefits from these. Our results further reinforce that age alone is not a predictive factor for survival in patients who receive systemic treatment for advanced cancer. These findings suggest the need for appropriate treatment selection and tailored regimens for older adults with metastatic cancer of the urinary tract. Metastatic urinary tract cancer (mUTC) is challenging to treat in older adults due to comorbidities. We compared the clinical courses of younger and older (≥70 years) adults with mUTC receiving first-line (1L) systemic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Baseline clinical characteristics, treatments received, tolerability, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Among 212 patients (103 older vs. 109 younger), the older patients had lower hemoglobin at baseline (84% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), the majority were cisplatin-ineligible (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.001), received more immunotherapy-based treatments in the 1L (52% vs. 36%, p = 0.01), received fewer subsequent lines of treatment (median 0 vs. 1, p = 0.003), and had lower clinical trial participation (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) compared to the younger patients. When treated with 1L chemotherapy, older patients required more dose adjustments (53.4% vs. 23%, p = 0.001) and received fewer cycles of chemotherapy (median 4 vs. 5, p= 0.01). Older patients had similar OS (11.2 months vs. 14 months, p = 0.06) and similar rates of treatment-related severe toxicity and healthcare visits, independent of the type of systemic treatment received, compared to younger patients. We conclude that select older adults with mUTC can be safely treated with immunotherapy and risk-adjusted regimens of chemotherapy with tangible survival benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤.01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P =.01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff. Conclusion: Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC. This article evaluates real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Emergency rooms play a crucial role in providing immediate care to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. To enhance efficiency and accuracy of triage decisions for these patients, the authors conducted a retrospective analysis using ChatGPT 4.0, an advanced artificial intelligence system. The study investigated the effectiveness of ChatGPT in assisting healthcare providers with decision-making in the emergency room, focusing on patient outcomes and resource allocation. The findings demonstrated that ChatGPT showed high sensitivity in determining patient admission and provided accurate and comprehensive diagnoses. It also offered additional treatment recommendations, potentially improving the quality of care. These results suggest that ChatGPT has the potential to assist healthcare providers in enhancing patient triage and improving the efficiency and quality of care in emergency settings for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Background: Accurate and efficient triage is crucial for prioritizing care and managing resources in emergency rooms. This study investigates the effectiveness of ChatGPT, an advanced artificial intelligence system, in assisting health providers with decision-making for patients presenting with metastatic prostate cancer, focusing on the potential to improve both patient outcomes and resource allocation. Methods: Clinical data from patients with metastatic prostate cancer who presented to the emergency room between 1 May 2022 and 30 April 2023 were retrospectively collected. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of ChatGPT in determining whether a patient required admission or discharge. The secondary outcomes included the agreement between ChatGPT and emergency medicine physicians, the comprehensiveness of diagnoses, the accuracy of treatment plans proposed by both parties, and the length of medical decision making. Results: Of the 147 patients screened, 56 met the inclusion criteria. ChatGPT had a sensitivity of 95.7% in determining admission and a specificity of 18.2% in discharging patients. In 87.5% of cases, ChatGPT made the same primary diagnoses as physicians, with more accurate terminology use (42.9% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.02) and more comprehensive diagnostic lists (median number of diagnoses: 3 vs. 2, p < 0.001). Emergency Severity Index scores calculated by ChatGPT were not associated with admission (p = 0.12), hospital stay length (p = 0.91) or ICU admission (p = 0.54). Despite shorter mean word count (169 ± 66 vs. 272 ± 105, p < 0.001), ChatGPT was more likely to give additional treatment recommendations than physicians (94.3% vs. 73.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our hypothesis-generating data demonstrated that ChatGPT is associated with a high sensitivity in determining the admission of patients with metastatic prostate cancer in the emergency room. It also provides accurate and comprehensive diagnoses. These findings suggest that ChatGPT has the potential to assist health providers in improving patient triage in emergency settings, and may enhance both efficiency and quality of care provided by the physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite rapid advances in the treatment landscape of urothelial cancer, there is a substantial unmet need for safe and effective therapies for patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate, consisting of a Trop-2 directed monoclonal antibody linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. Trop-2 is a glycoprotein overexpressed in various carcinomas, including urothelial carcinomas. We review the available data on SG, including mechanism of action, pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and clinical studies regarding locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. SG performed well in the TROPHY-U-01 phase II trial with an objective response rate of 27%. The most common adverse effects were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, alopecia, and neutropenia, with the most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs being neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia. However, these effects were managed effectively with supportive care. SG currently has an accelerated approval for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy and either programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor. Several studies are evaluating SG in urothelial cancers as single-agent or in combination with other agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In addition to the previously studied socioeconomic factors associated with health disparities, insurance status can serve as a prognostic factor associated with overall survival in RCC patients (Zhang et al., Future Oncol 2019). Moreover, within this population, having access to health insurance has been reported to result in earlier detection of disease (Javier-DesLoges et al., JAMA Netw Open 2021). In this study, we explored the impact of primary and secondary insurance status on PFS and OS in patients receiving first line systemic therapy for mRCC. Methods Patients with mRCC from two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers diagnosed between 1990 and 2022 with available insurance information were retrospectively identified using institutional databases. Primary insurance information was categorized into three groups—Medicare, private insurance, and Medicaid/no insurance—while secondary insurance was defined by the presence or absence of secondary coverage. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared based on insurance status using log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to examine the impact of insurance status on PFS and OS. Results In total, 645 patients with mRCC had accessible information and were included in our analysis. Of these, 344 (53.3%), 250 (38.8%), and 51 (7.9%) had primary Medicare, private insurance, and Medicaid/no insurance, respectively. Overall, most patients were male (73.0%), with a median age of 60.0 (22.0-94.0) at time of diagnosis. The most commonly rendered first-line treatments were monotherapy with targeted agents (66.4%), dual immunotherapy (13.6%), and targeted/immunotherapy combinations (10.2%). Median PFS for the entire cohort was 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.7). Median PFS for patients with primary Medicare was 7.7 months (95%, CI 7.0-9.0), 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.0-7.0) for patients with private insurance, and 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.8-8.1) for Medicaid/uninsured patients. Using an overall log-rank test, a significant difference in PFS among the three groups with different primary insurance was observed (p<0.0001). The median PFS for patients with secondary insurance was 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.6-11.3) compared to 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.5-7.4) for patients without secondary insurance. A multivariate Cox model with adjustment for other factors (such as age, gender, and ethnicity) revealed a statistically significant difference in PFS between patients with and without secondary insurance (p=0.0281). Median OS for the entire cohort was 36.8 months (95% CI, 32.4-44.3). Median OS for patients with primary Medicare, private insurance, and Medicaid/no insurance was 49.0 months (95%, CI 41.8-55.3), 28.5 months (95% CI, 24.1-35.7), and 21.6 months (95% CI, 17.5-42.3), respectively. By an overall log-rank test, a significant difference in OS across the three groups of primary insurance was observed (p=0.0003). No statistically significant differences in OS were observed between patients with and without secondary insurance. Overall, patients with primary Medicare had superior median PFS (p=0.0327) and OS (p=0.0004) compared to those with Medicaid/no insurance; although patients with private insurance had a lower risk of progression and death compared to those with Medicaid/no insurance, the result was not statistically significant. Conclusions In this real-world study, we investigated the impact of insurance status on clinical outcomes in patients with mRCC receiving systemic therapy. mRCC patients with primary Medicaid/no insurance or private insurance had inferior median PFS and OS compared to those with primary Medicare. Moreover, patients with secondary insurance had superior PFS over those with primary insurance alone. Overall, our findings suggest that insurance status may serve as a determinant of clinical outcomes. These hypothesis-generating data warrant external validation in prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can present as synchronous metastatic disease, where primary metastases are detected at the time of diagnosis, or metachronous disease, where metastases appear during follow-up after initial RCC diagnosis. The effect of time to metastasis on patient outcomes is not well characterized in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations. Herein, we assess the differences in clinical outcomes between patients with synchronous and metachronous mRCC. Methods Data for mRCC patients treated with first line ICI-based combination therapies between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively collected from two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Patients were categorized as having synchronous or metachronous disease based on the time of presentation of metastases. Synchronous disease was defined as the presence of metastases at the time of RCC diagnosis or within 3 months thereafter. The study endpoints were time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). TTF and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared based on the time of presentation of metastases using log-rank tests. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and logistic regression models were used to examine the impact of sex, IMDC risk score, histology, and age at treatment start on TTF, OS and DCR. Results A total of 223 patients (126 synchronous and 97 metachronous) diagnosed with mRCC were included in the analysis. No significant difference was seen in gender distribution or age at first line treatment between these two groups. Although not statistically significant, the synchronous group had a higher proportion of patients with non-clear cell histology compared to those with metachronous disease (21% vs. 11%, P = 0.057). The median TTF was shorter in patients with synchronous disease but did not reach statistical significance (9 vs. 19.8 months for synchronous and metachronous, respectively, HR 1.37, 95% CI [0.98, 1.92], P = 0.064). Median OS was significantly shorter in patients with synchronous disease (28.0 vs. 50.9 months, adjusted HR 2.23, 95% CI [1.36, 3.65], P = 0.001). Similarly, patients with synchronous mRCC had a lower DCR than patients with metachronous (58.7% vs 78.4%, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% CI [0.13, 0.64], P = 0.002). In the multivariable analysis, synchronous disease remained an independent factor associated with worse OS and DCR. Conclusions Patients with metastatic disease at the time of RCC diagnosis who were treated with first line ICI-based combinations have a poorer OS, and worse DCR than those who develop metastatic disease during follow-up. Although further validation is needed, these findings could be valuable in designing clinical trials and selecting patients for treatment escalation and closer clinical follow-up. CDMRP DOD Funding: no [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Urothelial carcinoma with squamous differentiation (UCS) is the most common variant differentiation of urothelial carcinoma (UC). Although treatment is usually similar to pure UC, there is paucity of data regarding its genomic landscape and putative molecular drivers. In this study, we compared the mutational profile of tumors with UCS and UC histology.Methods: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, patients with advanced UCS and UC undergoing tumor based comprehensive genomic profiling from a CLIA-certified laboratory were included. An independent genitourinary pathologist reviewed all cases. Patients were determined to have UCS based on presence of any component of squamous differentiation. Patients with UC having any other secondary histology variant were excluded. Genes with alterations (GA) in less than 5% of patients and variants of unknown significance were excluded from the analysis. Chi-square test was used to compare gene aberration frequency and the p-values were adjusted for false using Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction.Results: Among the 87 eligible patients with UCS (n=31) and UC (n=56), patients with UCS were more likely to be female (32.3% vs. 14.3%, p=0.047) with no significant differences in other clinicopathological features. Most common genomic alterations seen in UCS were TP53 (67.7%), KMT2D (48.4%) and ARID1A (32.3%). KMT2D mutations were significantly enriched in UCS (48.4% vs. 0%, FDR adj p <0.001, p = <0.001) compared to UC. Prevalence of CUL4A mutations was numerically higher in UCS vs. UC (12.9% vs. 1.8%, FDR adj p = 0.43, p = 0.03). Tumor mutation burden and the number of genomic aberrations per patient were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusion: These findings highlight significant enrichment of KMT2D mutations in UCS and potential role of chromatin remodeling genes as drivers and potential therapeutic targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Novel hormonal therapies (such as abiraterone and enzalutamide) and docetaxel are approved treatments for metastatic prostate cancer. Upfront use of these agents has been shown to improve overall survival. However, we do not know the real-world treatment patterns of these agents or the comparative effectiveness of these agents after treatment with a prior novel hormonal therapy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In this large study, we found that most patients with metastatic prostate cancer received only androgen deprivation therapy as upfront therapy without novel hormonal therapies or docetaxel. In patients treated with one novel hormonal therapy, alternate novel hormonal therapy was the most common next therapy and was associated with improved overall survival over docetaxel with the caveat of this being a non-randomized comparison. The study's limitations also include its retrospective design. Background: Both novel hormonal therapies and docetaxel are approved for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC; in castration sensitive or refractory settings). Present knowledge gaps include lack of real-world data on treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed mPC, and comparative effectiveness of novel hormonal therapies (NHT) versus docetaxel after treatment with a prior NHT. Methods: Herein we extracted patient-level data from a large real-world database of patients with mPC in United States. Utilization of NHT or docetaxel for mPC and comparative effectiveness of an alternate NHT versus docetaxel after one prior NHT was evaluated. Comparative effectiveness was examined via Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score matching weights. Each patient's propensity for treatment was modeled via random forest based on 22 factors potentially driving treatment selection. Results: The majority of patients (54%) received only androgen deprivation therapy for mPC. In patients treated with an NHT, alternate NHT was the most common next therapy and was associated with improved median overall survival over docetaxel (abiraterone followed by docetaxel vs. enzalutamide (8.7 vs. 15.6 months; adjusted hazards ratio; aHR 1.32; p = 0.009; and enzalutamide followed by docetaxel vs. abiraterone (9.7 vs. 13.2 months aHR 1.40; p = 0.009). Limitations of the study include retrospective design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]