Search

Background: Enfortumab vedotin (EV) has been approved for the treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy followed by immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the pivotal clinical trials did not include patients previously treated with avelumab maintenance therapy., Objective: The aim of the present retrospective analysis was to assess the effectiveness of EV following avelumab in patients with mUC enrolled in the ARON-2 EV study., Patients and Methods: The study included 182 patients with mUC treated with EV following avelumab maintenance. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DoR). Statistical analysis involved Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models., Results: Median OS and PFS were 12.7 (95% CI 10.2-14.1) and 7.9 (95% CI 6.4-9.9) months, respectively. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 5% and partial response (PR) in 34% of patients, with an ORR of 39%. The DoR in patients who achieved CR/PR was 10.9 months (95% CI 8.1-11.4). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and skin rash was 9%, followed by 8% of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea and 4% of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycemia., Conclusions: The results of our large international retrospective study confirm the effectiveness of EV and endorse its use in the population of patients with mUC treated with EV following the frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and subsequent maintenance treatment with avelumab., Competing Interests: Declarations Funding No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest Ondřej Fiala received honoraria from Roche, Janssen, GSK, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Francesco Massari has received research support and/or honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Umberto Basso received honoraria for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca; research funding from Ipsen; and travel grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, Merck/Pfizer, and Bayer, all unrelated to this project. Sebastiano Buti received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Merck, Gentili, and Astellas, all unrelated to the present paper. Yüksel Ürün has served on advisory board for Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Deva, Eczacıbaşı, Gen ilaç, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and received travel grants, honoraria, or consultation fees from Abdi-İbrahim, Astellas, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Deva, Eczacıbaşı, Gen İlaç, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, all unrelated to the present paper. Maria T. Bourlon is a consultant of Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Gilead, Astellas, and Asofarma and a speaker for Janssen Pharmaceuticasl, MSD, Merck, and Astellas, all unrelated to the present paper. Mimma Rizzo has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant by MSD, Merck Serono, Astrazeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Gilead, all unrelated to the present paper. Linda Cerbone has received honoraria for advisory boards, speaker engagements, and scientific consultancy for educational purposes from AstraZeneca, EISAI, MSD, Ipsen, BMS, and A.A.A.; and is a past MSD employee in Medical Affairs. Javier Molina-Cerrillo reports research funding from Roche, Ipsen, Pfizer, and Janssen; travel support from Pfizer, Janssen, Ipsen, and BMS; and a consulting or advisory role with Ipsen, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adium, and MSD, all unrelated to the present paper. Álvaro Pinto is a member of advisory boards of Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS, Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, Bayer, Clovis, Roche, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; has received research support from Pfizer and BMS; clinical trial payments from Pfizer, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Clovis, Pharmacyclics, BMS, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Roche, Eisai, and Aveo; and travel arrangements from Janssen, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, and Ipsen, all unrelated to the present paper. Andrey Soares reports honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, and Adium; consulting or advisory role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adium, Ipsen, Pfizer, and Novartis; research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), and AstraZeneca (Inst); travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Adium, MSD, and Merck Serono; and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology; all unrelated to this study. Alexandr Poprach has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Astellas, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, unrelated to this project. Gian Paolo Spinelli has received payment or honoraria for advidory boards from Novartis, Roche, and Bayer, unrelated to this project. Martin Angel received honoraria from Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Raffo, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro reports research support provided by Merck Sharp Dome; honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome; and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology, all unrelated to this study. Camillo Porta acted as a remunerated consultant and/or speaker for Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMC, Eisai, Exilixis, Genenta, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD; as a protocol steering committee member for Eisai and MSD; and as an Independent Review Board member for Genenta. Shilpa Gupta is a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Gilead, Bayer, and Seattle Genetics; is a speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb; and has institutional research funding from Seatte Genetics, Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, and Tyra Biosciences. Matteo Santoni has received research support and honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas, and Bayer, all unrelated to the present paper. Patrizia Giannatempo, Enrique Grande, Zin W. Myint, Ugo De Giorgi, Renate Pichler, Francesco Grillone, Fabio Calabrò, Luca Galli, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Giandomenico Roviello, Jakub Kucharz, Se Hoon Park, Emmanuel Seront, Carlo Messina, Daniele Santini, Akihiro Yano, Lorena Incorvaia, Martina Catalano, Luigi Formisano, Gaetano Facchini, Giuseppe Fornarini, Sara Elena Rebuzzi, Cecilia Nasso, Marco Stellato, Deniz Tural, Gaetano Aurilio, Ilana Epstein, Francesco Carrozza, Giovanni Benedetti, Tomáš Büchler, Cinzia Ortega, Roubini Zakopoulou, Nicola Battelli, and Joaquin Bellmunt declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript. Tomáš Büchler and Camillo Porta are Editorial Board members of Targeted Oncology. Tomáš Büchler and Camillo Porta were not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Ethics Approval The study protocol was approved on 28 September 2023, by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating center (Marche Region – Italy – no. 2022 39/7875, Study Protocol “ARON 2 Study” NCT05290038) and by the Institutional Review Boards of participating centers. Consent to Participate Informed consent with subsequent analysis of the follow-up data was obtained from all participants. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Material The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient data security but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Author Contributions Study concept and design: all authors; acquisition of data: all authors; analysis and interpretation of data: all authors; drafting of the manuscript: Fiala, Massari, Gupta, and Santoni; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors; statistical analysis: Santoni; obtaining funding: none; administrative, technical, or material support: none; and supervision: Gupta and Santoni., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Therapeutic advancements based on immuno-oncology combinations have revolutionized the management of patients with renal cell carcinoma. However, patients who have progressive disease as the best response, "primary refractory" (P ref ), face dismal outcomes., Objective: Our multicenter retrospective real-world study aims to assess the prevalence and clinicopathological characteristics of P ref patients., Methods: This study collected data from 72 centers across 22 countries (1709 patients), involving patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. All patients were treated with first-line immune-oncology combinations. Data included patient demographics, histology, metastatic sites, and treatment responses. Radiological assessments followed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Statistical analyses employed Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional hazard models, logistic regression, and the receiver operating characteristic curve., Results: In our study, the P ref rate was 19%. Nivolumab/ipilimumab showed the highest P ref rate (27%), while pembrolizumab/lenvatinib exhibited the lowest (10%). Primary refactory patients demonstrated significantly lower median overall survival (7.6 months) compared with non-P ref patients (55.7 months), p < 0.001. At the multivariate analysis, nephrectomy, sarcomatoid de-differentiation, intermediate/poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk, and bone and brain metastases emerged as significant predictors of overall survival for P ref patients with renal cell carcinoma. Logistic regression showed a significant relationship between liver metastases, intermediate/poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk, and no surgery and an increased risk of P ref . This study presents limitations, mainly because of its retrospective design., Conclusions: The ARON-1 study provides valuable insights into P ref patients, emphasizing the challenges of this precociously resistant subgroup. Identified predictors could guide risk stratification, aiding clinicians in tailored therapeutic approaches., Competing Interests: Declarations Funding No external funding was used in the preparation of this article. Conflicts of Interest/Compting Interests Ondrej Fiala received honoraria from Novartis, Janssen, Merck, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project. Sebastiano Buti has received honoraria for speaking at scientific events and advisory roles from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer and research funding from Novartis and Pfizer unrelated to this project. He has also been on the advisory board for Gentili. Francesco Massari has received research support and/or honoraria from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Enrique Grande has received honoraria for speaker engagements and advisory roles or received funding for continuous medical education from Adacap, Amgen, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, Ipsen, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nanostring Technologies, Natera, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific and research grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. All of the above are unrelated to the present paper. Alexandr Poprach has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, Ipsen, Roche, Astellas, Merck, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, unrelated to this project. Javier Molina-Cerrillo declares consultant, advisory, or speaker roles for Ipsen, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, and BMS unrelated to this project. Zin W. Myint has received research support from Merck unrelated to the present paper. Ray Manneh Kopp has received research support and/or honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Tecnofarma and Roche, unrelated to this project. Jakub Kucharz has received honoraria from Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, and research funding from Novartis, all unrelated to the present paper. Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro has received research support from Janssen and Merck Sharp Dome and honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome, all unrelated to the present paper. Ravindran Kanesvaran has received fees for speaker bureau and advisory board activities from the following companies; Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Amgen, Astellas, and Bayer, unrelated to this project. Tomáš Büchler has received research support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck KGaA, MSD, and Novartis; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi/Aventis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Accord, MSD, and Pfizer, all unrelated to the present paper. Andrey Soares has received honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, Adium. Consulting or Advisory Role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adium, Ipsen, and Pfizer, research Funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), and AstraZeneca (Inst), travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Adium, MSD, and Merck Serono, and ownership in BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All are unrelated to this study. Camillo Porta has received honoraria from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD and acted as a Protocol Steering Committee Member for Eisai and MSD, unrelated to this project. Matteo Santoni has received research support and honoraria from Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas, A.A.A. and Bayer, all unrelated to the present paper. Daniele Santini, Haoran Li, Giandomenico Roviello, Se Hoon Park, Umberto Basso, Martina Catalano, Emmanuel Seront, Jawaher Ansari, Marwan Ghosn, Fabio Calabrò, Dipen Bhuva, Maria T. Bourlon, Michela Roberto, Mattia Alberto Di Civita, Veronica Mollica, Andrea Marchetti, Nicola Battelli, Marco Ricci, and Aristotelis Bamias have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. Tomas Buchler and Camillo Porta are Editorial Board members of Targeted Oncology. Tomas Buchler and Camillo Porta were not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Ethics Approval The “ARON-1” project obtained approved from the Ethics Committee of the Marche Region (2021-492) and adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Availability of Data and Material The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Code Availability Not applicable. Authors’ Contributions Conception and design: DS, MS, FM; acquisition of data: DS, MS, FM; analysis and interpretation of data: DS, MS, FM; drafting of the manuscript: DS, MS, FM; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors; statistical analysis: MS; supervision: MS, FM., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

The Case A 47-year-old woman with a history of drug-resistant epilepsy during childhood presented to the emergency department with sudden dyspnea and chest pain. Upon admission, her oxygen saturation was 88%. A chest CT scan revealed pulmonary cystic lesions consistent with lymphangioleiomyomatosis and a right spontaneous pneumothorax, which resolved with the placement of a chest tube. Physical examination revealed a hypopigmented macule on the skin of the lumbar region, facial angiofibromas, and periungual fibromas. An abdominal MRI documented multiple bilateral renal tumors that were hypointense on T2-weighted imaging and showed a black boundary artifact, suggestive of fat-poor angiomyolipomas (AMLs). Subsequent percutaneous biopsy of the largest renal tumor confirmed the diagnosis of angiomyolipoma (positive for HMB-45 on immunohistochemistry). The brain MRI revealed subependymal nodules. The pulmonary function tests showed a mild obstructive pattern. Germline genetic testing confirmed the suspected diagnosis, and the patient started oral systemic treatment with everolimus (Afinitor) 10 mg once daily, along with dexamethasone rinses for prophylaxis.

Background and Objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024., Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists")., Key Findings and Limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib-nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting., Methods: TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting., Findings: From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib-nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0-7·4) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6-9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84-1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6-9·6) with tivozanib-nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4-10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib-nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7-5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9-7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib-nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group)., Interpretation: These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting., Funding: Aveo Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports institutional and personal paid or unpaid support for research, advisory board participation, consultancy, and honoraria within the past 5 years from Alkermes, Arcus Bio, AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, HiberCell, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Jansen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Neomorph, Nuscan and Precede Bio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, and Tempest and equity in Tempest, Pionyr, Osel, Precede Bio, CureResponse, InnDura Therapeutics, and Primium. LA reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Astellas, Merck, MSD, Janssen, Eisai, and Amgen and support for travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Ipsen, and Pfizer. PB reports grants or contracts from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Gilead, Janssen, AAA Pharmaceutical, and Bayer; consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; and reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, AAA Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca. SE reports consulting fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Kephren and support for attending meetings and travel from MSD, Chugai, Pfizer, and Janssen. JM-C reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adacap, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Adium, and Asofarma; support for attending meetings and travel from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Ipsen, Pfizer, Astellas, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD. BG reports research funding grants from AbbVie, Accutar Biotechnology, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, CRISPR Therapeutics, Eikon Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche and Genentech, Flare Therapeutics, Harbour BioMed, IDEAYA Biosciences, Janssen, Janux Therapeutics, Jubilant Therapeutics, Kineta, Kinnate BioPharma, Loxo, Mink Therapeutics, Nuvation Bio, Profound Bio, Takeda Therapeutics, Teon Therapeutics, Tmunity Therapeutics, Xencor, and Zenshine and consulting fees from AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adicent Therapeutics, AIQ Global, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Oncology, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Rondo Therapeutics, Sanofi–Aventis, Seagen, and Xencor. PB reports honoraria from UroToday; consulting or advising fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Aveo, Merck, Ipson, and Dendreon; speakers bureau funding from AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer and Astellas, and Merck; and research funding from Exelixis, Aveo, Blue Earth, Pfizer, and Merck. AB reports honoraria from Gilead Sciences, Cardinal Health, Eisai, and Natera; consulting or advising fees from EMD Serono, Seattle Genetics, and Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; speakers bureau funds from Eisai; and research funding from Merck, EMD Serono, Natera, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb and Celgene, Genentech and Roche, and Aveo. MTB reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bristol Myers Squibb. HM reports honoraria from EMD Serono and Pfizer; research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Arcus Bioscience, Apollomics, Nektar, RevImmune, HUYA Bioscience International, Aveo, Xencor, and Pfizer; and travel accommodations or expenses from Aveo, Seagen, Bayer, and Genentech. RR reports honoraria from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Eisai; consulting or advisory fees from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Ipsen, and MSD; and travel accommodations or expenses from Ipsen, MSD Oncology, and Janssen. RRM reports consulting or advisory roles for Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, Aveo, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Arcus Biosciences, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, Eisai, and NeoMorph and research funding from Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, and Artera. AC-R reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from OncLive and MJH Life Sciences, ASCO Direct, Exelixis, Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, EPG Health, Eisai Co, Aveo, and Seagen. HH reports grants or contracts for clinical trial support from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Agenus, Hoosier, and Aveo and advisory consulting fees from Eisai, Aveo, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. DYCH reports consultancy fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, and Merck and research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ipsen. EB reports funding for the provision of study materials, medical writing, or article processing charges from Aveo Oncology and stock or stock options from Autolus. KEB reports grants funding from Bristol Myers Squibb–Lung Cancer Foundation of America–International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Aravive, Pionyr, and Arsenal Bio; consulting fees from Aravive, Aveo, Alpine Bioscience, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Adicet, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Eisai, Merck, Nimbus, and Xencor; and honoraria funding from Merck. BAM reports grants to his institution from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Arcus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead, Lily, and Pfizer; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Targeted Oncology, Dava Oncology, Aptitude Health, and Curio; and patents planned, issued, or pending with Gilead. RJM reports consulting fees from Aveo, Merck, Exelixis, and Takeda, grants or contracts from Pfizer, Genentech and Roche, Eisai, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis; and data safety monitoring and advisory board participation fees from Incyte. RI reports no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: Multiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed., Methods: The location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC)., Results: Across 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each)., Conclusion: There is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

Background and Objective: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most frequent histological subtype of non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC). Owing to the heterogeneity of nccRCC, patients are often excluded from large phase 3 trials focused on clear cell RCC, so treatment options for nccRCC remain limited. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations in patients with pRCC., Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of real-world data collected for patients with advanced pRCC treated in 40 centers in 12 countries as part of the ARON-1 project (NCT05287464). The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the overall response rate (ORR), and time to second progression (PFS2). OS, PFS, and PFS2 were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and results were compared between the treatment groups using a log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable analyses were carried out using Cox proportional-hazard models., Key Findings and Limitations: We included 200 patients with metastatic pRCC, of whom 73 were treated with IO-based combinations and 127 with TKIs. Median OS was 22.5 mo in the TKI group 28.8 mo in the IO group (p = 0.081). Median PFS was 6.4 mo in the TKI group and 17.4 mo in the IO group (p < 0.001). The ORR was higher in the IO group than in the TKI group (41% vs 27%; p = 0.037)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Our results show that IO-based combinations have superior efficacy outcomes to TKIs for first-line treatment of metastatic pRCC., Patient Summary: The ARON-1 project collects clinical data for patients with kidney cancer treated in multiple centers worldwide to assess outcomes in the real-world setting. We analyzed data for patients with metastatic kidney cancer of a specific subtype to evaluate the efficacy of different first-line treatments. Patients treated with immune-based combinations had better outcomes than patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The evolving oncology treatment paradigm has created an unmet need for administration options that improve patient experiences and health care efficiencies., Patients and Methods: CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) was a phase III, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial in which patients with advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to subcutaneous nivolumab (1200 mg every 4 weeks; coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 20 000 units) or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab by coprimary endpoints determined from a population pharmacokinetics analysis [time-averaged serum concentration over the first 28 days (C avgd28 ), and minimum steady-state serum concentration (C minss ); noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios (GMR) ≥0.8]. Objective response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint powered for noninferiority [noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 95% CI of relative risk of ORR (subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab) ≥0.60]., Results: Overall, 495 patients were randomized. Relative exposure in the subcutaneous versus intravenous arm reported by the GMR of C avgd28 and C minss was 2.098 (90% CI 2.001-2.200) and 1.774 (90% CI 1.633-1.927), respectively. After 8 months of minimum follow-up, ORR was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab (95% CI 19.0%-30.0%) versus 18.2% with intravenous nivolumab [95% CI 13.6%-23.6%; relative risk: 1.33 (95% CI 0.94-1.87)]. Coprimary endpoints and ORR met noninferiority thresholds. Additional efficacy and safety measures were similar., Conclusions: Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior to intravenous nivolumab based on pharmacokinetics and ORR. No new safety signals were observed., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study aims to describe genomic characteristics of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC)., Patients and Methods: This study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with mPC and reports on genomic testing. Patients were included from 12 academic centers in five countries., Results: A total of 349 patients with PC were included in this study. Most patients (209, 59.9%) were de novo metastatic. Genomic analysis was performed in 233 (66.6%) patients in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, and only 115 (32.8%) patients had a tumor evaluation in the metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer scenario. The evaluation of somatic and/or germline mutations was performed through multigene panel analyses in 290 (83.09%) patients, and next-generation sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes was performed in 59 (16.91%) patients. Analyzing the mCRPC subgroup, with a median follow-up of 15.6 months (IQR, 14-19.06), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached (NR) and the PFS at 16 months was 58.7% (95% CI, 50.8 to 67.8). When comparing patients with BRCA mutations with those who are not BRCA -mutated in the mCRPC scenario, the median PFS was NR (95% CI, 14 to NR) and 26.3 months (95% CI, 16.7 to 36.5; P = .2), respectively. Two of six patients with BRCA mutations were treated with targeted therapies (poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors)., Conclusion: Our study, to the best of our knowledge, represents one of the larger data sets for somatic testing in patients with PC in Latin America (LATAM). It adds valuable information to the growing body of knowledge about the genomic landscape of advanced PC in real-world daily practice scenarios in LATAM countries, which are not always well-represented in large-scale randomized clinical trials.

Purpose: Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) exposed to chemotherapy have an increased expression of CDKN2A/p16 INK4a and a lymphocyte phenotype associated with immunosenescence. We seek to define whether the immunosenescent phenotype is associated with chemotherapy., Methods: Case-control study of TCS, disease-free ≥3 months and stratified by primary treatment modality into orchiectomy only, chemotherapy, or bone marrow transplant (BMT). Each group was compared with age-matched healthy controls (HC). We measured the relative proportions of lymphocyte subpopulations using flow cytometry, levels of C-reactive protein, and relative expression of CDKN2A/p16 INK4a quantified by qPCR., Results: We included 65 patients; 19 were treated with orchiectomy only, 35 received different doses of chemotherapy, and 11 underwent BMT. The chemotherapy and BMT groups had decreased naïve CD4 cells compared to HC. The chemotherapy group showed increased central and effector memory CD4 cells, as well as effector and terminally differentiated CD8 cells, compared to HC. Chemotherapy (chemotherapy 1.84 vs. HC 0.92; p < 0.01) and BMT (BMT 6.96 vs. HC 1.25; p < 0.005) groups had higher expression of CDKN2A/p16 INK4a compared to HC. The orchiectomy group showed no significant difference with HC (orchiectomy 1.73 vs. HC 1.01; p = 0.17). CRP levels were higher in all groups when compared with HC; in the orchiectomy group, they were only marginally increased (chemotherapy 0.22 vs. HC 0.06; p < 0.01; BMT 0.26 vs. HC 0.06; p < 0.01; orchiectomy 0.09 vs. HC 0.07; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Among TCS, only patients exposed to cytotoxic agents developed an immunosenescent phenotype. This finding supports the attribution of this alteration to the cytotoxic treatment., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for poor performance status patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) remains unknown., Objective: In the present sub-analysis of the ARON-2 study, we investigated the role of pembrolizumab for advanced UC patients with ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (ECOG-PS) 2., Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a cytologically and/or histologically confirmed diagnosis of advanced UC progressing or recurring after platinum-based therapy and treated with pembrolizumab between 1 January 2016 to 1 April 2024 were included. In this sub-analysis we focused on patients with ECOG-PS 2., Results: We included 1,040 patients from the ARON-2 dataset; of these, 167 patients (16%) presented an ECOG-PS 2. The median overall survival (OS) was 14.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5-16.1) in the overall study population, 18.2 months (95% CI 15.8-22.2) in patients with ECOG-PS 0-1, and 3.7 months (95% CI 3.2-5.2) in subjects with ECOG-PS 2 (p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall study population was 5.3 months (95% CI 4.3-97.1), 6.2 months (95% CI 5.5-97.1) in patients with ECOG-PS 0-1, and 2.8 months (95% CI 2.1-3.4) in patients with ECOG-PS 2. Among the latter, liver metastases and progressive disease during first-line therapy were significant predictors of OS at both univariate and multivariate analyses. For PFS, univariate and multivariate analyses showed a prognostic role for lung metastases, liver metastases, and progressive disease during first-line therapy., Conclusions: This large real-world evidence study suggests the effectiveness of second-line pembrolizumab for mUC patients with poor performance status. The presence of liver metastases and progressive disease during first-line therapy is associated with worse clinical outcomes and, thus, should be taken into account when making treatment decisions in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: There is an ongoing debate as to whether sex could be associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) benefit. Existing literature data reveal contradictory results, and data on first-line immune combinations are lacking., Method: This was a real-world, multicenter, international, observational study to determine the sex effects on the clinical outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with immuno-oncology combinations as first-line therapy., Results: A total of 1827 mRCC patients from 71 cancer centers in 21 countries were included. The median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.7-44.2) in the overall study population: 40.0 months (95% CI 32.7-51.6) in males and 38.7 months (95% CI 26.4-41.0) in females (p = 0.202). The median OS was higher in males vs. females in patients aged 18-49y (36.9 months, 95% CI 29.0-51.6, vs. 24.8 months, 95% CI 16.8-40.4, p = 0.426, with + 19% of 2y-OS rate, 72% vs. 53%, p = 0.006), in the clear cell histology subgroup (44.2 months, 95% CI 35.8-55.7, vs. 38.7 months, 95% CI 26.0-41.0, p = 0.047), and in patients with sarcomatoid differentiation (34.4 months, 95% CI 26.4-59.0, vs. 15.3 months, 95% CI 8.9-41.0, p < 0.001). Sex female was an independent negative prognostic factor in the sarcomatoid population (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 - 2.57, p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Although the female's innate and adaptive immunity has been observed to be more active than the male's, women in the subgroup of clear cell histology, sarcomatoid differentiation, and those under 50 years of age showed shorter OS than males., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO + CABO) was approved for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) based on superiority versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (18.1 months median survival follow-up per database lock date); efficacy benefit was maintained with an extended 32.9 months of median survival follow-up. We report updated efficacy and safety after 44.0 months of median survival follow-up in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients and additional subgroup analyses, including outcomes by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk score., Patients and Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve aRCC received NIVO 240 mg every 2 weeks plus CABO 40 mg once daily or SUN 50 mg for 4 weeks (6-week cycles), until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (maximum NIVO treatment, 2 years). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per BICR, and safety and tolerability., Results: Overall, 323 patients were randomised to NIVO + CABO and 328 to SUN. Median PFS was improved with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [16.6 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.71]; median OS favoured NIVO + CABO versus SUN (49.5 versus 35.5 months; HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.87). ORR (95% CI) was higher with NIVO + CABO versus SUN [56% (50% to 62%) versus 28% (23% to 33%)]; 13% versus 5% of patients achieved complete response, and median duration of response was 22.1 months versus 16.1 months, respectively. PFS and OS favoured NIVO + CABO over SUN across intermediate, poor and intermediate/poor IMDC risk subgroups; higher ORR and complete response rates were seen with NIVO + CABO versus SUN regardless of IMDC risk subgroup. Any-grade (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97% (67%) versus 93% (55%) of patients treated with NIVO + CABO versus SUN., Conclusions: After extended follow-up, NIVO + CABO maintained survival and response benefits; safety remained consistent with previous follow-ups. These results continue to support NIVO + CABO as a first-line treatment for aRCC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with adverse pathological features (APF) at radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PC) are candidates for adjuvant treatment. Clinicians lack reliable markers to predict these APF preoperatively. Protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP-1B) is involved in migration and invasion of PC, and its expression could predict presence of APF. Our aim was to compare PTP-1B expression in patients with and without APF, and to explore PTP-1B expression as an independent prognostic factor., Methods: Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed using RP archival specimens for immunohistochemical staining of PTP-1B; expression was reported with a standardized score (0-9). We compared median PTP-1B score between cases with and without APF. We constructed two logistic regression models, one to identify the independence of PTP-1B score from biologically associated variables (metformin use and type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM]) and the second to seek independence of known risk factors (Gleason score and prostate specific antigen [PSA])., Results: A total of 73 specimens were suitable for TMA construction. Forty-four (60%) patients had APF. The median PTP-1B score was higher in those with APF: 8 (5-9) vs 5 (3-8) (p=0.026). In the logistic regression model including T2DM and metformin use, the PTP-1B score maintained statistical significance (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01-1.45, p=0.037). In the model including PSA and Gleason score; the PTP-1B score showed no independence (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.97-1.41, p=0.11). The area under the curve to predict APF for the PTP-1B score was 0.65 (95% CI 0.52-0.78, p=0.03), for PSA+Gleason 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.82, p=0.03), and for PSA+Gleason+PTP-1B score 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.84, p=0.001)., Discussion: Patients with APF after RP have a higher expression of PTP-1B than those without APF, even after adjusting for T2DM and metformin exposure. PTP-1B has a good accuracy for predicting APF but does not add to known prognostic factors., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Bourlon, Urbina-Ramirez, Verduzco-Aguirre, Mora-Pineda, Velazquez, Leon-Rodriguez, Atisha-Fregoso and De Anda-Gonzalez.)

Background: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with platinum-based chemotherapy (PlatinumCT) or with another ICI in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) have mixed results., Methods: Records were searched electronically from January 2019 to January 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results: Immune-based combinations were associated with an OS (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; p < 0.001; I2= 84.1%) and PFS benefit in the intention-to-treat population (HR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.51-0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 89.7%). There was no ORR improvement with immune-based combinations (HR: 1.36; 95% CI:0.84-2.20; p < 0.001; I2 = 92.6%)., Conclusion: This systematic review and study-level meta-analysis demonstrated that the immune-based combinations in first-line treatment for patients with mUC are associated with survival benefit., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro: Research support was provided by Janssen (Merck Sharp Dome). Honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All are unrelated to this study. Andrey Soares: Honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Ipsen, Adium. Consulting or Advisory Role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Adium, Ipsen. Research Funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Astellas (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Adium, MSD, Merck Serono. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All are unrelated to this study. Veronica Mollica: No conflict of interest.Caio Abner Leite: No conflict of interest. Andre Paterno Castello Dias Carneiro: Research support and honoraria from AstraZeneca. All are unrelated to this study. Alessandro Rizzo: Research support and honoraria from Gilead and Astrazeneca outside the submitted work. All are unrelated to this study. Maria T. Bourlon: Honoraria Janssen, Merk, MSD, Pfizer, BMS. Speaker Janssen, Merk, MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Eisai, M. Grants for IIS from Pfizer. All are unrelated to this study. Andre Deeke Sasse: Consulting or Advisory Role from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Adium, Ipsen. Research Funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses from Bayer, Janssen, MSD. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All are unrelated to this study. Matteo Santoni: No conflict of interest. Shilpa Gupta: Honoraria (self) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Seagen, Gilead Sciences, and Asieris; advisory/consultancy for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Seagen, Gilead Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Natera, and Asieris; speaker bureau/expert testimony for Seagen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen; research grant/funding (institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck, Seagen, QED, Novartis, Moderna, EMD Serono, and Pfizer; and is a shareholder of Moderna and BioNTech. All are unrelated to this study. Francesco Massari: Research support and/or honoraria from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. All are unrelated to this study., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the 10 th most common cancer globally with an almost 4 times higher prevalence in men. The main risk factors for development of urothelial carcinoma are advanced age, smoking, arsenic contamination, exposure to carcinogens. Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) has overall poor prognosis with a 5-year overall survival rate of only < 5%. The standard of care comprises of platinum-based chemotherapy, but the responses are often not sustained. A working group was established with an objective to discuss the most recent clinical data on the genitourinary tumors of interest and comprised of experts across Latin America, Emerging Asia (except China, Japan, and South Korea), Africa, and the Middle East (known as Emerging Markets or EM). There is an evident disparity in terms of uneven mortality and incidence rate distribution among various regions. There is a lack and/or insufficient data on epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes in the EM. The lack of registries impacts the healthcare decisions and the lower incidence from the region might not be reflective of the true disease burden. The treatment outcomes of mUC can be improved by understanding the current disease burden and treatment approach of mUC and identifying the gaps and challenges associated with management. Hence, a literature review was developed to summarize the current disease burden and treatment approach of mUC across EM. The review also highlights the unmet needs for mUC management in EM and suggests a way forward to improve the current situation in order to better serve the patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors are members of the Emerging Markets Genitourinary Cancer Working Group. Additionally, Waleed Al Morsi is a full-time employee of Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Systemic treatment with immune combinations is the gold standard for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) worldwide. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic marker for several types of malignant neoplasms, including mRCC, in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Data regarding the prognostic value of the SII in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy are scarce and controversial.  METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients with mRCC from 56 centers in 18 countries. SII (Platelet × Neutrophil/Lymphocyte count) was calculated prior to the first systemic treatment and cut-off was defined by a survival receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The primary objective of our retrospective study was to assess the outcomes of patients treated with first-line immunotherapy.  RESULTS: Data from 1034 mRCC patients was collected and included in this analysis. The SII cut-off value was 1265. After a follow-up of 26.7 months, and the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 39.8 and 15.7 months, respectively. According to SII (low vs. high), patients with low-SII had longer OS (55.7 vs. 22.2 months, P < .001), better PFS (20.8 vs. 8.5 months, P < .001), and higher overall response rate (52 vs. 37%, P = .033)., Conclusion: A high SII is associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC. SII could be an easily accessible prognostic indicator for use in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Disclosure Fernando Sabino M. Monteiro: Research support was provided by Janssen (Merck Sharp Dome). Honoraria from Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp Dome. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology; Ondrej Fiala: Received honoraria from Roche, Janssen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, GSK, and Pfizer for consultations and lectures unrelated to this project; Francesco Massari: Personal fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, and Pfizer; Jindrich Kopecky: Consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Merck, and Novartis; Jakub Kuchartz: Honoraria: Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Research Funding: Novartis; Enrique Grande: Honoraria: Adacap, AMGEN, Angelini, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caris Life Sciences, Celgene, Clovis-Oncology, Eisai, Eusa Pharma, Genetracer, Guardant Health, HRA-Pharma, IPSEN, ITM-Radiopharma, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, ONCODNA (Biosequence), Palex, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Servier, Taiho, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Funding: Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; Maria T. Bourlon: Honoraria/advisory board: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Funding: Pfizer; Javier Molina-Cerrillo: Consultant, advisory, or speaker roles for IPSEN, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Eisai, MSD, and BMS. JMC has received research grants from Pfizer, IPSEN, Janssen, and Roche; Tomas Buchler: Research support: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck KGaA, MSD, and Novartis; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi/Aventis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Accord, MSD, and Pfizer; Emmanuel Seront: Consultancy: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen; Aristotelis Bamias: Honoraria, Advisory, Research support: Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BMS, and Ipsen; Camillo Porta: Honoraria: Angelini Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD; Andre Poisl Fay: Honoraria: Pfizer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Ipsen. Scientific Advisory Board: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD. Research Grant: CAPES - CNPq, BMS, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, Foundation Medicine, Ipsen. Ownership: BIO, Brazilian Information Oncology. All other authors do not have relationships to disclose. All authors except Ondrej Fiala are unrelated to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Renal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions., Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method., Results and Limitations: The median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4-55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5-55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature., Conclusions: Our results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations., Patient Summary: Renal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The relatively high prevalence of alterations in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway described in advanced prostate cancer provides a unique opportunity to develop therapeutic strategies that take advantage of the decreased tumor ability to repair DNA damage. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with HRR defects, particularly in those with BRCA1/2 alterations. To expand the benefit of PARPi to patients without detectable HRR alterations, multiple studies are addressing potential synergies between PARP inhibition (PARPi) and androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARSi), radiation, radioligand therapy, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy, and these strategies are also being evaluated in the hormone-sensitive setting. In this review, we summarize the development of PARPi in prostate cancer, the potential synergies, and combinations being investigated as well as the future directions of PARPi for the management of the disease., Competing Interests: MTB reports Speaker’s bureau: Janssen, Pfizer, Foundation One and travel support from Janssen and Pfizer. PV has no conflicts to declare. EC reports consulting/advisory role for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck, MSD Oncology, and Pfizer; and speakers’ bureau from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; travel support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizeer; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Janssen-Cilag, Medscape, Pfizer, Roche, Telix; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Purpose: Urothelial cancer accounts for approximately 3% of new cancer cases worldwide, with a high burden of disease in countries with medium and low human development indexes where its incidence and mortality are increasing. The purpose of this consensus is to develop statements on the evaluation and treatment of locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma that would further guide the clinical practice in Latin America., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by an independent team of methodologists. Then, a modified Delphi method was developed with clinical specialists from different Latin American countries., Results: Forty-two consensus statements, based on evidence, were developed to address the staging, the evaluation (suitability for chemotherapy, risk assessment, and biomarkers), and systemic treatment (first-line and subsequent therapies) of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The statements made in this consensus are suggested practice recommendations in the Latin American context; however, the importance of a complete and individualized patient evaluation as a guide for therapeutic selection is highlighted. The availability and affordability of support tools for the evaluation of the disease, as well as specific therapies, may limit the application of the best practices suggested., Recommendations: Therapeutic decisions need to be tailored to the context-specific clinical setting and availability of resources. Local research is promoted to improve outcomes for patients with this challenging cancer in Latin America.

Background: Social media platforms (SMP) are an emerging resource that allows physicians, patients, and families to converse on cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. We aimed to characterize penile cancer (PC) content shared on SMP., Methods: We searched PC posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram from July 1st, 2021, through June 30th, 2022. Two independent, blinded reviewers analyzed the hashtags: #PenileCancer, #PenileCancerAwareness, and #PenileNeoplasm. Descriptive statistics were used for posts characterization, Pearson´s correlation coefficient for associations, and Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient for inter-rater agreement rate., Results: A total of 791 posts were analyzed, with Twitter accounting for 52%, Facebook for 12.2%, and Instagram for 35.5%, and. Most posts originated from high-income countries, such as the United Kingdom (48.8%). We found no correlation between the number of posts with PC incidence (p = 0.64) or users on SMP (p = 0.27). Most accounts were classified as "support and awareness communities" (43.6%) and "physicians and clinical researchers" (38.2%). Urology was the most common medical specialty to post (60.9%), followed by oncology (11.3%). Most posts were classified as "prevention and awareness for users" (45.1%). Global inter-reviewer agreement rate was almost perfect (k=0.95; p ≤ 0.01). On Twitter, "physicians and clinical researchers" shared more content on "treatment updates and medical papers published in medical journals," while on Facebook and Instagram, "support and awareness communities" focused on "personal and support comments.", Conclusion: Overall, the number of PC posts was low compared to other neoplasms across the SMP evaluated in this study. "Physicians and clinical researchers" shared more content on Twitter, while "support and awareness communities" on Facebook and Instagram. Encouraging the use of a common SMP among the medical community and general users could lead to a more effective communication between physicians, patients, and support groups, and to increased awareness of PC., Competing Interests: MTB declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants, advisory boards, consulting fees, and honoraria for speaking with Pfizer, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Ipsen, Bayer, EISAI and Novartis. YARB declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants with Bristol Myers Squibb. PES declares leadership roles including President of Global Society of Rare GU Tumors, NCCN Vice Chair of Bladder and Penile Cancer Panel, and member of ASCO/EAU panel. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Ortiz-Guerra, Jaime-Casas, Martinez-Cannon, Ariza-Avila, González-Morales, Bardan-Duarte, Remolina-Bonilla, Spiess and Bourlon.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VV reports leadership or fiduciary roles in other board, society, committee or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer, The Lancet, eCancer, and JCO Global Oncology, and is co-editor of the Translational Oncology journal outside of the submitted work. NB-P reports receiving grants or contracts from Zuellig Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer Malaysia, AIA Sdn Bhd insurance company, and Pharmaceutical Association of Malaysia, outside of the submitted work. NB-P also reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; receives support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and the Pharmaceutical Association of Malaysia; reports participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Pfizer Asia Pacific, Malaysia; reports leadership or a fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid with Together Against Cancer; and reports receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Roche Diagnostics, all outside of the submitted work. NF reports receiving consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Neogenomics, Mirati, and Regeneron; and reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. SH reports leadership or a fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid as President of GENDRO, a non-for-profit association that promotes the mainstreaming of gender in academic research and reporting practices. DM reports receiving grants or contracts from Astellas and Pfizer and reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Amgen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside of the submitted work. DM also reports support for attending meetings or travel from Ipsen, and reports participating on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Bayer, Janssen, and Ipsen, all outside of the submitted work. JB reports other financial or non-financial interests with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (salaried as full-time postdoctoral research associate, supported internally by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation) outside of the submitted work. PSH reports other financial or non-financial interests with the National Institutes of Health, Center for Global Health (partial salary support through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program) outside of the submitted work. SM reports consulting fees for P-95 (based in Leuven, Belgium) outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Introduction: The survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved dramatically due to novel systemic treatments. However, mRCC mortality continues to rise in Latin America., Methods: A retrospective, multicenter study of patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2010-2018 in Mexico City was conducted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of healthcare insurance on access to treatment and survival in patients with mRCC., Results: Among 924 patients, 55.4%, 42.6%, and 1.9% had no insurance (NI), social security, (SS) and private insurance (PI), respectively. De novo metastatic disease was more common in NI patients (70.9%) compared to SS (47.2%) and PI (55.6%) patients (p<0.001). According to IMDC Prognostic Index, 20.2% were classified as favorable, 49% as intermediate, and 30.8% as poor-risk disease. Access to systemic treatment differed by healthcare insurance: 36.1%, 99.5%, and 100% for the NI, SS, and PI patients, respectively (p<0.001). NI patients received fewer lines of treatment, with 24.8% receiving only one line of treatment (p<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for NI, 98.9 months for SS, and 147.6 months for NI patients (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, NI status, brain metastases, sarcomatoid features, bone metastases, no treatment were significantly associated with worse OS., Conclusion: OS in mRCC was affected by insurance availability in this resource-limited cohort of Mexican patients. These results underscore the need for effective strategies to achieve equitable healthcare access in an era of effective, yet costly systemic treatments., Competing Interests: MB declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants, advisory boards, consulting fees and honoraria for speaking with Pfizer, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Merck, Ipsen, Bayer, EISAI and Novartis. YR-B and FC-A declares potentially relevant relationships concerning travel grants with Bristol Myers Squibb. AM-A declares conflicts of interest concerning travel grants, advisory boards and honoraria for speaking with Pfizer, Novartis, Bayer, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb. SR-R declares potentially relevant relationships for honoraria for speaking with Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Asofarma, Janssen, Sanofi and Ipsen. PP-P declares conflicts of interest concerning travel grants, advisory boards, consulting fees and honoraria for speaking with Janssen, BMS, Pfizer, Ipsen and Roche. JR-M declares relationships concerning travel grants and advisory boards with Ipsen, Asofarma and Bristol Myers Squibb. SC-G declares conflicts of interest concerning consultant or advisory role for Roche, MSD, Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. EL receives institutional research funding from Arrowhead, BMS, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche. NS-M declares relevant relationships for Advisory boards, honoraria for speaking and Principal Investigator or Subinvestigator in clinical trials with BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Asofarma, Sanofi, Ipsen. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Bourlon, Remolina-Bonilla, Acosta-Medina, Saldivar-Oviedo, Perez-Silva, Martinez-Ibarra, Castro-Alonso, Martín-Aguilar, Rivera-Rivera, Mota-Rivero, Pérez-Pérez, Díaz-Alvarado, Ruiz-Morales, Campos-Gómez, Martinez-Cannon, Lam and Sobrevilla-Moreno.)

Background: Obesity has been associated with improved response to immunotherapy in cancer patients. We investigated the role of body mass index (BMI) in patients from the ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) treated by dual immuno-oncology agents (IO+IO) or a combination of immuno-oncology drug and a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Patients and Methods: Medical records of patients with documented mRCC treated by immuno-oncology combinations were reviewed at 47 institutions from 16 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (OS), and overall clinical benefit (OCB), defined as the sum of the rate of partial/complete responses and stable disease. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to explore the association of variables of interest with survival., Results: A total of 675 patients were included; BMI was >25 kg/m 2 in 345 patients (51%) and was associated with improved OS (55.7 vs. 28.4 months, P < .001). The OCB of patients with BMI >25 kg/m 2 versus those with BMI ≤25 kg/m 2 was significantly higher only in patients with nonclear cell histology (81% vs. 65%, P = .011), and patients with liver metastases (76% vs. 58%, P = .007), Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio >4 (77% vs 62%, P = .022) or treated by nivolumab plus ipilimumab (77% vs. 64%, P = .044). In the BMI ≤25 kg/m 2 subgroup, significant differences were found between patients with NLR >4 versus ≤4 (62% vs. 82%, P = .002) and patients treated by IO+IO versus IO+TKIs combinations (64% vs. 83%, P = .002)., Conclusion: Our study suggests that the prognostic significance and the association of BMI with treatment outcome varies across clinico-pathological mRCC subgroups., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early identification of germline mutation carriers may be relevant for the optimal management of prostate cancer and to inform cancer risk in relatives. However, population minorities have limited access to genetic testing. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of DNA repair gene pathogenic variants (PVs) among Mexican men with prostate cancer referred for Genomic Cancer Risk Assessment and testing., Methods: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who meet criteria for genetic testing and enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network at the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City were included. Descriptive statistics were performed using frequency and proportions for categorical variables and median and range for quantitative variables. X 2 and t test were used for group comparisons., Results: A total of 199 men were enrolled, median age at diagnosis was 66 (range 44-88) years; 45% were de novo metastatic and 44% were high- very high and 10% were intermediate risk group. Four (2%) had a pathogenic germline variant; one each of the following genes: ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, and MUTYH (all monoallelic). Younger men at diagnosis were more likely to carry a PV than older age at diagnosis (56.7 vs. 66.4 years, P = .01)., Conclusion: Our results showed a low prevalence of known prostate cancer associated PVs and no BRCA PVs in Mexican men with prostate cancer. This suggests that the genetic and/or epidemiologic risk factors for prostate cancer are not well characterized in this specific population., Competing Interests: Disclosure Y Chavarri-Guerra: Research support from Roche; Invitae Speaker´s bureau; Pfizer travel expenses; Novartis travel expenses. MT Bourlon: Astra Zeneca Speaker´s bureau; Janssen Speaker´s bureau and travel expenses; Pfizer Speaker´s bureau and travel expenses; Foundation One Speaker´s bureau. J Weitzel: Natera employee,;Astra Zeneca Speaker´s bureau., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The upfront treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune-based combinations. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in these patients is still debated. The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally analyze real-world data of mRCC patients receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations. This sub-analysis is focused on the role of upfront or delayed partial or radical CN in three geographical areas (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, America/Asia)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combinations from 55 centers in 19 countries. From 1152 patients in the ARON-1 dataset, we selected 651 patients with de novo mRCC. 255 patients (39%) had undergone CN, partial in 14% and radical in 86% of cases; 396 patients (61%) received first-line immune-combinations without previous nephrectomy., Results: Median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of de novo mRCC was 41.6 months and not reached (NR) in the CN subgroup and 24.0 months in the no CN subgroup, respectively (P<0.001). Median OS from the start of first-line therapy was NR in patients who underwent CN and 22.4 months in the no CN subgroup (P<0.001). Patients who underwent CN reported longer OS compared to no CN in all the three geographical areas., Conclusions: No significant differences in terms of patients' outcome seem to clearly emerge, even if the rate CN and the choice of the type of first-line immune-based combination varies across the different Cancer Centers participating in the ARON-1 project.

Background: Penile cancer accounts for less than 1% of male cancers in the United States. Localized disease, particularly T1 tumors are potentially curable with local therapy. We present the racial differences in survival outcomes for T1, penile cancer from the SEER database., Methods: From 2004 to 2016 all men with T1, N0, M0 penile cancer in the SEER-18 database were included. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox-Regression analysis were conducted to investigate prognostic variables for cancer specific survival (CSS)., Results: A total of 4,406 men were identified with penile cancer; 1,941 men had T1 disease. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis showed those with primary site surgery had better 5-year CSS compared to those without primary site surgery (P <.0001) and a significant difference in CSS based on race (P= 0.0078). On multivariable analysis, Hispanic individuals had worse CSS (HR 1.92; P = 0.0057) compared to the White men. Black men were also found to have a poor CSS however this was not statistically significant (HR 1.53, P = 0.118). Men with penile cancer who had either penectomy (HR 0.45; P = 0.006) or penile preservation surgery (HR 0.25; P< 0.001) had improved CSS., Conclusion: Racial disparities in CSS exist among men with in early-stage penile cancer. KM analysis showed significant differences in CSS by race and in those receiving primary site surgery. On multivariable analysis, the CSS is worse in Hispanic compared to White men. There is a trend towards worse CSS in Black men however this was not statistically significant., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immuno-oncology combinations have achieved survival benefits in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Objective: The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally collect real-world data on the use of immuno-combinations as first-line therapy for mRCC patients., Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a cytologically and/or histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC treated with first-line immuno-combination therapies were retrospectively included from 47 International Institutions from 16 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall clinical benefit (OCB)., Results: A total of 729 patients were included; tumor histology was clear-cell RCC in 86% of cases; 313 patients received dual immuno-oncology (IO + IO) therapy while 416 were treated with IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO + TKI) combinations. In the overall study population, the median OS and PFS were 36.5 and 15.0 months, respectively. The median OS was longer with IO+TKI compared with IO+IO therapy in the 616 patients with intermediate/poor International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk criteria (55.7 vs 29.7 months; p = 0.045). OCB was 84% for IO+TKI and 72% for IO + IO combination (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study may suggest that immuno-oncology combinations are effective as first-line therapy in the mRCC real-world context, showing outcome differences between IO + IO and IO + TKI combinations in mRCC subpopulations., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05287464., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

A Hispanic man, aged 42 years, was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (MUBC) with nonregional lymphadenopathies and lung, bone, and skin involvement. He received first-line treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin for 6 cycles, achieving a partial response (PR). Next, he received immunotherapy maintenance with avelumab for 4 months until disease progression. A next-generation sequencing test of paraffin-embedded tumor tissue identified a fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) S249C missense mutation.

Background: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials., Objective: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426., Intervention: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib., Results and Limitations: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC., Patient Summary: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking., Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars., Results: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU., Conclusion: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Since 2007, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference has brought together a diverse network of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and professional levels to disseminate emerging basic and clinical research findings in fertility preservation. This network also developed enduring educational materials to accelerate the pace and quality of field-wide scientific communication. Between 2007 and 2019, the Oncofertility Consortium Annual Conference was held as an in-person event in Chicago, IL. The conference attracted approximately 250 attendees each year representing 20 countries around the world. In 2020, however, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this paradigm and precluded an in-person meeting. Nevertheless, there remained an undeniable demand for the oncofertility community to convene. To maintain the momentum of the field, the Oncofertility Consortium hosted a day-long virtual meeting on March 5, 2021, with the theme of "Oncofertility Around the Globe" to highlight the diversity of clinical care and translational research that is ongoing around the world in this discipline. This virtual meeting was hosted using the vFairs ® conference platform and allowed over 700 people to participate, many of whom were first-time conference attendees. The agenda featured concurrent sessions from presenters in six continents which provided attendees a complete overview of the field and furthered our mission to create a global community of oncofertility practice. This paper provides a synopsis of talks delivered at this event and highlights the new advances and frontiers in the fields of oncofertility and fertility preservation around the globe from clinical practice and patient-centered efforts to translational research., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety., Methods: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death)., Interpretation: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and institutional funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. TP reports grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees from BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Merck Serono, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; and travel support from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. MB reports consulting fees from Roche/Genentech, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, AstraZeneca; and speakers' bureau fees from Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, BMS, and AstraZeneca. BE reports an institutional research grant from BMS; consulting fees from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, AVEO, Oncorena, and Eisai; honoraria from Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, Oncorena, and Eisai; and travel support from BMS, Ipsen, and MSD. MTB reports consulting fees from BMS, Asofarma, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Bayer, and Ferring; speakers' bureau fees from Asofarma, MSD Oncology, BMS, Bayer, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Ferring, Tecnofarma, Medicamenta, AstraZeneca, and Astellas Pharma; honoraria from BMS and Tecnofarma; payment for expert testimony from Asofarma; travel support from Asofarma, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, BMS Mexico, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Sanofi; and steering committee honoraria from BMS. AYS reports research grants from BMS, Eisai, 4D Pharma, and EMD Serono; consulting fees from Exelixis, BMS, Pfizer, and EMD Serono; and honoraria from Eisai and Oncology Information Group. CSu reports research grants from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffman-La Roche, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. AH reports advisory board fees from MSD and Janssen. CP reports consulting fees from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, and MSD; speakers' bureau fees from BMS, EUSA Pharma, General Electric, Ipsen, and MSD; payment for expert testimony from EUSA Pharma and Pfizer; and travel support from Roche. CMH reports institutional research grant from BMS, and stock options from Telix Pharmaceuticals, Volpara Health Technologies, Alcidon, and Nanosonics. ERK reports a personal research grant from Medivation/Astellas; institutional research grant from BMS, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and Merck Serono; and stock options from Johnson & Johnson. HG reports advisory board fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Roche, and Merck Serono; speakers' bureau fees from Merck Serono; and travel support from AstraZeneca. YT reports institutional research grants from Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, and Astellas; and honoraria from BMS, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Astellas. JB reports institutional research grants from BMS, Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Seagen; consulting fees from BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck; and speakers' bureau fees from MSD Oncology, BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche. JZ and BS are employed by and have stock ownership in BMS. CSc is employed by and has stock ownership in Exelixis. TKC reports research grants, consulting fees, honoraria, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, AVEO, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, Infinity, Ipsen, Janssen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, NiKang, Nuscan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, UpToDate, and continuing medical education events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, and others), outside the submitted work; institutional patents filed on molecular mutations and immunotherapy response, and circulating tumour DNA; leadership fees from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, US NCI Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and European Society for Medical Oncology; stock ownership in Pionyr, Tempest, Osel, and NuscanDx; other financial or non-financial interests include medical writing and editorial assistance support that might in part have been funded by communications companies; potential funding (in part) from non-US sources or foreign institutions for mentoring of several non-US citizens on research projects; independent funding by drug companies or royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter (institutional); and support in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC., Methods: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms., Results: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To evaluate clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics from a population-based cohort of penile cancer, with an emphasis in older adults, due to incomplete evidence to guide therapy in this age subgroup., Materials and Methods: Patients with malignant penile tumors diagnosed 2004-2016 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER)-18 dataset. Demographic and treatment characteristics were obtained. Population was analyzed by age at diagnosis (<65 vs ≥65 years). We examined univariate associations between age groups with Chi-square analysis. To study survival, we calculated Kaplan-Meier survival curves, but due to the high number of competing events, we also performed a univariate competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function, and a multivariate analysis using the Fine-Gray method. We also described competing mortality due to penile cancer and other causes of death., Results: We included 3,784 patients. Median age was 68 years, 58.7% were aged ≥65. Older patients were less likely to have received chemotherapy (p<0.001), primary site surgery (p = 0.002), or therapeutic regional surgery (p <0.001). Median overall survival (OS) in patients <65 years was not reached (95% CI incalculable) vs 49 months in those ≥65 years (95% CI 45-53, p <0.0001). On univariate analysis, age was associated with a lower incidence of penile cancer death. On multivariate analysis, stage at diagnosis, and receipt of primary site surgery were associated with a higher incidence of penile cancer death. Estimated penile cancer-specific mortality was higher in patients <65 years in stages II-IV. Estimated mortality due to other causes was higher in older patients across all stages., Conclusions: Older patients are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy for penile cancer. Primary surgical resection was associated with better penile cancer-specific mortality on multivariate analysis. Competing mortality risks are highly relevant when considering OS in older adults with penile cancer. Factors associated with undertreatment of older patients with penile cancer need to be studied, in order to develop treatment strategies tailored for this population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer JW declared a shared committee, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®), with the authors PS and TF to the handling Editor., (Copyright © 2022 Bourlon, Verduzco-Aguirre, Molina, Meyer, Kessler, Kim, Spiess and Flaig.)

Purpose: Infertility is a major problem affecting children, adolescents, and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, either due to the disease itself or because of oncologic treatment. Oncofertility (OF) focuses on counseling cancer patients about fertility risks and preservation options. However, OF and fertility preservation (FP) conversations on Twitter and their impact are unknown. We aim to characterize the users and type of content of these conversations., Materials and Methods: This observational study analyzed tweets with the hashtags "#Oncofertility" and "#FertilityPreservation" over eight months. We classified Twitter accounts by user type and country. Tweets were categorized by content type, and retweets and likes were quantified. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis., Results: A total of 399 tweets from 223 different accounts were evaluated. Twitter accounts comprised 22 countries and stemmed from high, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries in 86.5%, 5.4%, and 6.3%, respectively; no accounts from low-income countries were found. Accounts were mostly from physicians (37%) and healthcare centers (20%); we did not find any patient accounts. The most common content category was informative tweets directed to patients (30.8%), followed by discussion/sharing of medical papers (25.6%). Only 14.5% of tweets contained information about children and adolescents. Still, only 4.5% were aimed at children. Retweets were absent in 16.5% of the tweets, and 80.7% did not have comments., Conclusion: OF and FP discussions on Twitter were limited to interactions among medical professionals. Also, advocacy groups showed limited activity on social media. Even though a significant proportion of tweets directed to patients were found, no active involvement of patients was observed. Finally, limited number of tweets (4.5%) were directed to children and adolescents. There is a need to raise awareness about the effects of cancer on fertility in this group. Currently, Twitter is not a resource of information for children and AYAs with cancer who need OF counseling and fertility preservation. Our results open a debate on how to promote the use of social media in the future to improve the quality of OF information available, awareness, and care since there is an unmet need for fertility preservation access in young cancer patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Martinez-Ibarra, Remolina-Bonilla, Buerba-Vieregge, Barragan-Carrillo, Castro-Alonso, Mateos-Corella and Bourlon.)

A previously healthy woman, aged 38 years, presented with a 3-month history of fatigue, dyspnea on exertion, significant weight loss, and severe left flank pain; her symptoms restricted any work activities. Laboratory test results were notable for hypercalcemia (corrected serum calcium, 12.8 mg/dL), anemia (9.3 g/dL), and lactate dehydrogenase elevation (>1.5 times the upper limit of normal). A CT scan revealed a 14-cm left renal mass and multiple lung and mediastinal lymph node metastases. A surgical open biopsy was performed; histopathological analysis concluded clear cell renal carcinoma (RCC) with 30% sarcomatoid features. The patient was diagnosed with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid features. She started first-line systemic treatment.

Prostate cancer and its treatment may induce muscle wasting. Body composition and muscle functionality are rarely assessed in patients with prostate cancer from developing countries due to the limited availability of high-quality equipment for routine diagnosis. This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between several simplistic techniques for assessing muscle mass and function with a more complex standard of reference for muscle wasting among Mexican men with prostate cancer. Muscle wasting was highly prevalent, yet it was presumably associated with aging rather than cancer and its treatment itself. The restricted availability of specific equipment in clinical settings with technological limitations supports using unsophisticated techniques as surrogate measurements for muscle wasting. The left-arm handgrip dynamometry displayed the highest correlation with the standard of reference and exhibited an acceptable predicted probability for muscle estimation. Combining several simplistic techniques may be preferable. We also developed and internally validated a manageable model that helps to identify elderly patients with prostate cancer at risk of muscle depletion and impairment. These findings promote the early recognition and treatment of muscle wasting alterations occurring among older adults with prostate cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Global Oncology is the movement to improve equitable access to cancer control and care, recognizing challenges because of economic and social factors between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC, MIC, and LIC, respectively). The JCO Global Oncology ( JCO GO ) is a major platform dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research relevant to populations with limited resources. To assess the success of its goals of encouraging global interaction and increasing MIC and LIC engagement, we analyzed authorship and readership patterns., Methods: Metadata of logged views between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, of articles published in 2018 by JCO GO were identified using Google Analytics. The country of origin of each author and those who accessed the journal were categorized according to the 2019 income group World Bank Classification (WBC)., Results: One hundred thirty-two articles were published in JCO GO in 2018. Corresponding authors came from 34 nations: 35% HIC, 47% MIC, and 18% LIC. The top publishing countries were the United States, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Article authors were solely from within one WBC group in 41% (23% HIC, 16% MIC, and 2% LIC). In those with mixed-WBC authorship origins, collaborations were 42% HIC + MIC, 11% HIC + LIC, and 6% HIC + MIC + LIC, but none with MIC + LIC. Regarding viewing, 87,860 views originated from 180 countries (82% of the WBC list): 35% HIC, 51% MIC, and 14% LIC. The most common accessing nations were the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Ethiopia., Conclusion: More than half of JCO GO 's authorship comes from mixed WBC groups, with viewership extending to most of the world's nations. Areas to address are low level of LIC corresponding authors, few papers from authors across all WBC groups, no publications from MIC + LIC collaborations, and a low percentage of readership by LIC. These data provide focus to target interventions aimed at reducing the academic segregation of LIC and improving interactions across all WBC countries., Competing Interests: Maria T. BourlonHonoraria: Tecnofarma, BMSConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Asofarma, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Bayer, FerringSpeakers' Bureau: Asofarma, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Ferring, Tecnofarma, Medicamenta, AstraZeneca, Astellas PharmaExpert Testimony: AsofarmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Asofarma, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb (Mexico), Pfizer Francisco J Castro-AlonsoHonoraria: Ipsen, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen OncologyResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Mexico) (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (Mexico), Bayer Christianne BourlonConsulting or Advisory Role: Grupo Biotoscana, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Celgene Charbel F. MatarThis author is a member of the JCO Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Emilie GunnThis author is the Managing Editor of JCO Global Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Gilberto LopesThis author is the Editor in Chief of JCO Global Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Lucence Diagnostics, XilisHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines, AstraZeneca, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Bavarian Nordic (Inst), Novartis (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Adaptimmune (Inst), BMS (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Rgenix (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Lucence, Xilis, E.R. Squibb Sons LLCTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, E.R. Squibb Sons LLC, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Celgene, Ipsen, Pharmacyclics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics Eva SegelovConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, MerckThis author is an Associate Editor of JCO Global Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.