Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Carboplatin in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with molecular alterations of the DNA damage repair pathway: the PRO-CARBO phase II trial.

Introduction: DNA damage repair genes are altered in 20-35% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Poly-ADP (Adénosine Diphosphate)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) showed significant activity for these selected tumors, especially with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency. These alterations could also predict platinum sensitivity. Although carboplatin was inconclusive in unselected mCRPC, the literature suggests an anti-tumoral activity in mCRPC with HHR gene alterations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of carboplatin monotherapy in mCRPC patients with HRR deficiency. Methods: This prospective multicenter single-arm two-stage phase II addressed mCRPC men with HRR somatic and/or germline alterations, pretreated with ⩾2 taxane chemotherapy regimens and one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. Prior PARPi treatment was allowed. Enrolled patients received intravenous carboplatin (AUC5) every 21 days for 6-9 cycles. The primary endpoint was the best response rate according to adapted PCWG3 guidelines: radiological response (RECIST 1.1 criteria) and/or biological response [⩾50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline]. Results: A total of 15 out of 16 enrolled patients started carboplatin treatment. Genomic alterations were identified for BRCA2 (n = 5), CDK12 (n = 3), ATM (n = 3) CHEK2 (n = 2), CHEK1 (n = 1), and BRCA1 (n = 1) genes. Objective response (partial biological response + stable radiological response) was achieved in one patient (6.7%), carrying a BRCA2 mutation and not pre-treated with PARPi; stable disease was observed for five patients (33.5%). Among seven patients (46.7%) with previous PARPi treatment, four patients (57.1%) had a stable disease. The median progression-free and overall survivals were 1.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.8-9.5] and 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.3-19.5), respectively. The most common severe (grade 3-4) treatment-related toxicities were thrombocytopenia (66.7%), anemia (66.7%), and nausea (60%). Overall, 8 (53.3%) patients experienced a severe hematological event. Conclusion: The study was prematurely stopped as pre-planned considering the limited activity of carboplatin monotherapy in heavily pre-treated, HHR-deficient mCRPC patients. Larger experience is needed in mCRPC with BRCA alterations. Trial registration: NCT03652493, EudraCT ID number 2017-004764-35.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in elderly patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Analysis of the NIVOREN GETUG-AFU 26 study.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma but their activity and safety in elderly patients is insufficiently explored. We evaluated outcomes of elderly patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial (NCT03013335) and conducted exploratory circulating biomarker analyses. METHODS: Patients with mRCC were treated with nivolumab after at least one antiangiogenic therapy. The main endpoint of this analysis was safety in patients ≥ 70 years old (y.o), as per the rate of treatment-related grade 3-5 events (TRAE). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival. Exploration of candidate biomarkers associated with aging included baseline circulating cytokines involved in inflammation, adhesion, immune checkpoints, angiogenesis (IL6, IL7, IL8, BAFF, CXCL13, VCAM-1, 4-1BB, VEGF). RESULTS: Of 720 patients, 515 were < 70 y.o and 205 ≥ 70 y.o. Patients ≥ 70 y.o exhibited numerically less IMDC poor risk disease (21.0% vs 26.9%), sarcomatoid component (4.9% vs 9.8%) or brain metastases (5.9% vs. 14.7%), but more previous treatment lines (≥ 2 in 54.1% vs 48.5%). TRAE were higher in patients ≥ 70 y.o (24.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.033). Respective ORR (19.2% vs. 22.1%) and median PFS (4.5 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.97 [95%CI 0.81-1.15]) were similar. Overall survival was shorter in patients ≥ 70 y.o (19.3 versus 26.9 months, HR 1.26 [95%CI 1.04-1.51]), but not significantly in a competitive risk model. Only V-CAM1 and 4-1BB were found to be increased in patients ≥ 70 y.o. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab displayed higher grade 3/4 TRAE but manageable toxicity in elderly patients, with sustained activity. Elderly patients did not display specific inflammatory or angiogenic circulating profiles.

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial.

Olaparib improved PFS and OS across subgroups of BRCA1/2mut #prostatecancer patients in the PROFOUND phase III trial.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in KEYNOTE-564: Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 496) or placebo (n = 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (-2.5; 95% CI -5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (-0.87; 95% CI -2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis from JAVELIN Bladder 100 by Duration of First-line Chemotherapy and Interval Before Maintenance.

BACKGROUND: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (advanced UC) without progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report post hoc analyses of subgroups defined by the duration of first-line chemotherapy and interval before maintenance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC without progression after four to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and a 4-10-wk interval after chemotherapy (n = 700) were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC or BSC alone. Subgroups were defined by duration (quartile [Q]) and estimated number of cycles of chemotherapy, and interval between chemotherapy and maintenance. The median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint), PFS, and safety were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were as follows: by chemotherapy duration-Q3: 0.63 (0.39-1.00); by number of cycles-four cycles: 0.69 (0.48-1.00), five cycles: 0.98 (0.57-1.71), and six cycles: 0.66 (0.47-0.92); and by interval-4-<6 wk: 0.75 (0.54-1.04), 6-<8 wk: 0.67 (0.43-1.06), and 8-10 wk: 0.69 (0.47-1.02). Results were similar for PFS. Safety was similar across subgroups. All analyses were exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses of OS and PFS in subgroups defined by first-line chemotherapy duration and interval before maintenance were generally consistent with the results in the overall population, with similar safety findings. Prospective trials are warranted to confirm these findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Avelumab maintenance treatment helped patients with advanced urothelial cancer without disease progression after at least four cycles of prior chemotherapy, and who started maintenance treatment at least 4 wk after chemotherapy, to live longer.

Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable. Objective: To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications. Results: Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

Adrenal Metastases Are Associated with Poor Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Glandular metastases (GMs; adrenal gland, pancreas, thyroid, ovary, breast, or prostate) are rare in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Previous studies have indicated that GM patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy experience significantly longer overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes for mccRCC with or without GMs treated with nivolumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial evaluated the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with mccRCC who experienced failure of antiangiogenic therapies (NCT03013335). In this ancillary study, patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of at least one GM. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression models are used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for survival outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with pancreatic metastases and patients with adrenal metastases. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab between February 2016 and July 2017, 217 had GMs, of whom 151/217 had adrenal metastases and 86/217 had pancreatic metastasis. Patients with adrenal metastases had worse 12-mo OS (64% vs 71.1%) and 6-mo PFS (27.2% vs 36.6%) and a lower objective response rate (12.5%, 95% CI 7.6%-19.0%, vs 23.2%, 95% CI 19.8-27.0%; p = 0.005) than patients without adrenal metastases. Conversely, univariate analysis showed that patients with pancreatic metastases had significantly better 12-mo OS (82.3% vs 67.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.85) in comparison to patients with nonpancreatic GMs. On multivariable analysis, only adrenal metastasis remained associated with adverse prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenal metastasis is an independent prognostic factor for poor response and survival in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN trial. Limited activity with nivolumab was observed for patients with mccRCC with adrenal metastases. These results warrant an evaluation of the prognostic value of adrenal metastases in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations with ipilimumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study showed that metastasis in the adrenal glands could be an independent factor associated with poor response to immunotherapy and survival for patients with metastatic kidney cancer. It would be useful to evaluate the prognostic value of adrenal gland metastasis in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy agents combined with drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

Management of cancer treatments in hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: The number of cancer patients receiving long-term hemodialysis (HD) is increasing, and HD could jeopardize treatments' safety and efficacy. Therefore, managing anticancer drugs is critical in this frail population. In addition, evidence of HD safety or risk is regularly released both for cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT) or hormone therapy (HT) as well as new therapies with molecularly targeted therapies (MTT), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and a summary of current knowledge is needed. METHODS: We aimed to synthesize available data on cancer treatments in HD patients using PubMed database, FDA labels, summary of product characteristics (SmPC), FDA and EMA approval documents, guidelines and finally case reports for which relevant pharmacokinetic (PK) data is available. RESULTS: For CT, recently proposed guidelines were balanced by the publication of particular toxic reports following them. SmPC was helpful in some cases, but no data was found for most CTs. MTT, both oral and monoclonal antibodies, were rarely modified by HD. However, HD patients have particular frailty that could require dose adaptation despite no substantial PK modification. Similarly, exposure to ICIs is unlikely to be modified by HD since immunoglobulins are not dialyzable. For HT, PK characteristics and HD impact were more heterogeneous and were reviewed molecule by molecule. CONCLUSIONS: We summarized current knowledge on HD and cancer treatments. Data remains scarce, and the latest guidelines rely on few clinical data. There is a need to collect both retrospective and prospective data to better characterize the safety and relevant dose and schedule adaptations whenever needed in this situation to reinforce future guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU26-NIVOREN multicentre phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies evaluating antiangiogenic agents. Few data are available regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with bone metastatic RCC. NIVOREN is a multicentre prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after the failure of antiangiogenic agents. We aim to assess the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients enrolled in the NIVOREN trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE). RESULTS: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab, 194 presented BM at inclusion. The median follow-up was 23.9 months. Median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (p = 0.0023). The difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, p = 0.0045), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). SRE occurred for 36% of patients with BM. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents (BTA) on SRE incidence showed a significant benefit of BTA on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895]). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is associated with shorter PFS, and lower ORR in RCC patients with BM. Our study suggests that BTA in association with immunotherapy decreases the incidence of SRE.

[A 2022 inventory in oncology news]. / Que retenir dans la prise en charge des cancers en 2022 ?

The Cancer Bulletin continues its tradition. At the beginning of 2023, the members of the editorial committee would like to share with you their analyses of the highlights of 2022. The objective remains to highlight what will change our practices and lead to different diagnostic or therapeutic options. Our synthesis will therefore focus on published data. They have been analyzed and placed in the more general context of the management of each type of cancer to deduce the practical consequences for our patients. This synthesis exercise will concern almost all tumor pathologies, most often on the therapeutic level, and will, however, exclude the evolution of techniques, whether they are diagnostic or used for the follow-up of our patients. The final objective is to allow you to have a thoughtful, didactic and practical reading. Our goal is to provide our readers with the rational bases that can lead to a different approach for treatments in 2023.

Detection of BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM Alterations in Matched Tumor Tissue and Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients with Prostate Cancer Screened in PROfound.

PURPOSE: Not all patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have sufficient tumor tissue available for multigene molecular testing. Furthermore, samples may fail because of difficulties within the testing procedure. Optimization of screening techniques may reduce failure rates; however, a need remains for additional testing methods to detect cancers with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes. We evaluated the utility of plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in identifying deleterious BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in screened patients with mCRPC from the phase III PROfound study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor tissue samples were sequenced prospectively at Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) using an investigational next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay based on FoundationOne®CDx to inform trial eligibility. Matched ctDNA samples were retrospectively sequenced at FMI, using an investigational assay based on FoundationOne®Liquid CDx. RESULTS: 81% (503/619) of ctDNA samples yielded an NGS result, of which 491 had a tumor tissue result. BRCA and ATM status in tissue compared with ctDNA showed 81% positive percentage agreement and 92% negative percentage agreement, using tissue as reference. At variant-subtype level, using tissue as reference, concordance was high for nonsense (93%), splice (87%), and frameshift (86%) alterations but lower for large rearrangements (63%) and homozygous deletions (27%), with low ctDNA fraction being a limiting factor. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that ctDNA can greatly complement tissue testing in identifying patients with mCRPC and BRCA or ATM alterations who are potentially suitable for receiving targeted PARP inhibitor treatments, particularly patients with no or insufficient tissue for genomic analyses.

TALASUR trial: a single arm phase II trial assessing efficacy and safety of TALazoparib and Avelumab as maintenance therapy in platinum-Sensitive metastatic or locally advanced URothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide, with a 3.8/1 male to female ratio. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the first line standard of care for fit patients with advanced UC. However, despite a response rate (RR) for approximately half of patients receiving standard chemotherapy, durable responses are rare (median progression-free progression (PFS) around 8 months). Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as new therapeutic options. Among them, Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, was assessed in maintenance treatment, demonstrating an overall survival improvement in the JAVELIN Bladder-100 phase III trial. These findings led to its approval as first line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who have not progressed on prior platinum-containing chemotherapy. However, disease progression as best response was noticed for 37% of patients under Avelumab as maintenance treatment. UC has targetable genomic alterations, including DNA damage repair (DDR) alterations. DDR deficiency is known to major sensitivity to both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and the combination of ICI and PARP inhibitors showed promising results. It therefore warrants to assess the interest of combining ICI plus PARP inhibitors as maintenance treatment in UC patients. METHODS: The TALASUR trial is a single-arm multicenter phase 2 study aiming to assess the antitumor activity of the combination of Avelumab with Talazoparib among patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC in maintenance therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of the combination, assessed through PFS. Secondary objectives are as follows: safety profile of the association, objective response, duration of tumoral response, disease control rate, time to subsequent therapy, quality of life. A blood and tumor collections will be also constituted. Patient will receive the combination therapy of daily oral Talazoparib (1 mg/day) and intra-venous Avelumab 800 mg on days 1 and 15, in a 28-day cycle. Fifty patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: Talazoparib with Avelumab combination may have additive activity when administrated jointly. We hypothesize that combination will increase the antitumor activity in UC first line maintenance setting with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04678362, registered December 21, 2020. PROTOCOL VERSION:  Version 1.3 dated from 2020 09 11.

Management and Health Resource Use of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma treated With Systemic Therapy Over 2014-2017 in France: A National Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of novel systemic therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) over the last decade has significantly improved patient outcomes. Little information is available on treatment modalities and outcomes in everyday practice. The objective of this study was to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource use in mRCC patients receiving systemic therapy in France (2014-2017), using the nationwide claims database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of RCC (ICD-10: C64) between 2009 and 2017 and receiving a first systemic treatment for mRCC between 2014 and 2017 were eligible. Patients were divided into two groups at diagnosis, Group A: metastatic RCC and Group B: localized RCC. RESULTS: 4,929 eligible patients were identified (Group A: 2638 patients, 53.5%; Group B: 2,291 patients,46.5%). Median age was 66 years and 73% were men. In patients with incident RCC (N = 3,425), 62.3% underwent nephrectomy (94.4% in Group B). Within the year following mRCC diagnosis, 86.5% were hospitalized at least once; among them 58.1% for RCC. Nearly 31% of patients underwent radiotherapy. First line treatment was sunitinib for 65% of patients and pazopanib for 24%. Twenty five percent and 10% of patients received 2 and 3 lines of systemic treatment, respectively. The 2-year survival rate after mRCC diagnosis was 44%, with median overall survival of 20 [95%CI: 19-21] months (14 and 28 in Group A and B). CONCLUSION: This study documented patient characteristics, treatment patterns and survival outcomes in mRCC patients receiving systemic therapy in France (2014-2017). Estimated survival rates were consistent with real-world studies from other countries.

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Chemotherapy following immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest improvements in response to salvage chemotherapy (CT) after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in several types of cancer. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI, compared with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, we included all patients with la/mUC initiating second or third-line chemotherapy from January 2015 to June 2020. We compared patients treated with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI (CT2) and patients treated with third-line chemotherapy after ICI (CT3). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) in CT3 compared with CT2. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities. RESULTS: Overall, 553 patients were included. ORRs were 31.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 35.5) and 29.2% (95% CI, 21.9 to 36.6), respectively, in CT2 and CT3, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.62). In subgroup analyses, no differences in ORR were observed by Bellmunt risk group, type of chemotherapy (platinum or taxanes), duration of response to first-platinum-based chemotherapy (< or ≥ 12 months) or FGFR-status. Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.1) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.5) in CT2 and CT3, respectively, and grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 35.0% and 22.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: This large multicentre retrospective study provides clinically relevant real-world data. Chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI in la/mUC achieves ORR and PFS comparable with those obtained in CT2 with an acceptable safety profile. These updated results offer more promising outcomes than historically reported with second-line chemotherapy data.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-564): 30-month follow-up analysis of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Efficacy and Safety of Concomitant Proton Pump Inhibitor and Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN Multicenter Phase II Study.

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) may influence the gut microbiome and thus impact the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The effect of PPIs on the outcomes of ICI has not been fully explored and investigated in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: This retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data from the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN (NCT03013335) phase II study which enrolled 729 mRCC patients of whom 720 were treated with nivolumab. The main objective of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of PPI on the efficacy and safety outcomes of mRCC patients. PPI use was defined as PPI administration on the day of ICI initiation. RESULTS: Of the 707 patients with mRCC analyzed in this study, 196 (27.7%) were PPI users. The majority of PPI users were males (80.6%), had an ECOG performance status of 0-1 (78.9%) and a nephrectomy (82.1%). Almost two-thirds of the patients had a favorable and intermediate IMDC risk category and 52% received nivolumab in the third line and beyond. PPI use did not correlate with PFS or OS (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.74-1.08 and HR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.58, respectively). Grade 3-5 nivolumab-related adverse events were more common among PPI users (25.5% vs. 15.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that PPI use in patients with mRCC does not impact the efficacy outcomes but may influence the safety of nivolumab which warrants further investigations.

Oncological Outcomes of Delayed Nephrectomy After Optimal Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the role and optimal timing of a nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological outcomes of patients who responded to ICI-based treatments and were subsequently treated with a delayed nephrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This national retrospective evaluation included 30 patients with mRCC who underwent a nephrectomy after a complete response (CR) or a major partial response (>80%) to ICI treatment at metastatic sites. INTERVENTION: Partial or radical nephrectomy after a favorable response to ICI treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and potential discontinuation of systemic treatment were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ICI-based treatments included ipilimumab-nivolumab (40%), ICI + tyrosine kinase inhibitor (10%), and nivolumab (50%). A delayed nephrectomy was performed after a median ICI treatment duration of 10 mo. In 19 cases (63.3%), surgeons faced difficulties due to adhesions or inflammatory changes. A complete pathological response was observed in 16.7% of patients. After a median follow-up of 19.5 mo after nephrectomy, 76.7% of patients achieved DFS. At 1 yr, 66.7% of patients were free from systemic treatment. The PFS and OS rates were, respectively, 96.7% and 100% at 1 yr, and 78.3% and 86.1% at 2 yr. Patients with a CR at metastatic sites had a better prognosis than those with a major partial response, in terms of DFS (p = 0.022) and PFS (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Despite potentially challenging surgery, a delayed nephrectomy for patients who responded to ICI treatment provided promising oncological outcomes, and the majority of patients could discontinue systemic treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluated the clinical outcome in patients who responded well to immunotherapy, and subsequently underwent kidney ablation surgery. Three-quarters of patients experienced no recurrence, and in most cases, medical treatment could be discontinued.