Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) ...as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce.
To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs.
A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017.
Post-PD management as per standard practice.
Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model.
A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio HR 0.22, 95% confidence interval CI 0.10–0.51, p < 0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13–0.36, p < 0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0–8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9–3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p = 0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p = 0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p = 0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p = 0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p < 0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis.
Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy
Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy.
Urothelial cancer patients failing frontline immunotherapy are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy. This suggests that frontline immunotherapy should be restricted to patients with low risk of clinical deterioration.
Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a histologically and molecularly distinct class of rare renal tumor. TCGA studies revealed low mutational burden, with only TP53 and PTEN recurrently ...mutated, and discovered alterations in TERT promoter and in the electron transport chain Complex I genes. However, knowledge on drug targetable genes is limited and treatments at metastatic stage do not follow a molecular rationale. In a large series of 92 chRCC enriched with metastatic cases, we performed an in-depth characterization of mTOR pathway alterations through targeted NGS and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of phospho-S6, tuberin, and PTEN. Mutations in mitochondria, telomere maintenance and other renal cancer related genes and p53 IHC, were also assessed. The impact on metastasis development and disease specific survival was determined, using TCGA-KICH series (n = 65) for validation. mTOR pathway mutations (MTOR, TSC1, TSC2) were present in 17% of primary tumors, most of them being classified as pathogenic. Mutations were associated with positive IHC staining of phospho-S6 and PTEN (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001, respectively) and with chRCC eosinophilic variant (P = 0.039), supporting a biological relevance of the pathway. mTOR pathway mutations were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Survival analysis gave a hazard ratio of 5.5 (P = 0.027), and this association was confirmed in TCGA-KICH (HR = 10.3, P = 0.006). TP53 mutations were enriched in metastatic cases (P = 0.018), and mutations in telomere maintenance genes showed a trend in the same direction. p53 IHC staining pattern was associated with the underlying TP53 defect, and negative PTEN IHC staining (82% of cases) suggested PTEN loss as a chRCC hallmark. In conclusion, our study provides with novel genomic knowledge in chRCC and identifies novel markers of poor survival. Furthermore, this is the first study showing that mTOR pathway mutations correlate with poor prognosis, and may help to identify patients with increased sensitivity to mTOR inhibitors.
There is no standard treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CHT). To compare the activity and safety of two CHT ...combinations in this patient group, a randomized phase II/III trial was conducted by the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer). We report here the phase II results of the study.
CHT-naïve patients with measurable disease and impaired renal function (30 mL/min < glomerular filtration rate GFR < 60 mL/min) and/or performance status (PS) 2 were randomly assigned to receive either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve AUC 4.5) for 21 days or M-CAVI (methotrexate 30 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22; carboplatin AUC 4.5 on day 1; and vinblastine 3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22) for 28 days. End points of response and severe acute toxicity (SAT) were evaluated with respect to treatment group, renal function, PS, and Bajorin risk groups.
Three of 178 patients who were ineligible or did not start treatment were excluded. SAT was reported in 13.6% of patients on GC and in 23% on M-CAVI. Overall response rates were 42% (37 of 88) for GC and 30% (26 of 87) for M-CAVI. Patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min and patients in Bajorin risk group 2 showed a response rate of only 26% and 20% and an SAT rate of 26% and 25%, respectively.
Both combinations are active in this group of unfit patients. However, patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min do not benefit from combination CHT. Alternative treatment modalities should be sought in this subgroup of poor-risk patients.
Background:
Cabozantinib monotherapy is approved for the treatment of several types of solid tumors. Investigation into the use of cabozantinib combined with other therapies is increasing. To ...understand the evidence in this area, we performed a systematic review of cabozantinib combination therapy for the treatment of solid tumors in adults.
Methods:
This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020144680). On 9 October 2020, we searched for clinical trials and observational studies of cabozantinib as part of a combination therapy for solid tumors using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases, and by screening relevant congress abstracts. Eligible studies reported clinical or safety outcomes, or biomarker data. Randomized and observational studies with a sample size of fewer than 25 and studies of cabozantinib monotherapy were excluded. For each study, quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology, and the study characteristics were described qualitatively. This study was funded by Ipsen.
Results:
Of 2421 citations identified, 32 articles were included (6 with results from randomized studies, 24 with results from non-randomized phase I or II studies, and 2 with results from both). The most commonly studied tumor types were metastatic urothelial carcinoma/genitourinary tumors and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Findings from randomized studies suggested that cabozantinib combined with other therapies may lead to better progression-free survival than some current standards of care in renal cell carcinoma, CRPC, and non-small-cell lung cancer. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue.
Conclusion:
This review demonstrates the promising efficacy outcomes of cabozantinib combined with other therapies, and a safety profile similar to cabozantinib alone. However, the findings are limited by the fact that most of the identified studies were reported as congress abstracts only. More evidence from randomized trials is needed to explore cabozantinib as a combination therapy further.
Abstract Updated information published up to 2016 regarding major advances in renal cancer, bladder cancer, and prostate cancer is here presented. Based on an ever better understanding of the genetic ...and molecular alterations that govern the initial pathogenic mechanisms of tumor oncogenesis, an improvement in the characterization and treatment of urologic tumors has been achieved in the past year. According to the Cancer Genome Atlas (ATLAS) project, alterations in the MET pathway are characteristics of type 1 papillary renal cell carcinomas, and activation of NRF2-ARE pathway is associated with the biologically distinct type 2. While sunitinib and pazopanib continue to be the standard first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma of clear cell histology, nivolumab and and cabozantinib are now the agents of choice in the second-line setting. In relation to urothelial bladder carcinoma, new potential molecular targets such as FGFR3 , PI3 K/AKT , RTK/RAS , CDKN2A , ARIDIA , ERBB2 have been identified. Response to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy appears to be related to basal, luminal, and p53-like intrinsic subtypes. A phase II study with eribulin and a maintenance phase II trial with vinflunine have shown promising results. Similarly, the use of the check point inhibitors in advanced disease is likely to revolutionize the management of patients who have progressed after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In prostate cancer, seven mutually exclusive molecular subtypes have been identified by the TCGA project. Chemotherapy has been consolidated as a key treatment for castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, and abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223 remain standard therapeutic options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. All this progress will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new treatments and therapeutic strategies that will improve the survival and quality of life of our patients.
The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). ...Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features.
In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology.
In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern.
Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC.
ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.
To confirm the efficacy of a risk-adapted treatment approach for patients with clinical stage I seminoma. The aim was to reduce both the risk of relapse and the proportion of patients receiving ...adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining a high cure rate.
From 2004 to 2008, 227 patients were included after orchiectomy in a multicenter study. Eighty-four patients (37%) presented no local risk factors, 44 patients (19%) had tumors larger than 4 cm, 25 patients (11%) had rete testis involvement, and 74 patients (33%) had both criteria. Only the latter group received two courses of adjuvant carboplatin, whereas the rest were managed by surveillance.
After a median follow-up time of 34 months, 16 relapses (7%) have been documented (15 9.8% among patients on surveillance and one 1.4% among those treated with carboplatin). All relapses occurred in retroperitoneal lymph nodes, except for one case in pelvic nodes. Median node size was 25 mm, and median time to recurrence was 14 months. All patients were rendered disease-free with chemotherapy. The actuarial 3-year disease-free survival rate was 88.1% (95% CI, 82.3% to 93.9%) for patients on surveillance and 98.0% (95% CI, 94.0% to 100%) for those treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall 3-year survival was 100%.
With the limitations of the short follow-up duration, we confirm that a risk-adapted approach is effective for stage I seminoma. Adjuvant carboplatin seems adequate treatment for patients with 2 risk criteria, as is active surveillance for those with 0 to one risk factors. More reliable predictive factors are needed to improve the applicability of this model.
Background
Despite standard-of-care androgen-deprivation therapy and an increasing number of treatment options, the mortality rate for prostate cancer remains high. Progress to metastatic ...castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) necessitates additional treatments. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) prolongs survival in chemotherapy-naive and docetaxel-experienced patients.
Objective
To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of AAP as first-line and second-line post-docetaxel only (AAP-PD) treatment in patients with mCRPC.
Patients and methods
The Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) was a prospective, international, observational study of patients with mCRPC in routine clinical practice. Men aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed mCRPC were included. Baseline characteristics, safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent severe adverse events), and efficacy progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
Results
At baseline, patients who received first-line AAP (
n
= 754) were generally older than patients who received AAP-PD (
n
= 354); median age was 76 years and 70 years, respectively. However, the rate of visceral metastasis was higher in the AAP-PD cohort than in the AAP cohort (17.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively). Demographics and disease characteristics of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease were similar to those of the overall registry population. Efficacy outcomes were similar for all patients, regardless of the line of AAP therapy. For first-line AAP and AAP-PD, respectively, the median PFS was 8.9 and 5.8 months for all patients and 9.1 and 6.0 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities; median OS was 27.1 and 23.4 months for all patients, and 27.4 and 23.1 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. There were no unexpected adverse events in any patient subgroup.
Conclusions
These real-world data complement the findings from randomized controlled trials, indicating that first- and second-line AAP is well tolerated and effective in patients with mCRPC, including those with underlying CV comorbidities.
Trial Registration Number
NCT02236637, registered 8 September 2014.
Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved ...therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting.
In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms.
The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%).
EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.
PDF
