A plain language summary of the TROPHY-U-01 study: sacituzumab govitecan use in people with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment being studied for people with a type of bladder cancer, called urothelial cancer, that has progressed to a locally advanced or metastatic stage. Locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer are usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Metastatic urothelial cancer is also treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are few treatment options for people whose cancer gets worse after receiving these treatments. Sacituzumab govitecan is a suitable treatment option for most people with urothelial cancer because it aims to deliver an anti-cancer drug directly to the cancer in an attempt to limit the potential harmful side effects on healthy cells. This is a summary of a clinical study called TROPHY-U-01, focusing on the first group of participants, referred to as Cohort 1. All participants in Cohort 1 received sacituzumab govitecan.

WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?

All participants received previous treatments for their metastatic urothelial cancer, including a platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. The tumor in 31 of 113 participants became significantly smaller or could not be seen on scans after sacituzumab govitecan treatment; an effect that lasted for a median of 7.2 months. Half of the participants were still alive 5.4 months after starting treatment, without their tumor getting bigger or spreading further. Half of them were still alive 10.9 months after starting treatment regardless of tumor size changes. Most participants experienced side effects. These side effects included lower levels of certain types of blood cells, sometimes with a fever, and loose or watery stools (diarrhea). Side effects led 7 of 113 participants to stop taking sacituzumab govitecan.

WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?

The study showed that sacituzumab govitecan had significant anti-cancer activity. Though most participants who received sacituzumab govitecan experienced side effects, these did not usually stop participants from continuing sacituzumab govitecan. Doctors can help control these side effects using treatment guidelines, but these side effects can be serious. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03547973 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (TROPHY-U-1).

Therapy With Metronomic Cyclophosphamide (mCyc) for Previously-Treated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC)

INTRODUCTION

Despite the introduction of various novel therapies for management of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in recent decades, available treatment options are finite and remain limited. Multiple historical studies have demonstrated activity and a favorable toxicity profile of oral metronomic cyclophosphamide (mCyc) in prostate cancer (PCa). Unlike the cytotoxic immunosuppressive effects of high-dose intravenously-administered cyclophosphamide, continuous low doses of oral mCyc have a unique immune-stimulatory mechanism of action.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, multi-institution study of men with 43 patients with mCRPC treated mCyc. Patient demographic information as well as clinical, pathologic, and genomic characteristics of their PCa were extracted. The primary endpoint was the rate of PSA decline by ≥ 50% (ie, PSA50). Additional efficacy and toxicity data as well as cost analysis compared to other commonly used agents in mCRPC was obtained.

RESULTS

PSA50 was noted in 20.9% of patients, while an additional 25.6% patients achieved < PSA50 and 6.9% reported improvement in prostate cancer-related symptoms without any PSA reduction. Meanwhile, 9.3% of patients required mCyc dose reduction, 11.6% needed dose interruption due to toxicity, and no treatment discontinuations due to toxicity were observed. mCyc was also cost effective compared to other agents commonly used in mCRPC.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the small sample size and retrospective nature of this dataset, mCyc demonstrated promising rapid activity and a tolerable toxicity profile in a heavily pretreated mCRPC population with aggressive clinical, pathologic, and genomic disease features.

A remnant never forgotten: the utility of circulating tumor DNA in treatment guidance of urachal cancer

Urachal cancer is a rare malignancy of the urachus that is treated with surgical resection if localized and systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a single-stranded or double-stranded DNA released by tumor cells into the blood and harbored the mutations of the original tumor, shedding new light on molecular diagnosis and monitoring of cancer. We report a case of resected localized urachal cancer with clear surgical margins and negative lymph node dissection but elevated ctDNA that progressed to metastatic disease. We also highlight the possibility of using ctDNA levels to assist in adjuvant therapy.

Supplement Use and Increased Risks of Cancer: Unveiling the Other Side of the Coin

There is a rising trend in the consumption of dietary supplements, especially among adults, with the purpose of improving health. While marketing campaigns tout the potential health benefits of using dietary supplements, it is critical to evaluate the potential harmful effects associated with these supplements as well. The majority of the scarce research on the potential harmful effects of vitamins focuses on the acute or chronic toxicities associated with the use of dietary supplements. Quality research is still required to further investigate the risks of long-term use of dietary supplements, especially the risk of developing cancers. The present review concentrates on studies that have investigated the association between the risk of developing cancers and associated mortality with the risk of dietary supplements. Such an association has been reported for several vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements. Even though several of these studies come with their own shortcomings and critics, they must draw attention to further investigate long-term adverse effects of dietary supplements and advise consumers and healthcare providers to ponder the extensive use of dietary supplements.

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C.

METHODS

In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche.

A comparative study of spinal cord compression management in metastatic prostate cancer: Teaching versus non-teaching hospitals in the United States

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord compression (SCC) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is a critical complication and multiple factors influence the optimal therapeutic strategy. We investigated the differences in practice patterns between teaching hospitals (TH) and non-teaching hospitals (NTH) across the United States.

METHOD

Using the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS), we performed a retrospective study on hospitalizations with MPC and SCC between 2016 and 2020 in US. We compared demographic factors, comorbidities, treatment modalities, duration of hospitalization, financial expenditures, and mortality between TH and NTH. We also examined the patients' characteristics and outcomes in TH and NTH based on their chosen therapeutic strategy.

RESULTS

We identified 11,380 admissions with metastatic prostate cancer and SCC; 9610 in TH and 1770 in NTH. The median cost of hospitalization was $21,922 in TH and $15,141 in NTH. Although the median age and Charlson comorbidity score did not differ between two groups, patients in TH were more likely to receive intervention (radiation or surgery) compared to NTH (Surgery: 28.2% in TH vs. 23.0% in NTH & Radiation: 12.1% in TH vs. 8.2% in NTH). Mortality was lower in TH than NTH (4.5% vs. 7.9%). In both TH and NTH, a higher proportion of patients with private insurance underwent surgery (TH: Surgery 25.1% vs. Radiation 18.8% & NTH: Surgery 27.0% vs. 6.9%). Black patients were more likely to receive radiation than surgery in TH (34.2% vs. 26.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a greater percentage of patients underwent surgical intervention at TH compared to NTH. Additionally, the type of insurance and racial background were associated with distinctive treatment approaches.

A Phase 2 Study of Sitravatinib in Combination with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) has demonstrated survival benefits in urothelial carcinoma (UC); however, not all patients benefit from CPI due to resistance. Combining sitravatinib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of TYRO3, AXL, and MERTK (TAM) receptors and VEGFR2, with CPI may improve antitumor responses. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC.

METHODS

The 516-003 trial (NCT03606174) is an open-label, multicohort phase 2 study evaluating sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC enrolled in eight cohorts depending on prior treatment with CPI, platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), or antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). Overall, 244 patients were enrolled and treated with sitravatinib plus nivolumab (median follow-up 14.1-38.2 mo). Sitravatinib (free-base capsules 120 mg once daily [QD] or malate capsule 100 mg QD) plus nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk/480 mg every 4 wk intravenously).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. The Predictive probability design and confidence interval methods were used. Among patients previously treated with PBC, ORR, and median PFS were 32.1% and 3.9 mo in CPI-naïve patients (n = 53), 14.9% and 3.9 mo in CPI-refractory patients (n = 67), and 5.4% and 3.7 mo in CPI- and ADC-refractory patients (n = 56), respectively. Across all cohorts, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 51.2% patients and grade 4 in 3.3%, with one treatment-related death (cardiac failure). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 50.4% patients. TRAEs led to sitravatinib/nivolumab discontinuation in 6.1% patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Sitravatinib plus nivolumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile but did not result in clinically meaningful ORRs in patients with advanced/metastatic UC in the eight cohorts studied.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, the combination of two anticancer drugs, sitravatinib and nivolumab, resulted in manageable side effects but no meaningful responses in patients with bladder cancer.

Overall Survival by Response to First-line Induction Treatment with Atezolizumab plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy or Placebo plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours.

Patient summary

The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.

Hormonal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer: a population-based study from the California cancer registry

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate how often men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) receive standard of care treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

Men aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed mPC (stage IV) between 2010 and 2018 were identified using California Cancer Registry data. Receipt of hormonal therapy as initial cancer treatment was examined by patient/tumor characteristics at time of diagnosis. Chi-square tests and logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, were performed to assess association between receipt of hormonal therapy and patient/tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 13,680 men with newly diagnosed mPC, of which 3637 had local metastasis (N1) only while 9596 had distant metastasis (M1) with or without N1 disease. 21.8 % (n = 2980) of men did not receive ADT. The highest rate of receiving ADT was among men between ages 75-84 (81.6%) and the lowest rate was in men over 85 (76.0%). Asian men had the largest proportion receiving ADT (n = 962, 81.5%) with remaining subgroups having similar proportion of men receiving ADT (76.8% to 77.2%). Once adjusted for covariates, regression results showed men with a higher Gleason score (8-10) were more likely to receive ADT (OR 2.04, 1.82-2.27, p = < 0.001) as well as men with distant sites of metastatic disease (OR 4.02, 3.62-4.46, p = < 0.001). Men residing in neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status were least likely to receive ADT (OR 0.79, 0.68-0.93, p = 0.0032). No differences in receipt of ADT were observed by race/ethnicity.

DISCUSSION

Despite significant advancements in the treatment of mPC in recent years, over one-fifth of patients did not receive ADT, which is the backbone for all new systemic therapies. This dataset might help address some of the prostate cancer care disparities in California.

Drug extravasation with Enfortumab vedotin

INTRODUCTION

Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody drug conjugate approved for management of pretreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, which is associated with a rare risk of drug extravasation and soft tissue reactions.

CASE REPORT

We report two cases of EV extravasation with subsequent development of bullae and cellulitis.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

They were both treated for cellulitis and had conservative management without surgical intervention and were able to resume treatment with Enfortumab vedotin without subsequent adverse events.

DISCUSSION

We propose that EV acts as a vesicant upon extravasation, highlight measures to prevent extravasation events, and encourage appropriate measures when dealing such as attempt of aspiration, removal of catheter, application of compresses, and thorough documentation with photographic evidence.

Treatment approaches for urachal cancer: Use of immunotherapy and targeted therapies

Urachal cancer is a rare genitourinary malignancy that arises from the embryologic remnant of the urachus. The malignancy is considered to be aggressive, with no clear consensus on appropriate management for advanced disease. Although traditionally considered to be related to bladder cancer given its embryologic origin, several next generation sequencing studies have revealed the genomic profile of this genitourinary malignancy most closely resembles colorectal cancer. Moreover, these studies have identified potentially actionable mutations including EGFR, KRAS and MET. In addition, recent data suggests that immunotherapy may benefit some patients with advanced urachal cancer. Nonetheless, continued research is warranted to better understand how to treat this rare genitourinary cancer.

Darolutamide Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Disease Volume and Risk Subgroups in the Phase III ARASENS Trial

PURPOSE

For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups by disease volume and risk.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned to darolutamide or placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. High-volume disease was defined as visceral metastases and/or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 beyond the vertebral column/pelvis. High-risk disease was defined as ≥ 2 risk factors: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions, and presence of measurable visceral metastases.

RESULTS

Of 1,305 patients, 1,005 (77%) had high-volume disease and 912 (70%) had high-risk disease. Darolutamide increased overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with high-volume (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82), high-risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86), and low-risk disease (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90), and in the smaller low-volume subgroup, the results were also suggestive of survival benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.13). Darolutamide improved clinically relevant secondary end points of time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy versus placebo in all disease volume and risk subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 64.9% of darolutamide patients versus 64.2% of placebo patients in the high-volume subgroup and 70.1% versus 61.1% in the low-volume subgroup. Among the most common AEs, many were known toxicities related to docetaxel.

CONCLUSION

In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, treatment intensification with darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel increased OS with a similar AE profile in the subgroups, consistent with the overall population.[Media: see text].

Prostate Cancer in Sexual Minorities: Epidemiology, Screening and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Quality of Life

Prostate cancer has the highest incidence among all cancers in men. Sexual minorities, including gay and bisexual men, as well as transgender, were previously a "hidden population" that experienced prostate cancer. Although there continues to remain a paucity of data in this population, analyses from studies do not reveal whether this population is more likely to endure prostate cancer. Nonetheless, several qualitative and quantitative studies have established worse quality-of-life outcomes for sexual minorities following prostate cancer treatment. Increased awareness of this previously "hidden population" among healthcare workers, as well as more research, is warranted to gain further understanding on potential disparities faced by this growing population.

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment-emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Background

Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy.

Objective

To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment.

Design setting and participants

Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied.

Intervention

Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively.

Results and limitations

At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non-central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population.

Conclusions

Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit.

Patient summary

Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma after Anti-programmed Death-(ligand) 1 Therapy by Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Gene Alteration Status: An Observational Study

Background

Clinical outcomes of anti-programmed death‑(ligand) 1 (anti-PD-[L]1) therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations (FGFRa+) remain unclear; recent studies have reported either comparable or poorer outcomes versus patients without FGFR alterations (FGFRa-).

Objective

To analyze the outcomes of patients with mUC and any FGFRa (mutations or fusions) who received anti-PD-(L)1 therapy.

Design setting and participants

In this noninterventional, retrospective, multicenter study, clinical practice data were collected from FGFRa+/- patients who received prior immunotherapy between May 2018 and July 2019.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Investigator‑determined overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS) were assessed in multivariate and unadjusted analyses.

Results and limitations

Ninety-four patients (66% men; median age, 63 yr) with mUC and known FGFR status were included; 38 (40%) were FGFRa+ and 56 (60%) were FGFRa-. In FGFRa+ versus FGFRa- patients who received any line of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (n = 92), ORR, DCR, and OS were 16% versus 26%, 29% versus 52% (relative risk: 1.14 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.92-1.40]; p = 0.3), and 8.57 versus 13.2 mo (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33 [95% CI, 0.77-2.30]; p = 0.3), respectively. A multivariate analysis provided some evidence supporting shorter OS in FGFRa+ versus FGFRa- (any line of anti-PD-L[1] therapy; HR: 1.81 [95% CI, 0.99-3.31]; p = 0.054). Limitations include this study's retrospective nature and a potential selection bias from small sample size.

Conclusions

Some evidence of lower response rates and shortened OS following anti-PD-(L)1 therapy was observed in FGFRa+ patients. The phase 3 THOR study (NCT03390504) will prospectively compare FGFRa+ patients with advanced mUC treated with erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab.

Patient summary

Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations (FGFRa) potentially have worse clinical outcomes when treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy than those without FGFRa.

Association of Sociodemographic Characteristics With Survival Among Patients With Urachal Cancer in California From 1988 to 2019

This cohort study evaluates the sociodemographic characteristics of patients with urachal cancer, cancer treatments, and the association of patient characteristics with overall survival.

Immunotherapy With Checkpoint Inhibitors in FGFR-Altered Urothelial Carcinoma

The treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) remained unchanged for over 30 years until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2016. Since then, several ICIs have been approved for the treatment of mUC. In addition, recent molecular characterization of bladder cancer has revealed several subtypes, including those harboring fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusion proteins. Erdafitinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of metastatic/advanced UC in 2019. Some available evidence suggests ICI may have inferior response in advanced FGFR+ UC for unclear reasons, but may possibly be related to the tumor microenvironment. Several ongoing trials are evaluating erdafitinib in metastatic/advanced UC including the ongoing phase IB/II NORSE trial combining erdafitinib plus ICI, which may prove to offer a more robust and durable response in patients with FGFR+ metastatic/advanced UC.

Safety and efficacy of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab alternating with nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: the non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 920 trial

OBJECTIVES

The non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

SETTING

Patients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable).

CONCLUSIONS

While no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02982954.

Prostate cancer immunotherapy: a review of recent advancements with novel treatment methods and efficacy

Immunotherapy remains to be an appealing treatment option for prostate cancer with some documented promise. Prostate cancer is traditionally considered as an immunologically "cold" tumor with low tumor mutation burden, low expression of PD-L1, sparse T-cell infiltration, and a immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) is the first FDA approved immunotherapeutic agent for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); demonstrating a benefit in overall survival. However various clinical trials by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their combinations with other drugs have shown limited responses in mCRPC. Up to now, only a small subset of patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability high and CDK12 mutations can clinically benefit from ICIs and/or their combinations with other agents, such as DNA damage agents. The existence of a large heterogeneity in genomic alterations and a complex TME in prostate cancer suggests the need for identifying new immunotherapeutic targets. As well as designing personalized immunotherapy strategies based on patient-specific molecular signatures. There is also a need to adjust strategies to overcome histologic barriers such as tissue hypoxia and dense stroma. The racial differences of immunological responses between men of diverse ethnicities also merit further investigation to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy and better patient selection in prostate cancer.

Telaglenastat plus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II ENTRATA Trial

PURPOSE

Glutaminase is a key enzyme, which supports elevated dependency of tumors on glutamine-dependent biosynthesis of metabolic intermediates. Dual targeting of glucose and glutamine metabolism by the mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus the oral glutaminase inhibitor telaglenastat showed preclinical synergistic anticancer effects, which translated to encouraging safety and efficacy findings in a phase I trial of 2L+ renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study evaluated telaglenastat plus everolimus (TelaE) versus placebo plus everolimus (PboE) in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC (mRCC) in the 3L+ setting (NCT03163667).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with mRCC, previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy [including ≥1 VEGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)] were randomized 2:1 to receive E, plus Tela or Pbo, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided α <0.2).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were randomized (46 TelaE, 23 PboE). Patients had a median three prior lines of therapy, including TKIs (100%) and checkpoint inhibitors (88%). At median follow-up of 7.5 months, median PFS was 3.8 months for TelaE versus 1.9 months for PboE [HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.20; one-sided P = 0.079]. One TelaE patient had a partial response and 26 had stable disease (SD). Eleven patients on PboE had SD. Treatment-emergent adverse events included fatigue, anemia, cough, dyspnea, elevated serum creatinine, and diarrhea; grade 3 to 4 events occurred in 74% TelaE patients versus 61% PboE.

CONCLUSIONS

TelaE was well tolerated and improved PFS versus PboE in patients with mRCC previously treated with TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors.

Use of immunotherapy in clinical management of genitourinary cancers - a review

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 have revolutionized oncologic care delivery, including clinical management of genitourinary malignancies. Despite significant associated improvement in patient outcomes, molecular heterogeneity of tumors, variable tumor engagement with the immune response, and unique patient factors likely account for different clinical responses to immunotherapy agents. A search for predictive biomarkers of treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors is underway and several candidates, although imperfect, have been identified. Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received approval as monotherapies or in combination with other agents in genitourinary cancers and clinical trial data continues to rapidly evolve. This review summarizes key published evidence involving use of checkpoint inhibitors in management of urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, prostate adenocarcinoma, and penile squamous cell carcinoma. This review aims to help oncology practitioners develop an up-to-date, evidence-based approach to using these agents when managing patients with genitourinary cancers in clinical practice.

Dual checkpoint targeting of B7-H3 and PD-1 with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors: interim results from a multicenter phase I/II trial

BACKGROUND

Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)-targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone.

METHODS

In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3-15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]-naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02475213.

Phase 1/2 study of ARV-110, an androgen receptor (AR) PROTAC degrader, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

17

Background: ARV-110 is a first-in-class, oral PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera (PROTAC) protein degrader that selectively targets AR. Patients (pts) with mCRPC have limited treatment (tx) options due to decreasing AR dependence of tumors upon successive therapies. Previous phase 1 data indicated clinical activity for ARV-110 in heavily pretreated pts with mCRPC and suggested enhanced activity in pts with specific molecular profiles, eg, AR T878 and H875 mutations, leading to a phase 2 expansion (ARDENT) to further characterize ARV-110 in biomarker-defined pt subgroups. We report results of the ongoing phase 1/2 study. Methods: In phase 1, pts with mCRPC and disease progression after ≥2 prior therapies (enzalutamide and/or abiraterone required) received ARV-110 orally once or twice daily (QD or BID) in sequential cohorts (3 + 3 dose escalation design). Primary objectives were to assess ARV-110 safety and select the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Phase 2 pts with mCRPC and 1–2 prior novel hormonal agents (NHAs) ± chemotherapy were assigned to 3 biomarker-defined subgroups: 1) AR T878 and/or H875 mutations, 2) AR L702H mutation or AR-V7 (variants not degraded by ARV-110 in nonclinical studies), and 3) wild-type AR or other AR alterations. A fourth subgroup enrolled pts based on clinical history of less prior tx: ≤1 therapy for mCRPC, 1 NHA, and no chemotherapy. Primary objective is to assess ARV-110 antitumor activity. Results: As of Aug 26, 2021, 173 pts were enrolled (67 in phase 1; 106 in phase 2). In phase 1, ARV-110 doses ranged from 35–700 mg QD or 210–420 mg BID; 420 mg QD was selected as the RP2D based on safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy. Across 140 biomarker-evaluable phase 1/2 pts with ≥1 month of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) follow-up, 26 with AR T878A/S and/or H875Y mutations had best PSA declines ≥50% (PSA50) and ≥30% (PSA30) of 46% and 58%, respectively, vs 10% and 23% in 114 pts without these mutations. Of 7 RECIST-evaluable pts with AR T878A/S and/or H875Y mutations, 6 had tumor shrinkage (2 with confirmed partial responses), and 4 remain on tx. Five of 19 (26%) PSA-evaluable pts in the fourth subgroup (only 1 prior NHA; no prior chemotherapy) achieved PSA50. Overall PSA50 and PSA30 response rates were 16% and 29%, respectively. There were no grade ≥4 tx-related adverse events (TRAEs) in 113 pts treated at the RP2D. The most common any grade TRAEs at the RP2D were nausea (42%; grade 3: 1%), fatigue (27%; grade 3: 1%), vomiting (23%; grade 3: 1%), decreased appetite (19%; grade 3: 0), diarrhea (15%; grade 3: 2%), and alopecia (11%). Conclusions: ARV-110, a novel AR protein degrader, demonstrates clinical activity in a post-NHA, heavily pretreated mCRPC pt population, with greatest PSA50 activity and RECIST responses in pts with AR T878 and/or H875 mutations, likely representing a particularly ARV-110–sensitive population. ARV-110 merits further investigation in pts with mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT0388861.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial

BACKGROUND

CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a multicohort, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment in predominantly US community-based patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clinical features mostly excluded from phase 3 trials. We report safety and efficacy results from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 920.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk received up to four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS; both investigator-assessed), time to response (TTR), and duration of response (DOR), all using RECIST V.1.1. Overall survival (OS) was exploratory.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with nccRCC (unclassified histology, 42.3%; papillary, 34.6%; chromophobe, 13.5%; translocation-associated, 3.8%; collecting duct, 3.8%; renal medullary, 1.9%) received treatment. With 24.1 months minimum study follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 (0.0-25.8) months for nivolumab and 2.1 (0.0-3.9) months for ipilimumab. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1-28) for nivolumab and 4.0 (1-4) for ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. ORR (n=46) was 19.6% (95% CI 9.4 to 33.9). Two patients achieved complete response (papillary, n=1; unclassified, n=1), seven achieved partial response (papillary, n=4; unclassified, n=3), and 17 had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 (range 2.1-14.8) months. Median DOR was not reached (range 0.0+-27.8+); eight of nine responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n=52) was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.6) months. Median OS (n=52) was 21.2 (95% CI 16.6 to not estimable) months.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced nccRCC showed no new safety signals and encouraging antitumor activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02982954.

Late recurrence of localized pure seminoma in prostate gland: A case report

BACKGROUND

Late relapses of early-stage germ cell tumors are rare. Most patients (-85%) with stage I seminoma are cured by radical orchiectomy. The detection of late relapse is challenging given the relative rarity of this phenomenon, and the fact that patients who have completed surveillance are usually not undergoing regular oncologic workup nor imaging. While many treatment options do exist for a patient with late relapse of seminoma, surgery is typically the mainstay as these tumors are generally thought to be more chemo-resistant.

CASE SUMMARY

In this article, we describe the management of a patient with an early-stage pure seminoma who was subsequently identified to have a recurrence two decades later. We provide a review of the literature not only focused on clinical factors and biology, but also the management of late recurrences specifically in pure seminoma and in prostate gland.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of data and treatment recommendations for this clinical entity, and a multidisciplinary approach emphasizing subspecialty expert consultation and patient education is imperative.

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.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long‐term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here.

Methods

Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune‐mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression‐free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others.

Results

After a minimum follow‐up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%‐53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression‐free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9‐12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable).

Conclusions

In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases—a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials—the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

CheckMate 920 is the first prospective, multicohort study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first‐line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma in patients who have a poor prognosis and a high unmet medical need. In cohort 3 (advanced renal cell carcinoma and brain metastases), nivolumab plus ipilimumab has a safety profile consistent with previous reports of this dosing regimen with encouraging antitumor activity.

TROPHY-U-01: A Phase II Open-Label Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE

Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress on platinum-based combination chemotherapy (PLT) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have limited options that offer objective response rates (ORRs) of approximately 10% with a median overall survival (OS) of 7-8 months. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a TROP-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload that has shown preliminary activity in mUC.

METHODS

TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II, registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with locally advanced or unresectable or mUC who had progressed after prior PLT and CPI. Patients received SG 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary outcome was centrally reviewed ORR; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, OS, duration of response, and safety.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 included 113 patients (78% men; median age, 66 years; 66.4% visceral metastases; median of three [range, 1-8] prior therapies). At a median follow-up of 9.1 months, the ORR was 27% (31 of 113; 95% CI, 19.5 to 36.6); 77% had decrease in measurable disease. Median duration of response was 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.6 months), with median progression-free survival and OS of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 7.2 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 13.8 months), respectively. Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (35%), leukopenia (18%), anemia (14%), diarrhea (10%), and febrile neutropenia (10%), with 6% discontinuing treatment because of treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

SG is an active drug with a manageable safety profile with most common toxicities of neutropenia and diarrhea. SG has notable efficacy compared with historical controls in pretreated mUC that has progressed on both prior PLT regimens and CPI. The results from this study supported accelerated approval of SG in this population.

Immune-Related Meningoencephalitis following Nivolumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

While immunotherapy with nivolumab is promising for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overactivation of the immune system can lead to serious side effects. Immune-related meningoencephalitis without a viral or microbial etiology is a rare complication that may occur in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). Herein, we report a 66-year-old man who underwent a partial nephrectomy which revealed a papillary RCC with clear cell component. Three years later, an abdomen and pelvic CT revealed metastatic lesions in the left psoas muscle and in the left 12th rib. The patient was treated with pazopanib which was discontinued after 2 weeks due to significant hepatic and renal toxicity. He subsequently started sunitinib. Two months later, a chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT demonstrated progressive metastatic RCC in the retroperitoneal mass of the left psoas muscle and paraspinal musculature as well as a left renal mass. The patient was treated with 7 cycles of the CPI nivolumab. He was subsequently hospitalized for 3 weeks after experiencing bilateral lower extremity weakness, lethargy, several falls, hyperthermia, confusion, and gait abnormalities. A CSF analysis demonstrated a lymphocyte pleocytosis with elevated protein and no bacterial or viral growth. The patient was treated with high-dose steroids after which his symptoms resolved. Chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans over the next 3 years revealed no evidence of metastatic disease, reflecting a progression-free survival of 40 months. We highlight the unique case of a patient with metastatic RCC who experienced immune-related meningoencephalitis following immunotherapy with nivolumab. Medical oncologists should be alert to the potential development of immune-related encephalitis in patients treated with nivolumab and should promptly diagnose and treat this concerning condition. The excellent oncologic outcome of this case emphasizes the need for continued aggressive measures for management of CNS toxicity resulting from CPI therapy.

Abstract CT187: Overall survival (OS) by response during “induction” from the global, randomized Phase III IMvigor130 study of atezolizumab (atezo) + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem) vs placebo + plt/gem in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)

Background: IMvigor130 evaluated atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) as 1L mUC treatment, allowing pts with at least SD to continue atezo or placebo “maintenance” after 4-6 cycles of plt/gem. The primary analysis showed statistically significant PFS benefit for Arm A vs C (Galsky Lancet 2020). The 1st interim OS data for Arm A vs C were encouraging but immature. This exploratory analysis used 2nd interim OS data (ITT median follow-up, 13.3 mo) to examine OS outcomes by response during atezo or placebo + chemo “induction” in Arm A vs C.

Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo monotherapy) or C. In Arms A and C, chemo was gem + investigator's choice of cis or carbo. Co-primary EPs of PFS and OS in Arm A vs C (ITT) and OS in Arm B vs C (ITT and IC2/3) were tested hierarchically. This post hoc analysis evaluated post-induction (post-wk 18) OS in pts who completed 4-6 (but not &gt;6) cycles of chemo without PD during induction (through wk 18), followed by ≥1 dose of atezo or placebo maintenance. Post-PD OS was evaluated in pts with PD during induction. HRs were adjusted to account for potential imbalances in known prognostic factors between arms.

Results: Efficacy data are in the Table. Post-induction OS HR (95% CI) for pts with no PD was 0.86 (0.64, 1.16) (cis: 0.60 [0.35, 1.03], carbo: 0.97 [0.67, 1.41]). Post-progression OS HR for pts with PD was 0.74 (0.53, 1.03) (cis: 0.52 [0.28, 0.96], carbo: 0.78 [0.51, 1.18]).

Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis from IMvigor130, OS benefit with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem in both pts with and without PD during induction was consistent with ITT results from the 1st interim analysis. Preliminary data suggest that cis-treated pts may derive greater OS benefit from adding atezo to chemo than carbo-treated pts, which warrants further investigation. OS follow-up is ongoing.

IMvigor130 efficacy (second interim OS analysis)No PD during inductiona (post-induction OS)bPD during induction (post-progression OS)Arm A (n=166)Arm C (n=152)Arm A (n=91)Arm C (n=93)OS events, n (%)ITT97 (58.4)92 (60.5)82 (90.1)84 (90.3)Cisplatinc27/57 (47.4)35/59 (59.3)24/29 (82.8)30/33 (90.9)Carboplatinc70/109 (64.2)57/93 (61.3)58/62 (93.5)54/60 (90.0)Median OS (95% CI), moITT20.5 (17.6, 25.9)18.8 (14.4, 21.9)4.3 (3.5, 5.8)3.3 (2.5, 4.4)Cisplatin28.2 (19.8, NE)19.9 (11.0, 26.5)6.6 (4.8, 10.1)2.5 (1.6, 5.2)Carboplatin18.5 (12.9, 21.6)18.8 (12.9, 22.8)3.8 (3.2, 5.6)3.4 (2.6, 4.5)OS HR (95% CI)dITT0.86 (0.64, 1.16)0.74 (0.53, 1.03)Cisplatin0.60 (0.35, 1.03)0.52 (0.28, 0.96)Carboplatin0.97 (0.67, 1.41)0.78 (0.51, 1.18)Data cutoff: June 14, 2020. 1L, first-line; carbo, carboplatin; chemo, chemotherapy; cis, cisplatin; CR, complete response; EP, endpoint; HR; hazard ratio; ITT, intention to treat; mets, metastases; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. a Pts who achieved at least SD (CR, PR, or SD without PD) during induction. b Post-week 18 OS. c Denominators refer to the number of pts in each chemotherapy subgroup/treatment arm. d Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model stratified by enrollment stage (1/2); adjusted for age, ECOG PS (0, 1, 2), cisplatin ineligibility (Y/N), liver mets (Y/N), lymph node mets only (Y/N), ≥3 metastatic sites (Y/N), renal impairment (Y/N), alkaline phosphatase ≥upper limit of normal (Y/N), glomerular filtration rate (&lt;60 vs ≥60 mL/min), PD-L1 status (IC0/1, IC2/3), Bajorin risk score (0, 1, 2 and/or liver mets). For pts without PD, model was additionally adjusted for best response (CR, PR, SD) during induction.

Citation Format: Enrique Grande, Aristotelis Bamias, Matthew D. Galsky, Eiji Kikuchi, Ian D. Davis, José Ángel Arranz, Arash Rezazadeh Kalebasty, Xavier Garcia del Muro, Se Hoon Park, Ugo De Giorgi, Boris Alekseev, Marina Mencinger, Kouji Izumi, Javier Puente, Jian-Ri Li, Xiaodong Shen, Beiying Ding, Qian Zhu, Jeremy Linsenmeier, Maria De Santis. Overall survival (OS) by response during “induction” from the global, randomized Phase III IMvigor130 study of atezolizumab (atezo) + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem) vs placebo + plt/gem in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT187.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab in genomically selected high-risk patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer post neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy with pathologic advanced disease (ypT3, ypT4, ypN+) at radical cystectomy have a significantly worse five-year overall survival. There is currently no preferred adjuvant therapy to reduce risk of cancer recurrence in this high-risk patient cohort and surveillance remains the standard-of-care.

CASE REPORT

We present a case series of two patients who received cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had pathologic node-positive urothelial carcinoma at the time of radical cystectomy. Tumor next generation sequencing revealed high mutational burden in both patients and positive PD-L1 in one patient.Management and outcome: Patients were treated with adjuvant pembrolizumab and experienced long-term disease free intervals.

DISCUSSION

Use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients post neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy with pathologic advanced disease at the time of radical cystectomy at high-risk of cancer recurrence sounds appealing. Careful patient selection based on tumor-specific genomic alterations may be key. Large trials addressing this question are ongoing.

Safety and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and brain metastases: results from the CheckMate 920 trial

4515

Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Previous phase 3 clinical trials of patients with advanced or metastatic cancers have mostly excluded patients with brain metastases. CheckMate 920 is an ongoing, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in patients with aRCC with a high unmet medical need. We present updated safety and efficacy results for the cohort of patients with aRCC of any histology and brain metastases from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic aRCC of any histology, with asymptomatic brain metastases (not currently receiving corticosteroids or radiation), and Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70% were assigned to treatment with NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 28 treated patients with brain metastases, 85.7% were men; median (range) age was 60 (38–87) years, and 14.3% had sarcomatoid features. With 24.5 months minimum follow-up of the 28 patients enrolled, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.4 (0.0–23.3) months for NIVO and 2.1 (0.0–3.3) months for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.1%), hypophysitis (3.6%), rash (3.6%), hepatitis (3.6%), and diabetes mellitus (3.6%). Of the 25 patients who were evaluable for ORR, the ORR was 32.0% (95% CI, 14.9–53.5). No patients achieved complete response, 8 achieved partial response, and 10 patients had stable disease. Median time to response (range) was 2.8 (2.4–3.0) months. Median duration (range) of response was 24.0 (3.9–not estimable [NE]) months; 4 of 8 responders remain without reported progression. Of 28 patients, 7 (25%) had intracranial progression. Median PFS (n = 28) was 9.0 (95% CI, 2.9–12.0) months. Median OS (n = 28) was still not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months–NE). Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases, a population with high unmet medical need that is often underrepresented in clinical trials, the approved treatment regimen of NIVO+IPI followed by NIVO for aRCC showed no new safety signals and continues to show encouraging antitumor activity with longer follow-up. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954.

Thromboembolic events in metastatic testicular cancer treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) is the most curable solid tumor and most common cancer among men 18-39 years. While cisplatin-based chemotherapy has significantly lengthened the survival of patients with TGCT, it is associated with a high rate of thromboembolic events (TEE).

AIM

To summarize our single-center experience highlighting patients who were diagnosed with TGCT and received platinum-based chemotherapy, with special attention to those patients who suffered a TEE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the medical records and imaging studies of 68 consecutive individuals who were diagnosed with TGCT and received platinum-based chemotherapy at our Institution in a metropolitan community between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 19 (28%) patients experienced a TEE following orchiectomy which occurred during chemotherapy in 13 (68%) of these patients. Patients with a higher pathologic stage (stage III) were significantly (P = 0.023) more likely to experience a TEE compared to patients who had a lower stage. Additionally, patients who were treated with 3 cycles of bleomycine, etoposide, and cisplatin and 1 cycle of etoposide and cisplatin or 4 cycles of etoposide and cisplatin were significantly 5 (P = 0.02) times more likely to experience a TEE compared to patients who were treated with only 3 cycles of bleomycine, etoposide, and cisplatin.

CONCLUSION

Due to numerous factors that predispose to a TEE such as large retroperitoneal disease, higher clinical stage, greater number of chemotherapy cycle, central venous catheter, cigarette smoking, and possible cannabis use, high-risk ambulatory patients with TGCT treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy may benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation. Randomized studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulants are warranted in this young patient population generally devoid of medical co-morbidities.

Avelumab first-line maintenance in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Applying clinical trial findings to clinical practice

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management.

Niraparib with androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and pharmacokinetic results from a phase 1b study (BEDIVERE)

Purpose

To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics and determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of niraparib with apalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Methods

BEDIVERE was a multicenter, open-label, phase 1b study of niraparib 200 or 300 mg/day with apalutamide 240 mg or AAP (abiraterone acetate 1000 mg; prednisone 10 mg). Patients with mCRPC were previously treated with ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy, including ≥ 1 androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy for prostate cancer.

Results

Thirty-three patients were enrolled (niraparib-apalutamide, 6; niraparib-AAP, 27). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported when combinations included niraparib 200 mg; five patients receiving niraparib 300 mg experienced DLTs [niraparib-apalutamide, 2/3 patients (66.7%); niraparib-AAP, 3/8 patients (37.5%)]. Although data are limited, niraparib exposures were lower when given with apalutamide compared with historical niraparib monotherapy exposures in patients with solid tumors. Because of the higher incidence of DLTs, the niraparib–apalutamide combination and niraparib 300 mg combination with AAP were not further evaluated. Niraparib 200 mg was selected as the RP2D with AAP. Of 19 patients receiving niraparib 200 mg with AAP, 12 (63.2%) had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being thrombocytopenia (26.3%) and hypertension (21.1%). Five patients (26.3%) had adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation.

Conclusions

These results support the choice of niraparib 200 mg as the RP2D with AAP. The niraparib–AAP combination was tolerable in patients with mCRPC, with no new safety signals. An ongoing phase 3 study is further assessing this combination in patients with mCRPC.

Trial registration no.

NCT02924766 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00280-021-04249-7.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Despite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma.

METHOD

In the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2-4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2-29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9-24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2-24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC): Safety and efficacy from CheckMate 920

309

Background: The long-term efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab (NIVO) 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab (IPI) 1 mg/kg Q3W × 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W for previously untreated advanced RCC (aRCC) demonstrated in the registrational CheckMate 214 clinical trial was based on patients (pts) with a predominantly clear cell component. CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a US community-based, multi-arm, phase IIIb/IV clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in pts with previously untreated aRCC and clinical features mostly excluded from phase III trials. Here, we present the safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pts with nccRCC from CheckMate 920, a patient population with a poor prognosis and without a definitive effective treatment. Methods: Pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Database Consortium risk received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) Q3W × 4 doses followed by NIVO 480 mg Q4W for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of any-causality grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator), duration of response (DOR), and time to response (TTR). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 52 treated pts with nccRCC, 69.2% were men; median age was 64 years (range, 23–86), and 28.8% had sarcomatoid features. Histological subtypes were papillary (34.6%), chromophobe (13.5%), translocation associated (3.8%), collecting duct (3.8%), renal medullary (1.9%), or unclassified (42.3%). With 24.1 months minimum follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 months (0.0–25.8) for NIVO and 2.1 months (0.0–3.9) for IPI. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1–28) for NIVO and 4.0 (1–4) for IPI. No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Grade 3–4 imAEs (n = 52) by category were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). ORR (n = 46) was 19.6% (95% CI, 9.4–33.9). Two pts achieved complete response (papillary, n = 1; unclassified pathology, n = 1), 7 achieved partial response (papillary, n = 4; unclassified pathology, n = 3), and 17 pts had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 months (range, 2.1–4.8). Median DOR was not reached (range, 0.03+–27.8+); 8 of 9 responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n = 52) was 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.6). Median OS (n = 52) was 21.2 months (95% CI, 16.6–not reached). Conclusions: In pts with previously untreated nccRCC, a population with high unmet medical need, treatment with NIVO3+IPI1 Q3W followed by NIVO 480 mg Q4W showed no new safety signals, and encouraging antitumor activity. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954 .

Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer in Clinical Practice: Real-World Answers to Challenging Dilemmas

Advanced prostate cancer is a continuum of states distinguished by the presence or absence of metastasis and sensitivity or resistance to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Therapeutic options for this disease continue to rapidly evolve, making it a challenge to apply results of clinical trial data to daily patient management. One question relevant to providers is whether molecular biomarkers predictive of response or resistance to therapies are available to guide clinical treatment decisions. Other salient topics include the timing of therapy initiation in patients with biochemical recurrence, treatment approach in low-volume versus high-volume metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer, types of agents available beyond ADT, and timing of their use in men with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer as well as whether sequencing of therapies in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer matters. Additionally, familiarity with emerging treatment strategies is important. This review addresses the gray areas and challenging questions in advanced prostate cancer management that frequently arise in clinical practice.

Spontaneous Regression of Delayed Pulmonary and Mediastinal Metastases from Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often metastatic at diagnosis. Conventional therapies such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy have generally proven ineffective in the treatment of RCC. The abscopal effect, specifically, the ability of localized radiation to trigger systemic antitumor effects, has been reported to lead to regression of non-irradiated distant tumor lesions. Herein, we report 3 patients with non-metastatic clear cell RCC (CCRCC) who underwent a nephrectomy and experienced metachronous pulmonary/mediastinal metastases confirmed as CCRCC. No patients underwent radiation post-nephrectomy or pulmonary metastasectomy. The mean duration was 7.24 weeks from the last negative chest CT prior to the nephrectomy and 96.2 weeks post-nephrectomy. All patients achieved durable complete response by RECIST criteria, with a mean follow-up duration of 115 months. Our case series represents the largest in the literature of patients who underwent a nephrectomy for CCRCC with no pre-existing pulmonary/mediastinal metastatic disease confirmed by chest CT, did not undergo radiotherapy, and developed significantly delayed CCRCC pulmonary/mediastinal metastases. We highlight the spontaneous regression of delayed metastatic disease and the role of immune responses in curtailing the growth of pulmonary metastasis in CCRCC.

Concurrent renal cell carcinoma and hematologic malignancies: Nine case reports

BACKGROUND

The presence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hematologic malignancies (HM) in the same patient is rarely observed. Three primary findings have been described in these patients, including male gender and lymphoid malignancy predominance, and the HM are usually diagnosed before or simultaneously with the RCC. There is a lack of evidence about clinical outcomes in this setting. We report the common characteristics of 9 patients diagnosed with concurrent RCC and HM and their clinical course and response to treatment.

CASE SUMMARY

Four (44%) patients were diagnosed with RCC prior to the HM, the diagnosis was simultaneous in 4 (44%) patients, and 1 (11%) patient was diagnosed with the HM prior to the RCC. No patients were treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or radiation between the diagnosis of RCC and HM. Several unique features were seen in our case series, such as 3 simultaneous cancers in 1 (11%) patient, a splenectomy leading to remission of diffuse large B cell lymphoma without the use of chemotherapy in 1 (11%) patient, chemotherapy and rituximab for lymphoma resulting in a complete response in primary RCC in 1 (11%) patient, and immunotherapy providing an excellent response for primary renal leiomyosarcoma in 1 (11%) patient.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the potential role of immune system dysregulation in patients with the diagnosis of RCC and HM whereby the first malignancy predisposes to the second through an immunomodulatory effect. HM have the potential of being confused with lymph node metastasis from kidney cancer. Lymph node biopsy may be necessary at the time of initial diagnosis or in cases of mixed response to therapy. Long-term medical surveillance is warranted when a patient is diagnosed with RCC or HM. Clinicians should be aware of the higher prevalence of male gender and lymphoid malignancy with concurrent RCC and HM and that either of these conditions may be diagnosed first or they may be diagnosed simultaneously.

Randomized multicenter open-label trial of GT0918 (proxalutamide) in patients with mCRPC that progressed on abiraterone or enzalutamide

e17578

Background: Both abiraterone and enzalutamide have been approved for the treatment of mCRPC. GT0918 (proxalutamide) is a novel second-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonist binding directly to the androgen receptor, impairing nuclear translocation and decreasing AR protein expression. This phase II portion of the Ph I/II study is being conducted to further evaluate safety and tolerability of GT0918 at 400 mg or 500 mg daily dosing. Methods: All eligible mCRPC pts with progressive disease based on rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or/and imaging while on either abiraterone or enzalutamide, but not both. One line of prior chemotherapy was allowed. Pts (n = 60) will be randomized to GT0918 either 400 mg or 500 mg po once daily for 6 months. The primary endpoint is safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints are PSA reduction at 12 weeks, % radiographic progression at 6-month, time to imaging progression, and exploratory biomarker CTC & cf-DNA/RNA. PSA is assessed every 4 wks and tumor imaging is done every 12 wks. Results: 56 pts were screened June 2019 to January 15, 2020 and 40 pts were randomized to receive GT0918 either 400 mg or 500 mg po daily. 22 pts (55%) had enzalutamide as prior therapy and 18 pts (45%) had abiraterone as prior therapy. 17 pts (43%) had one or more lines of chemotherapy. The median age was 72 years (range 53-89) and median baseline PSA was 162 ng/mL (0.3-4195). 10 pts had 1 cycle or less of study drug due to rapid PSA progression, AEs and/or withdrawal of consent. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (48%), loss of appetite/anorexia (25%), nausea (20%), lower leg extremity edema (18%), constipation (15%), weight loss (13%), vomiting (10%), and headache (8%). 8 pts (6 in 500 mg vs. 2 in 400 mg) required dose reduction due to AE. No seizures have been observed. As Jan 30, 2020, 3 pts (8%) and 8 pts (20%) had PSA reduction at 12 weeks and 4 weeks, respectively, but no 50% PSA reduction was observed. 2 pts (5%) received study drug treatment over 24 weeks and 10 pts (25%) received study drug over 16 weeks based on stable disease (SD) on imaging. Conclusions: GT0918 administrated orally once a day is well tolerated and first 40-pts taking GT0918 show some anti-tumor activities. Dose of 400 mg po daily is recommended for GT 0918 for further clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT03899467 .

Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

METHODS

In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m² body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636.

FINDINGS

Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.