Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Use of concomitant proton pump inhibitors, statins or metformin in patients treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: data from the ARON-2 retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab.

METHODS

We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

Pembrolizumab Plus Olaparib for Patients With Previously Treated and Biomarker-Unselected Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III KEYLYNK-010 Trial

PURPOSE

There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC.

METHODS

Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points.

RESULTS

Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.

Clinical outcomes and treatment patterns in REASSURE: planned interim analysis of a real-world observational study of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Background

Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is approved to treat bone-dominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), based on significantly prolonged overall survival versus placebo and a favourable safety profile in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA was conducted when few other treatment options were available, and prospectively collected data are limited on the use of radium-223 in the current mCRPC treatment landscape. We sought to understand long-term safety and treatment patterns in men who received radium-223 in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

REASSURE (NCT02141438) is a global, prospective, observational study of radium-223 in men with mCRPC. Primary outcomes are adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent serious AEs (SAEs) and drug-related AEs during and ≤30 days after radium-223 completion, grade 3/4 haematological toxicities ≤6 months after last radium-223 dose, drug-related SAEs after radium-223 therapy completion, and second primary malignancies.

Findings

Data collection commenced on Aug 20, 2014, and the data cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Mar 20, 2019 (median follow-up 11.5 months [interquartile range 6.0-18.6]), 1465 patients were evaluable. For second primary malignancies, 1470 patients were evaluable, 21 (1%) of whom had a total of 23 events. During radium-223 therapy, 311 (21%) of 1465 patients had treatment-emergent SAEs, and 510 (35%) had drug-related AEs. In the 6 months after completion of radium-223 therapy, 214 (15%) patients had grade 3/4 haematological toxicities. Eighty patients (5%) had post-treatment drug-related SAEs. Median overall survival was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval 14.6-16.5) from radium-223 initiation. Patient-reported pain scores declined or stabilised. Seventy (5%) patients had fractures.

Interpretation

REASSURE offers insight into radium-223 use in global real-world clinical practice with currently available therapies. At this interim analysis, with a median follow-up of almost 1 year, 1% of patients had second primary malignancies, and safety and overall survival findings were consistent with clinical trial experience. Final analysis of REASSURE is due in 2024.

Funding

Bayer HealthCare.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Experience of bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) in Argentinian oncology centres

Background

Previous studies with bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) have shown clinical activity in metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) as well as the potential to re-sensitise prostate cancer cells to prior androgen receptor-targeted agents. None of these studies had tested BAT after chemotherapy. In this study, we gathered real-world evidence from three centres in Argentina where BAT is being used in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), not only prior to chemotherapy but also after several lines of treatment.

Materials and methods

This retro-prospective nonrandomised multicentre cohort study included patients with mCRPC, who received BAT in different scenarios defined by the treating physician at three centres in Argentina.

Results

A total of 21 asymptomatic patients with mCRPC were included. There was a median of two lines before BAT, with nine patients (42.8%) receiving three or more lines, and 13 patients (61.9%) receiving chemotherapy previously. Previous lines included next-generation hormonal agents (NHA) in 100% (abiraterone 33.3% and enzalutamide 71.4%), chemotherapy in 61.9%, Radium-223 in 47.6% and others in 4.8%. The progression free survival (PFS) after BAT was 3.5 months (95% CI: 3.06-7.97). PSA50 response rate (RR) was 28.5% and the overall RR was 14.3%. Of the 17 patients who had disease progression, 9 had a rechallenge to NHA, achieving a 55% RR, 6 received other treatment (chemotherapy in 5 and ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA in 1) with a 66% RR and 2 best supportive care. The PFS2, calculated after the initiation of BAT in the 15 patients who received further therapy, was 7.93 months (95% CI: 6.73-NR). Treatment was overall well tolerated, with only two patients requiring hospitalisation and treatment interruption due to worsening pain.

Conclusion

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first publication of BAT in later lines of therapy in mCRPC. BAT showed clinical activity in this scenario. Our data supports that BAT may play a role in CRPC re-sensitisation after multiple treatment lines.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Clinicopathological characterization, FGFR alteration prevalence, and outcomes of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer in Latin America (LACOG 1518)

e16549

Background: Treatment of Urothelial Cancer (UC) is rapidly evolving with innovative biomarker-based approaches. Alterations in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) are frequent in UC and are an emerging focus for targeted therapy. However, real-world data on FGFR prevalence, as well as clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with advanced UC in Latin America is lacking. Methods: LACOG 1518 is a multicenter multinational study that retrospectively included pts diagnosed with metastatic or relapsed UC between Jan-2016 and Dec-2019. Clinicopathological characteristics, outcomes and treatment patterns were retrieved from medical records. Archival tumor samples were analyzed for FGFR alterations by NGS. Results: Two hundred thirteen pts were included across 24 centers in 4 Latin American countries. Median age was 68 years (range, 31-90), most pts (75%) had PS 0-1, and 83 (39%) pts had clinical stage IV at diagnosis. Bladder was the primary site of disease in 190 (89%) pts, 92 (43.2%) pts had histological variants of UC - 46 (21.6%) pts with adenocarcinoma differentiation and 16 (7.5%) with squamous-cell differentiation. Patients with relapsed locoregional disease not candidates for curative therapy comprised 10.3% of the sample. Among pts with metastatic disease, visceral metastases were present in 99 (51%) pts. FGFR alterations eligible for treatment with FGFR inhibitors (FGFRi) were identified in 29 (14.8%) out of 196 pts tested and included 29 mutations (14 S249C, 7 Y373C, 5 R248C and 3 G370C) and 13 fusions (8 FGFR3-TACC3, 2 FGFR3-BAIAP2L1, 2 FGFR2-BICC1 and 1 FGFR2-CASP7). Other FGFR alterations were also present in 6 (3.1%) pts. Median overall survival since initial diagnosis and advanced disease were 31.6 months (95% CI, 25.5 – 37.6) and 15.2 months (95% CI, 12.4 – 17.9), respectively. Median time to treatment failure to the first treatment line was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0 – 4.4). Regarding treatment patterns, 175 (82.1%) pts received first line treatment: 127 (72.6%) combined chemotherapy, 29 (16.6%) immunotherapy alone, 15 (8.6%) single agent chemotherapy, and 4 (2.3%) chemo-immunotherapy. Gemcitabine-platinum combinations were the backbone of choice in 93.7% of pts receiving combined chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were the chosen first-line agents for 10.3% and 4% of the treated pts, respectively. Considering all treatment lines, 75 (35.2%) and 3 (1.4%) pts were exposed to immunotherapy and FGFRi in the course of their disease, respectively. Conclusions: The prevalence of FGFR alterations in advanced UC in Latin America is similar to those described in other regions. Our data suggest limited access to FGFR inhibitors for the treatment of advanced UC in Latin America.

PARP inhibitors as a radiosensitizer: a future promising approach in prostate cancer?

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (iPARPs) have shown efficacy in homologous recombination (HR) deficiency patients with advanced castration resistant prostate cancer and have shown a radiosensitizing effect in preclinical and early clinical trials. Preclinical data in prostate cancer cells suggest a similar cytotoxic effect with half the radiation dose under the effect of Olaparib or Rucaparib irrespective of HR status. Due to the biologic synergy of radiotherapy (RT) and iPARPs, the risk of recurrence of high-risk prostate cancer and the morbidity associated with prostate cancer local treatment, this interesting strategy seems promising, and a better understanding of the clinical implications remains to be elucidated.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC)

PURPOSE

To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

METHODS

A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered.

RESULTS

Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy.

CONCLUSION

There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

Prostate Cancer in Latin America: Challenges and Recommendations

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent tumor among Latin American (LATAM) men. The incidence of de novo metastatic PCa is higher in LATAM than other parts of the world, and demographic changes in the region have increased disease burden. However, region-specific information regarding prevalence, progression, and treatment effectiveness is not currently available for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC). Nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa is a heterogeneous disease with varying potential to develop metastasis with limited treatments available, until recently. New clinical trials with promising results have allowed second-generation antiandrogen drugs to be used as first-line treatments, rendering guidelines outdated. As a result, this panel of experts reviewed the current status and challenges and developed recommendations for nmCRPC diagnosis and management in LATAM. The Americas Health Foundation (AHF) conducted a literature review and identified LATAM scientists and clinicians who have published in the field of PCa since 2012. The AHF convened a panel of 7 chosen experts urologists and medical oncologists from the region. The AHF developed specific questions relating to nmCRPC, which were answered by the experts prior to the multiday meeting. Each narrative was discussed and edited by the panel, through numerous rounds of discussion until a consensus was reached in a final manuscript. The panel proposes specific and realistic recommendations for improving access to diagnosis and management of PCa in LATAM. No treatment has yet shown improvement in overall survival; however, when including metastasis-free survival as an end point, second-generation antiandrogen drugs have emerged as effective treatment options and are currently included as first-line treatment. Although nmCRPC is a specific disease that represents a small percentage of patients with PCa, effective diagnostic and treatment strategies can contribute toward increasing quality of life and survival rates of patients with PCa in LATAM.

Clinical outcomes and patient (pt) profiles in REASSURE: An observational study of radium-223 (Ra-223) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

32

Background: Ra-223 is a targeted alpha therapy that showed a survival advantage and favorable safety profile in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial in pts with mCRPC. REASSURE (NCT02141438) is evaluating the long-term safety of Ra-223 in routine clinical practice in pts with mCRPC over a 7-year follow-up period. Methods: In this global, prospective, single-arm, observational study, the second prespecified interim analysis (data cut-off March 2019) evaluated safety and clinical outcomes of Ra-223 in pts with mCRPC. Primary outcome measures were incidence of second primary malignancies (SPM), bone marrow suppression and short- and long-term safety in pts who had ≥1 Ra-223 dose. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS). Results: For 1465 pts in the safety analysis, median follow up was 11.5 months. Median PSA (n=1053), ALP (n=1048), and LDH (n=555) levels at baseline were 59 ng/mL, 135 U/L, and 269 U/L, respectively. 81% of pts had bone metastases only at baseline; 19% of pts had other metastatic sites, mostly in the lymph nodes. 19% of pts had <6 metastatic sites, 47% had 6–20 sites, 20% had >20 lesions but not a superscan, and 6% had a superscan. 45%, 38%, 37%, 9%, and 8% of pts received prior abiraterone, docetaxel, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, or sipuleucel-T as prior therapies, respectively. Median number of Ra-223 doses received was 6; 67% of pts had ≥5 doses. SPM occurred in 1% of pts. The most common treatment-emergent drug-related adverse event (AE) of any grade was diarrhea (11%). 10% of pts had a bone-associated event, 5% had fractures, and 15% had a hematological AE. Median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI 14.6–16.5). Conclusions: In REASSURE, there was a low incidence of SPM, bone fractures, and bone marrow suppression after Ra-223 treatment, with no new AEs identified. This study confirms that in routine clinical practice, Ra-223 AE rates were low, and pts generally received ≥5 doses. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438. [Table: see text]

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Optimizing the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a Latin America perspective

Prostate cancer is a significant burden and cause of mortality in Latin America. This article reviews the treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and provides consensus recommendations to assist Latin American prostate cancer specialists with clinical decision making. A multidisciplinary expert panel from Latin America reviewed the available data and their individual experience to develop clinical consensus opinions for the use of life-prolonging agents in mCRPC, with consideration given to factors influencing patient selection and treatment monitoring. There is a lack of level 1 evidence for the best treatment sequence or combinations in mCRPC. In this context, consensus recommendations were provided for the use of taxane-based chemotherapies, androgen receptor axis-targeted agents and targeted alpha therapy, for patients in Latin America. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes alone, during treatment, should be treated with caution; PSA may not be a suitable biomarker for radium-223. Bone scans and computed tomography are the standard imaging modalities in Latin America. Imaging should be prompted during treatment where symptomatic decline and/or significant worsening of laboratory evaluations are reported, or where a course of therapy has been completed and another antineoplastic agent is under consideration. Recommendations and guidance for treatment options in Latin America are provided in the context of country-level variable access to approved agents and technologies for treatment monitoring. Patients should be treated with the purpose of prolonging overall survival and preserving quality of life through increasing the opportunity to administer all available life-prolonging therapies when appropriate.

Institutional retrospective analysis of definitive chemo-radiotherapeutic treatment (QRT) in locally advanced cervical cancer

e17016

Background: Retrospective analysis of toxicity and treatment impact of gemcitabine and platinum plus radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervix cancer. Methods: Descriptive, retrospective and observational study of patients with locally advanced cervix cancer (EIla/IVa).The analysis included toxicity Grade III/V and it impact in treatment. Results: We analyze 56 pts, median age: 46.5, median follow up: 24 months. Patients and tumoral characteristics are described in the table below. Regarding platinum group, 2pts required dose reductions of chemotherapy, 2pts suspended a cycle due to toxicity and 4pts needed RT split. 100% pts completed chemo radiotherapy concurrent treatment. Regarding platinum+gemcitabine group: 11pts required CT dose reductions, 14pts suspended a cycle due to toxicity and 5 didn´t complete CT due to toxicity; 6 had a RT split and 18 completed RT. Grade 3-4 toxicity was more frequent in the platinum+gemcitabine group (38.9% vs 73.7%, p=0.01) In platinum group, 14 pts presented disease recurrence. In the platinum + gem group 3pts had a recurrence. Median disease free interval (DFI) was not reached in both groups, but in the univariate analysis statistical significance was achieve, favouring the combine treatment (Log rank test, p=0.03). 2 year global survival rate was 82.1% in platinum group and 91.7% in platinum+gemcitabine groups. Conclusions: This report shows that the scheme of concurrent combine chemotherapy offers higher toxicity, requiring treatment discontinuation in some patients. Nevertheless, in a univariate analysis the platinum+gemcitabine group showed better results, even in a population with more advance disease with greater risk of relapse, understanding that the retrospective evaluation may miss confounders. A correct institutional manage of toxicities may allow the use of intense treatment to obtain potential benefits. [Table: see text]

Patient (pt) characteristics and treatment patterns in the radium (Ra)-223 REASSURE observational study

5042

Background: Ra-223, a targeted alpha therapy, prolonged survival with good safety in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial. REASSURE will evaluate Ra-223 short- and long-term safety in routine clinical practice settings. This is the first planned interim analysis (median 7 mo observation). Methods: This global, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled pts with mCRPC with bone metastases (mets) for whom Ra-223 therapy was planned. Follow-up will continue up to 7 years after last Ra-223 dose. Results: 1106 pts (437 N. America, 665 Europe, 4 not recorded) enrolled from 2 Sep 2014 to 22 Sep 2016. Baseline data are available from 583 pts receiving 1st- (1L), 2nd- (2L), or ≥3rd-line (≥3L) Ra-223 for mCRPC(Table). The majority of pts (n=369, 63%) completed 5–6 doses (1L, 70%; 2L, 64%; ≥3L, 49%); median 6 doses (1L,6; 2L, 6; ≥3L, 4). Treatment-emergent drug-related AEs occurred in 215 pts (37%). Post-treatment grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 14 pts (2.4%) and anemia in 45 (7.7%). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, Ra-223 was associated with no short-term safety concerns and appeared to be used in pts with less advanced mCRPC than in ALSYMPCA. The majority of pts on 1L/2L Ra-223 therapy received 5–6 doses. Ra-223 was often used with abiraterone or enzalutamide, but not chemotherapy. The next interim analysis in 2019 will report long-term safety and outcomes on all pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438. [Table: see text]

Intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT): A risk group with heterogeneous behavior

145

Background: In men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IR-PC) treated with low dose EBRT, the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prolongs overall survival. Zumsteg proposes a subdivision for de IR-PC group: favorable or unfavorable. Purpose: retrospective evaluation of EBRT efficacy according to IR-PC subgroups (favorable or unfavorable). Methods: From the institutional radiotherapy department database, from 2000 to 2011, 95 men with IR-PC were identified and subdivided as follows: Favorable Risk (FR) – Gleason 3+4 or less and positive prostate biopsies (ppb) not exceeding 50% and only one intermediate-risk factor excluding 4+3; Unfavorable risk (UR) – Gleason 4+3 or at least 2 intermediate-risk factors or at least one intermediate risk factor and ppb >50%. Results: 95 patients were included in the analysis, mean FUP 6.2 years. 32.6% (31) had >50% ppb, 14.7% (14) had Gleason 4+3, 38.9% (37) had 2 intermediate-risk factors. 42.1% (40) were FR and 57.9% (55) were UR. Median EBRT dose: 79.8Gy. Only 25% of FR patients received some hormonal therapy treatment. There were no differences in time to Prostatic Specific Androgen (PSA) nadir (FR 12 vs UR 13 months; p= .50), biochemical relapse free survival (RFS) (FR 60 vs US 58 months; p= .80), or doubling time PSA (FR 12 vs UR 11 months; p= .19). Biochemical relapse (BR) and local relapse (LR) rates were lower for FR (BR: FR 27.5 vs UR 38.2%, p= .17; LR: FR 5 vs UR 14.5%, p= .40). Local RFS (FR 13.6 vs UR 9.6 years; p= .11) and distant RFS (FR 13.1 vs UR 12.4 years; p= .65) were longer for FR patients. Conclusions: Short course ADT is the standard treatment in IR-PC patients when EBRT is indicated, especially if they have UR features. In our study IR-PC group had heterogeneous outcomes and, in spite the study limitations, FR patients had a trend for better prognosis even with a very low use of ADT. If Favorable IR-PC patients may avoid ADT morbidity should be answered by a randomized trial.