Search

Objective: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the consistency and reproducibility of quantitative SPECT/CT by evaluating the maximum SUV (SUV max ) in normal bone, to provide the reference value of metastatic lesions, and to evaluate the clinical implication of SUV max changes of osseous metastasis during treatment., Material and Methods: This prospective imaging sub-study was performed as part of a phase 2 clinical trial of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) randomized to the combination of pembrolizumab plus radium-223 or to radium-223 alone (NCT03093428). The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max ) and mean Hounsfield Unit (HU mean ) of normal bone as well as metastases were measured using a 1.5 cm region of interest (ROI) on CT and xSPECT Quant reconstruction on the baseline study (S 0 ) and restaging scans. The most tracer-avid metastatic lesion in each patient on S 0 was selected as a target lesion, and changes of SUV max and HU mean of the target lesion were compared on the first restaging scan (S 1 ). Correlations between the percentage changes of SUV max of the target lesion with alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were assessed., Results: Twenty-one patients were enrolled on the imaging sub-study of which 15 had paired baseline S 0 and S 1 data. On S 0 , the median SUV max and HU mean of normal bone was 5.85 g/mL (0.42-14.98) and 133.03 (range, 28.47-461.91), respectively. The median SUV max and HU mean of metastasis were 42.2 g/mL (range, 17.96-143.36) and 549.58 (177.87-1107.64), respectively. There was significant reduction in SUV max (- 40.1%, range - 86.2 to + 23.5%), p < 0.001) and increase in HU mean (+ 8.3%, range - 11.3 to + 61.7%, p = 0.0479, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) of target lesions between S 0 and S 1 . Spearman correlation between the percentage changes of SUV max of a target lesion and both serum PSA (r = 0.33, p = 0.226) and ALP (r = 0.45, p = 0.094) were not statistically significant., Conclusion: Quantitative SPECT/CT provides consistent and objective imaging parameters, which can help monitor tumor burden. The median SUVmax of metastasis at baseline was roughly 7.2-fold higher than normal bone. Quantitative SPECT/CT may help visualize the early osteoblastic treatment response in prostate cancer patients treated with radium-223 alone or combined with pembrolizumab., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: MR: none, YW: none, SC: none, HP: none, SG: none, LCH: reports previous employment at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and grants to institution from Bayer, Sotio, Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, Takeda, Dendreon/Valient, Jannsen, Medivation/Astellas, Genentech, Pfizer, and Endocyte (Novartis), Advisory or consulting services for Bayer, Genentech, Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Corvus, Merck, Exelixis, Novartis, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Jounce, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serrano, Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), ASIM CME, and Ology Medical Education during the conduct of the study, as well as current employment (including stock options) at Surface Oncology and travel support form Bayer and Genentech outside the submitted work. AP: Consulting: Seagen Inc and Astellas Pharma Inc. JK: none, MF: none, LG: none, ADC: Advisory Board: Clovis, Dendreon, Bayer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Blue Earth, Janssen, Tolmar, Sanofi Aventis; Research Funding to Institution: Bayer, Pfizer; Honoraria for speaking engagement: Bayer, Pfizer, Lantheus, HJ: Research support: Blue Earth Diagnostics, Inc; Consulting: Advanced Accelerator Applications, Spectrum Dynamics; Royalties: Cambridge Publishing; Honoraria: Blue Earth Diagnostics, Inc., Munrol. Ethical approval: The trial was conducted in full concordance with Declaration of Helsinki principles and Good Clinical Practice and approved by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Institutional Review Board., (© 2024. Italian Society of Medical Radiology.)

Background: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or T any N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related., Interpretation: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma., Funding: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests VM reports support for attending meetings or travel from American College of Surgeons; and participation on the Advisory Board on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Exelixis. VM also reports a leadership role (unpaid) on Society of Urologic Oncology Clinical Trials Consortia. DFM received payment or honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Eisai, Xilio, Aveo, Genentech, Cullinan, and Exelixis; and support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, and Alkermes. LCH reports ownership of stock in Coherus and previous employment at Surface Oncology. SS reports grants or contracts from Bristol Myers Squibb and Exelixis to their institution; and royalties or licenses from Biogenex. SS also reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics; and a leadership or fiduciary role at American Association for Cancer Research as Senior Editor at Clinical Cancer Research and at the NCI National Cancer Institute as Renal Task Force Co-Chair. HE reports consulting fees for Janssen and Aveo advisory boards. NA reports grants or contracts from Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and consulting fees from Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Aveo, Merck, EMD Serono, and Sanofi. MAB reports institutional grants from Merck, Xencor, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, SeaGen, Incyte, Nektar, AstraZeneca, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, Genome & Company, AAA, Peloton Therapeutics, and Pfizer; and payment or honoraria for Advisory Board participation from Exelixis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Calithera Biosciences, Genomic Health, Nektar, EMD Serono, SeaGen, and Sanofi. TMM reports payment to their institution for clinical trials from Merck, Curium, and ECOG; consulting fees from Impact Network and Aptitude Health; and honoraria from Exelixis and Blue Earth Diagnostics. TC reports support from Alkermes, 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/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports institutional research funding related to clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Arcus, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda. TC also reports consulting fees from Alkermes, 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/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports payment or honoraria from Alkermes, 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/PrecedeBio, Novartis, Oncohost, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Scholar Rock, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, CME events (Peerview, OncLive, MJH, CCO, and others), outside the submitted work. TC also reports support for attending meetings or travel in relation to meetings, lectures, and advisory boards; and participates in the Aravive Data and Safety Monitoring Board or advisory board. TC also reports a patent related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (no royalties as of current date). TC also reports a leadership or fiduciary role in KidneyCan (unpaid) and committees for American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and Genitourinary Steering Committee of the NCI. TC also reports stock ownership (for being an advisor) of Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, Osel, Curesponse, Immdura, and Primium. TC also reports no receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services, except for travel and accommodation (flights, hotel, and meals) related to advisory or consulting when travel needed. TC also reports to be supported 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, Pan-Mass Challenge, Hinda and Arthur Marcus Fund, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. MDD reports participation on the Scientific Advisory Boards (honoraria received) at Merck, Eisai, Exelixis, and Janssen. DYH reports compensation from consulting work from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pfizer, and Eisai. BS reports consulting fees from Merck, Veracyte, Telix, and Johnson and Johnson; payment or honoraria from Merck; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Telix. BCL reports a leadership or fiduciary role at Kidney Cancer Association as Chair of Board of Directors. JM reports participation on the NCI Central Institutional Review Board and has been recused from all discussions of this study. RU reports participation and financial support on a Data Safety Monitoring Board at Pfizer and other financial support on a steering committee at Merck. RU also reports a leadership or fiduciary role (non-financial support) at Haymarket Media as a board member. GB reports a leadership role during the study as President of the Society of Urologic Oncology–Clinical Trial Consortium. NBH reports participation in the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee atezolizumab at Roche Genentech and advisory boards at Bristol Myers Squibb and Eisai. NBH also reports a non-financial leadership role as ECOG ACRIN Genitourinary Committee Co-Chair. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of variant histology comprises approximately 20% of kidney cancer diagnoses, yet the optimal therapy for these patients and the factors that impact immunotherapy response remain largely unknown. To better understand the determinants of immunotherapy response in this population, we characterized blood- and tissue-based immune markers for patients with variant histology RCC, or any RCC histology with sarcomatoid differentiation, enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Baseline circulating (plasma) inflammatory cytokines were highly correlated with one another, forming an "inflammatory module" that was increased in International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium poor-risk patients and was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.028). At baseline, an elevated circulating vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) level was associated with a lack of response (P = 0.03) and worse PFS (P = 0.021). However, a larger increase in on-treatment levels of circulating VEGF-A was associated with clinical benefit (P = 0.01) and improved overall survival (P = 0.0058). Among peripheral immune cell populations, an on-treatment decrease in circulating PD-L1+ T cells was associated with improved outcomes, with a reduction in CD4+PD-L1+ [HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.91; P = 0.016] and CD8+PD-L1+ T cells (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = 0.009) correlated with improved PFS. Within the tumor itself, a higher percentage of terminally exhausted (PD-1+ and either TIM-3+ or LAG-3+) CD8+ T cells was associated with worse PFS (P = 0.028). Overall, these findings support the value of tumor and blood-based immune assessments in determining therapeutic benefit for patients with RCC receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and provide a foundation for future biomarker studies for patients with variant histology RCC receiving immunotherapy-based combinations., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a heterogenous disease with poor 5-year overall survival (OS) at 14%. Patients with mRCC to endocrine organs historically have prolonged OS. Pancreatic metastases are uncommon overall, with mRCC being the most common etiology of pancreatic metastases. In this study, we report the long-term outcomes of patients with mRCC to the pancreas in two separate cohorts., Methods: We performed a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with mRCC to the pancreas at 15 academic centers. Cohort 1 included 91 patients with oligometastatic disease to the pancreas. Cohort 2 included 229 patients with multiples organ sites of metastases including the pancreas. The primary endpoint for Cohorts 1 and 2 was median OS from time of metastatic disease in the pancreas until death or last follow up., Findings: In Cohort 1, the median OS (mOS) was 121 months with a median follow up time of 42 months. Patients who underwent surgical resection of oligometastatic disease had mOS of 100 months with a median follow-up time of 52.5 months. The mOS for patients treated with systemic therapy was not reached. In Cohort 2, the mOS was 90.77 months. Patients treated with first-line (1L) VEGFR therapy had mOS of 90.77 months; patients treated with IL immunotherapy (IO) had mOS of 92 months; patients on 1L combination VEGFR/IO had mOS of 74.9 months., Interpretations: This is the largest retrospective cohort of mRCC involving the pancreas. We confirmed the previously reported long-term outcomes in patients with oligometastatic pancreas disease and demonstrated prolonged survival in patients with multiple RCC metastases that included the pancreas. In this retrospective study with heterogeneous population treated over 2 decades, mOS was similar when stratified by first-line therapy. Future research will be needed to determine whether mRCC patients with pancreatic metastases require a different initial treatment strategy., Funding: Statistical analyses for this study were supported in part by the University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant from the NIH/NCI, P30CA046934-30., Competing Interests: ETL has received institutional research support from Amgen, Inc., Argos Therapeutics, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Astellas Pharma, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Biosplice Therapeutics, Inc., Calithera Biosciences, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Exelixis, Forma Therapeutics, Genentech/F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., OnQuality Pharmaceuticals LLC, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Inc., Promontory Therapeutics, Inc (formerly Phosplatin). AM has received relevant institutional research funding from Acerta Pharma, Genentech, Roche, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Astellas Pharma, Mirati Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm Group. AM has received consulting fees from Debiopharm Group, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer. LH reports grants to prior institution from Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, and Takeda. As well as current employment (including stock options) at Surface Oncology outside the submitted work. LH reports advisory or consulting services for Genentech, Pfizer, Corvus, Merck, Exelixis, Novartis, Jounce, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serrano. LH reports honoraria for lectures/presentations for Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), ASIM CME, and Ology Medical Education. LH receives support from Genentech for travel outside of the submitted work. JB reports relevant institutional research funding from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center SPORE in Kidney Cancer (NIH P50 CA196516). NA reports consulting fees from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. NA reports institutional research funding from Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tracon. RM reports consulting fees from Aveo, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Calithera, Caris, Dendreon, Exelixis, JNJ, Novartis, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sorrento Therapeutics, Telix, Tempus. VN reports institutional research funding from Pfizer, Merck, Jenssen, Bristol Myers Squibb. BN reports consulting fees from Merck, Janssen, Myovanat Sciences, Exelixis. BN reports honoraria from Pfizer. ND reports consulting fees from Vivreon Gastrosciences Inc. NM reports participation in data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MDS, Ipsen, BMS, and Astellas. TR reports institutional research funding from National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (grant number 1K08CA248967-01). SG reports institutional research funding from Aravive, Agensys, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis Inc, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Surface Oncology. SG reports consulting fees from Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis Inc, Merck, Immunomedics, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics; and honoraria from Aptitude Health, Curio Science, and DAVA Oncology. YZ reports advisory board participation with Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, Novartis, Janssen, Eisai, Exelixis, Castle Bioscience, Genzyme Corporation, Astrazeneca, Array, Bayer, Pfizer, Clovis, EMD serono, Myovant. YZ reports data safety monitoring board participation with Janssen Research and Development. All other authors have nothing to declare.

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

Background: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC)., Materials and Methods: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases., Conclusion: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC., Implications for Practice: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Importance: Bone resorption inhibitors (BRIs) are recommended by international guidelines to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs) among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. Abiraterone acetate with prednisone is currently the most common first-line therapy for the treatment of patients with mCRPC; however, the clinical impact of the addition of BRIs to abiraterone acetate with prednisone in this disease setting is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the association of the use of concomitant BRIs with overall survival (OS) and time to first SRE among patients with mCRPC and bone metastases receiving abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study collected data from 745 consecutive patients who began receiving abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for mCRPC with bone metastases between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected from 8 hospitals in Canada, Europe, and the US from June 15 to September 15, 2019., Exposures: Patients were classified by receipt vs nonreceipt of concomitant BRIs and subclassified by volume of disease (high volume or low volume, using definitions from the Chemohormonal Therapy Vs Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer [CHAARTED] E3805 study) at the initiation of abiraterone acetate with prednisone therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. The secondary end point was time to first SRE. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used., Results: Of the 745 men (median age, 77.6 years [interquartile range, 68.1-83.6 years]; 699 White individuals [93.8%]) included in the analysis, 529 men (71.0%) received abiraterone acetate with prednisone alone (abiraterone acetate cohort), and 216 men (29.0%) received abiraterone acetate with prednisone plus BRIs (BRI cohort). A total of 420 men (56.4%) had high-volume disease, and 276 men (37.0%) had low-volume disease. The median follow-up was 23.5 months (95% CI, 19.8-24.9 months). Patients in the BRI cohort experienced significantly longer OS compared with those in the abiraterone acetate cohort (31.8 vs 23.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P < .001). The OS benefit in the BRI cohort was greater for patients with high-volume vs low-volume disease (33.6 vs 19.7 months; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68; P < .001). The BRI cohort also had a significantly shorter time to first SRE compared with the abiraterone acetate cohort (32.4 vs 42.7 months; HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.60; P = .04), and the risk of a first SRE was more than double in the subgroup with low-volume disease (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.57-3.35; P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, concomitant BRIs use was independently associated with longer OS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the addition of BRIs to abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for the treatment of patients with mCRPC and bone metastases was associated with longer OS, particularly in patients with high-volume disease. These results suggest that the use of BRIs in combination with abiraterone acetate with prednisone as first-line therapy for the treatment of mCRPC with bone metastases could be beneficial.

Purpose: Atezolizumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1)] is well tolerated and efficacious in multiple cancers, but has not been previously evaluated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study examined the safety, efficacy, and biomarkers of atezolizumab monotherapy for mCRPC., Patients and Methods: This phase Ia, open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study (PCD4989g) enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on sipuleucel-T or enzalutamide. Atezolizumab was given intravenously every 3 weeks until confirmed disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. Prespecified endpoints included safety, efficacy, biomarker analyses, and radiographic assessments., Results: All 35 evaluable patients [median age, 68 years (range, 45-83 years)] received atezolizumab after ≥1 prior line of therapy; 62.9% of patients had received ≥3 prior lines. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (60.0%), with no deaths. One patient had a confirmed partial response (PR) per RECIST 1.1, and 1 patient had a PR per immune-related response criteria. The confirmed 50% PSA response rate was 8.6% (3 patients). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9-not evaluable], with a 1-year OS rate of 52.3% (95% CI: 34-70); 2-year OS was 35.9% (95% CI: 13-59). Median follow-up was 13.0 months (range, 1.2-28.1 months). Biomarker analyses showed that atezolizumab activated immune responses; however, a composite biomarker failed to reveal consistent correlations with efficacy., Conclusions: Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated in patients with mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with other tumor types. In heavily pretreated patients, atezolizumab monotherapy demonstrated evidence of disease control; however, its limited efficacy suggests a combination approach may be needed., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Optimal chemotherapy for patients who received cisplatin for localized urothelial carcinoma (UC) and develop metastatic disease is unclear. We compared the efficacy of platinum-based (PBC) versus non-platinum-based (NPBC) first-line chemotherapy for metastasis., Patients and Methods: Data were collected from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC), a database of 3024 patients from 28 international academic centers from 2005 to 2012. Patient inclusion criteria included: (1) predominant UC; (2) any primary tumor site; (3) cT2-4, cN0-N2, cM0; (4) prior receipt of perioperative/radiation cisplatin-containing chemotherapy; and (5) receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the first-line metastatic setting. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to show progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the first day of chemotherapy for metastatic disease to date of censor., Results: Eligibility criteria was met by 132 patients (n = 74 PBC; n = 58 NPBC). The median OS was 8.13 months (interquartile range, 4.87-16.64 months) and 8.77 months (interquartile range, 4.01-13.49 months) for PBC and NPBC, respectively. Neither OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.69; P = .87) nor PFS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.31; P = .48) differed for PBC versus NPBC. However, for patients who received chemotherapy more than a year after perioperative/radiation chemotherapy, OS was superior for PBC over NPBC (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.92; P = .03)., Conclusions: There is no significant outcome difference between PBC and NPBC in patients with metastatic UC who previously received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for localized disease. However, if over a year has elapsed, return to PBC is associated with superior OS., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sarcomatoid and rhabdoid (S/R) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are highly aggressive tumors with limited molecular and clinical characterization. Emerging evidence suggests immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are particularly effective for these tumors, although the biological basis for this property is largely unknown. Here, we evaluate multiple clinical trial and real-world cohorts of S/R RCC to characterize their molecular features, clinical outcomes, and immunologic characteristics. We find that S/R RCC tumors harbor distinctive molecular features that may account for their aggressive behavior, including BAP1 mutations, CDKN2A deletions, and increased expression of MYC transcriptional programs. We show that these tumors are highly responsive to ICI and that they exhibit an immune-inflamed phenotype characterized by immune activation, increased cytotoxic immune infiltration, upregulation of antigen presentation machinery genes, and PD-L1 expression. Our findings build on prior work and shed light on the molecular drivers of aggressivity and responsiveness to ICI of S/R RCC.

Purpose: In this phase II response-adaptive trial, we investigated the rational application of immune checkpoint blockade in renal cell carcinoma (RCC; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03203473)., Methods: We enrolled patients with metastatic RCC with no prior checkpoint inhibitor exposure. All patients received nivolumab alone with subsequent arm allocation based on response. Patients with a confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) within 6 months discontinued nivolumab and were observed (arm A). Patients with stable disease or progressive disease (PD) after no more than 6 months of nivolumab received two doses of ipilimumab (arm B). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with PR/CR at 1 year after nivolumab discontinuation (arm A) and proportion of nivolumab nonresponders who converted to PR/CR after ipilimumab (arm B)., Results: Overall, 83 patients initiated treatment, of whom 96% had clear-cell histology, 51% were treatment naïve, and 67% had intermediate/poor-risk disease. Median follow-up was 19.5 months. Within 6 months, induction nivolumab resulted in a confirmed PR in 12% of patients (n = 10). Fourteen patients were not allocated to a study arm (seven because of toxicity, seven because of PD). Twelve patients (14%) were allocated to arm A and discontinued nivolumab, of whom five (42%; 90% CI, 18% to 68%) remained off nivolumab at ≥ 1 year. Of 57 patients (69%) allocated to arm B, two patients converted to a confirmed PR (4%; 90% CI, 1% to 11%), and no CRs were observed., Conclusion: In this study, nivolumab followed by two doses of ipilimumab resulted in no CRs and a low PR/CR conversion. The number of patients evaluated for nivolumab discontinuation was too small to assess the value of this approach. Currently, our data do not support a response-adaptive strategy for checkpoint blockade in advanced RCC.

Background: Trials of adjuvant chemotherapy following radical cystectomy generally require chemotherapy to start within 90 days postoperatively. However, it is unclear, whether the interval between surgery and start of adjuvant therapy (S-AC-interval) impacts the oncological outcome., Methods: Using the Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC) data base, we identified patients who underwent radical cystectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy. Univariate analysis of patient characteristics, surgical factors and tumor characteristics regarding their impact on S-AC-interval was performed using Kruskal-Wallis testing and Fisher's exact test. Analysis of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (follow-up time beginning with the start date of adjuvant chemotherapy) was analyzed in relation to S-AC-interval (continuous and dichotomous with a cut-off at 90 days) using Kaplan-Meier method and COX regression analysis., Results: We identified 238 eligible patients (83.5% male, mean age: 63.4 years, 76.1% T3/T4, 66.4% pN+, 14.7% R+, 70.6% urothelial carcinoma, 71% cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy). The majority of patients (n = 207, 87%) started chemotherapy within 90 days after surgery. Median S-AC-interval was 57 days (interquartile range 32.8). S-AC-interval did not have consistent association with any patient/tumor characteristics or surgery related factors (type of surgery, urinary diversion). Survival analysis using continuous S-AC-interval revealed a trend toward an impact of S-AC-interval on OS (hazard ratio 1.004, 95% confidence ratio 0.9997-1.0084, P = 0.071). With regards to PFS, that impact was shown to be statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.004, 95% confidence ratio 1.0003-1.0075, P = 0.032). In multivariate analysis, however, S-AC-interval was negated by tumor and patient related factors (pathological T-stage, N-stage, ECOG performance status). Accounting for eligibility criteria defined in some clinical trials, we extended our analysis dividing S-AC-interval in ≤90 and >90 days. Although we could confirm the trend toward better outcome in patients with a shorter S-AC interval in dichotomous analysis, neither differences in OS nor in PFS reached statistical significance (P = 0.438 and P = 0.056)., Conclusions: In a large multi-institutional experience, 87% of patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy received it within the guideline recommended window of 90 days. While it was not possible to determine whether this is the optimal cut-off, early start of adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be reasonable. Regarding prognosis, tumor-related pathological factors abrogated the importance of the S-AC-interval in our analysis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Androgen receptor (AR) inhibition can upregulate c-MET expression, which may be a resistance mechanism driving progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We conducted a phase I trial investigating the safety and pharmacokinetics of a potent c-MET inhibitor, crizotinib, with the AR antagonist, enzalutamide, in CRPC., Patients and Methods: Employing a 3+3 dose-escalation design, we tested three dose levels of crizotinib (250 mg daily, 200 mg twice a day, and 250 mg twice a day) with standard-dose enzalutamide (160 mg daily). The primary endpoint was rate of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Tolerability and pharmacokinetics profile were secondary endpoints., Results: Twenty-four patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation ( n = 16) and dose-expansion ( n = 8) phases. Two DLTs occurred in dose escalation (grade 3 alanine aminotransferase elevation). The MTD of crizotinib was 250 mg twice a day. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (50%), transaminitis (38%), nausea (33%), and vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea (21% each). Grade ≥3 events (25%) included transaminitis ( n = 2), fatigue ( n = 1), hypertension ( n = 1), pulmonary embolism ( n = 1), and a cardiac event encompassing QTc prolongation/ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest. Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval, 2.8-21.2). Pharmacokinetics analysis at the MTD ( n = 12) revealed a mean C max ss of 104 ± 45 ng/mL and AUC τ ss of 1,000 ± 476 ng•h/mL, representing a 74% decrease in crizotinib systemic exposure relative to historical data ( C max ss , 315 ng/mL and AUC τ ss , 3,817 ng•h/mL)., Conclusions: Concurrent administration of enzalutamide and crizotinib resulted in a clinically significant 74% decrease in systemic crizotinib exposure. Further investigation of this combination in CRPC is not planned. Our results highlight the importance of evaluating pharmacokinetics interactions when evaluating novel combination strategies in CRPC., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The immunosuppressive cytokine interleukin- 8 (IL-8), produced by tumor cells and some myeloid cells, promotes inflammation, angiogenesis, and metastasis. In our discovery work, elevated serum IL-8 at androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation portended worse overall survival (OS). Leveraging serum samples from the phase 3 CHAARTED trial of patients treated with ADT +/- docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), we validated these findings., Methods: Two hundred and thirty-three patients had serum samples drawn within 28 days of ADT initiation. The samples were assayed using the same Mesoscale Multiplex ELISA platform employed in the discovery cohort. After adjusting for performance status, disease volume, and de novo/metachronous metastases, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations between IL-8 as continuous and binary variables on OS and time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The median IL-8 level (9.3 pg/ml) was the a priori binary cutpoint. Fixed-effects meta-analyses of the discovery and validation sets were performed., Results: Higher IL-8 levels were prognostic for shorter OS (continuous: hazard ratio [HR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-3.6, p = .001; binary >9.3: HR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.4, p = .007) and time to CRPC (continuous: HR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.6-3.3, p < .001; binary: HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.5, p < .001) and independent of docetaxel use, disease burden, and time of metastases. Meta-analysis including the discovery cohort, also showed that binary IL-8 levels >9.3 pg/ml from patients treated with ADT alone was prognostic for poorer OS (HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7, p = .007) and shorter time to CRPC (HR 1.4, 95% CI: 0.99-1.9, p = .057)., Conclusions: In the phase 3 CHAARTED study of men with mHSPC at ADT initiation, elevated IL-8 portended worse survival and shorter time to castration-resistant prostate cancer independent of docetaxel administration, metastatic burden, and metachronous versus de novo metastatic presentation. These findings support targeting IL-8 as a strategy to improve mHSPC outcomes., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: CD73-adenosine signaling in the tumor microenvironment is immunosuppressive and may be associated with aggressive renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We investigated the prognostic significance of CD73 protein expression in RCC leveraging nephrectomy samples. We also performed a complementary analysis using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset to evaluate the correlation of CD73 (ecto-5'-nucleotidase ( NT5E ), CD39 (ectonucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase 1 ( ENTPD1 )) and A2 adenosine receptor (A2AR; ADORA2A ) transcript levels with markers of angiogenesis and antitumor immune response., Methods: Patients with RCC with available archived nephrectomy samples were eligible for inclusion. Tumor CD73 protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry and quantified using a combined score (CS: % positive cells×intensity). Samples were categorized as CD73 negative (CS=0), CD73 low or CD73 high (< and ≥median CS, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between CD73 expression groups. In the TCGA dataset, samples were categorized as low, intermediate and high NT5E , ENTPD1 and ADORA2A gene expression groups. Gene expression signatures for infiltrating immune cells, angiogenesis, myeloid inflammation, and effector T-cell response were compared between NT5E , ENTPD1 and ADORA2A expression groups., Results: Among the 138 patients eligible for inclusion, 'any' CD73 expression was observed in 30% of primary tumor samples. High CD73 expression was more frequent in patients with M1 RCC (29% vs 12% M0), grade 4 tumors (27% vs 13% grade 3 vs 15% grades 1 and 2), advanced T-stage (≥T3: 22% vs T2: 19% vs T1: 12%) and tumors with sarcomatoid histology (50% vs 12%). In the M0 cohort (n=107), patients with CD73 high tumor expression had significantly worse 5-year DFS (42%) and 10-year OS (22%) compared with those in the CD73 negative group (DFS: 75%, adjusted HR: 2.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.9, p=0.01; OS: 64%, adjusted HR: 2.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.8, p=0.02) independent of tumor stage and grade. In the TCGA analysis, high NT5E expression was associated with significantly worse 5-year OS (p=0.008). NT5E and ENTPD1 expression correlated with higher regulatory T cell (Treg) signature, while ADORA2A expression was associated with increased Treg and angiogenesis signatures., Conclusions: High CD73 expression portends significantly worse survival outcomes independent of stage and grade. Our findings provide compelling support for targeting the immunosuppressive and proangiogenic CD73-adenosine pathway in RCC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AT: advisory role for Foundation Medicine, Pfizer; research funding to institution from EMD Serono, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Aravive Inc, WindMIL therapeutics, Corvus Pharmaceuticals; EL, WX, AF, JAS, ESG, GB, JHF, CG, CM and LT: none; NM-C: support for research travel from Pfizer and Ipsen, and consulting fees from BMS and Bayer; XXW: research funding to institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS); MG: research funding from BMS and Merck; BAM: payment for consulting with Bayer, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics, Exelixis, Nektar, Pfizer, Janssen, Genentech, Eisai and EMD Serono, and received research support to Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) from BMS, Calithera, Exelixis, Seattle Genetics. TKC: supported in part by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE and Program, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at DFCI. Research (institutional and personal): AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, BMS/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda. Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, BMS/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OnClive, PeerView and PER), Research to Practice, L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options, Platform Q, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Medical Oncology, NEJM, Lancet Oncology, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly Oncology. Consulting or advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, Pionyr, Tempest, Lilly Ventures. Stock ownership: Pionyr, Tempest. Other present or past leadership roles: Director of GU Oncology Division at Dana-Farber and past President of medical Staff at Dana-Farber), member of NCCN Kidney panel and the GU Steering Committee, past chairman of the Kidney Cancer Association Medical and Scientific Steering Committee), KidneyCan Advisory board, Kidney cancer Research Summit co-chair (2019-). Patents, royalties or other intellectual properties: related to biomarkers of immune checkpoint blockers. Travel, accommodations, expenses, in relation to consulting, advisory roles, or honoraria: Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies (ClinicalThinking, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Health Interactions, Parexel, Oxford PharmaGenesis, and others).The institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. CV provided upon request for scope of clinical practice and researchMentored several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. NA: consultancy to Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. Research funding to my institution: Astra Zeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Tracon. DFM: Honorarium for consultancy from BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Alkermes Inc, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Iovance and Eisai. Research support from BMS, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, Alkermes. SS: reports receiving commercial research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Exelixis and Novartis; is a consultant/advisory board member for Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRISPR Therapeutics AG, AACR, and NCI; and receives royalties from Biogenex. LCH: Reports consulting fees from Genentech, Dendreon, Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Exelixis, Bayer, Kew Group, Corvus, Merck, Novartis, BMS, Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), Jounce, EMD Serrano, ASIM CME, and Ology Medical Education. Research funding from Bayer, Sotio, BMS, Merck, Takeda, Dendreon/Valient, Jannsen, Medivation/Astellas, Genentech, Pfizer, Endocyte (Novartis). Support for research travel from Bayer and Genentech. Currently employed by Surface Oncology., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients with residual muscle-invasive urinary tract cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high risk of recurrence., Objective: To retrospectively evaluate whether additional adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves outcomes compared with surveillance in patients with significant residual disease despite NAC., Design, Setting, and Participants: We identified 474 patients who received NAC from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium database, of whom 129 had adverse residual disease (≥ypT3 and/or ypN + )., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Time to relapse (TTR) was the primary endpoint assessed starting from 2mo after surgery to minimize immortal time bias. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), incidence of AC use, and chemotherapy patterns. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models estimated TTR, OS, and associations with AC, adjusting for the type of NAC, age, and pathological stage in multivariable analyses., Results and Limitations: A total of 106 patients underwent surveillance, while 23 received AC. Gemcitabine-cisplatin was the most frequent regimen employed in both settings (30.4%), and the majority (82.6%) of the patients switched to a different regimen. Median follow-up was 30mo. Over 50% of patients developed a recurrence. Median TTR was 16mo (range: <1-108mo). Longer median TTR was observed with AC compared with surveillance (18 vs 10mo, p=0.06). Risk of relapse significantly decreased with AC when adjusted in multivariable analyses (p=0.01). The subgroup analyses of ypT4b/ypN + patients (AC: 19; surveillance: 50) who received AC had significantly greater median TTR (20 vs 9mo; hazard ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.89). No difference in OS was found. Limitations include the retrospective design., Conclusions: The utilization of AC after NAC in patients with high-risk residual disease is not frequent in clinical practice but might reduce the risk of recurrence. Further investigation is needed in this high-risk population to identify optimal therapy and to improve clinical outcomes such as the ongoing adjuvant immunotherapy trials., Patient Summary: We found that administering additional chemotherapy in patients who had significant residual disease despite preoperative chemotherapy is not frequent in clinical practice. While it might reduce the risk of recurrence, it did not clearly increase overall survival. We encourage participation in the ongoing immunotherapy trials to see whether we can improve outcomes using a different type of therapy that stimulates the immune system., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for the first and subsequent line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on trials in which most patients were immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) naive. With an expanding role of ICB in earlier lines of therapy, we assessed activity of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic ccRCC after progressing on anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based ICBs., Methods: We retrospectively analysed the clinical outcomes of 86 patients from 2 academic centres who received cabozantinib after progression on ICB alone, ICB in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis) or ICB in combination with other therapies. Overall response rate (ORR, investigator assessed), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities leading to dose reductions or cessation were evaluated., Results: Eighty-six patients were included in the analysis; the median age was 63 years (range 33-84) and the median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-10). The type of prior ICB therapy was ICBs alone (64%), an ICB in combination with a VEGFi (29%) or ICBs in combination with other therapies (7%). At the time of cabozantinib treatment, 71% of patients were in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium good- or intermediate-risk groups. Approximately half of patients (52%) were started on cabozantinib at the full 60 mg daily dose. The ORR was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 26-47%) with no complete response and 43% achieving stable disease; 21% had primary progressive disease. The median TTF was 6.5 months (95% CI = 5.3-8.5.). The median OS was 13.1 months (95% CI = 8.7-NR) with 55% (95% CI = 41-66%) OS rate at 12 months. Most common reasons for dose reductions were fatigue (27%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (16%) and diarrhoea (10%)., Conclusions: Cabozantinib is active in patients treated with prior ICB-based therapies, with no new safety signals. This study supports the use of cabozantinib after ICB-based therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement B.A.M. is reports serving as a consultant for Bayer, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Exelixis, Nektar, Pfizer, Janssen, Genentech and EMD Serono and reports receiving research support to Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Exelixis andSeattle Genetics. A.-K.AL. reports serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and TerSera and reports receiving research grants (institution or personal) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche andIpsen. D.A.B. reports receiving non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and personal fees from Octane Global, Defined Health, Dedham Group, Adept Field Solutions, Slingshot Insights, Blueprint Partnerships, Charles River Associates, Trinity Group and Insight Strategy, outside the submitted work. X.X.W. reports receiving research support to DFCI from Bristol Myers Squibb. L.C.H. reports serving as a consultant for Genentech, Dendreon, Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Exelixis, Bayer, Kew Group, Corvus, Merck, Novartis, Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), Jounce, EMD Serrano and Ology Medical Education; reports receiving research funding to the institution (DFCI) from Bayer, Sotio, Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, Takeda, Dendreon/Valient, Jannsen, Medivation/Astellas, Genentech, Pfizer and Endocyte (Novartis) and reports receiving financial support for research travel from Bayer and Genentech. M.A.B. reports serving as a consultant for Exelixis, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Nektar and Sanofi and receiving institutional research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Xencor, Incyte, Nektar, AstraZeneca, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, Peleton and Pfizer. T.K.C. reports serving as a consultant for Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OnClive, PeerView and PER), L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options, Platform Q, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Medical Oncology, NEJM, Lancet Oncology and receiving research support to DFCI from Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Calithera, Sanofi/Aventis andTakeda. All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antibiotic use alters commensal gut microbiota, which is a key regulator of immune homeostasis., Objective: To investigate the impact of antibiotic use on clinical outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with systemic agents., Design, Setting, and Participants: We analyzed two cohorts: an institutional cohort (n=146) receiving programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-based immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and a trial-database cohort (n=4144) receiving interferon-α (n=510), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors (n=660), and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT; n=2974) on phase II/III clinical trials., Outcomes Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The association of antibiotic use (defined as use from 8 wk before to 4 wk after the initiation of anticancer therapy) with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Cox regression, adjusted for known prognostic factors including International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk factors., Results and Limitations: Most patients were male, had clear cell histology, and were at an intermediate risk. Overall, in the institutional cohort, objective response rate (ORR) was 30%, PFS was 7.2 mo, and 1-yr OS was 77%. Antibiotic users (n=31, 21%) had a lower ORR (12.9% vs 34.8%, p=0.026) and shorter PFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.20, p=0.007) than antibiotic nonusers. In the trial-database cohort, antibiotic use (n=709, 17%) adversely impacted OS in patients treated with interferon (HR=1.62, 95% CI 1.13-2.31, p=0.008) or with VEGF-TT and prior cytokines (HR=1.65, 95% CI 1.04-2.62, p=0.033), but not patients treated with mTOR inhibitors or VEGF-TT without prior cytokines. Limitations include retrospective design, and limited details regarding concomitant medications and antibiotic indication/duration., Conclusions: Antibiotic use appears to reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy-based regimens in mRCC. The modulation of gut microbiota may play an important role in optimizing outcomes of patients treated with ICIs., Patient Summary: We evaluated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients and found that those who were treated with immunotherapy had worse outcomes if they also received antibiotics at the start of treatment. This study highlights the importance of judicious antibiotic use., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: To date, there has not been a large, systematic evaluation of the prevalence of germline risk variants in urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Methods: We evaluated the frequency of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in 1038 patients with high-risk UC who underwent targeted clinical germline testing. Case-control enrichment analysis was performed to screen for pathogenic variant enrichment in 17 DNA repair genes in 1038 UC patients relative to cancer-free individuals., Results: Among 1038 patients with UC, the cumulative frequency of patients with pathogenic variants was 24%; 18.6% of patients harbored ≥1 actionable germline variant with preventive or therapeutic utility. MSH2 (34/969, 3.5%) and BRCA1/2 (38/867, 4.4%) germline variants had the highest frequency. Germline variants in DNA damage repair genes accounted for 78% of pathogenic germline variants. Compared to the cancer-free cohort, UC patients had significant variant enrichment in MSH2 (odds ratio [OR]: 15.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.1-32.7, p < 0.0001), MLH1 (OR: 15.9, 95% CI: 4.4-67.7, p < 0.0001), BRCA2 (OR: 5.7, 95% CI: 3.2-9.6, p < 0.0001), and ATM (OR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.8-8.3, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: In this study, 24% of UC patients harbored pathogenic germline variants and 18.6% had clinically actionable variants. MLH1 and MSH2 were validated as UC risk genes while ATM and BRCA2 were highlighted as potential UC predisposition genes. This work emphasizes the utility of germline testing in selected high-risk UC cohorts.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although the incidence and prevalence of irAEs have been well characterized in the literature, less is known about the cumulative incidence rate of irAEs. We studied the cumulative incidence of irAEs, defined as the probability of irAE occurrence over time and the risk factors for irAE development in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with ICIs., Methods: We identified a cohort of patients who received ICIs for mUC and mRCC. irAEs were classified using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) V.5.0 guidelines. The monthly incidence of irAEs over time was reported after landmark duration of therapy. Cumulative incidence of irAEs was calculated to evaluate the time to the first occurrence of an irAE accounting for the competing risk of death. Prognostic factors for irAE were assessed using the Fine and Gray method., Results: A total of 470 patients were treated with ICIs between July 2013 and October 2018 (mUC: 199 (42.3%); mRCC: 271 (57.7%)). 341 (72.6%) patients received monotherapy, 86 (18.3%) received ICIs in combination with targeted therapies, and 43 (9.2%) received dual ICI therapy. Overall, 186 patients (39.5%) experienced an irAE at any time point. Common irAEs included hypothyroidism (n=42, 22.6%), rush and pruritus (n=36, 19.4%), diarrhea/colitis (n=35, 18.8%), transaminitis (n=32, 17.2%), and pneumonitis (n=14, 7.5%). Monthly incidence rates decreased over time; however, 17 of 109 (15.6%, 95% CI: 9.4% to 23.8%) experienced their first irAE at least 1 year after treatment initiation. No differences in cumulative incidence were observed based on cancer type, agent, or irAE grade. On multivariable analysis, combined ICI therapy with another ICI or with targeted therapy (p<0.001), first-line ICI therapy (p=0.011), and PD-1 inhibitor therapy (p=0.007) were all significantly associated with irAE development., Conclusions: This study quantitates the incidence of developing irAEs due to ICI conditioned on time elapsed without irAE development. Although the monthly incidence of irAEs decreased over time on therapy, patients can still develop delayed irAEs beyond ICI discontinuation, and thus, continuous vigilant monitoring is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), predictive biomarkers that correlate with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are lacking. Here, we interrogated genomic and clinical features associated with response to ICIs in mUC., Methods: Sixty two mUC patients treated with ICI who had targeted tumour sequencing were studied. We examined associations between candidate biomarkers and clinical benefit (CB, any objective reduction in tumour size) versus no clinical benefit (NCB, no change or objective increase in tumour size). Both univariable and multivariable analyses for associations were conducted. A comparator cohort of 39 mUC patients treated with taxanes was analysed by using the same methodology., Results: Nine clinical and seven genomic factors correlated with clinical outcomes in univariable analysis in the ICI cohort. Among the 16 factors, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 (OR = 0.12, 95% CI, 0.01-1.15), visceral metastasis (OR = 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.43) and single-nucleotide variant (SNV) count < 10 (OR = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.006-0.27) were identified as independent predictors of NCB to ICI in multivariable analysis (c-statistic = 0.90). None of the 16 variables were associated with clinical benefit in the taxane cohort., Conclusions: This three-factor model includes genomic (SNV count >9) and clinical (NLR <5, lack of visceral metastasis) variables predictive for benefit to ICI but not taxane therapy for mUC. External validation of these hypothesis-generating results is warranted to enable use in routine clinical care.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce a range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with various degrees of severity. While clinical experience with ICI retreatment following clinically significant irAEs is growing, the safety and efficacy are not yet well characterized., Methods: This multicenter retrospective study identified patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ICI who had >1 week therapy interruption for irAEs. Patients were classified into retreatment and discontinuation cohorts based on whether or not they resumed an ICI. Toxicity and clinical outcomes were assessed descriptively., Results: Of 499 patients treated with ICIs, 80 developed irAEs warranting treatment interruption; 36 (45%) of whom were restarted on an ICI and 44 (55%) who permanently discontinued. Median time to initial irAE was similar between the retreatment and discontinuation cohorts (2.8 vs 2.7 months, p=0.59). The type and grade of irAEs were balanced across the cohorts; however, fewer retreatment patients required corticosteroids (55.6% vs 84.1%, p=0.007) and hospitalizations (33.3% vs 65.9%, p=0.007) for irAE management compared with discontinuation patients. Median treatment holiday before reinitiation was 0.9 months (0.2-31.6). After retreatment, 50% (n=18/36) experienced subsequent irAEs (12 new, 6 recurrent) with 7 (19%) grade 3 events and 13 drug interruptions. Median time to irAE recurrence after retreatment was 2.8 months (range: 0.3-13.8). Retreatment resulted in 6 (23.1%) additional responses in 26 patients whose disease had not previously responded. From first ICI initiation, median time to next therapy was 14.2 months (95% CI 8.2 to 18.9) and 9.0 months (5.3 to 25.8), and 2-year overall survival was 76% (95%CI 55% to 88%) and 66% (48% to 79%) in the retreatment and discontinuation groups, respectively., Conclusions: Despite a considerable rate of irAE recurrence with retreatment after a prior clinically significant irAE, most irAEs were low grade and controllable. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm that retreatment enhances survival outcomes that justify the safety risks., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WX reports consulting role with Bayer. NM-C reports support for research travel from Pfizer and Ipsen, and consulting fees for BMS. BAM reports advisory roles for Astellas/Seattle Genetics, Astra Zeneca, Nektar, Exelixis, Pfizer and consultant roles for Astellas, Bayer, Genentech, Janssen and EMD Serono. DYCH reports consulting roles with BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen and Exelixis. MAB has a consulting/advisory role with Exelixis, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Nektar and Sanofi and receives institutional research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Xencor, Incyte, Nektar, AstraZeneca, Tricon Pharmaceuticals, Peleton and Pfizer. TKC reports research (institutional and personal) funds from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group, Sanofi/Aventis, Takedal Honoraria from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OnClive, PeerView and PER), Research to Practice, L-path, Kidney Cancer Journal, Clinical Care Options, Platform Q, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Medical Oncology, NEJM, Lancet Oncology, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly; consulting or advisory Role for AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb/ER Squibb and sons LLC, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Heron Therapeutics, Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Labs, Corvus, Ipsen, Up-to-Date, NCCN, Analysis Group, Pionyr, Tempest; stock ownership in Pionyr, Tempest; no leadership or employment in for-profit companies; other present or past leadership roles: Director of GU Oncology Division at Dana-Farber and past President of medical Staff at Dana-Farber), member of NCCN Kidney panel and the GU Steering Committee, past chairman of the Kidney Cancer Association Medical and Scientific Steering Committee); patents, royalties or other intellectual properties: International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, entitled “PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint Response,” filed January 3, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/445,094, filed January 11, 2017 and International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, entitled “Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy,” filed October 31, 2018, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/581,175, filed November 3, 2017; travel, accommodations, expenses, in relation to consulting, advisory roles, or honoraria; medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies (ClinicalThinking, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Health Interactions, Parexel, Oxford PharmaGenesis, and others).The institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding of drug companies or/and royalties potentially involved in research around the subject matter. CV provided upon request for scope of clinical practice and research. He reports mentoring several non-US citizens on research projects with potential funding (in part) from non-US sources/Foreign Components. LCH reports consulting fees from Genentech, Dendreon, Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Exelixis, Bayer, Kew Group, Corvus, Merck, Novartis, Michael J Hennessy Associates (Healthcare Communications Company and several brands such as OncLive and PER), Jounce, EMD Serrano, Ology Medical Education; Research funding from Bayer, Sotio, Bristol-Myers Squib, Merck, Takeda, Dendreon/Valient, Jannsen, Medivation/Astellas, Genentech, Pfizer, Endocyte (Novartis), and support for research travel from Bayer and Genentech., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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

Background: The impact of cisplatin use on long-term survival of unselected patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) has not been adequately investigated. We used a multinational database to study long-term survival and the impact of treatment type in unselected patients with aUTC., Materials and Methods: A total of 1,333 patients with aUTC (cT4bN0M0, cTanyN+M0, cTanyNanyM+), transitional-cell, squamous, or adenocarcinoma histology who received systemic chemotherapy and had available survival data were selected. Long-term survival was defined as alive at 3 years following initiation of first-line chemotherapy. Conditional overall survival (COS) analysis was employed to study change in prognosis given time survived from initiation of first-line chemotherapy., Results: Median follow-up was 31.7 months. The combination of cisplatin use and cisplatin eligibility accurately predicted long-term survival. Eligible patients treated with cisplatin conferred a 31.6% probability of 3-year survival (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1-38.3), and 2-year COS for patients surviving 3 years after initiation of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was 83% (95% CI: 59.7-93.5). The respective probabilities for patients who were ineligible for cisplatin or not treated with cisplatin despite eligibility were 14% (95% CI: 10.8-17.6) and 49.3% (95% CI: 28.2-67.4). Two-year COS remained significantly different between these two groups up to 3 years after chemotherapy initiation., Conclusion: Cisplatin-based therapy was associated with the highest likelihood of long-term survival in patients with aUTC and should be used in patients who fulfill the established eligibility criteria. Novel therapies are necessary to increase long-term survival in cisplatin-ineligible patients., Implications for Practice: Long-term, disease-free survival is possible in one in four eligible-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. Therefore, deviations from eligibility criteria should be avoided. Consolidation surgery should be considered in responders. These data provide benchmarks for the study of novel therapies in aUTC., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

The availability of new potent systemic therapies for urothelial carcinoma may change the way we use standard chemotherapy perioperatively. In particular, identifying which patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is compelling. From a multicenter database we selected 950 patients with cT2-4N0M0 MIBC treated with radical cystectomy (RC), with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and AC. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses to test 1-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates according to AC use. Nomogram-derived probabilities of 1-yr recurrence after RC were plotted against actual recurrence rates according to AC use. Overall, we did not see evidence of an AC effect on the 1-yr RFS rate (p=0.6). Conversely, the 1-yr RFS rate was higher among patients with pT3-4 or pN1 disease who received AC (75% vs 54%; p<0.001). We were unable to demonstrate a difference between AC and no AC among patients who received prior NAC (1-yr RFS 57% vs 76%; p=0.057). As the most important finding, AC was associated with incremental RFS benefits only for patients with a nomogram-derived 1-yr recurrence probability of >40%. Patient summary: Maximizing disease control with adjuvant chemotherapy was beneficial for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who had a calculated recurrence risk of >40% and did not impact cancer recurrence in lower-risk disease. Therefore, patient stratification using the nomogram available for predicting recurrence is advisable pending external validation., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Safe use of immune checkpoint blockade in patients with cancer and autoimmune disorders requires a better understanding of the pathophysiology of immunologic activation. We describe the immune correlates of reactivation of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA)-an antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis-in a patient with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab. After PD-1 blockade, an inflammatory pulmonary nodule demonstrated a granulomatous, CD4+ T-cell infiltrate, correlating with increased CD4+ and CD8+ naïve memory cells in the peripheral blood without changes in other immune checkpoint receptors. Placed within the context of the existing literature on GPA and disease control, our findings suggest a key role for PD-1 in GPA self-tolerance and that selective strategies for immunotherapy may be needed in patients with certain autoimmune disorders. We further summarize the current literature regarding reactivation of autoimmune disorders in patients undergoing immune checkpoint blockade, as well as potential immunosuppressive strategies to minimize the risks of further vasculitic reactivation upon rechallenge with anti-PD-1 blockade. KEY POINTS: Nonspecific imaging findings in patients with cancer and rheumatological disorders may require biopsy to distinguish underlying pathology.Patients with rheumatologic disorders have increased risk of reactivation with PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint blockade, requiring assessment of disease status before starting treatment.Further study is needed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment regimens in preventing and controlling disease reactivation., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Opinion Statement: Adjuvant therapy for non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial. Of the four reported randomized controlled trials evaluating adjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition, only one met its primary endpoint. The S-TRAC study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) of greater than 1 year with adjuvant sunitinib compared to placebo in patients with high-risk localized RCC and earned it FDA approval. However, the larger ASSURE study which reported first did not find a difference in DFS or overall survival between 1 year of adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib compared to placebo. Given the discordant results of the two sunitinib studies, two other negative studies of adjuvant targeted therapy with pazopanib and axitinib, the lack of definite overall survival benefit in any study, and the high incidence of treatment-related adverse events with sunitinib, we do not recommend the routine use of adjuvant sunitinib. The decision to offer adjuvant sunitinib should be considered on an individual basis after an informed discussion of the potential toxicities and the risk/benefit ratio. Despite numerous efforts and recently published works, there is a paucity of prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers in RCC. Further investigation is needed to discover new tools that can enhance the identification of patients who are most likely to benefit from adjuvant treatment beyond pathologic stage. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have great potential to significantly improve outcomes in high-risk localized RCC. Building on their established efficacy in the metastatic setting, several ongoing clinical trials are evaluating their value as single agents or in combination in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. At this time, we recommend participation in clinical trials as the preferred therapeutic option for patients with high-risk, non-metastatic RCC planned for nephrectomy.

Patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience high rates of recurrence despite definitive surgical resection. Recent trials of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy have provided conflicting efficacy results at the cost of significant adverse events. PD-1 blockade via monoclonal antibodies has emerged as an effective disease-modifying treatment for metastatic RCC. There is emerging data across other solid tumors of the potential efficacy of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade, and preclinical evidence supporting a neoadjuvant over adjuvant approach. PROSPER RCC is a Phase III, randomized trial evaluating whether perioperative nivolumab increases recurrence-free survival in patients with high-risk RCC undergoing nephrectomy. The neoadjuvant component, intended to prime the immune system for enhanced efficacy, distinguishes PROSPER from other purely adjuvant studies and permits highly clinically relevant translational studies.

Purpose: Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer have an increased risk of cancer recurrence and mortality. In this phase II trial, we evaluate neoadjuvant enzalutamide and leuprolide (EL) with or without abiraterone and prednisone (ELAP) before radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with locally advanced prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had a biopsy Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 or greater, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 20 ng/mL, or T3 disease (by prostate magnetic resonance imaging). Lymph nodes were required to be smaller than 20 mm. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to ELAP or EL for 24 weeks followed by RP. All specimens underwent central pathology review. The primary end point was pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease (residual tumor ≤ 5 mm). Secondary end points were PSA, surgical staging, positive margins, and safety. Biomarkers associated with pathologic outcomes were explored., Results: Seventy-five patients were enrolled at four centers. Most patients had high-risk disease by National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria (n = 65; 87%). The pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease rate was 30% (n = 15 of 50) in ELAP-treated patients and 16% (n = four of 25) in EL-treated patients (two-sided P = .263). Rates of ypT3 disease, positive margins, and positive lymph nodes were similar between arms. Treatment was well-tolerated. Residual tumors in the two arms showed comparable levels of ERG, PTEN, androgen receptor PSA, and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Tumor ERG positivity and PTEN loss were associated with more extensive residual tumors at RP., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant hormone therapy followed by RP in locally advanced prostate cancer resulted in favorable pathologic responses in some patients, with a trend toward improved pathologic outcomes with ELAP. Longer follow-up is necessary to evaluate the impact of therapy on recurrence rates. The potential association of ERG and PTEN alterations with worse outcomes warrants additional investigation.

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma., Methods: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment., Findings: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status., Interpretation: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data is available on the role, and extent of, postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy (PC-LND) in patients with clinical evidence of pelvic (cN1-3) or retroperitoneal (RP) lymph node spread from urothelial bladder carcinoma., Objective: To compare the outcomes of operated versus nonoperated patients after first-line chemotherapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 34 centers was collected, totaling 522 patients, treated between January 2000 and June 2015. Criteria for patient selection were the following: bladder primary tumor, lymph node metastases (pelvic±RP) only, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy given., Intervention: LND (with cystectomy) versus observation after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder carcinoma., Outcome Measures and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Multiple propensity score techniques were adopted, including 1:1 propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Additionally, the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed with the inclusion of the covariates, that is, with doubly robust estimation., Results and Limitations: Overall, 242 (46.4%) patients received PC-LND and 280 (53.6%) observation after chemotherapy. There were 177 (33.9%) and 345 (66.1%) patients with either RP or pelvic LND only, respectively. Doubly robust estimation-adjusted comparison was not significant for improved OS for PC-LND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.31, p=0.479), confirmed by matched analysis (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.60-1.36, p=0.628). This was also observed in the RP subgroup (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.68-1.84). The retrospective nature of the data and the heterogeneous patient population were the major limitations., Conclusions: Although there were substantial differences between the two groups, after accounting for major confounders we report a nonsignificant OS difference with PC-LND compared with observation only. These findings may be hypothesis-generating for future prospective trials., Patient Summary: We found no differences in survival by adding postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in patients with pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph node metastatic bladder cancer. The indication to perform postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in the most suitable patients requires additional studies., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inflammation and infections have been associated with prostate cancer progression. We assessed whether elevated serum cytokines or T. vaginalis seropositivity at the time of diagnosis was associated with higher grade or lethal prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: Men with localized or metastatic prostate cancer were included in this study. Cytokine serum levels including interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (CCL-2), tumor necrosis factor α, and growth-regulated oncogene α (CXCL-1) using a multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and T. vaginalis serology were measured in blood samples at diagnosis., Results: A total of 324 patients were identified at time of localized disease and 118 at time of metastatic disease. Of the 189 patients with localized disease and clinical follow-up data (median, 73 months), 28 developed lethal disease. There was no association between circulating cytokine levels above median concentrations nor T. vaginalis seropositivity and risk of intermediate- to high-risk or lethal prostate cancer., Conclusion: Higher levels of serum cytokine levels and T. vaginalis seropositivity at diagnosis are not associated with high-grade or lethal prostate cancer and do not aid risk stratification of localized prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) combined with perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer (UBC)., Objective: To evaluate surgical and oncological outcomes for RARC and ORC in multimodal treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from 28 centres were collected for cystectomies performed between January 2000 and July 2013., Intervention: RARC or ORC combined with perioperative chemotherapy for UBC., Outcome Measures and Statistical Analysis: Fisher's exact tests, χ 2 tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the RARC and ORC groups. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate potential prognostic factors., Results and Limitations: A total of 688 patients (n=603 ORC and n=85 RARC) were analysed; 60.6% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 45.1% adjuvant chemotherapy. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the groups. The median time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was 1.9 mo for both RARC and ORC groups. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 21 (interquartile range [IQR] 14-35) for RARC and 13 (IQR 8-21) for ORC (p<0.001); the results were confirmed in subgroup analyses. Multivariable analyses revealed no difference in the rate of positive surgical margins (p=0.54 and p=0.78), rate of neobladder diversion (p=0.33 and p=0.51), relapse-free survival (p=0.31 and p=0.23), and overall survival (p=0.63 and p=0.69). The retrospective nature of the data is the major limitation., Conclusions: In this study, no differences in efficacy outcomes or ability to deliver adjuvant chemotherapy were observed between RARC and ORC. The increasing use of RARC is justifiable from an oncological viewpoint., Patient Summary: In a retrospective study of patients who received perioperative chemotherapy for urothelial bladder cancer, we found no difference in key outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy. Performing RARC seems to be justifiable in the multidisciplinary setting., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: MIBC is an aggressive disease, with 5-year survival rates ranging from 36 to 48% for p T3/p T4/p N+tumors. Perioperative treatment can improve overall survival, with more robust evidence in favor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Few randomized studies have compared neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in bladder cancer. Consequently, it has been difficult to establish the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in MIBC. Methods: Data from patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (>pT2) collected from 2005 to 2012 within the RISC data base (Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract) were evaluated. Overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between NC and AC generated using the Kaplan-Meier method were compared for MIBC by log-rank test. All patients in this analysis received either NC or AC. Results: A total of 656 patients with MIBC (325 treated with AC and 331 with NC) were analyzed. The median DFS was 34.6 months (95% CI:25.3-43.9) for NC vs. 24.9 months (95% CI: 19.4-30.5) with AC, with a reduction in the risk of disease progression of 21% in favor of NC (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in terms of CSS (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79-1.43, P : 0.70), and OS (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.83-1.39, P = 0.57). Conclusions: This study demonstrates superiority in DFS for NC compared to AC. The positive prognostic impact of complete pathological response to NC was confirmed.

Background: Tumor content in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising biomarker, but longitudinal dynamics of tumor-derived and non-tumor-derived cfDNA through multiple courses of therapy have not been well described., Methods: CfDNA from 663 plasma samples from 140 patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) was subject to sparse whole genome sequencing. Tumor fraction (TFx) estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA was correlated with clinical features and responses to therapy., Results: TFx associated with the number of bone metastases (median TFx = 0.014 with no bone metastases, 0.047 with 1-3 bone metastases, 0.190 for 4+ bone metastases; P < 0.0001) and with visceral metastases (P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, TFx remained associated with metastasis location (P = 0.042); TFx was positively correlated with alkaline phosphatase (P = 0.0227) and negatively correlated with hemoglobin (Hgb) (P < 0.001), but it was not correlated with prostate specific antigen (PSA) (P = 0.75). Tumor-derived and non-tumor-derived cfDNA track together and do not increase with generalized tissue damage from chemotherapy or radiation at the time scales examined. All new treatments that led to ≥30% PSA decline at 6 weeks were associated with TFx decline when baseline TFx was >7%; however, TFx in patients being subsequently maintained on secondary hormonal therapy was quite dynamic., Conclusion: TFx correlates with clinical features associated with overall survival in CRPC, and TFx decline is a promising biomarker for initial therapeutic response., Trial Registration: Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) protocol no. 18-135., Funding: Wong Family Award in Translational Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute Medical Oncology grant, Gerstner Family Foundation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Koch Institute Support (core) grant P30-CA14051 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI).