Abstract The landscape of prostate cancer treatment is rapidly changing as extensive research into potential therapies yields new options. In this article, the literature is reviewed to identify ...emerging therapies for advanced prostate cancer. Emphasis is placed on agents that have been approved in the United States of America (USA) and the European Union, or that have reached phase III clinical studies. Several new therapies have been approved in recent years across different stages of the natural history of the disease. Degarelix, a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonist, has been approved for reducing testosterone to castrate levels in hormone-sensitive disease. No new agents have been approved for use in combination with docetaxel chemotherapy, the current standard of care for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. One immunotherapy, sipuleucel-T, has been approved (USA only) in the pre-docetaxel setting. Cabazitaxel, a next-generation taxane, and abiraterone acetate, an inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, have both been approved as second-line agents following chemotherapy. Enzalutamide (MDV3100), an androgen receptor antagonist, has been shown to increase overall survival in the post-chemotherapy setting in metastatic disease. Denosumab, an antibody-based bone-targeted agent, has been approved for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases. Radium-223 chloride, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, is likely to gain approval soon following promising results in a phase III trial. Clinical studies involving other promising agents are ongoing. The emergence of these therapies adds to the growing armamentarium against prostate cancer.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Abstract Background The role of chemotherapy in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer (mNCPC) is debated. Survival benefits of docetaxel (D) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were shown ...in the CHAARTED trial in patients with metastatic high-volume disease (HVD). Objective To assess the impact of metastatic burden and to update overall survival (OS) data of the GETUG-AFU15 study. Design, setting, and participants Randomized phase 3 trial of ADT plus D versus ADT alone in 385 mNCPC patients; median follow-up of 7 yr. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Retrospective analysis was by tumor volume. Results and limitations After a median follow-up of 83.9 mo, median OS in the overall population was 62.1 mo (95% confidence interval CI, 49.5–73.7) and 48.6 mo (95% CI, 40.9–60.6) for ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively (hazard ratio HR: 0.88 95% CI, 0.68–1.14; p = 0.3). Median OS in ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively, was for HVD patients: 39.8 mo (95% CI, 28.0–53.4) versus 35.1 mo (95% CI, 29.9–43.6) (HR: 0.78 95% CI, 0.56–1.09; p = 0.14), for low-volume disease (LVD) patients; median was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 69.5–NR) and 83.4 mo (95% CI, 61.8–NR) (HR: 1.02 95% CI, 0.67–1.55; p = 0.9). For upfront metastatic patients, OS was 52.6 mo (95% CI, 43.3–66.8) and 41.5 mo (95% CI, 36.3–54.5), respectively (HR: 0.93 95% CI, 0.69–1.25; p = 0.6). The bPFS (HR: 0.73 95% CI, 0.56–0.94; p = 0.014) and rPFS (HR: 0.75 95% CI, 0.58–0.97; p = 0.030) were significantly longer in the ADT plus D arm. Limitations included the retrospective analysis of metastatic extent and the lack of statistical power to detect a significant difference in subgroups. Conclusions The post hoc analyses of the GETUG-AFU15 study demonstrated a nonsignificant 20% reduction in the risk of death in the HVD subgroup. Patients with LVD had no survival improvement with early D. Patient summary In this study, docetaxel added to castration did not improve survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, partly due to methodological issues. However, early chemotherapy should be discussed with all patients, given the data of three randomized trials including GETUG-AFU15.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Abstract Context Prostate cancer is the most frequent male cancer. Since the median age of diagnosis is 66 yr, many patients require both geriatric and urologic evaluation if treatment is to be ...tailored to individual circumstances including comorbidities and frailty. Objective To update the 2014 International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on prostate cancer in men aged >70 yr. The update includes new material on health status evaluation and the treatment of localised, advanced, and castrate-resistant disease. Data acquisition A multidisciplinary SIOG task force reviewed pertinent articles published during 2013–2016 using search terms relevant to prostate cancer, the elderly, geriatric evaluation, local treatments, and castration-refractory/resistant disease. Each member of the group proposed modifications to the previous guidelines. These were collated and circulated. The final manuscript reflects the expert consensus. Data synthesis Elderly patients should be managed according to their individual health status and not according to age. Fit elderly patients should receive the same treatment as younger patients on the basis of international recommendations. At the initial evaluation, screening for cognitive impairment is mandatory to establish patient competence in making decisions. Initial evaluation of health status should use the validated G8 screening tool. Abnormal scores on the G8 should lead to a simplified geriatric assessment that evaluates comorbid conditions (using the Cumulative Illness Score Rating-Geriatrics scale), dependence (Activities of Daily Living) and nutritional status (via estimation of weight loss). When patients are frail or disabled or have severe comorbidities, a comprehensive geriatric assessment is needed. This may suggest additional geriatric interventions. Conclusions Advances in geriatric evaluation and treatments for localised and advanced disease are contributing to more appropriate management of elderly patients with prostate cancer. A better understanding of the role of active surveillance for less aggressive disease is also contributing to the individualisation of care. Patient summary Many men with prostate cancer are elderly. In the physically fit, treatment should be the same as in younger patients. However, some elderly prostate cancer patients are frail and have other medical problems. Treatment in the individual patient should be based on health status and patient preference.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Summary Background Results from clinical trials have established sunitinib as a standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (RCC); however, many patients, ...particularly those with a poorer prognosis, do not meet inclusion criteria and little is known about the activity of sunitinib in these subgroups. The primary objective of this trial was to provide sunitinib on a compassionate-use basis to trial-ineligible patients with RCC from countries where regulatory approval had not been granted. Methods Previously treated and treatment-naive patients at least 18 years of age with metastatic RCC were eligible. All patients received open-label sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on schedule 4-2 (4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off). Safety was assessed regularly, tumour measurements done per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. Analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of sunitinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00130897. Findings As of December, 2007, 4564 patients were enrolled in 52 countries. 4371 patients were included in the modified ITT population. This population included 321 (7%) patients with brain metastases, 582 (13%) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, 588 (13%) non-clear-cell RCC, and 1418 (32%) aged 65 years or more. Patients received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1–25). Reasons for discontinuation included lack of efficacy (n=1168 27%) and adverse events (n=362 8%). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (n=1936 44%) and fatigue (n=1606 37%). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were fatigue (n=344 8%) and thrombocytopenia (n=338 8%) with incidences of grade 3–4 adverse events similar across subgroups. In 3464 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=603), with subgroup ORR as follows: brain metastases (26 of 213 12%), ECOG performance status 2 or higher (29 of 319 9%), non-clear-cell RCC (48 of 437 11%) and age 65 years or more (176 of 1056 17%). Median progression-free survival was 10·9 months (95% CI 10·3–11·2) and overall survival was 18·4 months (17·4–19·2). Interpretation In a broad population of patients with metastatic RCC, the safety profile of sunitinib 50 mg once-daily (initial dose) on schedule 4-2 was manageable and efficacy results were encouraging, particularly in subgroups associated with poor prognosis who are not usually entered into clinical trials. Funding Pfizer Inc.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
MiTF/TFE translocation renal cell carcinoma (tRCC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of RCC representing the most prevalent RCC in the pediatric population (up to 40%) and making up 4% of all RCCs in ...adults. It is characterized by translocations involving either TFE3 (TFE3-tRCC), TFEB (TFEB-tRCC) or MITF, all members of the MIT family (microphthalmia-associated transcriptional factor). TFE3-tRCC was first recognized in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of kidney cancers in 2004. In contrast to TFEB-tRCC, TFE3-tRCC is associated with many partners that can be detected by RNA or exome sequencing. Both diagnoses of TFE3 and TFEB-tRCC are performed on morphological and immunohistochemical features, but, to date, TFE break-apart fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) remains the gold standard for diagnosis. The clinical behavior of tRCC is heterogeneous and more aggressive in adults. Management of metastatic tRCC is challenging, especially in the younger population, and data are scarce. Efficacy of the standard of care-targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors remains low. Recent integrative exome and RNA sequencing analyses have provided a better understanding of the biological heterogeneity, which can contribute to a better therapeutic approach. We describe the clinico-pathological entities, the response to systemic therapy and the molecular features and techniques used to diagnose tRCC.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary
Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved rapidly over the last two decades as major pathways involved in pathogenesis have been elucidated. These include the vascular ...endothelial growth factor (VEGF) axis and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Therapies targeting the VEGF pathway include bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, and axitinib, whereas temsirolimus and everolimus inhibit the mTOR pathway. All of these novel therapies—VEGF and mTOR inhibitors—are associated with a variety of unique toxicities, some of which may necessitate expert medical management, treatment interruption, or dose reduction. Common adverse events with newer drugs include hypertension, skin reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, thyroid dysfunction, and fatigue. Skilled management of these toxicities is vital to ensure optimal therapeutic dosing and maximize patient outcomes, including improved survival and quality of life. This review describes and compares the toxicity profiles of novel molecularly targeted agents used in the treatment of mRCC and presents guidance on how best to prevent and manage treatment-related toxicities. Particular attention is given to axitinib, the newest agent to enter the armamentarium. Axitinib is a second-generation receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent VEGF receptor inhibition that provides durable responses and superior progression-free survival in advanced RCC compared with sorafenib.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab ...(anti-programmed death-ligand 1 PD-L1) versus chemotherapy in this patient population.
We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% IC0 or 1% to <5% IC1 of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells IC2/3), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807.
Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months 95% CI 8·6–15·5; n=116 vs 10·6 months 8·4–12·2; n=118; stratified hazard ratio HR 0·87, 95% CI 0·63–1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months 95% CI 10·4 to not estimable vs 8·3 months 5·6–13·2; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26–1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 20% of 459 vs 189 43% of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 7% vs 78 18% patients).
Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting.
F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Abstract Context The natural history of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is highly unpredictable. Small renal masses may be accompanied by metastatic disease. Conversely, patients with locally advanced ...disease may enjoy long-term disease-free survival. Objective To review the status of prognostic factors in RCC. Evidence acquisition A literature review was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases for articles published as of February 15, 2010. Electronic articles published ahead of print were also considered. Search was limited to the English language. Search was conducted using the following keywords: renal cell carcinoma, molecular, tissue, markers, blood, urine, progression, prognosis, risk factor, and survival. Studies were selected according to the relevance of the study, the number of patients included, originality, actuality, and clinical applicability of the results. Evidence synthesis Four areas of prediction were examined: (1) new RCC diagnostics, (2) RCC grade and stage at diagnosis, (3) disease progression, and (4) disease-specific mortality. All identified reports represented either case series or controlled studies. Although a large number of markers were identified, only a few were validated. Several prognostic factors were integrated in predictive or prognostic models. Conclusions Several prognostic factors can help discriminate between favourable and unfavourable RCC phenotypes. Of those, several clinical, pathologic, and biologic markers have been tested and validated, and they are used in predictive and prognostic models. Nonetheless, the search continues, especially for informative markers predicting the response to targeted therapies.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Everolimus (RAD001) is an orally administered inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a therapeutic target for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a phase III, ...randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma whose disease had progressed on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. Methods Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma which had progressed on sunitinib, sorafenib, or both, were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive everolimus 10 mg once daily (n=272) or placebo (n=138), in conjunction with best supportive care. Randomisation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system using a validated computer system, and was stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic score and previous anticancer therapy, with a permuted block size of six. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed via a blinded, independent central review. The study was designed to be terminated after 290 events of progression. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00410124. Findings All randomised patients were included in efficacy analyses. The results of the second interim analysis indicated a significant difference in efficacy between arms and the trial was thus halted early after 191 progression events had been observed (101 37% events in the everolimus group, 90 65% in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·30, 95% CI 0·22–0·40, p<0·0001; median progression-free survival 4·0 95% CI 3·7–5·5 vs 1·9 1·8–1·9 months). Stomatitis (107 40% patients in the everolimus group vs 11 8% in the placebo group), rash (66 25% vs six 4%), and fatigue (53 20% vs 22 16%) were the most commonly reported adverse events, but were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Pneumonitis (any grade) was detected in 22 (8%) patients in the everolimus group, of whom eight had pneumonitis of grade 3 severity. Interpretation Treatment with everolimus prolongs progression-free survival relative to placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that had progressed on other targeted therapies. Funding Novartis Oncology.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
BackgroundNivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, is an immune checkpoint inhibitor particularly used in the treatment of malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and renal cell ...carcinoma. Immune-related adverse events are frequent under immunotherapies. Cardiotoxic side effects, initially thought to be rare, are more often encountered paralleling the expanding use of immune checkpoint blockade. Among them, pericardial effusion and tamponade deserve attention as they may present with unusual symptomatology.Case presentationWe report three cases of pericardial effusion under nivolumab for lung adenocarcinoma. Two cases of early and late-onset pericardial effusion were symptomatic with tamponade and one case occurred without any symptoms. Pericardiocentesis with pericardial biopsy was performed in symptomatic pericardial effusion followed by the administration of a corticotherapy. Pericardial biopsies showed infiltration of T-lymphocytes, mostly CD4+. Nivolumab was stopped in two cases and resumed for one patient. Pericardial effusion evolved positively in all cases with or without treatment.ConclusionsWe review the literature on pericardial effusion under nivolumab to further discuss the hallmarks of pericardial effusion under nivolumab and the management of nivolumab therapy in this situation. In conclusion, pericardial effusion as an immune-related adverse event under nivolumab appears less rare than initially thought and may require particular attention.
PDF
