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.).

A plain language summary of the TROPHY-U-01 study: sacituzumab govitecan use in people with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment being studied for people with a type of bladder cancer, called urothelial cancer, that has progressed to a locally advanced or metastatic stage. Locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer are usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Metastatic urothelial cancer is also treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are few treatment options for people whose cancer gets worse after receiving these treatments. Sacituzumab govitecan is a suitable treatment option for most people with urothelial cancer because it aims to deliver an anti-cancer drug directly to the cancer in an attempt to limit the potential harmful side effects on healthy cells. This is a summary of a clinical study called TROPHY-U-01, focusing on the first group of participants, referred to as Cohort 1. All participants in Cohort 1 received sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: All participants received previous treatments for their metastatic urothelial cancer, including a platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. The tumor in 31 of 113 participants became significantly smaller or could not be seen on scans after sacituzumab govitecan treatment; an effect that lasted for a median of 7.2 months. Half of the participants were still alive 5.4 months after starting treatment, without their tumor getting bigger or spreading further. Half of them were still alive 10.9 months after starting treatment regardless of tumor size changes. Most participants experienced side effects. These side effects included lower levels of certain types of blood cells, sometimes with a fever, and loose or watery stools (diarrhea). Side effects led 7 of 113 participants to stop taking sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study showed that sacituzumab govitecan had significant anti-cancer activity. Though most participants who received sacituzumab govitecan experienced side effects, these did not usually stop participants from continuing sacituzumab govitecan. Doctors can help control these side effects using treatment guidelines, but these side effects can be serious.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03547973 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (TROPHY-U-1).

Long-Term Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up of Abiraterone Acetate in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

This ABIGENE pharmacokinetic (PK) study sought mainly to characterize the unchanged drug PK during long-term abiraterone acetate (AA) administration in advanced prostate cancer patients (81 patients). It was observed that individual AA concentrations remained constant over treatment time, with no noticeable changes during repeated long-term drug administration for up to 120 days. There was no correlation between AA concentrations and survival outcomes. However, a significant association between higher AA concentrations and better clinical benefit was observed (p = 0.041). The safety data did not correlate with the AA PK data. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) was observed between mean AA concentration and patient age: the older the patient, the higher the AA concentration. Patient age was found to impact steady-state AA concentration: the older the patient, the higher the mean AA concentration. Altogether, these data may help to guide future research and clinical trials in order to maximize the benefits of AA metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Cancer and COVID-19: ethical issues concerning the use of telemedicine during the pandemic.

The lockdown imposed in France during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc with access to healthcare. From March 2020 onwards, the oncologists of Foch Hospital, like many others at hospitals throughout the world, were obliged to adapt to the new conditions, including, in particular, the impossibility of seeing patients in classic consultations for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to this new virus, due to their immune status, and this made it difficult to carry out standard hospital visits for these patients. Some patients refused to come to the hospital, whereas the doctors decided, for others, that consultation conditions at the hospital were not sufficiently safe, with sanitary measures that had yet to be precisely defined. Telemedicine was one of the adaptations adopted during this period. This mode of consultation was little used before the pandemic, for various reasons, and reimbursement was not automatic. This new approach proved to have limitations as well as advantages, as demonstrated by our empirical ethics research study, a retrospective qualitative survey of the doctors of the oncology and supportive care departments of Foch Hospital, performed during July 2021. The interview grid was based on the studies on telemedicine, oncology, COVID-19 and empirical ethics available at the time. Based on the experience gained in this domain during the first wave of the epidemic, which hit France between March and June 2020, we identified three eligibility criteria for consultations in telemedicine: the consultation concerned should not be the first consultation, the patient should be a known patient that the doctor trusts not to minimize the description of symptoms, and the results of the patient's evaluations and examinations must be good. It may be appropriate to continue the use of teleconsultation in the future, provided that these criteria are respected.

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics.

BACKGROUND: At the start of 2021, oncologists lacked the necessary scientific knowledge to adapt their clinical practices optimally when faced with cancer patients refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite the marked vulnerability of these patients to severe, and even fatal forms of this new viral infectious disease. Oncologists at Foch Hospital were confronted with this phenomenon, which was observed worldwide, in both the general population and the population of cancer patients. METHODS: Between April and November 2021, the Ethics and Oncology Departments of Foch Hospital decided to investigate this subject, through an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics. Our scientific objective was to try to identify and resolve the principal bio-ethical issues, with a view to improving clinical practices in oncology during future major pandemics of this kind, from a highly specific bio-ethical standpoint (= quality of life/survival). We used a mainly qualitative methodological approach based on questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS: In April 2021, 29 cancer patients refused or were reluctant to be vaccinated (5.6%; 29/522). Seventeen of these patients said that making vaccination mandatory would have helped them to accept vaccination. In October 2021, only 10 cancer patients continued to maintain their refusal (1.9%; 10/522). One of the main reasons for the decrease in refusals was probably the introduction of the "pass sanitaire" (health pass) in July 2021, which rendered vaccination indispensable for many activities. However, even this was not sufficient to convince these 10 cancer patients. CONCLUSION: We identified a key bio-ethical issue, which we then tried to resolve: vaccination policy. We characterized a major tension between "the recommendation of anti-COVID-19 vaccination" (a new clinical practice) and "free will" (a moral value), and the duty to "protect each other" (a moral standard). Mandatory vaccination, at least in France, could resolve this tension, with positive effects on quality of life (i.e. happiness), or survival, in cancer patients initially refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated, but only if collective and individual scales are clearly distinguished.

Side effects of immunotherapy: a constant challenge for oncologists.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Immunotherapeutic strategies have become the new paradigm of cancer care, through their new targeting and safety profile approach, and, de facto, their new monitoring and safety management challenges. RECENT FINDINGS: Generalities and specificities of the toxicity management related to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are highlighted. Predictive factors of safety are issue of research and the challenge of prevention as well as monitoring are huge to alleviate toxicities and enhance safety and efficacy. Particular situations like steroids association and cost-effectiveness approach are summarized. SUMMARY: Patients as well as general practitioners, including health-caregivers, should be informed before ICI initiation of the different alert symptoms which should precede immune-related adverse events.

[Supportive care in oncology: definition, organization, limits]. / Soins de support oncologiques : définition, organisation, limites.

Supportive care in oncology: Definition, organization, limits. Supportive care have been introduced in France at the start of the 21st century, in the context of first French cancer act. They represent a coordination of health caregivers upon multidisciplinarity. Their organization follows cross disciplinary meetings and specific devoted programs like inpatients bed units or home care. The patient reported outcomes programs are in the next future of the quality of care involvement.

Soins de support oncologiques : Définition, organisation, limites. Les soins oncologiques de support ont été introduits en France au début des années 2000 dans le cadre du 1er Plan cancer. Ils correspondent à une coordination des soins et s'appuient sur la multidisciplinarité. Leur organisation repose sur les réunions de concertation pluridisciplinaire ainsi que sur des programmes d'unités dédiées à l'hôpital comme en ville et incluent des projets de liaison ville-hôpital en passant par le numérique.

[Nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy]. / Nausées et vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie.

Nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. Nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy impact heavily anticancer treatment safety. It is necessary to define correctly, assess frequently and treat perfectly, following national or international guidelines. New treatment are currently developed in the field of emesis protection. Old drugs may help patients. Physicians as well as nurses and caregivers have to be involved in emesis protection. It is one of the key topic in cancer care management.

Nausées et vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie. Les nausées et vomissements chimio-induits peuvent être prévenus par des règles hygiéno-diététiques mais également par de nombreuses thérapeutiques, anciennes ou récentes. Il existe un réel effort de recherche dans ce domaine, tant pour élargir les indications que pour mieux comprendre l'administration des thérapeutiques modernes et développer de nouvelles molécules. Des recommandations nationales et internationales existent, souvent méconnues ou mal suivies, afin de protéger au maximum le patient de cet effet indésirable évitable.

Preliminary experience of the concurrent use of radiosurgery and T-DM1 for brain metastases in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

This is preliminary study assessing the efficacy and safety of concurrent use of radiation therapy (RT) and T-DM1 for the treatment of brain metastases (BM) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (BC). We retrospectively studied 12 patients treated for BM at the Institut Curie in 2014-2015 with T-DM1 and concurrent (4) or sequential (8) radiosurgery with or without whole brain irradiation. The following variables were studied: local control, clinical and radiological response as well as early and late side effects. The mean age of the population was 38 years at the time of diagnosis of BC and 46 years at of BM. All patients were with good PS. The response rate of the concurrent treatment group was 75 % with 1 complete response, 1 partial response, one stable disease and 1 progression. Comparatively, the response rate in the sequential group was as follows: two complete responses, two partial responses, six cases of stable disease and two cases of local progression. No patient experienced interruption of irradiation because of side effects. About 50 % of patients were asymptomatic after treatment. Radiation necrosis was observed in 50 % of patients in the concurrent group and 28.6 % of patients in the sequential group with a similar rate of oedema in the two groups. We found that the combination of T-DM1 and radiosurgery was feasible but can increase the incidence of radiation necrosis. Larger prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed to more clearly evaluate this association.

Intermediate analysis of a phase II trial assessing gemcitabine and cisplatin in locoregional or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a phase II study evaluating a combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in a population of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis and unresected locoregional lymph nodes and/or distant metastases, who had a poor prognosis with no standard of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed SCC of the penis with unresected locoregional lymph nodes and/or distant metastases, at initial diagnosis or at relapse, and measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Patients were treated with a combination of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 1 over 30 min and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 over 1 h, every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In all, 25 patients were included in the first phase of the study between February 2004 and January 2010 and received a median of five cycles. For the intent-to-treat population, two patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-26.0) presented an objective response and 13 patients (52%) had stable disease (95% CI 35.5-76.8). The median TTP was at 5.48 months (95% CI 2.40-11.73). After a median follow-up of 26.97 months (95% CI 17.77, not reached), nine patients were still alive. The median OS and 2-year OS rate were respectively estimated at 14.98 months (95% CI 9.76-32.9) and 39.32% (95% CI 19.15-59.03). Eleven patients had a serious adverse event (44%), 24% being relied to chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Every 2 weeks' administration of the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin showed non-significant responses in patients with unresected locoregional or metastatic penile SCC. Despite manageable side-effects, this combination cannot be recommended as a standard of care, due to disappointing response rates seen in this negative study. Further regimens should be explored to improve the OS of these patients with poor prognosis.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: long term outcome of the Temporary Authorization for Use programme in France.

BACKGROUND: COU-AA-301 trial has proved that abiraterone acetate (AA), a selective inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, improved overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after a first line of docetaxel. Based on this result, a Temporary Authorization for Use (TAU) was performed between December 2010 and July 2011 to provide patients with mCRPC the opportunity to receive AA before its commercialization. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of AA treatment in this TAU. METHODS: Between December 2010 and July 2011, we conducted an ambispective, multicentric cohort study and investigated data from 20 centres participating to the AA TAU for patients presenting mCRPC and already treated by a first line of chemotherapy (CT). Statistical analyses of the data were performed using the Stata software v13 to identify predictive and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among the 408 patients, 306 were eligible with a follow-up at 3 years. Median OS was 37.1 months from beginning of CT and 14.6 months from AA introduction. 211 patients (69%) received ≥ 3 months of AA and 95 patients (31%) were treated less than 3 months. In the multivariate analyses, duration of AA was significantly correlated with PSA decrease at 3 months. Additionally, shorter time under AA treatment, presence of multiple sites of metastasis and previous hormonal treatment duration were three independent factors associated with poorer OS. At the time of analysis ten patients were still under treatment for more than 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical response monitored by PSA changes at 3 months is a strong predictive factor for AA treatment duration. Some high responders' patients could beneficiate from AA for more than 3 years.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

The genomic and transcriptomic landscape of metastastic urothelial cancer.

Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a lethal cancer, with limited therapeutic options. Large-scale studies in early settings provided critical insights into the genomic and transcriptomic characteristics of non-metastatic UC. The genomic landscape of mUC remains however unclear. Using Whole Exome (WES) and mRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) performed on metastatic biopsies from 111 patients, we show that driver genomic alterations from mUC were comparable to primary UC (TCGA data). APOBEC, platin, and HRD mutational signatures are the most prevalent in mUC, identified in 56%, 14%, and 9% of mUC samples, respectively. Molecular subtyping using consensus transcriptomic classification in mUC shows enrichment in neuroendocrine subtype. Paired samples analysis reveals subtype heterogeneity and temporal evolution. We identify potential therapeutic targets in 73% of mUC patients, of which FGFR3 (26%), ERBB2 (7%), TSC1 (7%), and PIK3CA (13%) are the most common. NECTIN4 and TACSTD2 are highly expressed regardless of molecular subtypes, FGFR3 alterations and sites of metastases.

Sacituzumab Govitecan Demonstrates Efficacy across Tumor Trop-2 Expression Levels in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Human trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) is a protein highly expressed in urothelial cancer (UC). Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a Trop-2-directed antibody drug conjugate with a hydrolysable linker and a potent SN-38 payload. This study explored Trop-2 expression in tumors treated with SG in cohorts 1 to 3 (C1-3) from the TROPHY-U-01 study and evaluated whether efficacy was associated with Trop-2 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (NCT03547973) is an open-label phase II study that assessed the efficacy and safety of SG (alone or in combinations) in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC (mUC). Archival tumor samples collected at enrollment for C1-3 were analyzed for Trop-2 membrane expression by considering histological scores (H-scores; scale 0-300) and the percentage of membrane positive tumor cells at low magnification (4×). The association of Trop-2 with clinical endpoints [objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)] was evaluated. RESULTS: In C1-3, tissue was collected from 158 (82%) of 192 treated patients, and 146 (76%) had evaluable Trop-2 data. Trop-2 was highly expressed in tumor samples. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] Trop-2 H-score was 215 (180-246), and the median (IQR) percentage of membrane positive tumor cells was 91% (80-98). Trop-2 expression at any level was observed in 98% of patients. Furthermore, ORR, PFS, and OS benefits were observed across all Trop-2 expression levels. CONCLUSIONS: Trop-2 protein is highly expressed in UC, as confirmed by examining tumors from patients enrolled in the TROPHY-U-01 trial. The results indicate that SG demonstrates efficacy in mUC across Trop-2 expression levels.

Bio-ethical issues in oncology during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic: A qualitative study in a French hospital.

BACKGROUND: Using a specific bioethical theory (=global bioethics) and method (=a posteriori), we try here to identify and evaluate the bio-ethical issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, and possible solutions, to improve the management of cancer patients at the hospital in future pandemics, before the emergence of vaccines or scientifically validated treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: Our work is based primarily on the clinical experience of three oncologists from the oncology department of Foch Hospital in France, who were on the frontline during the first wave of the epidemic. We compared their perceptions with published findings, to complete or nuance their views. RESULTS: Three bio-ethical issues were identified, and possible solutions to these problems were evaluated: (1) scientific evidence versus lack of time → the creation of emergency multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM); (2) healthcare equality versus lack of resources → the development of telemedicine; (3) individual liberties versus risk of contamination → role of cancer patients' associations, psychologists and bioethicists. CONCLUSION: We consider the creation of an emergency MTM, in particular, in addition to a true ethics committee with real competence in bioethics, to be a first solution that would be easy to implement in hospitals in many countries.