Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the United States.

Aim: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) prolong metastasis-free survival and overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). This study aimed to evaluate real-world treatment patterns, utilization and survival outcomes in patients with nmCRPC. Patients & methods: This retrospective cohort study used Optum database electronic health records of patients with nmCRPC from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2020 in the US. Results: Of 1955 patients, >80% received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone or ADT + first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogen (NSAA) as first-line treatment, while only 8.24% received ADT + ARPI. ADT + ARPI remained underutilized even among those with high-risk nmCRPC. Further, ADT + NSAA had no survival benefit compared with ADT alone. Conclusion: Practice-improvement strategies are needed for treatment intensification with ARPIs for patients with nmCRPC.

Prostate cancer cells often use hormones called androgens to grow and survive. Hormone therapy is a treatment that lowers the amount of these hormones in the body to slow down the cancer's growth. It includes androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), which can either be used alone or along with nonsteroidal antiandrogens (NSAAs) or with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) is defined as prostate cancer that has not spread to other parts of the body but exhibits rising levels of serum prostate-specific antigen despite surgery or ADT to reduce androgens. Research shows that ARPIs can improve survival in patients with nmCRPC, but more data on its use are needed. This study looked at the electronic health records of patients with nmCRPC to review the treatment they had received and their survival. Between 2008 and 2020, most patients received ADT alone or with NSAA. Even though the number of patients receiving ADT with ARPI increased during this period, it remained underused, even in patients with a high risk of cancer spreading to other body parts. Post-2018, even after 2 years of these drugs being available, only about one in five patients received ADT with ARPI. Also, people who received ADT with NSAA did not have a longer survival than patients treated with ADT alone. The study indicates that ARPIs, which could improve survival of patients with nmCRPC, are not being utilized optimally. Strategies that promote early use of ARPIs are needed to improve survival of patients with nmCRPC.

Inherited Germline Variants in Urinary Tract Cancer: A Multicenter Whole-Exome Sequencing Analysis and Correlation With Clinical Features and Tumor Genomics.

PURPOSE: This study investigates a real-world multicenter cohort of patients with urinary tract cancer (UTC), with primary disease sites including the bladder, urethra, and upper tract, who enrolled for research molecular testing of their germline and tumor. The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors that could affect the likelihood of identifying a clinically actionable germline pathogenic variant (PV). METHODS: Patients with UTC were identified from 10 cancer institutes of the Oncology Research Information Exchange Network consortium. The data set comprised abstracted clinical data with germline and tumor genomic data, and comparative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Clinically actionable germline PVs in cancer predisposition genes were identified in 16 (4.5%) of 354 patients. A higher proportion of patients with the urethra and the upper tract as the primary sites of disease had PVs with a prevalence of 11% (5/45), compared with only 3.6% (11/308) in those with the bladder as the primary site of disease (P = .04). There were no significant differences in markers of genomic instability (such as tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability [MSI], and loss of heterozygosity, copy number, and chromosomal instability) between those with PVs and those without (P > .05). Of the PVs identified, 10 (62%) were in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, three (19%) in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, and three (19%) in genes associated with other pathways. CONCLUSION: Tissue-based assessment of genomic instability, such as MSI, does not reliably indicate germline PV. A comprehensive clinical germline testing approach that includes HRR genes in addition to MMR genes is likely to yield PVs in approximately one of 10 patients with nonbladder primary disease sites such as the upper tract and the urethra.

Trends and Disparities in Next-Generation Sequencing in Metastatic Prostate and Urothelial Cancers.

Importance: Targeted therapies based on underlying tumor genomic susceptible alterations have been approved for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). Objective: To assess trends and disparities in next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing among patients with mPC and aUC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used an electronic health record-derived database to extract deidentified data of patients receiving care from US physician practices, hospital-affiliated clinics, and academic practices. Patients diagnosed with mPC or aUC between March 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were included. Exposures: Social determinants of health evaluated by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), region, insurance type, and sex (for aUC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were (1) NGS testing rate by year of mPC and aUC diagnosis using Clopper-Pearson 2-sided 95% CIs and (2) time to NGS testing, which considered death as a competing risk. Cumulative incidence functions were estimated for time to NGS testing. Disparities in subdistributional incidence of NGS testing were assessed by race and ethnicity, SES, region, insurance type, and sex (for aUC) using the Fine-Gray modified Cox proportional hazards model, assuming different subdistribution baseline hazards by year of mPC and aUC diagnosis. Results: A total of 11 927 male patients with mPC (167 Asian [1.6%], 1236 Black [11.6%], 687 Hispanic or Latino [6.4%], 7037 White [66.0%], and 1535 other [14.4%] among 10 662 with known race and ethnicity) and 6490 patients with aUC (4765 male [73.4%]; 80 Asian [1.4%], 283 Black [4.8%], 257 Hispanic or Latino [4.4%], 4376 White [74.9%], and 845 other [14.5%] among 5841 with known race and ethnicity) were eligible and included. Both cohorts had a median age of 73 years (IQR, 66-80 years), and most underwent NGS testing before first-line treatment in the mPC cohort (1502 [43.0%]) and before second-line treatment in the aUC cohort (1067 [51.3%]). In the mPC cohort, the rates of NGS testing increased from 19.0% in 2015 to 27.1% in 2022, but Black patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84) and Hispanic or Latino patients (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82) were less likely to undergo NGS testing. Patients with mPC who had low SES (quintile 1: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.83]; quintile 2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99]), had Medicaid (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.74) or Medicare or other government insurance (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98), or lived in the West (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94) also were less likely to undergo testing. In the aUC cohort, the NGS rate increased from 14.1% in 2015 to 46.6% in 2022, but Black patients (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96) and those with low SES (quintile 1: HR 0.77 [95% CI, 0.66-0.89]; quintile 2: HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-1.00]) or Medicaid (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97) or Medicare or other government insurance (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99) were less likely to undergo NGS testing. Patients with aUC living in the South were more likely to undergo testing (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although NGS tumor testing rates improved over time, the majority of patients still did not undergo testing. These data may help with understanding current disparities associated with NGS testing and improving access to standard-of-care health care services.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes by Age in Metastatic Urinary Tract Cancer: A Retrospective Tertiary Cancer Center Analysis.

Metastatic urinary tract cancer (mUTC) is challenging to treat in older adults due to comorbidities. We compared the clinical courses of younger and older (≥70 years) adults with mUTC receiving first-line (1L) systemic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Baseline clinical characteristics, treatments received, tolerability, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Among 212 patients (103 older vs. 109 younger), the older patients had lower hemoglobin at baseline (84% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), the majority were cisplatin-ineligible (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.001), received more immunotherapy-based treatments in the 1L (52% vs. 36%, p = 0.01), received fewer subsequent lines of treatment (median 0 vs. 1, p = 0.003), and had lower clinical trial participation (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) compared to the younger patients. When treated with 1L chemotherapy, older patients required more dose adjustments (53.4% vs. 23%, p = 0.001) and received fewer cycles of chemotherapy (median 4 vs. 5, p= 0.01). Older patients had similar OS (11.2 months vs. 14 months, p = 0.06) and similar rates of treatment-related severe toxicity and healthcare visits, independent of the type of systemic treatment received, compared to younger patients. We conclude that select older adults with mUTC can be safely treated with immunotherapy and risk-adjusted regimens of chemotherapy with tangible survival benefits.

Treatment Patterns and Attrition With Lines of Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: The treatment paradigm for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has undergone substantial transformation due to the introduction of effective, novel therapeutic agents. However, outcomes remain poor, and little is known about current treatment approaches and attrition rates for patients with aUC. Objectives: To delineate evolving treatment patterns and attrition rates in patients with aUC using a US-based patient-level sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the nationwide deidentified electronic health record database Flatiron Health, originating from approximately 280 oncology clinics across the US. Patients included in the analysis received treatment for metastatic or local aUC at a participating site from January 1, 2011, to January 31, 2023. Patients receiving treatment for 2 or more different types of cancer or participating in clinical trials were excluded from the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequencies and percentages were used to summarize the (1) treatment received in each line (cisplatin-based regimens, carboplatin-based regimens, programmed cell death 1 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-1/PD-L1] inhibitors, single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib, sacituzumab govitecan, or others) and (2) attrition of patients with each line of therapy, defined as the percentage of patients not progressing to the next line. Results: Of the 12 157 patients within the dataset, 7260 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis (5364 [73.9%] men; median age at the start of first-line treatment, 73 [IQR, 66-80] years). All patients commenced first-line treatment; of these, only 2714 (37.4%) progressed to receive second-line treatment, and 857 (11.8%) advanced to third-line treatment. The primary regimens used as first-line treatment contained carboplatin (2241 [30.9%]), followed by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (2174 [29.9%]). The PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors emerged as the predominant choice in the second- and third-line (1412 of 2714 [52.0%] and 258 of 857 [30.1%], respectively) treatments. From 2019 onward, novel therapeutic agents were increasingly used in second- and third-line treatments, including enfortumab vedotin (219 of 2714 [8.1%] and 159 of 857 [18.6%], respectively), erdafitinib (39 of 2714 [1.4%] and 28 of 857 [3.3%], respectively), and sacituzumab govitecan (14 of 2714 [0.5%] and 34 of 857 [4.0%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that approximately two-thirds of patients with aUC did not receive second-line treatment. Most first-line treatments do not include cisplatin-based regimens and instead incorporate carboplatin- or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based therapies. These data warrant the provision of more effective and tolerable first-line treatments for patients with aUC.

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).

Creatine supplementation and resistance training to preserve muscle mass and attenuate cancer progression (CREATINE-52): a protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Muscle mass is important for metastatic prostate cancer survival and quality of life (QoL). The backbone of treatment for men with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with an androgen signaling inhibitor. ADT is an effective cancer treatment, but it facilitates significant declines in muscle mass and adverse health outcomes important to mCSPC survivors, such as fatigue, and reductions in physical function, independence, insulin sensitivity, and QoL. In non-metastatic CSPC survivors, resistance training (RT) preserves muscle mass and improves these related health outcomes, but the biggest barrier to RT in CSPC survivors of all stages is fatigue. Creatine monohydrate supplementation coupled with RT (Cr + RT) may address this barrier since creatine plays a critical role in energy metabolism. Cr + RT in cancer-free older adults and other clinical populations improves muscle mass and related health outcomes. Evidence also suggests that creatine supplementation can complement cancer treatment. Thus, Cr + RT is a strategy that addresses gaps in survivorship needs of people with mCSPC. The purpose of this parallel, double-blind randomized controlled trial is to test the effects of 52-weeks of Cr + RT compared with placebo (PLA) and RT (PLA + RT) on muscle mass, other related health outcomes, and markers of cancer progression. METHODS: We will carry out this trial with our team's established, effective, home-based, telehealth RT program in 200 mCSPC survivors receiving ADT, and evaluate outcomes at baseline, 24-, and 52-weeks. RT will occur twice weekly with elastic resistance bands, and an established creatine supplementation protocol will be used for supplementation delivery. Our approach addresses a major facilitator to RT in mCSPC survivors, a home-based RT program, while utilizing a supervised model for safety. DISCUSSION: Findings will improve delivery of comprehensive survivorship care by providing a multicomponent, patient-centered lifestyle strategy to preserve muscle mass, improve health outcomes, and complement cancer treatment (NCT06112990).

A Phase II Study of Rucaparib Monotherapy in Nonmetastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Demonstrating "BRCAness" Genotype (ROAR).

BACKGROUND: Both germline and somatic BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) mutations are poor prognostic markers in men with localized or metastatic prostate cancer. For instance, men with these mutations often are diagnosed with prostate cancer earlier and develop metastatic disease earlier compared with those who do not harbor similar mutations. Patients with germline alterations typically have more advanced disease and shorter overall survival (Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(14):1748-1757. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.43.1882). The risk of disease progression to metastatic disease is significant in patients with this genotype of prostate cancer. The percentage of patients free from metastatic disease was 90%, 72%, and 50%, respectively, compared with 97%, 94%, and 84% at 3, 5, and 10 years for patients with intact DNA repair (P < .001) (Castro E, Goh C, Leongamornlert D, et al. Effect of BRCA mutations on metastatic relapse and cause-specific survival after radical treatment for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.022). DNA damage repair non-BRCA mutations include alterations in genes such as ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and RAD51. While less common than BRCA mutations, they have emerged as significant prognostic markers in prostate cancer. These BRCAness mutations are associated with a higher risk of aggressive disease and poorer survival outcomes. Given the debilitating physical and psychological side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in relatively younger men with prostate cancer, delaying ADT in these men may be an attractive strategy. Given the proven efficacy of polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the castration-resistant prostate cancersetting, PARP inhibitor monotherapy in a nonmetastatic castration-sensitive (nmCSPC) setting has the potential to delay metastasis and delay the onset of ADT related symptoms. METHODS: This is a single-arm, single-center, open-label, phase II trial to assess the efficacy of rucaparib in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent (BCR) nmHSPC, which was defined as PSA doubling time of <9 months, demonstrating a "BRCAness" genotype (BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair mutations). A total of 15 patients were intended to be enrolled, with an expected enrollment duration of 12 months. Patients were given rucaparib 600 mg orally twice daily and were allowed to remain on study treatment until PSA progression defined by Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, with 2 years of follow-up after study treatment. We anticipated a total of 2-3 years until completion of the clinical trial. The primary endpoint was to assess the PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). The secondary endpoints of the study were safety, the proportion of patients with a PSA 50% response (PSA 50), and an undetectable PSA. A 4-week treatment duration comprised one cycle. RESULTS: The study started enrolling in June 2019 and was prematurely terminated in June 2022 after the accrual of 7 patients because of changing standard of care treatments with the introduction of next-generation scans, eg, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). Seven patients were enrolled in the study with the following pathogenic alterations: ATM (n = 3), BRCA2 (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 1), BRIP1 (n = 1), and RAD51 (n = 1). The median duration of follow-up was 18 months. A median of 20 cycles (range 4-42) was completed, median PSA-PFS was 35.37 months (95% CI, 0-85.11 months). In total, 2 patients achieved PSA50; both also achieved nadir PSA as undetectable. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were anemia and rash (in 1 patient each). No dose-limiting toxicities or severe AEs were seen. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib demonstrated acceptable toxicity and efficacy signal as an ADT-sparing approach in patients with biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. It is currently challenging to understand the optimal value of systemic therapy in this disease setting due to the rapidly changing standard of care. Additionally, there are relatively few patients with BRCAness who present with nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03533946).

Pathology focused review of morphologic subtypes and molecular variants of urothelial carcinoma with an emphasis on clinical/treatment relevance.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) has significant morbidity, mortality, and remains the most financially costly carcinoma to manage and treat. This review will cover special morphologic features of UC that may be noted by the pathologist and any subsequent significance in terms of clinical management or treatment considerations as mentioned or recommended in the latest WHO 2022 classification of GU tumors. Many important potentially therapy altering morphologic findings can be consistently identified and reported on routine microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides. Furthermore, there has been a rapid advancement of molecular diagnostics and tailored therapies throughout oncology, and we will briefly highlight some of these as they relate to the management of UC. We will actively attempt to limit the discussion of histologic descriptions or pathologic diagnostic criteria of these entities and focus rather on the recognition of their importance/implication for clinicians who must make clinical management decisions based upon these findings. Finally, the importance of open lines of communication with the pathologists who review clinical specimens as well as their practice and reporting methods cannot be overstated.

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Combination With Pembrolizumab for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer That Progressed After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: TROPHY-U-01 Cohort 3.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab is standard therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) who progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, only approximately 21% of patients respond. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a trophoblast cell surface antigen-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with US Food and Drug Administration-accelerated approval to treat patients with locally advanced or mUC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). Here, we report the primary analysis of TROPHY-U-01 cohort 3. METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label phase II study. Patients were CPI-naïve and had mUC progression after platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or ≤12 months in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients received 10 mg/kg of SG once on days 1 and 8 and 200 mg of pembrolizumab once on day 1 of 21-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per central review. Secondary end points included clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per central review, and safety. RESULTS: Cohort 3 included 41 patients (median age 67 years; 83% male; 78% visceral metastases [29% liver]). With a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the ORR was 41% (95% CI, 26.3 to 57.9; 20% complete response rate), CBR was 46% (95% CI, 30.7 to 62.6), median DOR was 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to not estimable [NE]), and median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 10.2). The median overall survival was 12.7 months (range, 10.7-NE). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61% of patients; most common were neutropenia (37%), leukopenia (20%), and diarrhea (20%). CONCLUSION: SG plus pembrolizumab demonstrated a high response rate with an overall manageable toxicity profile in patients with mUC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. No new safety signals were detected. These data support further evaluation of SG plus CPI in mUC.

Predictors of response to neoadjuvant therapy in urothelial cancer.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NACC) followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Patients who achieve a complete pathological response following NACC have better overall survival than those with residual disease. However, a subset of patients does not derive benefit from NACC while experiencing chemotherapy-related side effects that may delay cystectomy, which can be detrimental. There is a need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers to better stratify patients who will derive benefits from NACC. This review summarizes the currently available literature on various predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Covered predictors include clinical factors, treatment regimens (including chemotherapy and immunotherapy), histological predictors, and molecular predictors such as DNA repair genes, p53, FGFR3, ERBB2, Bcl-2, EMMPRIN, survivin, choline-phosphate cytidylyltransferase-α, epigenetic markers, immunological markers, other molecular predictors and gene expression profiling. Further, we elaborate on the potential role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the correlative biomarkers of response.

Access to Care and Healthcare Quality Metrics for Patients with Advanced Genitourinary Cancers in Urban versus Rural Areas.

Compared to the urban population, patients in rural areas face healthcare disparities and experience inferior healthcare-related outcomes. To compare the healthcare quality metrics and outcomes between patients with advanced genitourinary cancers from rural versus urban areas treated at a tertiary cancer hospital, in this retrospective study, eligible patients with advanced genitourinary cancers were treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Utah. Rural-urban commuting area codes were used to classify the patients' residences as being in urban (1-3) or rural (4-10) areas. The straight line distances of the patients' residences from the cancer center were also calculated and included in the analysis. The median household income data were obtained and calculated from "The Michigan Population Studies Center", based on individual zip codes. In this study, 2312 patients were screened, and 1025 eligible patients were included for further analysis (metastatic prostate cancer (n = 679), metastatic bladder cancer (n = 184), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 162). Most patients (83.9%) came from urban areas, while the remainder were from rural areas. Both groups had comparable demographic profiles and tumor characteristics at baseline. The annual median household income of urban patients was $8604 higher than that of rural patients (p < 0.001). There were fewer urban patients with Medicare (44.9% vs. 50.9%) and more urban patients with private insurance (40.4% vs. 35.1%). There was no difference between the urban and rural patients regarding receiving systemic therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or tumor genomic profiling. The overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two populations in metastatic prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively. As available in a tertiary cancer hospital, access to care can mitigate the difference in the quality of healthcare and clinical outcomes in urban versus rural patients.

First-in-human phase I/Ib study of NIZ985, a recombinant heterodimer of IL-15 and IL-15Rα, as a single agent and in combination with spartalizumab in patients with advanced and metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinically, interleukin-15 (IL-15) monotherapy promotes antitumor immune responses, which are enhanced when IL-15 is used in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This first-in-human study investigated NIZ985, a recombinant heterodimer comprising physiologically active IL-15 and IL-15 receptor α, as monotherapy and in combination with spartalizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: This phase I/Ib study had two dose-escalation arms: single-agent NIZ985 administered subcutaneously thrice weekly (TIW, 2 weeks on/2 weeks off) or once weekly (QW, 3 weeks on/1 week off), and NIZ985 TIW or QW administered subcutaneously plus spartalizumab (400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks (Q4W)). The dose-expansion phase investigated NIZ985 1 µg/kg TIW/spartalizumab 400 mg Q4W in patients with anti-PD-1-sensitive or anti-PD-1-resistant tumor types stratified according to approved indications. The primary objectives were the safety, tolerability, and the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of NIZ985 for the dose-expansion phase. RESULTS: As of February 17, 2020, 83 patients (median age: 63 years; range: 28-85) were treated in dose escalation (N=47; single-agent NIZ985: n=27; NIZ985/spartalizumab n=20) and dose expansion (N=36). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred nor was the MTD identified. The most common treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was injection site reaction (primarily grades 1-2; single-agent NIZ985: 85% (23/27)); NIZ985/spartalizumab: 89% [50/56]). The most common grade 3-4 TRAE was decreased lymphocyte count (single-agent NIZ985: 7% [2/27]; NIZ985/spartalizumab: 5% [3/56]). The best overall response was stable disease in the single-agent arm (30% (8/27)) and partial response in the NIZ985/spartalizumab arm (5% [3/56]; melanoma, pancreatic cancer, gastric cancer). In dose expansion, the disease control rate was 45% (5/11) in the anti-PD-1-sensitive and 20% (5/25) in the anti-PD-1-resistant tumor type cohorts. Pharmacokinetic parameters were similar across arms. The transient increase in CD8+ T cell and natural killer cell proliferation and induction of several cytokines occurred in response to the single-agent and combination treatments. CONCLUSIONS: NIZ985 was well tolerated in the single-agent and NIZ985/spartalizumab regimens. The RDE was established at 1 µg/kg TIW. Antitumor activity of the combination was observed against tumor types known to have a poor response to ICIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02452268.

Phase II Trial of Olaparib in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Harboring DNA Damage Response Gene Alterations.

PURPOSE: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with solid tumors bearing germline or somatic alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes. Somatic alterations in DDR genes are common in advanced urothelial cancer, raising the possibility that PARP inhibition may confer therapeutic benefit in a molecularly selected subgroup of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). METHODS: This single-arm, open-label, multi-institutional, investigator-initiated phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity of olaparib 300 mg twice a day in participants with mUC harboring somatic DDR alterations. Patients had progressed despite previous platinum-based chemotherapy, or were cisplatin-ineligible, and harbored somatic alterations in at least one of a prespecified list of DDR genes. The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points were safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 19 patients with mUC were enrolled and received olaparib; the trial closed early before slow accrual. The median age was 66 years (range, 45-82). Nine patients (47.4%) had received previous cisplatin chemotherapy. Ten patients (52.6%) had alterations in homologous recombination (HR) genes: eight patients (42.1%) had pathogenic BRCA2 mutations and two patients carried alterations in other HR genes. No patients achieved a partial response although six patients achieved stable disease lasting 2.13-16.1 months (median, 7.69). The median PFS was 1.9 months (range, 0.8-16.1), and the median OS was 9.5 months (range, 1.5-22.1). CONCLUSION: Single-agent olaparib showed limited antitumor activity in patients with mUC and DDR alterations, which may be related to poorly characterized functional implications of particular DDR alterations and/or cross-resistance with platinum-based chemotherapy in a disease where such therapy represents standard first-line treatment.

Phase I Trial of Combination Therapy With Avelumab and Cabozantinib in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination immunotherapy is now considered the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) after multiple clinical trials demonstrated improved overall survival compared with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cabozantinib modulates critical components of the immune system, such as decreasing regulatory T cells and increasing T-effector cell populations, and is approved for the treatment of mRCC. Avelumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed death-ligand 1 protein and inhibits the interaction with PD-1. This phase I trial assessed the safety and clinical activity of avelumab and cabozantinib combination therapy in mccRCC. METHODS: This study was a phase I, 3+3 dose escalation clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the safety and identification of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). There were 3 dose cohorts: cabozantinib 20, 40, and 60 mg/day, each combined with avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks). An additional 3 patients were included in the final dose cohort as a confirmation of the RP2D. No dose modifications were allowed for avelumab, but dose delays were permitted. Both dose reductions and holds were allowed for cabozantinib. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was used to determine ORR, and treatment beyond progression was allowed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with newly diagnosed mccRCC were enrolled from July 2018 until March 2020. Three patients were enrolled in the 20 and 40 mg cohorts each, and 6 were enrolled in the 60 mg cohort. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk categories for these patients were: 4 patients (favorable risk), 6 patients (intermediate risk), and 2 patients (poor risk). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in any cohort. Six patients developed serious adverse events related to study treatment after the DLT window period. Immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) were reported in 11 patients; fatigue and diarrhea were the most common (each with n = 4, 33.3%), followed by maculopapular rash and hand-foot syndrome (each with n = 3, 25%). Dose reductions were required in 5 of 6 patients in the cabozantinib 60 mg cohort after the DLT period. One patient discontinued avelumab due to irAE (nephritis), while none discontinued cabozantinib due to toxicity. The ORR was 50%, with one complete response (CR) and 5 partial responses (PR). The disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease) was noted in 92% of the patients. Radiological PFS survival rate at 6 and 12 months was reported in 67.7% and 33.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with avelumab and cabozantinib is safe and showed preliminary clinical activity in mccRCC. Even though the DLT was not met in any of the 3 cohorts, the recommended RP2D dose for the combination is cabozantinib 40 mg/day due to a high incidence of grade 2 toxicity for cabozantinib 60 mg/day after the DLT period. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03200587).

A phase I open-label study of the safety and efficacy of apatinib (rivoceranib) administered to patients with advanced malignancies to improve sensitivity to pembrolizumab in the second- or later-line setting (APPEASE).

OBJECTIVE: APPEASE is a phase I study to assess the safety, dosing, and efficacy of rivoceranib (a selective, small-molecule inhibitor of VEGFR2) in combination with pembrolizumab. We aimed to treat patients with metastatic malignancies who have progressed through at least first-line therapy, with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks, as well as escalating doses of rivoceranib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Five patients were enrolled on the starting dose of rivoceranib 300 mg once daily. There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed in combination with pembrolizumab. The dose of rivoceranib was not escalated due to study closure. We note a treatment related grade 3 adverse event (AE) rate of 40%, predominantly in urothelial cancer patients, with no deaths related to treatment related AEs. The disease control rate was 75% (3 of 4) and the median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. Tumor shrinkage was noted in patients who were previously progressing on pembrolizumab alone. Apatinib 300 mg is safe and demonstrates anti-tumor activity in advanced solid tumors in combination with pembrolizumab. Further dose escalation and efficacy need to be investigated in larger disease-specific patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registration number: NCT03407976. Date of registration: January 17, 2018.

Phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation study on the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of intravenous Coxsackievirus A21 (V937), with or without pembrolizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Oncolytic virus V937 showed activity and safety with intratumoral administration. This phase 1 study evaluated intravenous V937±pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients had advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or melanoma in part A (V937 monotherapy), and metastatic NSCLC or urothelial cancer in part B (V937+pembrolizumab). Prior immunotherapy was permitted >28 days before study treatment. Patients received intravenous V937 on days 1, 3, and 5 (also on day 8 in part B) of the first 21-day cycle and on day 1 of subsequent cycles for eight cycles. Three ascending dose-escalation cohorts were studied. Dose-escalation proceeded if no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in cycle 1 of the previous cohort. In part B, patients also received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks from day 8 for 2 years; dose-expansion occurred at the highest-dose cohort. Serial biopsies were performed. RESULTS: No DLTs occurred in parts A (n=18) or B (n=85). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were not observed in part A and were experienced by 10 (12%) patients in part B. The most frequent treatment-related AEs (any grade) in part B were fatigue (36%), pruritus (18%), myalgia (14%), diarrhea (13%), pyrexia (13%), influenza-like illness (12%), and nausea (12%). At the highest tested dose, median intratumoral V937 concentrations were 117,631 copies/mL on day 8, cycle 1 in part A (n=6) and below the detection limit for most patients (86% (19/22)) on day 15, cycle 1 in part B. Objective response rates were 6% (part A), 9% in the NSCLC dose-expansion cohort (n=43), and 20% in the urothelial cancer dose-expansion cohort (n=35). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous V937+pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile. Although V937 was detected in tumor tissue, in NSCLC and urothelial cancer, efficacy was not greater than that observed in previous studies with pembrolizumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02043665.

Avelumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Results from the JAVELIN Renal 100 Phase Ib Trial.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients who received avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in a randomized phase III trial. We report long-term safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC from the JAVELIN Renal 100 phase Ib trial (NCT02493751). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study, patients with untreated aRCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily or with axitinib for 7 days followed by avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and efficacy were assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients were enrolled and treated. Median follow-up was 55.7 months (95% CI, 54.5-58.7). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade or grade ≥3 occurred in 54 (98.2%) and 34 (61.8%) patients, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 60.0% (95% CI, 45.9-73.0), including complete response in 10.9% of patients. Median duration of response was 35.9 months (95% CI, 12.7-52.9); the probability of response was 65.8% (95% CI, 46.7-79.4) at 2 years. Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.3-32.0). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 40.8-not estimable); the 5-year overall survival rate was 57.3% (95% CI, 41.2-70.5). CONCLUSION: Five-year follow-up for combination treatment with avelumab plus axitinib in previously untreated patients with aRCC showed long-term clinical activity with no new safety signals, supporting use of this regimen within its approved indication in clinical practice (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02493751).

Improving Bone Health in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer with the Use of Algorithm-Based Clinical Practice Tool.

Background: The bone health of patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer is at risk from treatment-related bone density loss and skeletal-related events from metastatic disease in bones. Evidence-based guidelines recommend using denosumab or zoledronic acid at bone metastasis-indicated dosages in the setting of castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases and at the osteoporosis-indicated dosages in the hormone-sensitive setting in patients with a significant risk of fragility fracture. For the concerns of jaw osteonecrosis, a dental evaluation is recommended before starting bone-modifying agents. The literature review suggests a limited evidence-based practice for bone health with prostate cancer in the real world. Both under-treatment and inappropriate dosing of bone remodeling therapies place additional risks to bone health. An incomplete dental work up before starting bone-modifying agents increases the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. Methods: We created an algorithm-based clinical practice tool to minimize the deviation from evidence-based guidelines at our center and provide appropriate bone health care to our patients by ensuring indication-appropriate dosing and dental screening rates. This order set was incorporated into the electronic medical record system for ordering a bone remodeling agent for prostate cancer. The tool prompts the clinicians to follow the appropriate algorithm in a stepwise manner to ensure a pretreatment dental evaluation and use of the correct dosage of drugs. Results: We analyzed the data from Sept 2019 to April 2022 following the incorporation of this tool. 0/35 (0%) patients were placed on inappropriate bone modifying agent dosing, and dental health was addressed in every patient before initiating treatment. We compared the change in the practice of prescribing and noted a significant difference in the clinician's practice while prescribing denosumab/zoledronic acid before and after implementation of this tool [incorrect dosing: 24/41 vs. 0/35 (p < 0.00001)]; and an improvement in pretreatment dental checkup before and after implementation of the tool was noted to be [missed dental evaluation:12/41 vs. 0/35 (p < 0.00001)]. Conclusion: We found that incorporating an evidence-based algorithm in the order set while prescribing bone remodeling agents significantly improved our institutional clinical practice of indication-appropriate dosing and dental screening rates, and facilitated high-quality, evidence-based care to our patients with prostate cancer.

A retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with advanced genitourinary cancers.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination is one of the pivotal key tools against the ongoing pandemic, but its acceptance relies on efficacy and safety data among various populations, including patients with cancers. However, there is limited data on seroconversion rates, efficacy, and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer. Breakthrough infections after vaccination have also been reported, which could further strengthen the refusal behavior of specific populations to be immunized. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in real-world patients with advanced genitourinary cancers. Methods and results: A retrospective study of the 738 patients with advanced metastatic genitourinary malignancy was conducted at our genitourinary oncology clinic from October 2020 to September 2021, out of which 462 patients (62.6%) were vaccinated. During the study period, two vaccinated, and six unvaccinated patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (breakthrough infection rate: 0.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.027). Vaccine protection against infection was 81.8% (95% CI: 0.04-0.98). One vaccinated and 4 unvaccinated patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (0.2% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.048). Vaccine effectiveness in preventing hospitalization was 85.7% (95% CI: 0.02-1.33). Within one month of vaccination, 1.5% of patients (n = 7) had emergency visits, 0.8% (n = 4) were hospitalized for any reason, and of these, 3 (0.6%) experienced a delay in the receipt of their cancer therapy. Conclusion: In our hypothesis-generating data among patients with advanced genitourinary cancers, COVID-19 vaccination was efficacious and safe and was rarely associated with treatment disruptions. These data should help improve the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population and patients with cancer. The vaccine effectiveness in our patients is comparable with existing published data without cancer.