Identification of Tumor Antigens in the HLA Peptidome of Patient-derived Xenograft Tumors in Mouse.

Personalized cancer immunotherapy targeting patient-specific cancer/testis antigens (CTA) and neoantigens may benefit from large-scale tumor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) peptidome (immunopeptidome) analysis, which aims to accurately identify antigens presented by tumor cells. Although significant efforts have been invested in analyzing the HLA peptidomes of fresh tumors, it is often impossible to obtain sufficient volumes of tumor tissues for comprehensive HLA peptidome characterization. This work attempted to overcome some of these obstacles by using patient-derived xenograft tumors (PDX) in mice as the tissue sources for HLA peptidome analysis. PDX tumors provide a proxy for the expansion of the patient tumor by re-grafting them through several passages to immune-compromised mice. The HLA peptidomes of human biopsies were compared with those derived from PDX tumors. Larger HLA peptidomes were obtained from the significantly larger PDX tumors as compared with the patient biopsies. The HLA peptidomes of different PDX tumors derived from the same source tumor biopsy were very reproducible, even following subsequent passages to new naïve mice. Many CTA-derived HLA peptides were discovered, as well as several potential neoantigens/variant sequences. Taken together, the use of PDX tumors for HLA peptidome analysis serves as a highly expandable and stable source of reproducible and authentic peptidomes, opening up new opportunities for defining large HLA peptidomes when only small tumor biopsies are available. This approach provides a large source for tumor antigens identification, potentially useful for personalized immunotherapy.

Cardiovascular Proteomics: A Post Hoc Analysis from a Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing GnRH Antagonist vs GnRH Agonist among Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent studies demonstrated reduced cardiovascular (CV) risk with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, yet the underlying mechanism remains undetermined. The objective of this study was to examine longitudinal changes over time in established CV related proteins among men treated with GnRH agonists vs GnRH antagonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a proteomics analysis of serum samples collected during a phase II randomized study among 80 men with advanced prostate cancer and preexisting CV disease who were randomized to receive a GnRH agonist (39) or GnRH antagonist (41) for 1 year. Serum samples were collected at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months following treatment, and analyzed levels of 188 proteins using the CV panel II and III of the Olink Multiplex platform (Olink Proteomics AB, Uppsala, Sweden). We fitted a linear mixed effects model to assess evidence of a treatment effect across CV related protein values. This included terms for treatment arm, protein levels and time-by-treatment interaction. Results were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. RESULTS: The CV proteomics analysis included 283 samples from 78 subjects. We identified 5 proteins with distinct patterns over time depending on study arm: human chitotriosidase, macrophage receptor with collagenous structure, cathepsin D, superoxide dismutase 2 and hydroxyacid oxidase 1. All 5 are associated with plaque stability and demonstrated an increased level among subjects in the GnRH antagonist arm compared to agonist. CONCLUSIONS: We compared longitudinal changes in CV proteins among men using androgen deprivation therapy. Our results support a direct protective effect of GnRH antagonist on plaque stability rather than a hazardous consequence of GnRH agonists on plaque rupture. This is a hypothesis generating study, and requires further confirmation.

Addition of radium-223 to abiraterone acetate and prednisone or prednisolone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases (ERA 223): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 improves overall survival and delays the onset of symptomatic skeletal events in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. We assessed concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 in such patients. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 165 oncology and urology centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically confirmed, progressive, chemotherapy-naive, asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 6 months, and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) according to a permuted block design (block size 4) via interactive response technology to receive up to six intravenous injections of radium-223 (55 kBq/kg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks. All patients were also scheduled to receive oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily plus oral prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily during and after radium-223 or placebo treatment. The primary endpoint was symptomatic skeletal event-free survival, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02043678. Enrolment has been completed, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2014, and Aug 12, 2016, 806 patients were randomly assigned to receive radium-223 (n=401) or placebo (n=405) in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone. The study was unblinded prematurely, on Nov 17, 2017, after more fractures and deaths were noted in the radium-223 group than in the placebo group (in an unplanned ad-hoc analysis), but all patients had completed radium-223 or placebo before this date. At the primary analysis (data cutoff Feb 15, 2018), 196 (49%) of 401 patients in radium-223 group had had at least one symptomatic skeletal event or died, compared with 190 (47%) of 405 patients in the placebo group (median follow-up 21·2 months [IQR 17·0-25·8]). Median symptomatic skeletal event-free survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·4-24·8) in the radium-223 group and 26·0 months (21·8-28·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·122 [95% CI 0·917-1·374]; p=0·2636). Fractures (any grade) occurred in 112 (29%) of 392 patients in the radium-223 group and 45 (11%) of 394 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (43 [11%] patients in the radium-223 group vs 52 [13%] patients in the placebo group), fractures (36 [9%] vs 12 [3%]) and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (34 [9%] vs 28 [7%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 160 (41%) patients in the radium-223 group and 155 (39%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (1%) patients in the radium-223 group (acute myocardial infarction and interstitial lung disease) and one (<1%) in the placebo group (arrhythmia). INTERPRETATION: The addition of radium-223 to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone did not improve symptomatic skeletal event-free survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases, and was associated with an increased frequency of bone fractures compared with placebo. Thus, we do not recommend use of this combination. FUNDING: Bayer.

Re-treatment with radium-223: 2-year follow-up from an international, open-label, phase 1/2 study in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is approved for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), symptomatic bone metastases, and no visceral disease using a dosing regimen of 6 injections (55 kBq/kg intravenously; 1 injection every 4 weeks). Early results from international, open-label, phase 1/2 study NCT01934790 showed that re-treatment with radium-223 was well tolerated with favorable effects on disease progression. Here we report safety and efficacy findings from 2-year follow-up of the radium-223 re-treatment study. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases who completed 6 initial radium-223 injections with no disease progression in bone and later progressed were eligible for radium-223 re-treatment (up to 6 additional radium-223 injections), provided that hematologic parameters were adequate and chemotherapy had not been administered after the initial course of radium-223. Concomitant cytotoxic agents were not allowed during re-treatment but were allowed at the investigator's discretion during follow-up; other concomitant agents for prostate cancer (including abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) were allowed at investigator's discretion. The primary objective was safety. Exploratory objectives included time to radiographic bone progression, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to total alkaline phosphatase (tALP), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, overall survival (OS), time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), and SSE-free survival, all calculated from re-treatment start. Evaluation of safety and exploratory efficacy objectives included active 2-year follow-up. Safety results from active follow-up and updated efficacy are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients were re-treated with radium-223; 29 (66%) completed all 6 injections, and 34 (77%) entered 2-year active follow-up, during which no new safety concerns and no serious drug-related adverse events were noted. rPFS events (progression or death) occurred in 19 (43%) of 44 patients; median rPFS was 9.9 months. Radiographic bone progression occurred in 5 (11%) of 44 patients. Median OS was 24.4 months. Median times to first SSE and SSE-free survival were 16.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Median time to tALP progression was not reached; median time to PSA progression was 2.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with radium-223 in this selected patient population was well tolerated, led to minimal hematologic toxicity, and provided continued disease control in bone at 2-year follow-up.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed rapidly in recent years. In first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk patients, the CheckMate 214 study demonstrated a significant survival advantage for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib. The high cost of combined immune-modulating agents warrants an understanding of the combination's value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC from the U.S. payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2017. We extrapolated survival beyond the trial closure using Weibull distribution. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The total mean cost per-patient of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib was $292,308 and $169,287, respectfully. Nivolumab and ipilimumab generated a gain of 0.978 QALYs over sunitinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab and ipilimumab was $125,739/QALY versus sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Our analysis established that the base case ICER in the model for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib is below what some would consider the upper limit of the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S. ($150,000/QALY) and is thus estimated to be cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib for treatment of patients with intermediate- to poor-risk metastatic kidney cancer, from the U.S. payer perspective. It would cost $125,739 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib in these patients.

Cardiovascular Morbidity in a Randomized Trial Comparing GnRH Agonist and GnRH Antagonist among Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer and Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Limited data suggest that GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) antagonist may be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than GnRH agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a phase II, randomized, open label study in men with prostate cancer and preexisting cardiovascular disease who were randomized to receive GnRH agonists or antagonists for 1 year. The primary outcome was endothelial function measured by the EndoPAT 2000 device (Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel). The predefined secondary outcome was a new cardiovascular event. Patients were followed for the development of cardiovascular disease, defined as death, myocardial infarction, a cerebrovascular event, percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion or hospitalizations due to cardiac events. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled in study, including 41 and 39 who received GnRH antagonist and agonist, respectively. Patients in each arm had similar baseline characteristics. We did not detect a difference in the primary end point (endothelial function) between the groups (mean ± SD reactive hyperemia index 2.07 ± 0.15 vs 1.92 ± 0.11, p=0.42). However, during the trial period a new cardiovascular event (the secondary end point) developed in 15 patients. Of cases new major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events developed in 9, including death in 2, myocardial infarction in 1, a cerebrovascular event in 2 and percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion in 4. Of the patients 20% randomized to GnRH agonist experienced a major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event compared to 3% of those on GnRH antagonist (p=0.013). The absolute risk reduction in major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 12 months using GnRH antagonist was 18.1% (95% CI 4.6-31.2, p=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this is the first prospective study to test cardiovascular outcomes among patients with prostate cancer who received androgen deprivation therapy. No differences in the primary end point were noted between the study arms. However, the secondary end point revealed that patients treated with GnRH agonist experienced significantly more major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events than those treated with GnRH antagonist. These phase II results suggest that in patients with prostate cancer who have preexisting cardiovascular disease selecting the androgen deprivation therapy modality may differentially affect cardiac outcomes.

Outcome of Patients With Metastatic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a standard treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Data on its activity in the rare variant of metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (mchRCC), are limited. We aimed to analyze the activity of sunitinib in a relatively large and homogenous international cohort of mchRCC patients in terms of outcome and comparison with mccRCC. METHODS: Records from mchRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib in 10 centers across 4 countries were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of association between clinicopathologic factors and outcome were performed. Subsequently, mchRCC patients were individually matched to mccRCC patients. We compared the clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the groups. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, 36 patients (median age, 64 years; 47% male) with mchRCC were treated with first-line sunitinib. Seventy-eight percent achieved a clinical benefit (partial response + stable disease). Median PFS and OS were 10 and 26 months, respectively. Factors associated with PFS were the Heng risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; p = .03) and pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >3 (HR, 0.63; p = .02). Factors associated with OS were the Heng risk (HR, 4.1; p = .04), liver metastases (HR, 3.8; p = .03), and pretreatment NLR <3 (HR, 0.55; p = .03). Treatment outcome was not significantly different between mchRCC patients and individually matched mccRCC patients. In mccRCC patients (p value versus mchRCC), 72% achieved a clinical benefit (p = .4) and median PFS and OS were 9 (p = .6) and 25 (p = .7) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib therapy may be associated with similar outcome and toxicities as in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The Heng risk and pretreatment NLR may be associated with PFS and OS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on the activity of sunitinib in metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (mchRCC) are limited. This study analyzed the activity of sunitinib in a cohort of mchRCC patients. Of 36 patients with mchRCC who were treated with first-line sunitinib, 78% achieved a clinical benefit. Median PFS and OS were 10 and 26 months, respectively. Treatment outcome was not significantly different between mchRCC patients and individually matched metastatic clear cell RCC patients.

GSTP1 promoter methylation is associated with recurrence in early stage prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Recurrent prostate cancer remains a major problem. Staging, grading and prostate specific antigen level at surgery are helpful but still imperfect predictors of recurrence. For this reason there is an imperative need for additional biomarkers that add to the prediction of currently used prognostic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the extent of promoter methylation of genes previously reported as aberrantly methylated in prostate cancer (AIM1, APC, CCND2, GPX3, GSTP1, MCAM, RARß2, SSBP2 and TIMP3) by quantitative fluorogenic methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. We used cancer tissue from a nested case-control study of 452 patients surgically treated for prostate cancer. Recurrence cases and controls were compared and the association between methylation extent and recurrence risk was estimated by logistic regression adjusting for patient age at prostatectomy, prostatectomy year, stage, grade, surgical margins and preprostatectomy prostate specific antigen. All statistical tests were 2-sided with p ≤0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The extent of GSTP1 methylation was higher in patients with recurrence than in controls (p = 0.01), especially patients with early disease, ie organ confined or limited extraprostatic extension (p = 0.001). After multivariate adjustment GSTP1 promoter methylation at or above the median was associated with an increased risk of recurrence, including in men with early disease (each p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Greater GSTP1 promoter methylation in cancer tissue was independently associated with the risk of recurrence in patients with early prostate cancer. This suggests that GSTP1 promoter methylation may be a potential tissue based recurrence marker.

Personalized prostate cancer screening among men with high risk genetic predisposition- study protocol for a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer screening among the general population is highly debatable. Nevertheless, screening among high-risk groups is appealing. Prior data suggests that men carrying mutations in the BRCA1& 2 genes may be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. Additionally, they appear to develop prostate cancer at a younger age and with a more aggressive course. However, prior studies did not systematically perform prostate biopsies and thus cannot determine the true prevalence of prostate cancer in this population. METHODS: This will be a prospective diagnostic trial of screening for prostate cancer among men with genetic predisposition. The target population is males (40-70 year old) carrying a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 germ line mutation. They will be identified via our Genetic counseling unit. All men after signing an informed consent will undergo the following tests: PSA, free to total PSA, MRI of prostate and prostate biopsy. The primary endpoint will be to estimate the prevalence, stage and grade of prostate cancer in this population. Additionally, the study aims to estimate the impact of these germ line mutations on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Furthermore, this study aims to create a bio-bank of tissue, urine and serum of this unique cohort for future investigations. Finally, this study will identify an inception cohort for future interventional studies of primary and secondary prevention. DISCUSSION: The proposed research is highly translational and focuses not only on the clinical results, but on the future specimens that will be used to advance our understanding of prostate cancer patho-physiology. Most importantly, these high-risk germ-line mutation carriers are ideal candidates for primary and secondary prevention initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02053805.

Late relapse of testis cancer.

Most relapses of germ-cell tumors occur within 2 years of initial treatment. In 2 % to 4 % of patients, relapse may occur later. The retroperitoneum is the primary site of late relapses, and alpha-fetoprotein is the predominant marker. These tumors are highly resistant to chemotherapy. Surgical resection is the preferred treatment. If the recurrent disease is inoperable, salvage chemotherapy may be instituted, followed by resection of the residual disease.

Multinational Analysis of Estimated Health Care Costs Related to Extended-Interval Fixed Dosing of Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Importance: New dosing options for immune checkpoint inhibitors have recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including fixed dosing with extended intervals. Although the dose intensity appears the same, there is expected to be some waste with extended-interval dosing, as some drug remains in the bloodstream once a decision to stop treatment is made. The economic impact of extended-interval fixed dosing is unknown compared with standard-interval fixed dosing. Objective: To analyze the potential health care costs of using extended-interval fixed dosing instead of standard-interval fixed dosing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a pharmacoeconomic model to simulate 2 cohorts of patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer receiving pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at different dosing intervals using 2020 pricing data. Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. Exposures: The simulated patients received FDA-approved regimens of either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The progression-free survival curve from the KEYNOTE-045 trial was used to estimate treatment duration. Drug, imaging, and administration costs were included in analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess how different imaging frequencies would affect the model results. The potential overall costs of using the 2 different dosing strategies were assessed. The base case was set in the US, while sensitivity analyses were set in several other countries. Results: In the base case analysis, dosing every 6 weeks instead of every 3 weeks resulted in an estimated 8.9% increase in pembrolizumab costs for the health care payer. Accounting for a decrease in infusion costs would result in an estimated net additional cost of $7483 per patient in the US (7.9% cost increase). In the US, this would amount to an increase of approximately $28 million annually for health care payers. Similar percentages in cost estimate increases were found for health care payers around the world, such as in Israel, where the net additional cost would be $5491 per patient. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation assessed and quantified the potential increased costs related to extended-interval fixed dosing of pembrolizumab. The model method could be applied to other diseases and other drugs for which there has been a movement toward extended-interval dosing. Results may differ in other diseases owing to differing disease courses and patient profiles.

Modified Citrus Pectin Treatment in Non-Metastatic Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Phase II Study.

The optimal therapy for patients with non-metastatic biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC-M0) after local therapy is elusive. Thus, the evaluation of new non-toxic compounds in BRPC-M0 patients is warranted. PectaSol®-Modified citrus pectin (P-MCP) is a food supplement categorized as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the FDA. It is a competitive inhibitor of the galectin-3 protein, which is involved in cancer pathogenesis. In an early report of the present phase 2 study, P-MCP treatment for 6 months led to prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) improvement in 75% of patients with BRPC-M0. Herein, we report the second long-term treatment phase of an additional 12 months of P-MCP therapy (4.8 g × 3/day orally) in patients without disease progression after the initial 6 months of therapy. Of the 46 patients that entered the second treatment phase, 7 patients withdrew consent and decided to continue therapy out of pocket, and 39 initiated the second treatment phase. After a total of 18 months of P-MCP treatment, 85% (n = 33) had a durable long-term response, with 62% (n = 24) showing decreased/stable PSA, 90% (n = 35) PSADT improvement, and all with negative scans. No patient had grade 3/4 toxicity. In conclusion, P-MCP may have long-term durable efficacy and is safe in BRPC-M0.

Neoadjuvant 177Lu-PSMA-I&T Radionuclide Treatment in Patients with High-risk Prostate Cancer Before Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-arm Phase 1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) has a substantial risk of disease progression despite local treatment. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy before definitive local therapy may improve oncological outcomes by targeting the primary tumor and micrometastatic disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand (LuPSMA) can be safely administered to patients with HRLPC before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to describe immediate oncological outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an open-label, single-arm clinical trial. Patients with HRLPC and elevated radioligand uptake on PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography were enrolled. Two or three LuPSMA radioligand doses (7.4 GBq) were given at 2-wk intervals. RARP with lymph node dissection was performed 4 wk after the last LuPSMA dose. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The rate of surgical complications, operative parameters, changes in functional and quality-of-life measures, and immediate oncological outcomes (histological findings and biochemical response) were measured. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fourteen patients participated (median age 67 yr). Prostate-specific antigen decreased by 17% (interquartile range [IQR] 9-50%) after two LuPSMA doses and 34% (IQR 11-60%) after three doses. Thirteen patients underwent RARP with no identifiable anatomical changes or intraoperative complications. Four patients (30%) had postoperative complications (pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, urinary leak with urinary tract infection). At 3 mo postoperatively, 12 patients (92%) required one pad or less. Final whole-mount pathology showed positive surgical margins (PSMs) in seven patients (53%) and downgrading to International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 3 in three patients (23%). Treatment-related effects included a clear vacuolated cytoplasm and pyknotic nuclei. CONCLUSIONS: LuPSMA followed by RARP appears to be surgically safe. While oncological outcomes are pending, continence recovery seems to be unaffected by LuPSMA treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated outcomes for patients with aggressive localized prostate cancer who received treatment with a radioactive agent before surgical removal of their prostate. This approach appears to be safe and feasible, but its therapeutic efficacy is still unknown.

Erdafitinib treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a real-world analysis.

Background: Erdafitinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor is a standard post chemotherapy advanced treatment line for metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2/3 genomic alterations. It was approved based on a phase 2 clinical trial, revealing a 40% response rate, and 13.8 months overall survival. These FGFR genomic alterations are uncommon. Thus, real-world data on erdafitinb use is scant. We herein describe erdafitinib treatment outcome in a real world patient cohort. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients treated with erdafitinib from 9 Israeli medical centers. Results: Twenty-five patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (median age 73, 64% male, 80% with visceral metastases) were treated with erdafitinib between January 2020 to October 2022. A clinical benefit (complete response 12%, partial response 32%, stable disease 12%) was seen in 56%. Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and median overall survival 6.73 months. Treatment related toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 52%, and 32% discontinued therapy due to adverse events. Conclusions: Erdafitinib therapy is associated with a clinical benefit in the real world setting, and associated with similar toxicity as reported in prospective clinical trials.

FORT-1: Phase II/III Study of Rogaratinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Selected Based on FGFR1/3 mRNA Expression.

PURPOSE: Rogaratinib, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR1-4) inhibitor, showed promising phase I efficacy and safety in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) with FGFR1-3 mRNA overexpression. We assessed rogaratinib efficacy and safety versus chemotherapy in patients with FGFR mRNA-positive advanced/metastatic UC previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. METHODS: FORT-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03410693) was a phase II/III, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with FGFR1/3 mRNA-positive locally advanced or metastatic UC with ≥ 1 prior platinum-containing regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) to rogaratinib (800 mg orally twice daily, 3-week cycles; n = 87) or chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 88). The primary end point was overall survival, with objective response rate (ORR) analysis planned following phase II accrual. Because of comparable efficacy between treatments, enrollment was stopped before progression to phase III; a full interim analysis of phase II was completed. RESULTS: ORRs were 20.7% (rogaratinib, 18/87; 95% CI, 12.7 to 30.7) and 19.3% (chemotherapy, 17/88; 95% CI, 11.7 to 29.1). Median overall survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not estimable) and 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.8 to not estimable; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.72; P = .67). Grade 3/4 events occurred in 37 (43.0%)/4 (4.7%) patients and 32 (39.0%)/15 (18.3%), respectively. No rogaratinib-related deaths occurred. Exploratory analysis of patients with FGFR3 DNA alterations showed ORRs of 52.4% (11/21; 95% CI, 29.8 to 74.3) for rogaratinib and 26.7% (4/15; 95% CI, 7.8 to 55.1) for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, these are the first data to compare FGFR-directed therapy with chemotherapy in patients with FGFR-altered UC, showing comparable efficacy and manageable safety. Exploratory testing suggested FGFR3 DNA alterations in association with FGFR1/3 mRNA overexpression may be better predictors of rogaratinib response.

A clinical evaluation of an ex vivo organ culture system to predict patient response to cancer therapy.

Introduction: Ex vivo organ cultures (EVOC) were recently optimized to sustain cancer tissue for 5 days with its complete microenvironment. We examined the ability of an EVOC platform to predict patient response to cancer therapy. Methods: A multicenter, prospective, single-arm observational trial. Samples were obtained from patients with newly diagnosed bladder cancer who underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumor and from core needle biopsies of patients with metastatic cancer. The tumors were cut into 250 µM slices and cultured within 24 h, then incubated for 96 h with vehicle or intended to treat drug. The cultures were then fixed and stained to analyze their morphology and cell viability. Each EVOC was given a score based on cell viability, level of damage, and Ki67 proliferation, and the scores were correlated with the patients' clinical response assessed by pathology or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Results: The cancer tissue and microenvironment, including endothelial and immune cells, were preserved at high viability with continued cell division for 5 days, demonstrating active cell signaling dynamics. A total of 34 cancer samples were tested by the platform and were correlated with clinical results. A higher EVOC score was correlated with better clinical response. The EVOC system showed a predictive specificity of 77.7% (7/9, 95% CI 0.4-0.97) and a sensitivity of 96% (24/25, 95% CI 0.80-0.99). Conclusion: EVOC cultured for 5 days showed high sensitivity and specificity for predicting clinical response to therapy among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and other solid tumors.

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.

AIM1 promoter hypermethylation as a predictor of decreased risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic significance of six epigenetic biomarkers (AIM1, CDH1, KIF1A, MT1G, PAK3, and RBM6 promoter hypermethlation) in a homogeneous group of prostate cancer patients, following radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Biomarker analyses were performed retrospectively on tumors from 95 prostate cancer patients all with a Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 and a minimum follow-up period of 8 years. Using Quantitative Methylation Specific PCR (QMSP), we analyzed the promoter region of six genes in primary prostate tumor tissues. Time to any progression was the primary endpoint and development of metastatic disease and/or death from prostate cancer was a secondary endpoint. The association of clinicopathological and biomolecular risk factors to recurrence was performed using the Log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model for multivariate analysis. To identify independent prognostic factors, a stepwise selection method was used. RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 10 years, 48 patients (50.5%) had evidence of recurrence: Biochemical/PSA relapse, metastases, or death from prostate cancer. In the final multivariate analysis for time to progression, the significant factors were: Older age, HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.0) (P = 0.03), positive lymph nodes HR = 2.11 (95% CI: 1.05, 4.26) (P = 0.04), and decreased hypermethylation of AIM1 HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.2, 1.0) (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Methylation status of AIM1 in the prostate cancer specimen may predict for time to recurrence in Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 patients undergoing prostatectomy. These results should be validated in a larger and unselected cohort.