Search

Due to the rapidly changing field of kidney cancer therapeutics, addressing the state of the art systemic therapy regimens, and sequencing with cytoreductive nephrectomy are the primary focus of this review. We will also discuss the role of biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets in the management of renal cell carcinoma. The management of metastatic renal cell cancer has undergone a paradigm shift with immune checkpoint inhibitors being used in the frontline setting. Over the last 4 years, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors as well as programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors have become available in various combinations with cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). These drugs have improved outcomes in patients with renal cell cancer and more work is being done to refine these targets as well as discover newer ones. Despite the availability of several new treatment options, some questions that still need to be addressed in the management of kidney cancer include the sequencing of treatment options, treatment of patients who progress on immune checkpoint inhibitors, and role of biomarkers to ascertain the best treatment options to minimize costs and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with residual muscle-invasive urinary tract cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high risk of recurrence.OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate whether additional adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves outcomes compared with surveillance in patients with significant residual disease despite NAC.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 474 patients who received NAC from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium database, of whom 129 had adverse residual disease (≥ypT3 and/or ypN+).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time to relapse (TTR) was the primary endpoint assessed starting from 2mo after surgery to minimize immortal time bias. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), incidence of AC use, and chemotherapy patterns. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models estimated TTR, OS, and associations with AC, adjusting for the type of NAC, age, and pathological stage in multivariable analyses.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 106 patients underwent surveillance, while 23 received AC. Gemcitabine-cisplatin was the most frequent regimen employed in both settings (30.4%), and the majority (82.6%) of the patients switched to a different regimen. Median follow-up was 30mo. Over 50% of patients developed a recurrence. Median TTR was 16mo (range: CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of AC after NAC in patients with high-risk residual disease is not frequent in clinical practice but might reduce the risk of recurrence. Further investigation is needed in this high-risk population to identify optimal therapy and to improve clinical outcomes such as the ongoing adjuvant immunotherapy trials.PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that administering additional chemotherapy in patients who had significant residual disease despite preoperative chemotherapy is not frequent in clinical practice. While it might reduce the risk of recurrence, it did not clearly increase overall survival. We encourage participation in the ongoing immunotherapy trials to see whether we can improve outcomes using a different type of therapy that stimulates the immune system.

BACKGROUND: The present retrospective, longitudinal cohort study assessed the association between the first-line sunitinib treatment duration and clinical outcomes with second-line immuno-oncology (IO) therapy among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 161 patients with mRCC who had been treated with first-line sunitinib and subsequent IO therapy from select International mRCC Database Consortium centers were included. The overall survival, time to next therapy, time to treatment discontinuation, and real-world physician-assessed best response measured from IO therapy initiation were analyzed and compared between patients treated with first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months and those treated for < 6 months. RESULTS: The 116 patients treated with sunitinib for ≥ 6 months tended to be older and to have a better International mRCC Database Consortium risk than the 45 patients treated for < 6 months (favorable, 36% vs. 8%, P = .001; intermediate, 59% vs. 70%, P = .21; poor, 5% vs. 22%, P = .007). The receipt of sunitinib for ≥ 6 months versus < 6 months was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.87; P = .02). No significant association was observed between the first-line sunitinib duration and second-line IO outcomes, including the time to next therapy (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51; P = .66), time to treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34; P = .49), and tumor response (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.22-2.49; P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant association between the first-line sunitinib duration and clinical outcomes with second-line IO therapy. Patients receiving first-line sunitinib for ≥ 6 months compared with < 6 months was associated with better overall survival, although potential unadjusted confounders could have been present. These findings support the paradigm that previous therapy will not dictate the effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy. ispartof: CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER vol:18 issue:4 pages:E350-E359 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background: Optimal chemotherapy for patients who received cisplatin for localized urothelial carcinoma (UC) and develop metastatic disease is unclear. We compared the efficacy of platinum-based (PBC) versus non–platinum-based (NPBC) first-line chemotherapy for metastasis. Patients and Methods: Data were collected from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC), a database of 3024 patients from 28 international academic centers from 2005 to 2012. Patient inclusion criteria included: (1) predominant UC; (2) any primary tumor site; (3) cT2-4, cN0-N2, cM0; (4) prior receipt of perioperative/radiation cisplatin-containing chemotherapy; and (5) receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the first-line metastatic setting. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to show progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the first day of chemotherapy for metastatic disease to date of censor. Results: Eligibility criteria was met by 132 patients (n = 74 PBC; n = 58 NPBC). The median OS was 8.13 months (interquartile range, 4.87-16.64 months) and 8.77 months (interquartile range, 4.01-13.49 months) for PBC and NPBC, respectively. Neither OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.69; P =. 87) nor PFS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.31; P =. 48) differed for PBC versus NPBC. However, for patients who received chemotherapy more than a year after perioperative/radiation chemotherapy, OS was superior for PBC over NPBC (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92; P = .03). Conclusions: There is no significant outcome difference between PBC and NPBC in patients with metastatic UC who previously received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for localized disease. However, if over a year has elapsed, return to PBC is associated with superior OS. The optimal chemotherapy regimen for metastatic urothelial carcinoma following previous cisplatin-based chemotherapy, administered for localized disease, remains unclear. We found benefit of platinum-based over non–platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic disease treated at least 1 year from completion of prior perioperative and/or peri-radiation cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These findings support return to platinum chemotherapy in this clinical scenario.

117 Background: Intravenous (IV) docetaxel and oral prednisone is a standard of care regimen in mCRPC. ModraDoc006 is a novel, oral tablet formulation of docetaxel. To enhance bioavailability, it is co-administered with ritonavir (/r), an inhibitor of cytochrome p450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein metabolic enzymes. The oral combination, denoted as ModraDoc006/r, may be superior to IV docetaxel in terms of safety profile, avoiding infusions, patient quality of life (QoL) and overall resource utilization. Safety of ModraDoc006/r in mCRPC was established in a previous phase Ib trial. Methods: We conducted an open label 1:1 randomized study of ModraDoc006/r bi-daily weekly dosing (BIDW) regimen versus IV docetaxel 75 mg/m2 in 21-day cycles. Initially, BIDW 30-20 mg ModraDoc006 combined with 200-100 mg ritonavir was administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 21-day cycle. After 39 patients the starting dose was reduced to 20-20 mg BIDW with ritonavir 200 mg in the morning and 100 mg with the evening dose to improve tolerability. All patients received 5 mg oral prednisone twice daily. Primary endpoint was radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) per PCWG-3 criteria. Secondary objectives were ORR, PSA-PFS, time to skeletal related events, disease control rate, duration of response, and safety assessments. Patient reported outcomes and health-related QoL was assessed with treatment satisfaction and FACT-P questionnaires at baseline and after cycles 3, 6 and 10. Results: Enrollment is complete with 101 patients accrued; 49 on IV docetaxel, 52 on ModraDoc006/r (21 on 30-20 mg and 31 on ModraDoc006/r 20-20 mg). 69 patients had measurable disease and median PSA was 67ng/ml (range 0,2 to 1697 ng/ml). IV docetaxel vs ModraDoc006/r 30-20 mg and 20-20 mg demonstrated ORR of 39% vs 50% and 33%, and PSA responses of 57% vs 53% and 48%. All grades neutropenia and neuropathy was noted in 0% and 6% with ModraDoc006/r 20-20 mg therapy and was better than the incidence of 14% (5% ≥G3) and 14% with ModraDoc006/r 30-20 mg, and 27% (20% ≥G3) and 31% respectively on IV docetaxel. Alopecia was also reduced at 23% on ModraDoc006/r 20-20 mg and 29% on ModraDoc006/r 30-20 mg vs 43% on IV docetaxel. GI toxicities were slightly more frequent, but predominantly mild, in the ModraDoc006/r arm: at 20-20 mg dose, all grades diarrhea 32% (3% ≥G3), nausea 29% and stomatitis 3% (G3); at 30-20 mg dose 62% diarrhea (19% ≥G3), 38% nausea and 14% stomatitis (5% ≥G3); and in IV docetaxel, 24% diarrhea, 16% nausea and 10% stomatitis (4% ≥G3). Conclusions: Hematological toxicities and adverse events neuropathy and alopecia were lower with ModraDoc006/r than with IV docetaxel. ModraDoc006/r represents a convenient, oral, tolerable option for patients with mCRPC. ModraDoc006/r has comparable efficacy and a favorable tolerability profile as compared to IV docetaxel and merits further development in patients with mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT04028388.

355 Background: Over the past decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become foundational to aRCC management. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remain a mainstay, resulting in the potential for ICI/TKI combination regimens. Four ICI/TKI combinations (pembrolizumab/axitinib [PA], nivolumab/cabozantinib [NC], pembrolizumab/lenvatinib [PL], and avelumab/axitinib [AA]) have shown promising results compared to single-agent sunitinib in randomized clinical trials (KEYNOTE-426 [KN426], CheckMate 9ER [CM9ER], CLEAR, and JAVELIN RENAL 101 [JR101], respectively); national guidelines recommend them as 1L options. Further, an ICI-based regimen of nivolumab/ipilumumab (NI) is a treatment option for poor-risk RCC based on CheckMate 214 (CM214) results. We sought to understand how community oncologists perceive data from these trials and what aspects influence their clinical decisions. Methods: In May 2021, medical oncologists experienced in treating aRCC were presented with key results from these trials and 2 clinical vignettes. Treatment preferences and reasons for decisions were captured via an audience response system. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 103 U.S. medical oncologists participated; most risk-stratify their patients with either IMDC (44%), MSKCC (34%), or both (14%). When presented with simulated case studies, most (76%) indicated they are not likely to order PD-L1 testing, yet 81% will treat with an ICI-based regimen. Participants are more likely to prescribe ICI/TKI over ICI/ICI (65% vs 47%) in favorable-risk aRCC. Yet in poor-risk RCC, they are more likely to prescribe ICI/ICI over ICI/TKI (52% vs 15%). Among ICI/TKI regimen, participants showed a small preference toward PA over NC for both the poor-risk (21% vs 20%) and intermediate-risk (30% vs 23%) patient case. In the favorable-risk case, PA was significantly preferred over NC, 46% vs 19%. Most participants were aware of the trial data (91% KN426, 82% CM9ER, 57% CLEAR, 96% CM214); and more found the data from CM9ER most compelling compared to KN426 and CM214 (32%, 29%, and 23%, respectively). The participants viewed trials that met primary or survival endpoints as strong. Major limitations in each trial commonly identified were trial design (KN426, 27%); short follow-up (CM9ER, 48%); short follow-up and no OS data (CLEAR, 39% and 38%, respectively), and high discontinuation rate (CM214, 42%). Conclusions: Providers typically will treat aRCC patients with ICI-based regimens regardless of PD-L1 status and are more likely to prescribe an ICI/TKI regimen for favorable-risk and an ICI/ICI regimen for poor-risk aRCC. Meeting primary endpoints is a strong influencer in providers’ decision-making. Given the nonsignificant difference in preference for PA over NC, further research is needed to assess factors influencing providers’ decisions.

TPS402 Background: Kidney cancer presenting with synchronous primary tumor and metastases has demonstrated shorter survival outcome, as compared to the patients relapsing later with metastases after nephrectomy. CARMENA trial demonstrated no change in overall survival with addition of nephrectomy to sunitinib therapy. Immune checkpoint based combination therapy has now become the standard of care in frontline setting for RCC. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) or primary resection has not been evaluated in the setting of immune checkpoint based systemic therapy. The PROBE study design attempts to answer the question whether CN has an impact on overall survival outcomes in advanced RCC within the context of immune checkpoint based combination regimens. The underlying mechanism is that the broader antigen spread and higher neoantigen load enabled by the primary tumor would enhance the efficacy of the immune therapy. CN after initial systemic therapy will potentially enable eradication of the immune resistant clones within the primary. Methods: Eligible patients with primary tumor and metastases are treated with one of the FDA approved ICI based combinations: ipililumab and nivolumab, axitinib and pembrolizumab, or axitinib and avelumab. Cabozantinib + nivolumab and lenvatinib + pembrolizumab combinations are being added into the next amendment. Urology evaluation and response assessment is required. Randomization occurs between 10-14 weeks of therapy; 1:1 to receive CN followed by systemic therapy or to continue on systemic therapy. The primary endpoint is overall survival. We estimate the median survival from time of randomization for the non-surgical arm will be 25 months. The study hypothesis is that CN will result in improvement in OS outcomes in advanced synchronous RCC post-initial systemic immune checkpoint based combination therapy. With a sample size of 302 eligible, randomized participants (151 per arm) and a one-sided alpha = 0.025, the study has 85% power to detect a 47% improvement in median survival (HR = 0.68; 1/0.68 = 1.47) Clinical trial information: NCT04510597.

TPS584 Background: Patients with solid tumors who progress on standard chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors have limited efficacy with existing standard-of-care chemotherapy options (objective response rates [ORRs] ̃10%). These patients have a significant unmet medical need. Novel agents that can safely enhance treatment efficacy are urgently needed. Magrolimab is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody that blocks the macrophage inhibitory immune checkpoint CD47, a “do not eat me” signal overexpressed on tumor cells. Preclinical studies provide compelling evidence that magrolimab triggers phagocytosis and eliminates cancer cells from human solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Magrolimab has demonstrated clinical activity in both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. Chemotherapeutic agents, including taxanes, enhance prophagocytic signals on tumor cells, leading to synergistic antitumor activity when combined with magrolimab. This study (NCT04827576) is evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of magrolimab with docetaxel in relapsed/refractory (R/R) metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), and small-cell lung cancer (mSCLC). Methods: This Phase 2, open-label, multi-arm study (NCT04827576) consists of a safety run-in cohort and a Phase 2 cohort. Eligible patients are ≥18 years old with chemotherapy- and/or immunotherapy-refractory mUC, mNSCLC, or mSCLC. Magrolimab is administered intravenously (IV) with an initial 1-mg/kg priming dose to mitigate on-target anemia, followed by a 30-mg/kg dose during cycle 1 (cycles are 21 days) in the safety run-in to identify any dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and determine a recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). De-escalation may occur for DLTs per protocol. In Phase 2, following the priming dose on day 1, the highest acceptable dose of magrolimab will be administered on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 2; and day 1 for cycles 3 and beyond. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 is administered IV on day 1 of each cycle for all study participants. Patients may continue treatment until unacceptable toxicity, progressive disease by RECIST 1.1, or patient/investigator choice to discontinue. The primary endpoints are incidence of adverse events (safety and Phase 2 cohorts) and ORR (Phase 2). Secondary endpoints (Phase 2) are progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints are to evaluate the pharmacodynamic, mechanism of action, and/or therapeutic response of biomarkers in blood and tumor biopsy samples and to explore biomarkers that may predict response to therapy. Enrollment began in August 2021. Planned enrollment is approximately 116 patients, and as of October 1, 2021 recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04827576.

120 Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a difficult-to-treat cancer with poor patient outcomes. In June 2021, 177Lu-PSMA-617 was granted U.S. FDA breakthrough designation for the treatment of mCRPC based on results from the phase III VISION trial showing a 4-month increased median overall survival (15.3 v 11.3 m; HR 0.62 [0.52-0.74], P < 0.001) and a 5.3-month increased radiographic progression-free survival (8.7 v 3.4 m; HR 0.40 [0.29-0.57] for 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus standard of care (SOC). If approved, 177Lu-PSMA-617 has the potential to improve patient outcomes, but its impact will depend significantly on how community-based medical oncologists (cbMO) plan to integrate it into patient management. The present study surveyed cbMO regarding their perceptions of the VISION trial data and potential barriers to 177Lu-PSMA-617 use in mCRPC. Methods: Between June and October 2021, practicing U.S.-based cbMO were invited to attend a virtual meeting and were presented with the VISION trial data. Their reactions to the data and preferences were collected using audience response technology. Results are presented using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the 287 participating cbMO, median years in practice was 17 (1-45), and median time spent in direct patient care was 90% (20-100%). In the past year, 46% of cbMO managed 6-15 patients with mCRPC, and 27% managed 16 or more. CbMO reported that at the time of referral, their patients with mCRPC had commonly been treated with androgen deprivation therapy (77%) and one (49%) or two plus (20%) novel hormonal agents. After reviewing the recent data from the VISION trial showing improved survival outcomes in mCRPC, 51% of cbMO reported that both the safety and efficacy data were compelling, and they were very likely to prescribe 177Lu-PSMA-617 if approved; 33% indicated that the efficacy data alone was compelling and were likely to prescribe 177Lu-PSMA-617. The top 2 limitations of the VISION trial were identified as PSMA gallium positivity for eligibility (54%) and the disallowance of radium-223 on the SOC arm (48%). Regarding perceived barriers to future use of 177Lu-PSMA-617, 68% and 64% of cbMO reported availability of a PSMA-gallium scan and availability/access of the therapy itself, respectively, would be the greatest barriers. Additional barriers included cost (42%) and difficulty with reimbursement (30%), highlighting the importance of addressing access and financial considerations associated with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Conclusions: Most cbMO found the VISION trial data of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in mCRPC compelling and indicated that they are likely to incorporate it into their patient management, if approved. However, major barriers such as the incorporation of PSMA-gallium scans, 177Lu-PSMA-617 availability, and cost will need to be addressed to encourage widespread adoption of this new therapy.

659 Background: Nemvaleukin alfa (nemvaleukin, ALKS 4230) is a novel engineered cytokine that selectively binds to the intermediate-affinity IL-2 receptor, preferentially activating and expanding antitumor CD8+ T and NK cells, with minimal expansion of regulatory T cells. Inherently active, nemvaleukin neither requires metabolic/proteolytic conversion nor degrades into native IL-2. Preclinical characterization confirmed receptor selectivity and antitumor activity of nemvaleukin alone and with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and informed dose selection for the first-in-human study ARTISTRY-1; other combination regimens are ongoing evaluation. In ARTISTRY-1, responses with nemvaleukin in combination with pembrolizumab were observed in a variety of tumors, including GI. In addition to the clinical outcomes of these patients (pts), we describe preclinical evaluation of nemvaleukin with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)—a drug class indicated for some GI cancers. Methods: Pts with GI cancers who had progressed on prior therapy were enrolled into cohorts of mixed tumor types in ARTISTRY-1 (NCT02799095) and received IV nemvaleukin (3 µg/kg) and pembrolizumab (200 mg). Outcomes presented include antitumor activity and safety as of August 2021. Combinations of nemvaleukin with TKIs were evaluated in mouse tumor models, including colorectal adenocarcinoma (MC38). Results: Clinically, 26 pts with GI cancer (colon/colorectal, n = 14; esophageal, n = 5; hepatocellular, n = 3; pancreatic, n = 3; gastric, n = 1) received nemvaleukin + pembrolizumab (median 3 cycles [range: 1-24]). Median age was 55 y (range: 26-82), ECOG performance status was 0 (n = 6) or 1 (n = 20), and median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range: 1-6). Four pts had a partial response, 2 with esophageal, 1 with MSI-H colorectal, and 1 with pancreatic cancer, with target lesion decreases of 37% to 63%. Six pts had stable disease. Two responders remain on treatment (> 36 and > 80 wks for colorectal and esophageal cancer, respectively). Frequent (> 25%) nemvaleukin-related adverse events (AEs) among all pts receiving nemvaleukin combination (n = 156) were chills (58%), pyrexia (53%), nausea (29%), and fatigue (29%). Grade ≥3 nemvaleukin-related AEs (≥8%) were reported in 48%, including anemia (12%), neutrophil count decreased (10%), and neutropenia (8%). In mice, the combination of the mouse ortholog of nemvaleukin with VEGF TKIs showed improved antitumor activity and survival, along with increased immune activation and angiogenesis blockade in the tumor microenvironment compared with any compound alone. Conclusions: Emerging clinical data show responses in GI tumors may be achieved with nemvaleukin/pembrolizumab with manageable safety. Preclinical evidence of antitumor activity of nemvaleukin with CPIs or TKIs warrants further exploration of nemvaleukin in new combinations for pts with GI cancers. Clinical trial information: NCT02799095.

Drug resistance is one of the significant clinical burden in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The development of drug resistance is attributed to many factors, including impairment of apoptosis, elevation of carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX, a marker of tumor hypoxia), and infiltration of tumorigenic immune cells. To alleviate the drug resistance, we have used Sorafenib (Sor) in combination with tumor hypoxia directed nanoparticle (NP) loaded with a new class of apoptosis inducer, CFM 4.16 (C4.16), namely CA IX-C4.16. The NP is designed to selectively deliver the payload to the hypoxic tumor (core), provoke superior cell death in parental (WT) and Everolimus-resistant (Evr-res) RCC and selectively downmodulate tumorigenic M2-macrophage. Copper-free ‘ click ’ chemistry was utilized for conjugating SMA-TPGS with Acetazolamide (ATZ, a CA IX-specific targeting ligand). The NP was further tagged with a clinically approved NIR dye (S0456) for evaluating hypoxic tumor core penetration and organ distribution. Imaging of tumor spheroid treated with NIR dye-labeled CA IX-SMA-TPGS revealed remarkable tumor core penetration that was modulated by CA IX-mediated targeting in hypoxic-A498 RCC cells. The significant cell killing effect with synergistic combination index (CI) of CA IX-C4.16 and Sor treatment suggests efficient reversal of Evr-resistance in A498 cells. The CA IX directed nanoplatform in combination with Sor has shown multiple benefits in overcoming drug resistance through (i) inhibition of p -AKT, (ii) upregulation of tumoricidal M1 macrophages resulting in induction of caspase 3/7 mediated apoptosis of Evr-res A498 cells in macrophage-RCC co-culturing condition, (iii) significant in vitro and in vivo Evr-res A498 tumor growth inhibition as compared to individual therapy, and (iv) untraceable liver and kidney toxicity in mice. Near-infrared (NIR) imaging of CA IX-SMA-TPGS-S0456 in Evr-res A498 RCC model exhibited significant accumulation of CA IX-oligomer in tumor core with >3-fold higher tumor uptake as compared to control. In conclusion, this proof-of-concept study demonstrates versatile tumor hypoxia directed nanoplatform that can work in synergy with existing drugs for reversing drug-resistance in RCC accompanied with re-education of tumor-associated macrophages, that could be applied universally for several hypoxic tumors.

Chemokine signaling regulates cell migration and tumor metastasis. CXCL12, a member of the chemokine family, and its receptor, CXCR4, a G protein coupled receptor (GPCR), are key mediators of prostate-cancer (PC) bone metastasis. In PC cells androgens activate CXCR4 gene expression and receptor signaling on lipid rafts, which induces protease expression and cancer cell invasion. To identify novel lipid-raft-associated CXCR4 regulators supporting invasion/metastasis, we performed a SILAC-based quantitative proteomic analysis of lipid-rafts derived from PC3 stable cell lines with overexpression or knockdown of CXCR4. This analysis identified the evolutionarily conserved phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase IIIα (PI4KIIIα), and SAC1 phosphatase that dephosphorylates phosphatidylinositol-4-phosphate as potential candidate CXCR4 regulators. CXCR4 interacted with PI4KIIIα membrane targeting machinery recruiting them to the plasma membrane for PI4P production. Consistent with this interaction, PI4KIIIα was found tightly linked to the CXCR4 induced PC cell invasion. Thus, ablation of PI4KIIIα in CXCR4-expressing PC3 cells reduced cellular invasion in response to a variety of chemokines. Immunofluorescence microscopy in CXCR4-expressing cells revealed localized production of PI4P on the invasive projections. Human tumor studies documented increased PI4KIIIα expression in metastatic tumors vs. the primary tumor counterparts, further supporting the PI4KIIIα role in tumor metastasis. Furthermore, we also identified an unexpected function of PI4KIIIα in GPCR signaling where CXCR4 regulates PI4KIIIα activity and mediate tumor metastasis. Altogether, our study identifies a novel cross-talk between PI4KIIIα and CXCR4 in promoting tumor metastasis and suggests that PI4KIIIα pharmacological targeting may have therapeutic benefit for advanced prostate cancer patients.

BGJ398, a potent and selective pan-FGFR antagonist, was prospectively evaluated in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma bearing a diverse array of FGFR3 alterations. Patients (N = 67) who were unable to receive platinum chemotherapy were enrolled. The majority (70.1%) had received two or more prior antineoplastic therapies. BGJ398 was administered orally at 125 mg/day on a 3 weeks on, 1 week off schedule until unacceptable toxicity or progression. The primary endpoint was the response rate. Among 67 patients treated, an overall response rate of 25.4% was observed and an additional 38.8% of patients had disease stabilization, translating to a disease control rate of 64.2%. The most common treatment-emergent toxicities were hyperphosphatemia, elevated creatinine, fatigue, constipation, and decreased appetite. Further examination of BGJ398 in this disease setting is warranted.Significance: BJG398 is active in patients with alterations in FGFR3, resulting in both reductions in tumor volume and stabilization of disease. Our data highlight putative mechanisms of resistance to the agent, which may be useful in following disease status. Cancer Discov; 8(7); 812–21. ©2018 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 781

Background Pasireotide (SOM230; Novartis Inc, Basel, Switzerland) is a multitargeted somatostatin receptor analogue likely to treat the neuroendocrine, and docetaxel resistant components within metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This phase I trial tested the combination of pasireotide, docetaxel, and prednisone in pretreated mCRPC. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy naive mCRPC patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days and pasireotide intramuscularly every 28 days at escalating dose levels of 40, 60, and 80 mg. Maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) were assessed. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled with a median age of 65 (range, 49-75) years, and pretherapy prostate-specific antigen of 259.9 ng/mL. The dose-limiting toxicities were Grade 4 hyperglycemia unresponsive to therapy and Grade 4 neutropenia lasting for > 7 days in 1 patient each occurring at the 80-mg dose level of pasireotide. The RP2D was determined at 60 mg every 28 days. Four patients at the 60 mg dose had Grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia, which responded adequately to therapy. Median time to progression and survival were 7.2 and 18.3 months, respectively. Three of 6 patients with circulating tumor cells ≥5 converted to circulating tumor cells Conclusion The addition of pasireotide to docetaxel and prednisone is clinically feasible at a dose level of 60 mg every 28 days. The combination showed potential for clinical efficacy but needs to be compared with the standard docetaxel and prednisone regimen.

The therapy of kidney cancer has made multiple major advances. Eleven agents are now approved by FDA for treatment of metastatic RCC and one agent is approved for adjuvant therapy for localized high risk disease post nephrectomy. In addition the trials addressing the role of surgery also represent major strides in therapy. All these advances in RCC therapeutics have occurred through clinical trials. This paper is a summary of landmark trials that have been critical in the therapeutic development journey in advancing the care and improving outcomes in kidney cancer. The front line therapies are summarized starting with immunotherapy with high dose interleukin-2 to targeted therapies such as bevacizumab (monoclonal antibody), receptor tyrosine kinases such as sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib and MTOR inhibitors lke temsirolimus in the front line setting. Recently the combinations of ipilimumab and nivolumab as well as bevacizumab and atezolizumab have demonstrated promising efficacy in metastatic disease and these regimens are likely to receive FDA approval. In second line and beyond, therapies such as everolimus, nivolumab, lenvatinib+ everolimus and Cabozantinib have proven benefit. Adjuvant post nephrectomy trials have been conducted with conflicting results. Majority have shonwn lack of benefit, however one study conducted in T3/T4/N1 disease revealed statistically significant disease free survival favoring ajuvant sunitinib therapy leading to FDA approval. This paper summarizes the data from the reported trials and discusses recent developments in RCC therapeutics.

Summary Background Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Methods In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742. Findings Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0–84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response). Interpretation The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331). Funding Pfizer Inc.

Trials SWOG 8949 and EORTC 30947 had the same eligibility criteria and established the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The more recently published CARMENA trial calls into question the need for cytoreductive nephrectomy. A systematic comparison of CARMENA and SWOG 8949 suggests that cytoreductive nephrectomy may be beneficial for patients receiving immunotherapy but not targeted therapy. The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma underlines the need for another randomized phase 3 trial of cytoreductive nephrectomy for patients receiving powerful modern immunotherapies.

Pathologic complete response is an exceptionally rare occurrence in prostate cancer, especially in the setting of poorly differentiated cancer, with high risk and poor prognostic features. Patient reviewed and signed an informed consent. The case details were collected. Patient had PSA of 52.6 ng/dl and Gleason score 5 + 5 = 10 prostate adenocarcinoma with focal signet ring cell pattern. Genomic testing revealed pathogenic p53 and SPOP mutations. The patient received androgen deprivation therapy and six cycles of docetaxel. His PSA declined to undetectable, and radical prostatectomy (RP) showed no evidence of malignancy. The patient has discontinued all therapy and continues in remission 12 months after surgery.

Background Trametinib (Mekinist ®) is an oral bioavailable MEK 1/2 inhibitor that is FDA approved in combination with BRAF inhibitor Dabrafenib for BRAFV600 mutant solid tumors. The single agent recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is 2 mg daily (QD). No clinical data is available on recommendation of trametinib dosing in various degrees of hepatic dysfunction (HD). This study was designed to evaluate RP2D, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of trametinib as primary endpoints in patients (pts) with genomically unselected advanced solid tumors with various degrees of HD. Methods Advanced cancer pts with ECOG ≤2, adequate renal and bone marrow functions, were stratified (NCI ODWG Criteria) into 4 HD groups: normal (NO), mild (ML), moderate (MD), severe (SV). NO group was enrolled as control subjects and was not evaluable for dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Trametinib was given QD on a 28-days cycle, with dose escalation based on a “3+3” design within each HD group (starting dose: NO, ML: 2mg; MD: 1.5 mg; SV: 1mg). Due to the long half-life of trametinib, PK samples were collected at days 15-16 in cycle 1. Differences in PK parameters among liver function groups were evaluated using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results Out of 46 pts enrolled (2 pts ineligible), 44 (NO=17, ML=7, MD (1.5mg)=4, MD (2mg)=5, SV (1mg)=9, SV (1.5mg)=2) were evaluable for safety and 22 for PK analysis. The most common cancer type was GI-non CRC cancer (n=16, 36%). The most common all-grade treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were acneiform rash (NO=53%, HD=48% of pts), nausea (NO=65%, HD=22%), diarrhea (NO=53%, HD=26%) and fatigue (NO=59%, HD=15%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 27% (n=12) of pts (NO=8, 47%; HD=4, 15%). No treatment related deaths occurred. DLT was evaluable in 15 pts (ML=6, MD (1.5mg)=3, MD (2mg)=2, SV (1mg)=3 and SV (1.5mg)=1). One DLT (grade 3 acneiform rash) was observed in an SV pt (1.5mg). Dose interruptions or reductions due to TRAEs occurred in 15 pts (34%) [NO=9, 53%; ML=2, 29%; MD (1.5mg)=1, 33%; MD (2mg)=2, 33%; SV (1mg)=1, 11%; SV (1.5mg)=1; 50%]. Best response was stable disease in all HD groups (33 to 75%) and 54% in NO group. There were no significant differences for PK parameters of Cmax (p=0.18), Cmin (p=0.16), Cavg (p=0.62), or AUC0-24 (p=0.11) (NO vs ML, NO vs MD, NO vs SV, ML vs MD, ML vs SV, MD vs SV), when trametinib was normalized to 2 mg dose. However, only limited PK data were available for the MD (n=3) and SV (n=3) groups compared to NO (n=10) and ML (n=6) groups. Trametinib is heavily protein bound, with no correlation between serum albumin level and unbound trametinib fraction (p=0.26). Conclusion RP2D for trametinib in ML pts is 2 mg QD. There are insufficient number of evaluable pts to declare RP2D for MD and SV HD groups. No DLTs were noted in the highest dose cohorts that reached 3 evaluable pts: 1.5 mg QD in MD group, and 1 mg QD in SV group. It may be appropriate for pts with MD and SV HD to start trametinib at 1.5 mg QD and 1 mg QD respectively, and monitored closely for toxicity. Citation Format: Pei Jye Voon, Eric X. Chen, Helen X. Chen, Albert C. Lockhart, Solmaz Sahebjam, Karen Kelly, Ulka N. Vaishampayan, Vivek Subbiah, Albiruni R. Razak, Daniel J. Renouf, Sebastien J. Hotte, Arti Singh, Philippe L. Bedard, Aaron R. Hansen, Ivy S. Percy, Lisa Wang, Lee-Anne Stayner, Lillian L. Siu, Anna Spreafico. A phase 1 pharmacokinetic trial of single agent trametinib a MEK inhibitor in advanced cancer patients with hepatic dysfunction: An NCI Organ Dysfunction Working Group (ODWG) study (NCI 9591) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2021 Oct 7-10. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P035.

BackgroundPatients with solid tumors who progress on standard chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors, have limited efficacy with existing standard of care chemotherapy options (objective response rates [ORR] ~10%). These patients have a significant unmet medical need. Novel agents that can safely enhance treatment efficacy are urgently needed. Magrolimab is a first-in-class monoclonal antibody that blocks the macrophage inhibitory immune checkpoint CD47, a ”do not eat me” signal overexpressed on tumor cells. Pre-clinical studies provide compelling evidence that magrolimab triggers phagocytosis and eliminates cancer cells from human solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Magrolimab has demonstrated clinical activity in both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. Chemotherapeutic agents, including taxanes, enhance prophagocytic signals on tumor cells, leading to synergistic antitumor activity when combined with magrolimab. This study (NCT04827576) is evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of magrolimab with docetaxel in relapsed/refractory (R/R) metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), urothelial cancer (mUC), and small cell lung cancer (mSCLC).MethodsThis phase 2, open-label, multi-arm study consists of a safety run-in cohort and a phase 2 cohort. Eligible patients are ≥18 years old with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy refractory mNSCLC, mSCLC, or mUC. Magrolimab is administered intravenously (IV) with an initial 1 mg/kg priming dose to mitigate on target anemia, followed by 30 mg/kg dose during cycle 1 (cycles are 21 days) in the safety run-in to identify any dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). De-escalation may occur for DLTs per protocol. In phase 2, following the priming dose on day 1, magrolimab RP2D will be administered on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15 of cycle 2; and day 1 for cycles 3 and beyond. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (IV) is administered on day 1 of each cycle for all study participants. Patients may continue treatment until unacceptable toxicity, progressive disease by RECIST 1.1, or patient/investigator choice to discontinue. The primary endpoints are incidence of adverse events (safety and phase 2 cohorts) and ORR (phase 2). Secondary endpoints (phase 2) are progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints are to evaluate the pharmacodynamic, mechanism of action, and/or therapeutic response of biomarkers in blood and tumor biopsy samples and to explore biomarkers that may predict response to therapy. Planned enrollment is approximately 116 patients, and recruitment is ongoing.AcknowledgementsFunding provided by Gilead Sciences, Inc.Trial RegistrationNCT04827576Ethics ApprovalThe study protocol was approved by an institutional review board before enrollment of patients.ConsentPatients provided written informed consent based on Declaration of Helsinki principles.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib. Patients and Methods: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS). Results: We enrolled 108 patients; 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus. Of these, 89 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 87 PFS and 62 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine–treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. OPN, HGF, TIMP-1, VCAM-1, PDGF-AA, and IL6 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while OPN, PlGF, TIMP-1, VEGF, and soluble VEGFR-2 and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib. Conclusions: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.

Background There is an unmet need to determine factors predictive of clinical benefit, to guide therapeutic sequencing and selection in metastatic RCC (mRCC). We evaluated clinical factors such as the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and duration of prior anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, as predictors of response rate, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in mRCC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Methods Regulatory approval was obtained. A single center retrospective chart review of mRCC patients at Karmanos Cancer Institute, treated with ICI based therapy (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) was conducted. Data were collected on demographics, smoking status, prognostic scoring (Memorial Sloan Kettering and Heng criteria), NLR pretherapy, post 1 and 4 doses of ICI, and duration of prior anti-VEGF therapy ≥6 months or

BACKGROUND Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway has improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, resistance inevitably occurs. CD105 (endoglin) is an angiogenic pathway that is strongly upregulated after VEGF inhibition, potentially contributing to resistance. The authors tested whether TRC105, a monoclonal antibody against endoglin, impacted disease control in patients with previously treated RCC who were receiving bevacizumab. METHODS Eligible patients with metastatic RCC who had previously received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy, including VEGF-targeted agents, were randomized 1:1 to receive bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm A) or the same plus TRC105 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 and 24 weeks. Correlative studies included serum transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) and CD105 levels as well as tissue immunostaining for TGFβ receptors. RESULTS Fifty-nine patients were enrolled (28 on arm A and 31 on arm B), and 1 patient on each arm had a confirmed partial response. The median PFS for bevacizumab alone was 4.6 months compared with 2.8 for bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .09). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred in 16 patients (57%) who received bevacizumab compared with 19 (61%) who received bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .9). Baseline serum TGFβ levels below the median (

Prostate cancer presents with a multitude of faces. It ranges from localized cancers staying quiescent for many years during active surveillance to the raging diffuse liver metastases causing terminal disease. The incidence of metastatic disease is increasing. This review will highlight some of the recent developments as well as ongoing challenges of managing advanced prostate cancer.Significant strides are being made in managing metastatic prostate cancer. With the evolution of multiple new therapies, now the optimal use of these therapies and their proper sequencing is being addressed. Research is ongoing for mapping out pathways of resistance to therapies and for discovering new targets. Genomic alterations and abnormalities in circulating tumor DNA are being detected and will hopefully lead us more toward biomarker based therapies. The next era in oncology belongs to immune therapy. However, in prostate cancer the immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown modest responses and a phase III trial of radiation therapy ± ipilimumab revealed no benefit. Efforts are ongoing with combination trials of enzalutamide and atezolizumab or pembrolizumab. PARP inhibitors are gradually being established for therapeutic purposes, with olaparib achieving breakthrough status for prostate cancer patients with BRCA1 and 2 and ATM mutations.The future will bring an era of personalized medicine in advanced prostate cancer as well as optimization and more strategic sequencing of existing therapies.

Background Nivolumab is an important new therapy option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, and has a different mechanism of action compared with vascular endothelial growth factor -targeted therapies. It is a programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody with response patterns, efficacy, and safety profiles that differ from those of conventional antiangiogenic or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition therapy. Methods and Purpose This commentary discusses and evaluates the clinical experience with nivolumab from the available literature and presents practical considerations for the use of nivolumab immunotherapy in aRCC to optimize clinical management.

This commentary assesses the factors necessary for the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs. The metrics presented here may be useful as a rubric for new and established programs., Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator‐initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand‐alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease‐oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pilot trial utilizing [(18)F]FMAU [1-(2′-deoxy-2′-[(18)F]fluoro-β-d-arabinofuranosyl thymine] as a tumor tracer in positron emission tomography (PET) and evaluated its reproducibility, and changes in maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVpeak) with zoledronic acid treatment in castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients with bone metastases (BM). PROCEDURES: Eligible patients had CRPC with radiographic evidence of BM and creatinine clearance >30 ml/min. Two baseline [(18)F]FMAU-PET scans (about 1 week apart, range 2–12 days) were obtained for testing reproducibility. Zoledronic acid 4 mg was infused over 15 min within 1 week after second scan and a third PET scan was obtained 7 days later. The bony lesion with the highest uptake on the first scan was compared with later scans. Bone turnover markers and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were obtained pre- and post-therapy. PET response was defined as decline in SUVmean of ≥15 % after zoledronic acid. RESULTS: Eleven patients were evaluated, median age was 65 years, five were African-American and six were Caucasian, and median PSA level was 36.3 ng/ml (range 1.0–1209.3). Notably, the range of absolute percent SUVmax changes varied between 0.77 and 54.7, and only nine measurements were greater than one (1.09–2.19). Zoledronic acid did not appreciably change FMAU uptake. No clinical response was noted. Urine N-telopeptide (NTx) was markedly decreased in all patients after zoledronic acid and serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) registered a modest change. Urine NTx correlated more closely with SUV max than serum BSAP. CONCLUSIONS: FMAU tracer was able to detect bone metastases in CRPC patients but uptake was highly variable in bony lesions. Zoledronic acid did not produce an appreciable change in scans. Future investigations of FMAU tracer as a marker of early response in CRPC is recommended.

Background Infigratinib (BGJ398) is a potent and selective fibroblast grown factor receptor 1 to 3 (FGFR1-3) inhibitor with significant activity in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma bearing FGFR3 alterations. Given the distinct biologic characteristics of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), the authors examined whether infigratinib had varying activity in these settings. Methods Eligible patients had metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR3 mutations and/or fusions. Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. Blood was collected for cell-free DNA analysis using a 600-gene panel. Patients received infigratinib at a dose of 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. The overall response rate (ORR; partial response [PR] plus complete response [CR]) and disease control rate (DCR; CR plus PR plus stable disease [SD]) were characterized. Results A total of 67 patients were enrolled; the majority (70.1%) had received ≥2 prior antineoplastic therapies. In 8 patients with UTUC, 1 CR and 3 PRs were observed (ORR, 50%); the remaining patients achieved a best response of SD (DCR, 100%). In patients with UCB, 13 PRs were observed (ORR, 22%), and 22 patients had a best response of SD (DCR, 59.3%). Notable differences in genomic alterations between patients with UTUC and those with UCB included higher frequencies of FGFR3-TACC3 fusions (12.5% vs 6.8%) and FGFR3 R248C mutations (50% vs 11.9%), and a lower frequency of FGFR3 S249C mutations (37.5% vs 59.3%). Conclusions Differences in the cumulative genomic profile were observed between patients with UTUC and those with UCB in the current FGFR3-restricted experience, underscoring the distinct biology of these diseases. These results support a planned phase 3 adjuvant study predominantly performed in this population.

PURPOSE In this multicenter phase II trial, we evaluated atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with variant histology or any RCC histology with ≥ 20% sarcomatoid differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients may have received previous systemic therapy, excluding prior bevacizumab or checkpoint inhibitors. Patients underwent a baseline biopsy and received atezolizumab 1,200 mg and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, biomarkers of response as determined by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, and on-therapy quality-of-life (QOL) metrics using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-19 and the Brief Fatigue Inventory. RESULTS Sixty patients received at least 1 dose of either study agent; the majority (65%) were treatment naïve. The ORR for the overall population was 33% and 50% in patients with clear cell RCC with sarcomatoid differentiation and 26% in patients with variant histology RCC. Median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 10.9 months). PD-L1 status was available for 36 patients; 15 (42%) had ≥ 1% expression on tumor cells. ORR in PD-L1–positive patients was 60% (n = 9) v 19% (n = 4) in PD-L1–negative patients. Eight patients (13%) developed treatment-related grade 3 toxicities. There were no treatment-related grade 4-5 toxicities. QOL was maintained throughout therapy. CONCLUSION In this study, atezolizumab and bevacizumab demonstrated safety and resulted in objective responses in patients with variant histology RCC or RCC with ≥ 20% sarcomatoid differentiation. This regimen warrants additional exploration in patients with rare RCC, particularly those with PD-L1–positive tumors.

PURPOSE Six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1) is highly expressed in prostate cancers. DSTP3086S is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 anti-STEAP1 monoclonal antibody linked to the potent antimitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E. This study evaluated the safety and activity of DSTP3086S in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS Patients were enrolled in a 3 + 3 dose escalation study to evaluate DSTP3086S (0.3 to 2.8 mg/kg intravenously) given once every 3 weeks followed by cohort expansion at the recommended phase II dose or weekly (0.8 to 1.0 mg/kg). RESULTS Seventy-seven patients were given DSTP3086S once every 3 weeks, and seven were treated weekly. Two patients in the once-every-3-weeks dose escalation had dose-limiting grade 3 transaminitis. Grade 3 hyperglycemia and grade 4 hypophosphatemia were dose-limiting toxicities in one patient treated at 1.0 mg/kg weekly. Initial cohort expansion evaluated dosing at 2.8 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (n = 10), but frequent dose reductions led to testing of 2.4 mg/kg (n = 39) in the expansion phase. Common related adverse events (> 20%) across doses (once every 3 weeks) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, constipation, anorexia, diarrhea, and vomiting. DSTP3086S pharmacokinetics were linear. Among 62 patients who received > 2 mg/kg DSTP3086S once every 3 weeks, 11 (18%) demonstrated a ≥ 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen; two (6%) of 36 with measurable disease at baseline achieved a radiographic partial response; and of 27 patients with informative unfavorable baseline circulating tumor cells ≥ 5/7.5 mL of blood, 16 (59%) showed conversions to favorable circulating tumor cells < 5. No prostate-specific antigen or RECIST responses were seen with weekly dosing. CONCLUSION DSTP3086S has acceptable safety at the recommended phase II dose level of 2.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks. Antitumor activity at doses between 2.25 and 2.8 mg/kg once every 3 weeks supports the potential benefit of treating STEAP1-expressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with an STEAP1-targeting antibody-drug conjugate.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) may be beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This has been studied predominantly in clear-cell RCC, with more limited data on the role of CN in patients with papillary histology.OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefit of CN in synchronous metastatic papillary RCC.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) database, a retrospective analysis was performed for patients with papillary mRCC treated with or without CN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined for both patient groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in individual IMDC risk factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 647 patients with papillary mRCC were identified, of whom 353 had synchronous metastatic disease. Of these, 109 patients were treated with CN and 244 were not. The median follow-up was 57.1mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.9-77.8) and the OS from the start of first-line targeted therapy for the entire cohort was 13.2mo (95% CI 12.0-16.1). Median OS for patients with CN was 16.3mo, compared to 8.6mo (pCONCLUSIONS: The use of CN in patients with mRCC and papillary histology appears to be associated with better survival compared to no CN after adjustment for risk criteria. Selection of appropriate candidates for CN is crucial. A clinical trial in this rare population may not be possible.PATIENT SUMMARY: In a population of patients with advanced papillary kidney cancer, we found that surgical removal of the primary kidney tumor was associated with better overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies targeting programmed death-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown clinical activity in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This phase Ib cohort of the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy in patients with mRCC as either first-line (1 L) or second-line (2 L) treatment. METHODS: Patients with mRCC with a clear-cell component who were treatment naive (1 L subgroup) or had disease progression after one prior line of therapy (2 L subgroup) received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. Endpoints included confirmed best overall response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), PD-L1 expression, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the 1 L subgroup, and 20 patients were enrolled in the 2 L subgroup. In the 1 L and 2 L subgroups, confirmed objective response rates were 16.1 and 10.0%, median DOR was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-not evaluable) and not evaluable (95% CI, 6.9-not evaluable), median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.5) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.3-9.6), and median OS was not evaluable (95% CI, not evaluable) and 16.9 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 51 patients in the 1 L subgroup (82.3%) and 14 patients in the 2 L subgroup (70.0%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in eight patients in the 1 L subgroup (12.9%) and one patient in the 2 L subgroup (5.0%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in both the 1 L and 2 L treatment setting in patients with mRCC. These data support the use of avelumab in combination with other agents in mRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01772004 ; registered 21 January, 2013. ispartof: JOURNAL FOR IMMUNOTHERAPY OF CANCER vol:7 issue:1 ispartof: location:England status: published

BACKGROUND: In metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), recent data have shown efficacy of first-line ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi-nivo) as well as immuno-oncology (IO)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations. Comparative data between these strategies are limited.OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ipi-nivo versus IO-VEGF (IOVE) combinations in mRCC, and describe practice patterns and effectiveness of second-line therapies.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the International Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) dataset, patients treated with any first-line IOVE combination were compared with those treated with ipi-nivo.INTERVENTION: All patients received first-line IO combination therapies.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First- and second-line response rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TNT), and overall survival (OS) were analysed. Hazard ratios were adjusted for IMDC risk factors.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 113 patients received IOVE combinations and 75 received ipi-nivo. For IOVE combinations versus ipi-nivo, first-line response rates were 33% versus 40% (between-group difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -8% to 22%, p = 0.4), TTF was 14.3 versus 10.2 mo (p = 0.2), TNT was 19.7 versus 17.9 mo (p = 0.4), and median OS was immature but not statistically different (p = 0.17). Adjusted hazard ratios for TTF, TNT, and OS were 0.71 (95% CI 0.46-1.12, p = 0.14), 0.65 (95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.11), and 1.74 (95% CI 0.82-3.68, p = 0.14), respectively. Sixty-four (34%) patients received second-line treatment. In patients receiving subsequent VEGF-based therapy, second-line response rates were lower in the IOVE cohort than in the ipi-nivo cohort (15% vs 45%; between-group difference 30%, 95% CI 3-57%, p = 0.04; n = 40), though second-line TTF was not significantly different (3.7 vs 5.4 mo; p = 0.4; n = 55). Limitations include the study's retrospective design and sample size.CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in first-line outcomes between IOVE combinations and ipi-nivo. Most patients received VEGF-based therapy in the second line. In this group, second-line response rate was greater in patients who received ipi-nivo initially.PATIENT SUMMARY: There were no significant differences in key first-line outcomes for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma receiving immuno-oncology/vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combinations versus ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Background Radium-223 prolongs overall survival and delays symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. The approved radium-223 regimen is 55 kBq/kg every 4 weeks (q4w) for six cycles (standard dose). We investigated different radium-223 regimens in patients with mCRPC. Patients and methods Patients were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to radium-223 standard-dose, high-dose (88 kBq/kg q4w for six cycles) or extended-schedule arms (55 kBq/kg q4w for 12 cycles). The primary end point, SSE-free survival (SSE-FS), was compared in patients treated with a high- versus standard-dose regimen, or with a standard dose in an extended (>6 to 12 cycles) versus standard schedule (six cycles). Results A total of 391 patients were randomised; baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. On-treatment SSEs developed in 37/130 (28%), 42/130 (32%) and 48/131 (37%) patients in the standard-dose, high-dose and extended-schedule arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in SSE-FS in the high- versus standard-dose arms [median 12.9 months versus 12.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 80% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.27, P = 0.70], and in the extended- versus standard-schedule arms (median 10.8 months versus 13.2 months; HR 1.26, 80% CI 0.94–1.69, P = 0.31). Overall survival in the three treatment arms was similar. As many as 370 (95%) patients received treatment (median of six cycles) in each arm. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affected 34% of patients in the standard-dose, 48% in the high-dose and 53% in the extended-schedule arm, causing permanent discontinuation in 9%, 16% and 17% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Radium-223 high-dose or extended-schedule regimens resulted in no change in SSE-FS or other efficacy end points and were associated with more grade ≥3 TEAEs. The extended-schedule regimen (beyond six doses) could not be implemented in a large proportion of patients due to disease progression. Therefore, the standard-dose schedule remains one of the standard therapies for patients with symptomatic mCRPC. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023697.

The availability of new potent systemic therapies for urothelial carcinoma may change the way we use standard chemotherapy perioperatively. In particular, identifying which patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is compelling. From a multicenter database we selected 950 patients with cT2–4N0M0 MIBC treated with radical cystectomy (RC), with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and AC. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses to test 1-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates according to AC use. Nomogram-derived probabilities of 1-yr recurrence after RC were plotted against actual recurrence rates according to AC use. Overall, we did not see evidence of an AC effect on the 1-yr RFS rate (p = 0.6). Conversely, the 1-yr RFS rate was higher among patients with pT3–4 or pN1 disease who received AC (75% vs 54%; p < 0.001). We were unable to demonstrate a difference between AC and no AC among patients who received prior NAC (1-yr RFS 57% vs 76%; p = 0.057). As the most important finding, AC was associated with incremental RFS benefits only for patients with a nomogram-derived 1-yr recurrence probability of >40%. Patient summary: Maximizing disease control with adjuvant chemotherapy was beneficial for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who had a calculated recurrence risk of >40% and did not impact cancer recurrence in lower-risk disease. Therefore, patient stratification using the nomogram available for predicting recurrence is advisable pending external validation.

Enhancement of endogenous immunity to tumor-associated self-antigens and neoantigens is the goal of preventive vaccination. Toward this goal, we compared the efficacy of the following HER2 DNA vaccine constructs: vaccines encoding wild-type HER2, hybrid HER2 vaccines consisting of human HER2 and rat Neu, HER2 vaccines with single residue substitutions and a novel human HER2 DNA vaccine, ph(es)E2TM. ph(es)E2TM was designed to contain five evolution-selected substitutions: M198V, Q398R, F425L, H473R and A622T that occur frequently in 12 primate HER2 sequences. These ph(es)E2TM substitutions score 0 to 1 in blocks substitutions matrix (BLOSUM), indicating minimal biochemical alterations. h(es)E2TM recombinant protein is recognized by a panel of anti-HER2 mAbs, demonstrating the preservation of HER2 protein structure. Compared to native human HER2, electrovaccination of HER2 transgenic mice with ph(es)E2TM induced a threefold increase in HER2-binding antibody (Ab) and elevated levels of IFNγ-producing T cells. ph(es)E2TM, but not pE2TM immune serum, recognized HER2 peptide p95 355LPESFDGDPASNTAP369, suggesting a broadening of epitope recognition induced by the minimally modified HER2 vaccine. ph(es)E2TM vaccination reduced tumor growth more effectively than wild-type HER2 or HER2 vaccines with more extensive modifications. The elevation of tumor immunity by ph(es)E2TM vaccination would create a favorable tumor microenvironment for neoantigen priming, further enhancing the protective immunity. The fundamental principle of exploiting evolution-selected amino acid substitutions is novel, effective and applicable to vaccine development in general.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:Patients (pts) with mUC who have failed platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. About 20% of them usually respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Also,...

Purpose Contemporary treatment for metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus abiraterone or docetaxel. While these intensified regimens have improved efficacy, they are also associated with increased cost and toxicities. Not all men with mHSPC may be candidates for these intensified regimens, yet there are no clinical models or biomarkers used to optimize treatment selection. Herein, we hypothesized that longer time from prior definitive therapy (DT), either radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or both, to onset of metastatic disease is associated with improved survival outcomes in men with newly diagnosed mHSPC. Methods This multicenter retrospective study included men initiating systemic therapy with ADT for new mHSPC. Kaplan-Meier and COX proportional hazard models assessed time to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and overall survival (OS) by receipt of prior DT. Results Of the 253 men with new mHSPC, 115 (45%) had received prior DT. In a multivariate analysis, increasing years from DT to the start of ADT was an independent predictor of time to mCRPC (per year: hazard ratio 0.91 95% confidence interval 0.84–0.99, P = 0.020) and improved OS (per year: hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.74–0.99, P = 0.0025) in patients with new mHSPC, and may assist with risk stratification in these patients at time of mHSPC. Conclusion Time from DT to start of ADT is an independent predictor of time to mCRPC and OS in men with new mHSPC, and may assist with risk stratification of these patients for systemic therapy selection.

Background Despite the advent of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) for advanced genitourinary (GU) cancers, existing studies suggest that durable complete responses are observed in fewer than 10% of patients. This study sought to evaluate the association between expectations of cure reported by patients with advanced GU cancers initiating immunotherapy and quality of life (QOL), anxiety and depression. Patient and methods A single-institution, cross-sectional survey study was conducted with patients preparing to receive CPIs for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), urothelial cancer (UC) and prostate cancer (PC). Patients were assessed prior to initiation of immunotherapy for expectations of cure (divided into four quartiles), quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General [FACT-G]), and symptoms of anxiety and depression (PROMIS). Results Sixty patients were enrolled, with metastatic RCC, UC and PC comprising 63, 28 and 8% of the study population, respectively. Median age of the cohort was 65 (range, 31–91), and 68% were male; 33% received CPI in the first-line setting. Despite extensive counseling from oncologists regarding potential clinical outcomes with immunotherapy, a substantial proportion of patients (23%) harbored inaccurate expectations regarding the potential benefit of immunotherapy. Importantly, patients with accurate expectations of cure reported lower anxiety scores using the PROMIS-Anxiety inventory. No significant differences were found between expectations of cure and quality of life or depression, using the FACT-G and PROMIS-Depression inventories, respectively. Conclusion The current study found that a considerable proportion of patients with advanced GU cancers harbor inaccurate expectations concerning the potential benefit of immunotherapy. These results suggest that more effective counselling may mitigate patient anxiety, and potentially promote treatment satisfaction and adherence.

Cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) can be used for noninvasive profiling of tumor genomic aberrations. We hypothesized that molecular alterations may inform prognostication in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). We evaluated 124 aUC patients who underwent cfDNA analysis using a 73-gene sequencing panel (Guardant360). The association of molecular alterations and clinical factors with overall survival (OS) and failure-free-survival (FFS) was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression. The median age was 72yr, and 65 patients (52.4%) received prior therapy with platinum, 21 (17.1%) with a taxane, and ten (8.1%) with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. At least one genomic alteration was detected in 112 patients (90.3%). The median number of alterations per sample was four (range 0-80). Commonly altered genes included TP53 (54.8%), PIK3CA (24.2%), ARID1A (22.6%), ERBB2 (19.4%), EGFR (16.1%), NF1 (13.7%), RB1 (12.9%), FGFR3 (11.3%), BRAF (10.5%), BRCA1 (10.5%), and RAF1 (8.9%). BRCA1 and RAF1 alterations were associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.48; p=0.07; HR 4.87; p=0.007) and FFS (HR 2.35; p=0.016; HR 2.40; p=0.047). Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and the presence of visceral metastasis were associated with shorter OS; genomic evolution was observed. In conclusion, cfDNA molecular alterations were detected in most aUC patients. BRCA1 and RAF1 alterations were negatively prognostic, supporting further evaluation of DNA damage response and RAF kinase inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Noninvasive testing of cell-free circulating DNA in advanced urothelial carcinoma identifies clinically relevant molecular aberrations. Alterations in BRCA1 and RAF1 genes appear to be negatively associated with clinical outcomes, supporting further study of DNA damage response and RAF kinase inhibitors in selected patients.

Importance Patients with malignant mesothelioma whose disease has progressed after platinum and pemetrexed treatment have limited options. Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibodies have antitumor activity in this disease, but little is known about the activity of anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies in patients with mesothelioma. Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of avelumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated mesothelioma. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 1b open-label study (JAVELIN Solid Tumor) in patients with unresectable mesothelioma that progressed after platinum and pemetrexed treatment, enrolled at 25 sites in 3 countries between September 9, 2014, and July 22, 2015. Interventions Participants received avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal from the study. Main Outcomes and Measures Prespecified end points included confirmed best overall response based on Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1; duration of response; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); PD-L1 expression–based analyses; and safety. Results Of 53 patients treated with avelumab, the median age was 67 (range, 32-84) years; 32 (60%) were male. As of December 31, 2016, median follow-up was 24.8 (range, 16.8-27.8) months. Twenty patients (38%) had 3 or more previous lines of therapy (median, 2; range, 1-8). The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 9% (5 patients; 95% CI, 3.1%-20.7%), with complete response in 1 patient and partial response in 4 patients. Responses were durable (median, 15.2 months; 95% CI, 11.1 to not estimable months) and occurred in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors (3 of 16; ORR, 19%; 95% CI, 4.0%-45.6%) and PD-L1–negative tumors (2 of 27; ORR, 7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-24.3%) based on a 5% or greater PD-L1 cutoff. Disease control rate was 58% (31 patients). Median PFS was 4.1 (95% CI, 1.4-6.2) months, and the 12-month PFS rate was 17.4% (95% CI, 7.7%-30.4%). Median OS was 10.7 (95% CI, 6.4-20.2) months, and the median 12-month OS rate was 43.8% (95% CI, 29.8%-57.0%). Five patients (9%) had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event, and 3 (6%) had a grade 3 or 4 immune-related, treatment-related adverse event. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions and Relevance Avelumab showed durable antitumor activity and disease control with an acceptable safety profile in a heavily pretreated cohort of patients with mesothelioma. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT01772004

Background: Limited data is available on the role, and extent of, postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy (PC-LND) in patients with clinical evidence of pelvic (cN1-3) or retroperitoneal (RP) lymph node spread from urothelial bladder carcinoma. Objective: To compare the outcomes of operated versus nonoperated patients after first-line chemotherapy. Design, setting, and participants: Data from 34 centers was collected, totaling 522 patients, treated between January 2000 and June 2015. Criteria for patient selection were the following: bladder primary tumor, lymph node metastases (pelvic. ±. RP) only, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy given. Intervention: LND (with cystectomy) versus observation after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder carcinoma. Outcome measures and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Multiple propensity score techniques were adopted, including 1:1 propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Additionally, the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed with the inclusion of the covariates, that is, with doubly robust estimation. Results and limitations: Overall, 242 (46.4%) patients received PC-LND and 280 (53.6%) observation after chemotherapy. There were 177 (33.9%) and 345 (66.1%) patients with either RP or pelvic LND only, respectively. Doubly robust estimation-adjusted comparison was not significant for improved OS for PC-LND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.31, p = 0.479), confirmed by matched analysis (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.60-1.36, p = 0.628). This was also observed in the RP subgroup (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.68-1.84). The retrospective nature of the data and the heterogeneous patient population were the major limitations. Conclusions: Although there were substantial differences between the two groups, after accounting for major confounders we report a nonsignificant OS difference with PC-LND compared with observation only. These findings may be hypothesis-generating for future prospective trials. Patient summary: We found no differences in survival by adding postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in patients with pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph node metastatic bladder cancer. The indication to perform postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in the most suitable patients requires additional studies. In contemporary cohorts of patients with metastatic pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph nodes from bladder cancer, we found no survival benefit from postchemotherapy surgery versus observation in a retrospective study. Performing postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy remains investigational in patients with metastatic bladder cancer.

Purpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer that may develop de novo or as a mechanism of treatment resistance. N-myc is capable of driving NEPC progression. Alisertib inhibits the interaction between N-myc and its stabilizing factor Aurora-A, inhibiting N-myc signaling, and suppressing tumor growth. Patients and Methods: Sixty men were treated with alisertib 50 mg twice daily for 7 days every 21 days. Eligibility included metastatic prostate cancer and at least one: small-cell neuroendocrine morphology; ≥50% neuroendocrine marker expression; new liver metastases without PSA progression; or elevated serum neuroendocrine markers. The primary endpoint was 6-month radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Pretreatment biopsies were evaluated by whole exome and RNA-seq and patient-derived organoids were developed. Results: Median PSA was 1.13 ng/mL (0.01–514.2), number of prior therapies was 3, and 68% had visceral metastases. Genomic alterations involved RB1 (55%), TP53 (46%), PTEN (29%), BRCA2 (29%), and AR (27%), and there was a range of androgen receptor signaling and NEPC marker expression. Six-month rPFS was 13.4% and median overall survival was 9.5 months (7.3–13). Exceptional responders were identified, including complete resolution of liver metastases and prolonged stable disease, with tumors suggestive of N-myc and Aurora-A overactivity. Patient organoids exhibited concordant responses to alisertib and allowed for the dynamic testing of Aurora–N-myc complex disruption. Conclusions: Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, a subset of patients with advanced prostate cancer and molecular features supporting Aurora-A and N-myc activation achieved significant clinical benefit from single-agent alisertib.

Background The impact of cisplatin use on long-term survival of unselected patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) has not been adequately investigated. We used a multinational database to study long-term survival and the impact of treatment type in unselected patients with aUTC. Materials and Methods A total of 1,333 patients with aUTC (cT4bN0M0, cTanyN+M0, cTanyNanyM+), transitional-cell, squamous, or adenocarcinoma histology who received systemic chemotherapy and had available survival data were selected. Long-term survival was defined as alive at 3 years following initiation of first-line chemotherapy. Conditional overall survival (COS) analysis was employed to study change in prognosis given time survived from initiation of first-line chemotherapy. Results Median follow-up was 31.7 months. The combination of cisplatin use and cisplatin eligibility accurately predicted long-term survival. Eligible patients treated with cisplatin conferred a 31.6% probability of 3-year survival (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1–38.3), and 2-year COS for patients surviving 3 years after initiation of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was 83% (95% CI: 59.7–93.5). The respective probabilities for patients who were ineligible for cisplatin or not treated with cisplatin despite eligibility were 14% (95% CI: 10.8–17.6) and 49.3% (95% CI: 28.2–67.4). Two-year COS remained significantly different between these two groups up to 3 years after chemotherapy initiation. Conclusion Cisplatin-based therapy was associated with the highest likelihood of long-term survival in patients with aUTC and should be used in patients who fulfill the established eligibility criteria. Novel therapies are necessary to increase long-term survival in cisplatin-ineligible patients. Implications for Practice Long-term, disease-free survival is possible in one in four eligible-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. Therefore, deviations from eligibility criteria should be avoided. Consolidation surgery should be considered in responders. These data provide benchmarks for the study of novel therapies in aUTC.

Background: Several ongoing phase 2 trials are evaluating new neoadjuvant therapy regimens in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The 1-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) after radical cystectomy (RC), with or without perioperative chemotherapy, can be used to model statistical assumptions and interpret outcomes from these studies. Objective: To provide a benchmark for predicting 1-yr RFS in patients with cT2–4N0 MIBC. Design, setting, and participants: We identified 950 patients with clinical stage T2–4N0 MIBC undergoing RC at 27 centers between 1990 and 2016. We assessed 1-yr RFS rates for patients managed with no perioperative chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), or NAC followed by AC. Cox regression analyses tested for 1-yr postsurgical RFS predictors. A Cox-based nomogram was developed to estimate 1-yr RFS and its accuracy was assessed in terms of Harrell's c-index, a calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. We report 1-yr RFS rates across the nomogram tertiles. Results and limitations: The 1-yr RFS rates were 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64–72) after no perioperative chemotherapy, 76.9% (95% CI 72–83%) after NAC, 77.8% (95% CI 71–85%) after AC, and 57% (95% CI 37–87) after NAC + AC. On multivariable analysis, positive surgical margins (p = 0.002), pT stage (p < 0.0001), and pN stage (p