Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing on enzalutamide: cohorts 4 and 5 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-199 study.

BACKGROUND: KEYNOTE-199 (NCT02787005) is a multicohort phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Results from cohorts 4 (C4) and 5 (C5) are presented. METHODS: Eligible patients had not received chemotherapy for mCRPC and had responded to enzalutamide prior to developing resistance as defined by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 guidelines. Patients with RECIST-measurable disease were enrolled in C4, and patients with bone-only or bone-predominant disease were enrolled in C5. All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤35 cycles with ongoing enzalutamide until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review in C4. Secondary end points included disease control rate (DCR), overall survival, and safety in each cohort and both cohorts combined. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were treated (C4, n = 81; C5, n = 45). Median age was 72 years (range 43-92), and 87.3% had received ≥6 months of enzalutamide prior to study entry. Confirmed ORR was 12.3% (95% CI 6.1-21.5%) for C4. Median duration of response in C4 was 8.1 months (range, 2.5+ to 15.2), and 5 of these patients experienced an objective response lasting ≥6 months. DCR was 53.1% (95% CI 41.7-64.3%) in C4 and 51.1% (95% CI 35.8-66.3%) in C5. Median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI 14.0-22.6) in C4 and 20.8 months (95% CI 14.1-28.9) in C5. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35 patients (27.8%); 2 patients in C4 died from immune-related adverse events (myasthenic syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pembrolizumab to ongoing enzalutamide treatment in patients with mCRPC that progressed on enzalutamide after initial response demonstrated modest antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND ID: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02787005.

Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III ECHO-303/KEYNOTE-698 study.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) levels correlate with poor outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are often co-expressed. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In a subgroup analysis of patients with advanced UC participating in a phase I/II study, epacadostat-pembrolizumab treatment produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 35%. METHODS: ECHO-303/KEYNOTE-698 was a double-blinded, randomized phase III study of adults with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced UC with recurrence or progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomized to epacadostat 100 mg twice daily (BID) plus pembrolizumab or placebo plus pembrolizumab until completion of 35 pembrolizumab infusions, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Target enrollment was 648 patients; enrollment was halted early based on efficacy results from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study in metastatic melanoma. Forty-two patients were randomized to each treatment arm. Median duration of follow-up was 62 days in each arm. The investigator-assessed ORR (unconfirmed) was 26.2% (95% CI 16.35-48.11) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11.9% (95% CI 4.67-29.50) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Two complete responses were reported, both in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Circulating kynurenine levels increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and numerically decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. The safety profile of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab monotherapy, although a numerically greater proportion of patients in the combination vs. control arm experienced treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (16.7% vs. 7.3%). One patient in each arm died due to cardiovascular events, which were not deemed drug-related. No new safety concerns were identified for either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity and was generally tolerable as second-line treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or recurrent/progressive metastatic UC. Epacadostat 100 mg BID, when administered with pembrolizumab, did not normalize circulating kynurenine in most patients. Further study of combined IDO1/PD-L1 inhibition in this patient population, particularly with epacadostat doses that result in durable normalization of circulating kynurenine, may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03374488. Registered 12/15/2017.

Pembrolizumab plus either epacadostat or placebo for cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma: results from the ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 study.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC. METHODS: ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46-55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33-43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

Pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma: exploratory ctDNA biomarker analyses of the KEYNOTE-361 phase 3 trial.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a potential biomarker in early-stage urothelial cancer, but its utility in metastatic disease remains unknown. In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 study, pembrolizumab with and without chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. The study did not meet prespecified efficacy thresholds for statistical significance. To identify potential biomarkers of response, we retrospectively evaluated the association of pre- and posttreatment ctDNA with clinical outcomes in a subset of patients who received pembrolizumab (n = 130) or chemotherapy (n = 130) in KEYNOTE-361. Baseline ctDNA was associated with best overall response (BOR; P = 0.009), progression-free survival (P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS; P < 0.001) for pembrolizumab but not for chemotherapy (all; P > 0.05). Chemotherapy induced larger ctDNA decreases from baseline to treatment cycle 2 than pembrolizumab; however, change with pembrolizumab (n = 87) was more associated with BOR (P = 4.39 × 10-5) and OS (P = 7.07 × 10-5) than chemotherapy (n = 102; BOR: P = 1.01 × 10-4; OS: P = 0.018). Tumor tissue-informed versions of ctDNA change metrics were most associated with clinical outcomes but did not show a statistically significant independent value for explaining OS beyond radiographic change by RECIST v.1.1 when jointly modeled (pembrolizumab P = 0.364; chemotherapy P = 0.823). These results suggest distinct patterns in early ctDNA changes with immunotherapy and chemotherapy and differences in their association with long-term outcomes, which provide preliminary insights into the utility of liquid biopsies for treatment monitoring in metastatic urothelial cancer. Clinical trial registration: NCT02853305 .

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

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.

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.

Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Real-world Treatment Sequencing in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prospective, International, Observational Prostate Cancer Registry.

Background: Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Objective: To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Design setting and participants: A prospective, noninterventional, real-world analysis of 3003 patients with mCRPC in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR; NCT02236637) from June 14, 2013 to July 9, 2018 was conducted. Intervention: Patients received first- and second-line hormonal treatment and chemotherapy as follows: abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)-docetaxel (ABI-DOCE), abiraterone-enzalutamide (ABI-ENZA), abiraterone-radium-223 (ABI-RAD), docetaxel-abiraterone (DOCE-ABI), docetaxel-cabazitaxel (DOCE-CABA), docetaxel-enzalutamide (DOCE-ENZA), and enzalutamide-docetaxel (ENZA-DOCE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively. Results and limitations: Data from 727 patients were eligible for the analysis (ABI-DOCE n = 178, ABI-ENZA n = 99, ABI-RAD n = 27, DOCE-ABI n = 191, DOCE-CABA n = 74, DOCE-ENZA n = 116, and ENZA-DOCE n = 42). Demographics and disease characteristics among patients between different sequences varied greatly. Most patients who started on abiraterone or enzalutamide stopped therapy because of disease progression. No randomisation to allow treatment/sequence comparisons limited this observational study. Conclusions: The real-world PCR data complement clinical trial data, reflecting more highly selected patient populations than seen in routine clinical practice. Baseline characteristics play a role in mCRPC first-line treatment selection, but other factors, such as treatment availability, have an impact. Efficacy observations are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Patient summary: Baseline characteristics appear to have a role in the first-line treatment selection of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the real-world setting. First-line abiraterone acetate plus prednisone seems to be the preferred treatment option for older patients and those with lower Gleason scores, first-line docetaxel for younger patients and those with more advanced disease, and first-line enzalutamide for patients with fewer metastases and more favourable performance status. The benefit to patients from these observations remains unknown.

The association between geriatric assessment, muscle measures, and treatment-related toxicity in older adults with cancer: An Israeli prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the associations among frailty, as determined via the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), muscle measures (i.e., sarcopenia), and treatment-related toxicity in older adults with cancer in Israel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients ≥65 years with newly-diagnosed stage IV lung, breast, or genitourinary cancer. Patients were enrolled and completed CGA before their first line of systemic therapy (chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunologic therapy, or a combination thereof). CGA was used to classify patients as robust, pre-frail, or frail, and routine pre-treatment computed tomography (CT) images were used to quantify skeletal muscle index (SMI) and skeletal muscle density (SMD) at L3 cross-section. Two sarcopenia definitions were used: i. for women SMI <41 cm2/m2 regardless of body mass index (BMI), and for men SMI <43 cm2/m2 for those with BMI of <25 and < 53 cm2/m2 for those with BMI ≥25; and ii. SMI <38 cm2/m2 for women and < 41 cm2/m2 for men, regardless of BMI. The associations between frailty and muscle measures with the occurrence of at least one adverse event (AE) grade ≥ 2 were examined using the chi-square test, and logistic regression to determine odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: In total, 51 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) age was 72 (68-76) years, 30 (59%) were male, and 26 (51%) had lung cancer. CGA data were available for 48 patients: fifteen (31%), thirteen (27%), and twenty (42%) were defined as robust, pre-frail, and frail, respectively. Overall, 33 (65%) were sarcopenic by the first aforementioned definition, and sixteen (31%) by the second. No statistically significant associations were identified between frailty and having at least one AE grade ≥ 2, or between frailty and sarcopenia. Statistically significant associations were found between having sarcopenia (the second definition) and having at least one AE grade ≥ 2 (P = 0.0217). The corresponding odds ratio (95% CI) was 4.2 (1.2-15.0), P = 0.026. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggests that sarcopenia is significantly associated with treatment-related toxicity. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

Correction: Bar-Sela et al. Cannabis Consumption Used by Cancer Patients during Immunotherapy Correlates with Poor Clinical Outcome. Cancers 2020, 12, 2447.

In the original article [...].

177Lu-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligand After 223Ra Treatment in Men with Bone-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Real-World Clinical Experience.

We analyzed real-world clinical outcomes of sequential α-/ß-emitter therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: We assessed safety and overall survival in 26 patients who received 177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (177Lu-PSMA) after 223Ra in the ongoing noninterventional REASSURE study (223Ra α-Emitter Agent in Nonintervention Safety Study in mCRPC Population for Long-Term Evaluation; NCT02141438). Results: Patients received 223Ra for a median of 6 injections and subsequent 177Lu-PSMA for a median of 3.5 mo (≥ the fourth therapy in 69%). The median time between 223Ra and 177Lu-PSMA treatment was 8 mo (range, 1-31 mo). Grade 3 hematologic events occurred in 9 of 26 patients (during or after 177Lu-PSMA treatment in 5/9 patients; 8/9 patients had also received docetaxel). Median overall survival was 28.0 mo from the 223Ra start and 13.2 mo from the 177Lu-PSMA start. Conclusion: Although the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions, these preliminary data, especially the 177Lu-PSMA treatment duration, suggest that the use of 177Lu-PSMA after 223Ra is feasible in this real-world setting.

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

Optimal therapy of biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC) after local treatment is elusive. An established modified citrus pectin (PectaSol®, P-MCP), a dietary polysaccharide, is an established antagonist of galectin-3, a carbohydrate-binding protein involved in cancer pathogenesis. Based on PSA dynamics, we report on the safety and the primary outcome analysis of a prospective phase II study of P-MCP in non-metastatic BRPC based. Sixty patients were enrolled, and one patient withdrew after a month. Patients (n = 59) were given P-MCP, 4.8 grams X 3/day, for six months. The primary endpoint was the rate without PSA progression and improved PSA doubling time (PSADT). Secondary endpoints were the rate without radiologic progression and toxicity. Patients that did not progress by PSA and radiologically at six months continued for an additional twelve months. After six months, 78% (n = 46) responded to therapy, with a decreased/stable PSA in 58% (n = 34), or improvement of PSADT in 75% (n = 44), and with negative scans, and entered the second twelve months treatment phase. Median PSADT improved significantly (p = 0.003). Disease progression during the first 6 months was noted in only 22% (n = 13), with PSA progression in 17% (n = 10), and PSA and radiologic progression in 5% (n = 3). No patients developed grade 3 or 4 toxicity.

Six-Month Efficacy and Toxicity Profile of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Cancer Patients with Solid Tumors.

We had previously reported short-term efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine among cancer patients with solid tumors. We aimed to evaluate these outcomes at six months postvaccination. The study cohort comprised patients who were on treatment during vaccination and throughout six months postvaccination. Serologic tests were performed after second vaccination and six months afterward. An age-matched cohort of health care workers served as controls. Documentation of COVID-19 infection, blood tests, and imaging studies during the study period was reviewed. Participants included 154 patients and 135 controls. Six months postvaccination, 122 (79%) patients were seropositive compared with 114 (84%) controls (P = 0.32). Serology titer dramatically decreased in a similar manner in both cohorts. No COVID-19 cases were documented in controls, and one case occurred in patient cohort. All previously reported adverse effects resolved. Taken together, the pattern of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of BNT162b2 in patients with cancer with solid tumors at six months postvaccination resembles that of the general population. SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence regarding efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer indicate a favorable short-term profile. Immunomodulation due to anticancer treatments may affect immunity and immunogenicity of patients with cancer to the BNT162b2 vaccine over time. Our study sheds light on these long-term outcomes and portrays a trend that resembles the general population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2355.

Serologic Status and Toxic Effects of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Cancer.

Importance: The efficacy and safety profile of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been acquired from phase 3 studies; however, patients with cancer were not represented in these trials. Owing to the recommendation to prioritize high-risk populations for vaccination, further data are warranted. Objective: To evaluate the use and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients undergoing treatment for cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In January 2021, mass SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of high-risk populations, including patients with cancer, was initiated in Israel. This cohort study prospectively enrolled and followed up patients with cancer and healthy participants between January 15 and March 14, 2021. The study was conducted at the Division of Oncology of Rambam Health Care Campus, the major tertiary (referral) medical center of northern Israel. Participants included 232 patients with cancer who were receiving active treatment after the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and 261 healthy, age-matched health care workers who served as controls. Exposures: Serum samples were collected after each vaccine dose and in cases of seronegativity. Questionnaires regarding sociodemographic characteristics and adverse reactions were administered at serum collection. A regulatory agencies-approved assay was used to assess IgG at all time points. Patients' electronic medical records were reviewed for documentation of COVID-19 infection and results of blood cell counts, liver enzyme levels, and imaging studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seroconversion rate after the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and documented COVID-19 infection. Results: Of the 232 patients undergoing treatment for cancer, 132 were men (57%); mean (SD) age was 66 (12.09) years. After the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, 29% (n = 25) patients were seropositive compared with 84% (n = 220) of the controls (P < .001). After the second dose, the seropositive rate reached 86% (n = 187) in the patients. Testing rate ratios per 1000 person-days after the first dose were 12.5 (95% CI, 3.4-45.7) for the patients and 48.5 (95% CI, 37.2-63.2) for the controls. Patients undergoing chemotherapy showed reduced immunogenicity (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.98). In seronegative patients, the rate of documented absolute leukopenia reached 39%. No COVID-19 cases were documented throughout the study period; however, 2 cases in the patient cohort were noted immediately after the first dose. Reported adverse events were similar to data in former trials comprising mostly healthy individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine appeared to be safe and achieve satisfactory serologic status in patients with cancer. There was a pronounced lag in antibody production compared with the rate in noncancer controls; however, seroconversion occurred in most patients after the second dose. Future real-world data are warranted to determine the long-term efficacy of the vaccine with regard to type of anticancer treatment.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

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.

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Cardiac biomarkers in patients with prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease receiving gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist vs antagonist.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists reduce testosterone levels for the treatment of advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and CV disease (CVD), especially in patients with preexisting CVD treated with GnRH agonists. Here, we investigated the potential relationship between serum levels of the cardiac biomarkers N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP), D-dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), and high-sensitivity troponin (hsTn) and the risk of new CV events in prostate cancer patients with a history of CVD receiving a GnRH agonist or antagonist. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed of a phase II randomized study that prospectively assessed CV events in patients with prostate cancer and preexisting CVD, receiving GnRH agonist or antagonist. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine whether the selected biomarkers had any predictive effect on CV events at baseline and across a 12-month treatment period. RESULTS: Baseline and disease characteristics of the 80 patients who took part in the study were well balanced between treatment arms. Ischemic heart disease (66%) and myocardial infarction (37%) were the most common prior CVD and the majority (92%) of patients received CV medication. We found that high levels of NTproBNP (p = 0.008), and hsTn (p = 0.004) at baseline were associated with the development of new CV events in the GnRH agonist group but not in the antagonist. In addition, a nonsignificant trend was observed between higher levels of NTproBNP over time and the development of new CV events in the GnRH agonist group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cardiac biomarkers may be worthy of further study as tools in the prediction of CV risk in prostate cancer patients receiving ADT. Analysis was limited by the small sample size; larger studies are required to validate biomarker use to predict CV events among patients receiving ADT.