Real-World Data on the Use of Nivolumab Monotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma after Prior Therapy: Interim Results from the Noninterventional NORA Study

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab monotherapy is approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after prior therapy on the basis of results from CheckMate 025.

OBJECTIVE

The NORA (NivOlumab in Renal cell cArcinoma) noninterventional study (NIS) aims to capture real-world data to complement the pivotal CheckMate 025 clinical trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

NORA is a prospective, multicenter NIS in Germany. Consenting patients with aRCC of any subtype who started nivolumab after previous therapy were eligible.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary objective was to estimate overall survival (OS) in the overall population and relevant subgroups. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), the objective response rate (ORR), the duration of response (DOR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Baseline characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. OS and PFS were estimated via the Kaplan-Meier-method.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 228 patients with aRCC were eligible. The median age was 70 yr, 71% were male, 14% had favorable, 58% had intermediate, and 15% had poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk (12% missing information). The median follow-up was 37 mo. In the overall population, median OS was 24 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-28) and median PFS was 5.3 mo (95% CI 3.9-6.7). The ORR was 20% and the median DOR was 28 mo (95% CI 16-not estimable). No new safety signals emerged (46% and 15% of patients had treatment-related adverse events of all grades and grade 3-4, respectively; there was 1 treatment-related death due to liver failure). PROs did not reveal detriments during the study duration. Limitations include the lack of central pathology review and no standardization for imaging evaluation and toxicity assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness and safety in this real-world population were in line with the pivotal clinical trial and support the use of nivolumab after prior systemic therapy in a broad aRCC population.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Nivolumab is an antibody treatment approved for patients with advanced kidney cancer who have already received systemic therapy. Its approval was based on results from a clinical trial. Our study demonstrates its effectiveness and safety in "real-world" patients.

[Early- vs. late-onset treatment using abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemo-naïve, asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with metastatic CRPC after androgen deprivation therapy]

BACKGROUND

 Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a prodrug of abiraterone, which is an irreversible inhibitor of 17α-hydroxylase/C17, 20-lyase. Since 2011, abiraterone acetate has been available in combination with prednisone/prednisolone (AA + P) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after pre-treatment with docetaxel, and since 2012 for the treatment of chemotherapy-naïve asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC patients. A revision of the guidelines of the European Association of Urology in 2014 redefining castration resistance gave rise to the question of when the treatment of mCRPC with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone should be initiated after prior hormone treatment and how successful it would be. This led us to observe an early-onset AA + P therapy cohort (EC) and a late-onset therapy cohort (LC) of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 We designed a combined retrospective and prospective, multicentre, non-interventional two-cohort study to obtain data on the effectiveness and safety of an early-onset AA + P therapy in mCRPC patients in the clinical routine compared to a late therapy onset. The EC comprised patients who received AA + P immediately after castration resistance without a prior first-generation antiandrogen such as bicalutamide or flutamide. The LC included patients who, after castration resistance had occurred, started treatment with AA + P only after unsuccessful treatment with a first-generation antiandrogen. Patients with mCRPC who received AA + P therapy according to the physician's routine clinical practice decision were considered. The patients were consecutively included in the study on the basis of their medical records, with the treatment decision having been made independently of and before patient enrolment. Patients were documented or followed from the beginning of AA + P therapy until the start of a carcinoma-specific systemic follow-up therapy (retrospectively if before and prospectively if after start of data collection). Effectiveness analyses were done for all patients with at least two AA + P administrations and safety analyses for all treated patients.

RESULTS

 Of the 159 patients included, 44 received early therapy and 105 received later therapy with AA + P. 10 patients could not be clearly assigned and were summarised in a third cohort (missed early-onset therapy assignment; MEC). 56/159 patients (35.2 %) were still alive at study start and 103/159 patients (64.8 %) had already deceased (31/44 [70.5 %] in EC, 64/105 [61.0 %] in LC, and 8/10 [80.0 %] in MEC). 24/159 patients (15.1 %) were documented both retrospectively and prospectively. The median duration of AA + P treatment was 11.3 months for EC, 12.0 months for LC, and 8.3 months for MEC patients. The median time to next systemic cancer therapy or death was 12.3 months for EC and 12.8 months for LC patients (p = 0.2820). The median time to the next systemic cancer therapy alone (i. e. without the event 'death') was 22.7 months for EC and 23.3 months for LC patients (p = 0.5995). Median overall survival (OS) was 22.3 months for EC and 39.2 months for LC patients (p = 0.0232). The incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was low. SAEs occurred in 3/44 EC (6.8 %), 4/105 LC (3.8 %), and 1/10 MEC patients (10.0 %). One SAE in EC and one in LC resulted in death.

CONCLUSIONS

 In contrast to the new definition of castration resistance, AA + P was still more frequently used in daily clinical practice during the study observation period in patients treated with antiandrogens of the first generation after occurrence of castration resistance. Nevertheless, AA + P therapy appears to be effective and well tolerated during clinical routine in mCRPC patients. A comparison of the study results with earlier 'real-world' studies, however, has to take limiting factors into account. The observed difference in median overall survival might be explained by the imbalance of baseline characteristics between both cohorts with regard to number of patients, patients already deceased at start of documentation, patients with visceral metastases and patients with opioids at start of AA + P. For these reasons, patients in the EC initially might have had a poorer prognosis. A prospective randomised and controlled clinical trial would therefore be necessary to assess a possible difference in overall survival and response of the AA + P treatment with respect to therapy onset.

Serum Levels of MicroRNA-371a-3p (M371 Test) as a New Biomarker of Testicular Germ Cell Tumors: Results of a Prospective Multicentric Study

PURPOSE

Previous studies suggested that serum levels of microRNA (miR)-371a-3p (so-called M371 test) have a much higher sensitivity and specificity than the classic markers of testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) and are applicable toward both seminoma and nonseminoma. We sought to confirm the usefulness of this test as a novel biomarker for GCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective, multicentric study, serum samples of 616 patients with testicular GCTs and 258 male controls were examined for serum levels of miRNA-371a-3p (miR levels) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The GCT population encompassed 359 patients with seminoma and 257 with nonseminoma; 371 had clinical stage I disease, 201 had systemic disease, and 46 had relapses. Paired measurements before and after orchiectomy were performed in 424 patients; 118 with systemic disease had serial measurements during treatment. miR levels were compared with those of β-human chorionic gonadotropin, α-fetoprotein, and lactate dehydrogenase.

RESULTS

For the primary diagnosis of GCT, the M371 test showed a sensitivity of 90.1%, a specificity of 94.0%, an area under the curve of 0.966 upon receiver operating characteristic analysis, and a positive predictive value of 97.2%. α-Fetoprotein, β-human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase had sensitivities of less than 50% in seminoma and slightly higher sensitivities in nonseminomas. miR levels were significantly associated with clinical stage, primary tumor size, and response to treatment. Relapses had elevated miR levels that subsequently dropped to normal upon remission. Teratoma did not express miR-371a-3p.

CONCLUSION

The M371 test outperforms the classic markers of GCT with both a sensitivity and a specificity greater than 90%. All histologic subgroups, except teratoma, express this marker. The test could be considered for clinical implementation after further validation.

[Urolithiasis in children--rational diagnosis, therapy, and metaphylaxis]

With a proportion of 1-5%, children constitute only a small number of all patients with urolithiasis. Nevertheless, pediatric stone disease is an important health care problem because of the high recurrence rate and the threat of progredient renal function impairment with consecutive loss of quality of life. Modern therapies, especially extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), have caused a revolution in the operative treatment spectrum. Open surgery is required for stone removal only rarely, such as for the simultaneous repair of urinary tract anomalies. The minimally invasive modalities of modern stone therapy - mainly ESWL as the treatment of first choice - have led to widespread disregard of stone metaphylaxis. The important principle that says an urinary stone is just a symptom and not the cause of the disease is often forgotten. So it must be noted that despite the high standard of care in Germany, not all problems regarding urinary stone disease are being resolved, particularly in childhood. This article presents the current knowledge of the most important aspects of stone therapy and the methods of treatment in children.