Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable.

Objective

To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen).

Design, Setting, and Participants

A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group).

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications.

Results

Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

The impact of sarcopenia on the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumours

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that sarcopenia is a significant predictive factor of worst outcomes and treatment-associated toxicities in patients with metastatic solid tumours. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between low muscle mass and clinical outcomes and immune-related severe toxicities (IrST) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 261 consecutive metastatic solid tumour patients treated with ICIs were included in our study. Low muscle mass was defined as skeletal muscle index <41 cm²/m² for females and <43 cm²/m² for males if body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m² or <53 cm²/m² if BMI ≥ 25 kg/m². Severe toxicities (ST), including grade III-IV toxicities and side effects leading to treatment interruption, were recorded.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (n = 179; 69%) included in this study had metastatic lung cancer. The prevalence of low muscle mass was 47%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 32.2 weeks for low muscle mass patients and 24.3 weeks for non-low muscle mass patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.055; p = 0.11). For low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass lung cancer patients, median PFS was 24.0 weeks and 18.8 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04) and median overall survival was 50.7 weeks and 41.1 weeks (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.10, p = 0.15) respectively. Immune-related severe toxicities occurred in 3.3% and 9.4% of low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients respectively (adjusted OR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.31-1.49; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

No difference in outcomes and safety was observed for low muscle mass and non-low muscle mass patients treated with ICIs.

Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy in advanced solid tumours: A review

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), especially anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), has changed practices in oncology, becoming a new standard of care in first or subsequent lines for several cancer subtypes. Recent data have highlighted the ability of standard chemotherapy to enhance immunogenicity and/or to break immunoresistance of the tumour and its microenvironment, leading to a rationale for the use of ICIs in combination with the standard chemotherapy regimen to improve efficacy of cancer treatment. Here, we propose to review randomised clinical trials evaluating concomitant administration of ICIs and chemotherapy, to assess clinical efficacy and safety profiles in advanced solid tumours. Association of these two modes of action on treatments has shown improved overall survival and better objective response rates than standard chemotherapy, especially in first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and for PD1/PD-L1 enriched tumours, highlighting a potential synergistic effect of this treatment combination in certain tumour types. However, improved survival results with the use of anti-PD-L1 avelumab as a maintenance schedule for bladder cancer raises the question of the most appropriate approach between sequential and concomitant administration of chemoimmunotherapy. To date, no trials have compared in a head-to-head protocol the administration of concomitant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy, used for tumour debulking, followed by administration of ICIs. Regarding the tolerance profile, no new safety signals were found with the combination tested to date. Interestingly, recent results have shown an improved Progression Free survival 2 (PFS2) (defined as the progression after the next line of therapy) in head-and-neck cancers or NSCLC after a first-line pembrolizumab-chemotherapy combination, suggesting a potential long-lasting effect of ICIs when used in combination in the first-line setting.

Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have radically changed the clinical outcome of several cancers with durable responses. CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4), PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) or PDL-1 (programmed cell death ligand protein 1) represent ICIs that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The toxicity p\rofiles of ICIs differ from the side effects of cytotoxic agents and come with new toxicities like immune-related adverse events. Typically, these toxicities occur in all organs. However, the main organs affected are the skin, digestive, hepatic, lungs, rheumatologic, and endocrine. Most of the immune toxicity that occurs is low grade but some more severe toxicities can occur that require a rapid diagnosis and appropriate treatment. The recognition of symptoms by physicians and patient is necessary to resolve them rapidly and adapt treatment to allow the toxicity to resolve.

Outcomes and toxicities in sarcopenic patients with metastatic solid tumors treated with check point inhibitors

e14166

Background: Evidence suggests that sarcopenia is a significant predictor of worst outcomes and treatment toxicities in metastatic solid tumors patients (pts). We investigated whether sarcopenia was associated with outcomes and severe toxicities (ST) in patients treated with check point inhibitors (CPI). Methods: All consecutive metastatic solid tumors patients treated with CPI from January 2013 to December 2017 in Bordeaux University Hospital (France) were retrospectively reviewed. Sarcopenia was evaluated using computed tomography (CT) obtained within 1 month before treatment initiation. Skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) were measured from axial L3 CT section. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI ≤ 52.4 cm2/m2 for males and SMI ≤ 38.5 cm2/m2 for women. Clinical characteristics included Performance Status (PS) and anthropometric parameters. ST included grade III-IV according to NCI-CTC v4.0 and any grade of toxicity leading to treatment interruption. Results: Among 261 pts included, 179 (69%) had metastatic lung cancer and 151 (58%) had previously received one line of treatment. Median age was 61 years old and there were 198 males (76%). PS status was 1 in 55% of pts. CPI treatment was: anti PD1, anti PD-L1, anti CTLA-4 and CPI combination in 192, 43, 3 and 20 pts, respectively. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 64%. At inclusion, sarcopenia was associated with poor PS (p = 0.002), anorexia (p < 0.001), lower albumin (p = 0.002) and hemoglobin (p < 0.001). Objective Response Rate (ORR) was 28% in sarcopenic pts and 26% in non-sarcopenic pts. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.9 and 7.6 months in sarcopenic pts and non-sarcopenic pts respectively (p = 0.5). In multivariate analysis, sarcopenia was not associated with PFS or ORR. Median overall survival (mOS) was 10.2 months in lung cancer, without significant difference between sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic patients (mOS: 9 months and 17 months respectively, p = 0.06). In general population, ST occurred in 36 (14%) pts; among which 23 (64%) presented sarcopenia. In multivariate analysis, sarcopenia was not associated with ST (OR = 1.16, p = 0.71). Conclusions: Sarcopenia was not associated with outcomes or toxicities in metastatic solid tumors patients treated with CPI in this study.

Early objective response may not be a prognostic factor of survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: from a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 113 patients

BACKGROUND

This study aims to better define prognostic factors for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), and to identify patients who will benefit from first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. We test the hypothesis that early objective response (EOR), defined as the occurrence of an objective response following 2 or 3 courses of chemotherapy, could be a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) and thus be used to guide treatment decisions. Data from 113 patients with evaluable mUC receiving first-line cisplatin-based treatment between January 2004 and December 2006 was collected retrospectively from prospectively-maintained databases across seven French cancer centers. Clinical factors potentially associated with survival and EOR were analyzed in univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred three patient records were complete and available for inclusion in the multivariate model. Four factors were independently associated with OS: Performance status 1 and 2 (HR 2.3 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.002; HR 3.4 [95 % CI 1.6-7.2], p = 0.001 respectively); presence of visceral metastases (HR 2.2 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.004); abnormal hemoglobin levels (HR 1.7 [95 % CI 1.01-2.8], p = 0.045); disease progression (HR 10.1 [95 % CI 4.2-24.1], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the prognostic factors previously reported in first-line chemotherapy for mUC. However, we failed to demonstrate that EOR was an independent predictive factor of OS. Nevertheless, an early response evaluation is recommended since early progression is an important parameter that can be used to decide whether treatment should be interrupted and changed for alternative strategies integrating the concept of personalized medicine or new immune therapies.

Emerging antiangiogenics for renal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Antiangiogenic therapy is considered to be the backbone of treatment strategy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). New, more focused, targeted drugs are emerging, while other targeted drugs oriented toward resistance or alternative mechanisms are under development.

AREAS COVERED

Antiangiogenic agents include two types of agents: the monoclonal antibody, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bevacizumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Data regarding efficacy and safety of these agents are reported. Differences between the first generation of TKIs, sunitinib, sorafenib, and the new generation, pazopanib, axitinib and tivozanib are also detailed. Most of these agents have been approved in the treatment of kidney cancer in specific settings of the disease.

EXPERT OPINION

The class of antiangiogenic drugs for treatment of mRCC is already relatively full. After 'me-too' drugs, more targeted drugs against VEGFR have been developed but have to demonstrate a benefit in first-line treatment. Another option for the development is to combine a known drug with an antiangiogenic inhibition profile and at least one additional target involved in resistance to an antiangiogenic or in an alternative pathway. The cost of approach with targeted drugs, including antiangiogenics, has led to a tremendous increase in the cost of care in mRCC.

Axitinib: a review of its safety and efficacy in the treatment of adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Over the last seven years, seven targeted agents have been approved in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer, changing the therapeutic approach and prognosis of the disease dramatically. The latest agent with demonstrated efficacy is axitinib (Inlyta^®). This new generation of tyrosine kinase agent differs from previously existing agents by its greater activity potency of inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor-receptor (VEGFR1-3). This efficacy has been tested in phase II and III clinical trials. Axitinib is the only targeted agent that benefits from recommended titration, with intra-patient dose escalation. The toxicity profile of the drug is tolerable. This paper reviews the mechanism of action of axitinib, its metabolism, and its pharmacokinetic profile. Clinical data of efficacy and safety is also detailed. The agent has been integrated in the international therapeutic guidelines, as a standard in treatment of renal cell cancer patients, previously treated through antiangiogenic therapy.

Optimal management of renal cell carcinoma in the elderly: a review

Both the aging population and the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are growing, making the question of tumor management in the elderly a real challenge. Doctors should be aware of the importance of assessing this specific subpopulation. An aggressive therapeutic approach may be balanced by the benefit of the treatment - care or cure - and the life expectancy and willingness of the patient. The treatment for local disease can be surgery (radical or partial nephrectomy) or ablative therapies (radiofrequency, cryotherapy). Even if in most cases surgery is safe, complications such as alteration of renal function may occur, especially in the elderly, with physiological renal impairment at baseline. More recently, another option has been developed as an alternative: active surveillance. In the past decade, new drugs have been approved in the metastatic setting. All the phase 3 trials have included patients without a limit on age. Nevertheless, data concerning the elderly are still poor and concern only a very selective subpopulation. The toxicity profile of targeted agents may interfere with pre-existent comorbidities. Furthermore, the metabolism of several agents via cytochrome P450 can cause drug interaction. The importance of quality of life is a major factor with regard to management of therapy. Finally, to date, there is no recommendation of systematic a priori dose reduction in the elderly. In this review we describe the various possibilities of treatment for localized RCC or metastatic RCC in an aging population.

[Rationale for the local treatment of metastases]

The local treatment of metastases is based on the natural history of the cancer and its modifications following medical treatment. Local treatment of metastases may be a component of the global treatment of the disease. Local treatment of metastases often is entertained for symptomatic relief. There is a theoretical analogy between surgery, the gold standard of local treatment, and more recent interventional radiology procedures. Local treatment may sometimes lead to discontinuation of medical therapy, either permanently or temporarily, and may at times provide prolonged complete response. The purpose of this article is to further the understanding of the place of local treatment in patients with metastatic solid tumors.