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.

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).

Safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with darolutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, darolutamide was well tolerated for 25 months, but minimal long-term safety data are available. METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for patients receiving darolutamide for a median of 38 months (n = 13) are described in this pooled analysis of individual patient data from phase 1/2 studies. RESULTS: All patients reported TEAEs (mostly grade 1/2). The most common TEAEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Serious TEAEs were reported in six patients (none related to darolutamide). All treatment-related TEAEs (n = 5) were grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated; no new safety signals observed. In patients with mCRPC, long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. These findings are consistent with previous reports, demonstrating a favorable safety and tolerability profile of darolutamide.

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.).

Very Long-Term Complete Remission Can Be Achieved in Men With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and a Very High PSA Value: An Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not fully established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events. CONCLUSIONS: Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy.

Abigene, a Prospective, Multicentric Study of Abiraterone Acetate Pharmacogenetics in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Abiraterone acetate (AA) is the first-in-class of drugs belonging to the second-generation of agents inhibiting androgen neosynthesis in advanced prostate cancer. A cumulative experience attests that germinal gene polymorphisms may play a role in the prediction of anticancer agent pharmacodynamics variability. In the present prospective, multicentric study, gene polymorphisms of CYP17A1 (AA direct target) and the androgen transporter genes SLCO2B1 and SLCO1B3 (potential modulators of AA activity) were confronted with AA pharmacodynamics (treatment response and toxicity) in a group of 137 advanced prostate cancer patients treated in the first line by AA. The median follow-up was 56.3 months (95% CI [52.5-61]). From multivariate analysis, rs2486758 C/C (CYP17A1) and PSA (≥10 ng/mL) were associated with a shorter 3-year biological PFS (HR = 4.05, IC95% [1.46-11.22]; p = 0.007 and HR = 2.08, IC95% [1.31-3.30]; p = 0.002, respectively). From a multivariate analysis, the rs743572 (CYP17A1) and performance status were independently associated with significant toxicity (OR = 3.78 (IC95% [1.42-9.75]; p = 0.006 and OR = 4.54; IC95% [1.46-13.61]; p = 0.007, respectively). Host genome characteristics may help to predict AA treatment efficacy and identify patients at risk for toxicity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical Benefit of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Urothelial Cancer Patients in Real-Life Setting: An Efficacy and Safety Monocentric Study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progressed under platinum therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in a cohort of real-life UC patients. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included advanced UC patients treated with pembrolizumab in a single institution in France. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. RESULTS: 78 patients were included in the study. The median OS was 7.3 months (3.8-12.2). The estimated OS rate at 6 months was 61.5% (50.5-72.6). The median PFS was 3.1 months (1.4-7.2). The estimated PFS rate at 6 months was 42.3% (31.1-53.5). The best ORR was 35.9%. The mean DOR was 95.5 days. The DCR was 30.8%. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade were fatigue (46.2%), diarrhea (11.5%), pruritus (10.3%) and nausea (9.0%). There were no grade 3 AEs that occurred with an incidence of 5% or more. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed those of randomized clinical trials concerning the treatment with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced UC that progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

[Homologous recombination deficiency and PARP inhibitors in therapeutics]. / Défauts de la recombinaison homologue et inhibiteurs de PARP en thérapeutique.

PARP inhibitors are effective in different types of tumors such as ovarian, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer. Many studies are in progress and may lead to prescription evolution. PARP inhibitors prescription is almost reserved to patients with a constitutional BRCA mutation or a somatic BRCA alteration or a tumor with a deficiency in homologous recombination. Nowadays, the diagnosis of homologous recombination deficit, HRD, is possible with the prescription of a myChoice CDx (Myriad) test. PARP inhibitors are studied in association with chemotherapy and targeted therapies but also with radiotherapy and with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Access to PARP inhibitors is challenged with the emergence of resistance mechanism. Various trials are now studying the possibility of reversing these resistance mechanisms.

Patient Preference Between Cabazitaxel and Docetaxel for First-line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABADOC Trial.

BACKGROUND: The taxanes docetaxel and cabazitaxel prolong overall survival for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with cabazitaxel approved in the postdocetaxel setting only. Recent data suggest they have similar efficacy but a different safety profile in the first-line mCRPC setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preference between docetaxel and cabazitaxel among men who received one or more doses of each taxane and did not experience progression after the first taxane. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) followed by cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) or the reverse sequence. Randomization was stratified by prior abiraterone or enzalutamide use. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed via a dedicated questionnaire after the second taxane. Secondary endpoints included reasons for patient preference, prostate-specific antigen response, radiological progression-free survival, and overall survival. This clinical trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02044354. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 195 men randomized, 152 met the prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for analysis. Overall, 66 patients (43%) preferred cabazitaxel, 40 (27%) preferred docetaxel, and 46 (30%) had no preference (p = 0.004, adjusted for treatment period effect). More patients preferred treatment period 1 (43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36-52%) versus period 2 (27%, 95% CI 20-34%). Patient preference for cabazitaxel was mainly related to less fatigue (72%), better quality of life (64%), and other adverse events (hair loss, pain, nail disorders, edema). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of each drug. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly higher proportion of chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC who received both taxanes preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel. Less fatigue and better quality of life were the two main reasons driving patient choice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel for chemotherapy, mainly because of less fatigue and better quality of life.