Concomitant Drugs Prognostic Score in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in the Compassionate Use Program in Italy: Brief Communication

A concomitant drug-based score was developed by our group and externally validated for prognostic and predictive purposes in patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The model considers the use of three classes of drugs within a month before initiating ICI, assigning score 1 for each between proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before immunotherapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. In the present analysis, the drug score was validated in a prospective population of 305 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in the first-line setting. The value of the model in predicting overall survival and progression-free survival was statistically significant and clinically meaningful, with an overall survival rate at 12 months of 73% vs. 44% (P<0.0001), and median progression-free survival of 11.6 (95% CI: 9.1-14.1) months versus 4.8 (95% CI: 2.7-7.0) months (P=0.002), respectively, for patients belonging to the favorable group (score 0-1) versus the unfavorable (score 2-4). Further development will be represented by the gut microbiome analysis according to the drug-based model classification and to the outcome of patients to ICI therapy to demonstrate the link between drug exposure and immune sensitivity.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-564): 30-month follow-up analysis of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints.

METHODS

In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334.

FINDINGS

Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab.

INTERPRETATION

Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Patterns of progression of patients with high-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with early docetaxel chemotherapy: The LONGITUDE observational study

107

Background: In patients (pts) with high-volume (HV) metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) the addition of six cycles of docetaxel (TXT) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE trials prolonged survival by 10-18 months (mo). Aim of our study was to evaluate the principal patterns of relapse after TXT and their clinical and prognostic significance. Methods: We conducted a multicentric (14 Italian Centers), prospective, observational study enrolling HV mCSPC patients treated with ADT plus early TXT. Clinical and pathological features were recorded. Time to castration resistance (TCR) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The Chi-Square test, t-test or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used to assess difference between the groups as appropriate. Results: We identified 166 de novo mCSPC pts, with a median age of 64 years (range 38-84). The most common metastatic sites at diagnosis were: bone (93%) and lymph nodes (81%); visceral disease (lung and liver) was present in 36% of cases. 87% of pts had good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (0-1), the median baseline PSA was 359 ng/ml (range 2.64-5800) and 43% experienced cancer pain. 87% of 158 evaluable pts had a Grade Group (GG) ³4. The majority of pts (81%) completed six cycles of TXT. The median time to PSA nadir was 10.2 months (mo), PSA response > 50% was achieved in 96% of pts and the most common best response reported was partial response (58%). At the time of this analysis, 122 pts (67%) had biochemical or radiographic progressive disease (PD) to TXT and 67 of these (60%) developing new metastatic sites (NMS). No differences with respect of main clinical features was found between NMS pts and nonNMS, with the exception of GG (96% of NMS pts had GG 4-5 vs 74% of nonNMS; p = 0.002). In NMS group we found a higher rate of nodal PD (52% vs 22%, p = 0.001) and higher rate of bone PD (73% vs 47%, p = 0.005) compared to nonNMS. No differences in the rate of visceral PD. With a median follow-up of 27.9 mo, the median TCR was 14.3 mo (95%CI 12.8-16.7), without significant differences between NMS and nonNMS groups. About 90% of progressed pts received first-line treatment for mCRPC disease with similar outcomes. The median OS was 41.8 mo for the overall population, with not significant differences between NMS and nonNMS groups (22 mo and 25 mo). Overall, median OS from mCRPC diagnosis was 19.6 mo, similar in NMS and no-NMS pts (10 mo and 12 mo). Conclusions: In progressive mCSPC pts receiving early TXT, we observed more frequently the development of NMS with an elevated GG and a trophism for bone and lymph nodes. However, the NMS progression does not seem to have a prognostic role. An extended follow up and the prospective data will be provided.

Randomized phase II study of niraparib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) whose disease did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT): The Meet-URO12 trial

442

Background: Niraparib is an oral inhibitor of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) enzymes. Based on the association of mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes with platinum sensitivity, aim of this phase II trial was to compare maintenance treatment with niraparib plus BSC vs. BSC alone in pts with advanced UC who obtain objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) with first-line PBCT. Methods: Meet-URO12 is a randomized phase II multicentre trial enrolling pts with advanced transitional cell UC, without evidence of progression after 4-6 cycles of first-line PBCT (cisplatin or carboplatin). Pts were randomized (2:1) to experimental arm A (niraparib 300 or 200 mg daily according to body weight and baseline platelets, plus BSC) or control arm B (BSC alone). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). 77 pts were planned and 65 PFS events were needed to detect Hazard Ratio 0.57, with 80% power and one-tailed alpha 0.1. Accrual was prematurely stopped due to availability of avelumab in the same setting, and protocol was amended to perform analysis with ≥ 40 PFS events. Molecular characteristics, including alteration of HRR genes, were assessed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples using the FoundationOne CDx assay. Results: Between Aug 2019 and Mar 2021, 58 pts were randomized in 14 Italian centers (39 assigned to arm A and 19 to arm B); 1 pt assigned to arm A did never start niraparib. Median age was 69y (44-84); ECOG PS0 65.5%/ PS1 34.5%; best response with PBCT OR 55.2%/ SD 44.8%. As of Aug 2021, after a median follow-up of 8.5 mos, 47 PFS events were recorded. Median PFS was 2.1 mos in arm A and 2.4 mos in arm B (HR 0.92; 95%CI 0.49 – 1.75, p=0.81). 6-months progression-free rate was 28.2% and 26.3%, respectively. Time to treatment failure for pts who started niraparib was 2.4 mos. Out of 47 pts with molecular info, 21 (44.7%) had HRR alterations: 6 (12.8%) known pathogenic mutations and 15 (31.9%) variants of unknown significance. In pts with pathogenic mutations, median PFS was 2.0 mos in arm A and 1.9 mos in arm B. In pts with any HRR mutation, median PFS was 2.0 mos in arm A and 2.0 mos in arm B. Any grade≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event (AE) was reported in 25/38 pts (65.8%) in arm A and in 3/19 pts (15.8%) in arm B. 18/38 pts (47.4%) needed dose reduction of niraparib. Most common AEs with niraparib were anemia (50.0%, G3 10.5%), thrombocytopenia (36.8%, G3-4 15.8%), neutropenia (21.1%, G3 5.3%), fatigue (31.6%, G3 15.8%), constipation (31.6%, G3 2.6%), mucositis (13.2%, G3 2.6%), nausea (13.2%, G3 2.6%). Conclusions: Maintenance niraparib plus BSC did not prolong PFS, as compared with BSC alone, among pts with urothelial cancer without progression after first-line PBCT. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier. NCT03945084. Clinical trial information: NCT03945084.

Final overall survival analysis and organ-specific target lesion assessments with two-year follow-up in CheckMate 9ER: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

350

Background: First-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) demonstrated superiority over sunitinib (SUN) in the primary disclosure of the phase 3 CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177; 10.6 months minimum follow-up; Choueiri TK et al. N Engl J Med 2021) in patients (pts) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Here, we report the preplanned final overall survival (OS) analysis with updated efficacy and safety in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts, and an exploratory assessment of target lesions by organ site after extended follow-up. Methods: Pts with aRCC (clear cell component) were randomized to N 240 mg every 2 weeks + C 40 mg once daily vs SUN 50 mg once daily (4 weeks of 6-week cycles). The primary endpoint was RECIST v1.1–defined progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in ITT pts; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate (ORR) by BICR, and safety. The preplanned final OS analysis was set to occur after observing 254 events. Maximal reduction of target lung, lymph node, kidney, and liver lesions were evaluated per BICR via post hoc exploratory analyses. Results: After 25.4 months minimum follow-up (median, 32.9 months) for OS in ITT pts, a total of 271 OS events occurred, and N+C continued to demonstrate OS improvement vs SUN (N = 323 vs 328; median 37.7 vs 34.3 months; HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.55–0.90]). PFS (median 16.6 vs 8.3 months; HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.46–0.68]) and ORR (55.7% [95% CI 50.1–61.2] vs 28.4% [95% CI 23.5–33.6]) benefits were maintained with N+C vs SUN, and 12.4% (N+C) vs 5.2% (SUN) of pts had a complete response. Median duration of response was 23.1 months with N+C vs 15.1 months with SUN. A higher percentage of pts experienced any reduction and ≥30% reduction from baseline with N+C vs SUN in target lesions at all organ sites assessed (Table). Among all treated pts, 97.2% (N+C; N = 320) vs 93.1% (SUN; N = 320) had a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) of any grade (65.0% vs 54.1% had a grade ≥ 3 TRAE). Conclusions: N+C continued to provide survival improvement vs SUN among ITT pts in the final OS analysis, additionally PFS and ORR benefits with N+C were sustained with minimum 2-year follow-up. A higher proportion of pts experienced tumor shrinkage benefit with N+C vs SUN across all 4 organ sites assessed. No new safety signals emerged with extended follow-up in either arm. These results highlight N+C as a first-line treatment for pts with aRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study.

METHODS

The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597.

FINDINGS

Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations.

FUNDING

Janssen Research & Development.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.

RESULTS

Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Real world data from an Italian expanded access program (EAP)

4577

Background: Nivolumab showed a survival benefit in a randomised phase III trial in pre-treated mRCC. The EAP provided the opportunity to treat patients (pts) in real world clinical practice before market availability of the drug clinical practice. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the safety and activity of nivolumab in a real world setting. Methods: Nivolumab was available upon physician request for pts aged ≥18 years who had relapsed after a minimum of one prior systemic treatment for mRCC. Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Pts included in the analysis had received ≥ 1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for adverse events using CTCAE v.4.0. Results: Totally, 389 pts were enrolled in the EAP across 95 Italian sites, median age was 65 years (range, 34-85) with 70 (18%) aged ≥ 75 yrs. Pts had a clear-cell RCC in 92% of cases, bone metastases in 50% and brain metastases in 8%, and received more than one previous line in 79% of cases. At the time of this analysis, median number of doses received was 10 (1-31) and 82 (21%) pts were treated beyond progression. Among 389 pts, 18 pts (5%) discontinued treatment due to AE. The best overall response rate was 17% including one complete and 66 partial responses, whereas 121 (31%) had stable disease. With a median follow-up of 7 months (range, 1 to 16), 6-month and 9-month survival rates were 83% and 77%, respectively. Response and survival rates were comparable among pts regardless age, presence of brain or bone metastases and number of prior therapies. Conclusions: This EAP represents the most extensive reported real-world experience with nivolumab in pre-treated RCC pts. These first data seem to confirm efficacy and safety data of the pivotal trial in a real world setting. Results in patient populations poorly (elderly or bone metastases) or not represented at all (brain metastases) in the pivotal trial encourage the use of nivolumab in these subgroups of RCC pts.

Docetaxel rechallenge in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: any place in the modern treatment scenario? An intention to treat evaluation

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the possible advantages of a docetaxel (DCT) rechallenge strategy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, also given the possible earlier positioning of this treatment option in the modern scenario.

PATIENTS & METHODS

All mCRPC patients planned for DCT chemotherapy rechallenge in our institutions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 98 achieved disease control on the initial DCT round. After a treatment holiday of 8.3 months, the 98 responsive patients underwent a second DCT round, with 56 cases achieving again disease control. After a 5.7-month off-treatment period, 32 of these cases underwent a third DCT round, and 16 responded. Lastly, after a further 4.2-month treatment holiday, eight patients underwent a fourth DCT round and two responded. Median time to definitive disease progression for the whole population was 16.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Rechallenge with DCT may be considered a suitable treatment option for mCRPC patients recurring after a successful DCT chemotherapy. The interest in this strategy may be increased because of the showed efficacy of early DCT chemotherapy in patients with bulky disease (CHAARTED study) and the potential lower efficacy of the new hormonal agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide when used in a immediate sequencing.

Sunitinib administered on 2/1 schedule in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the RAINBOW analysis

BACKGROUND

First-line sunitinib is recommended in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but it is frequently associated with relevant toxicities and subsequent dose reductions. Alternative schedules, such as 2-week-on treatment and 1-week-off (2/1 schedule), might improve tolerability. We evaluated the safety and outcomes of this schedule in a large multicenter analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective, multicenter analysis of mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule. Data of 249 patients were reviewed: 208 cases who started sunitinib on the 4/2 schedule (full dosage: 188/208, 90.4%) and thereafter switched to the 2/1 schedule for toxicity (group 4/2 → 2/1) and 41 patients who started first-line sunitinib with the 2/1 schedule because of suboptimal clinical conditions (group 2/1). A total of 211 consecutive patients treated with the 4/2 schedule in another institution served as external controls. Safety was the primary end point. Treatment duration (TD), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

In group 4/2 → 2/1, the overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicities was significantly reduced (from 45.7% to 8.2%, P < 0.001) after the switch to 2/1 schedule. This advantage was maintained also in the 106/188 cases (56.4%) who maintained the full dosage. Fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia were less frequent. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the negatively selected group 2/1 (only 73.2% starting at full dose) was 26.8%, similar to what observed in the external control group (29.4%). Median TD was 28.2 months in the 4/2 → 2/1 group (total time spent with both schedules), 7.8 months in the 2/1 group and 9.7 months in external controls. Median PFS was 30.2, 10.4 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached, 23.2 and 27.8 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

mRCC patients who moved to a modified 2/1 schedule of sunitinib experience an improved safety profile compared with that observed during the initial 4/2 schedule.

Immunologic checkpoints blockade in renal cell, prostate, and urothelial malignancies

Genitourinary (GU) tumors, and in particular renal cell and prostate cancer, represent one of the most dynamic areas in oncology from the scientific point of view. One of the most recent treatment approaches for GU tumors has focused on a series of molecules known as immune checkpoints and the possibility of manipulating immune responses against tumor cells by blocking these molecules with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), and the immune checkpoint inhibitor mAbs ipilimumab and tremelimumab, represent the prototypes of this new growing class of agents called immunomodulating antibodies, while programmed death/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) also has garnered a significant interest as a new immune checkpoints to target in urothelial cancer, with the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor mAbs nivolumab, MPDL-3280, and BMS-936559 as the first agents tested. Here we report the encouraging initial data observed in GU cancers with this new class of agents, which have reinforced the interest of investigating the therapeutic potential of the immune checkpoint modulators in large controlled trials.

Comparing comparators: a look at control arms in kidney cancer studies over the years

In the past decade, an increasing number of frequently positive randomised clinical trials have been completed, allowing new consideration of the present therapeutic armamentarium for advanced renal cell carcinoma. These studies were predominantly designed to compare the experimental drugs with 1 of 2 active control arms: interferon alpha-2a or sorafenib. Different from expectations, the final results of some of these studies were not in line with the predictions, and the reasons have not been fully investigated. Consequently, there is a great need for careful analysis of the studies carried out so far, chiefly the role and validity of the control arms. In this regard, the examination of patient baseline characteristics and other factors of potential interest seems fundamental for a correct analysis of the results of these trials and consequent optimal use of the available targeted agents.

Sunitinib therapy in metastatic papillary thyroid cancer

We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with a follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. After surgery she experienced a relapse. Chemotherapy treatment led only to disease stabilization. In August 2009, we decided to start therapy with sunitinib 50 mg daily in an intermittent schedule (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). A CT scan after 3 months of treatment showed partial remission of disease according to the RECIST criteria. The patient continued sunitinib until January 2011, when CT evidenced progression in the mediastinal lymph nodes and pleura. Genetic analyses were carried out to determine if the clinical response in our patient was correlated with the presence of RET or BRAF mutations. No RET/PTC rearrangements or BRAF-V600E mutation, which are the two most common genetic alterations detected in papillary thyroid carcinoma, were found. It can be hypothesized that the activity of sunitinib in this patient was due to its antiangiogenic properties.

Sunitinib therapy in metastatic papillary thyroid cancer

We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with a follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. After surgery she experienced a relapse. Chemotherapy treatment led only to disease stabilization. In August 2009, we decided to start therapy with sunitinib 50 mg daily in an intermittent schedule (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). A CT scan after 3 months of treatment showed partial remission of disease according to the RE-CIST criteria. The patient continued sunitinib until January 2011, when CT evidenced progression in the mediastinal lymph nodes and pleura. Genetic analyses were carried out to determine if the clinical response in our patient was correlated with the presence of RET or BRAF mutations. No RET/PTC rearrangements or BRAF-V600E mutation, which are the two most common genetic alterations detected in papillary thyroid carcinoma, were found. It can be hypothesized that the activity of sunitinib in this patient was due to its antiangiogenic properties.

Potential predictive and prognostic factors for sequential treatment with abiraterone acetate and cabazitaxel in metastatic docetaxel-refractory castration-resistant prostate cancer (mDR-CRPC)

e16093

Background: in recent years Abiraterone Acetate (AA) andCabazitaxel (Cbz) were shown to be efficacious agents in patients with mDR-CRPC. However, no data exist for patients treated with both these drugs in terms of best sequencing evaluation and potential predictive and prognostic factors for different treatment sequencies. Aim of our study was to analyze these data in a real world scenario. Methods: intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of activity data deriving from all consecutive patients with mDR-CRPC treated in our unit with prednisone plus Cbz, AA or both drugs. Data analyzed were, median Progression Free Survival (mPFS) for the two single agents and their sequencies (evaluated according to PCWG2, Prostate Cancer Working Group 2, criteria) and their possible correlations with median age, Gleason score, baseline PSA, ECOG PS, visceral metastases and number of previous chemotherapy lines. Results: here we report characteristics and activity data of the initial 62 patients, 7 treated with Cbz, 32 with AA and 16 with both drugs. The median age of our study population was 71.5 years (range, 55-87), median Gleason Score 8 (4-9) and median ECOG PS 0 (0–3); visceral disease was present in 37 cases (59.7%). The mPFS, according to Kaplan Meier method (KM), was 4.7 months (m) for patients treated with Cbz, 8.6 months for cases treated with AA and 8.2 m for cases treated with both agents. Of the 16 patients treated with both drugs, 12 received a sequence Cbz-AA and 4 a sequence AA-Cbz for an overall median PFS of, respectively, 5.6 and 4.0 m. Any of the analyzed prognostic or predictive factor was found to be significant. Conclusions: in our experience AA and Cbz were showed to be effective agents in the mDR-CRPC setting also when used sequentially. No clear indication of a preferred treatment sequence was identified such as eventual prognostic/predictive factors, also because of the limited number of treated patients. These data should be analyzed in large size prospective trials.

Development of new first-line therapeutic options for non-small-cell lung cancer

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the western world. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 80% of these thoracic malignancies, with 1.2 million new cases diagnosed worldwide each year. The vast majority of NSCLC patients present with disease that is beyond the scope of surgical cure and are, therefore, candidates for palliative chemotherapy, which has been the subject of intensive investigation in recent years. Although platinum-based therapies modestly improve survival and palliate some tumour-related symptoms in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, at times the chemotherapy-related side effects outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the identification of new regimens that maintain the same level of efficacy as platinum-based combinations but offer a better toxicity profile is a key goal in this important area of medicine.