Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge. RESULTS: We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2-22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients.

Clinical outcomes of volume of disease on patients receiving enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background: Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSis) abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most administered first-line treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AA and Enza have shown similar overall survival (OS) benefits and there is no consensus upon the best option for mCRPC first-line treatment. Volume of disease may represent a useful biomarker to predict response to therapy in such patients. Objectives: In this study, we seek to evaluate the impact of volume of disease on patients treated with first-line AA versus Enza for mCRPC. Design and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of consecutive patients with mCRPC categorized by volume of disease [high volume (HV) or low volume (LV) per E3805 criteria] at ARSi onset and treatment type (AA or Enza), assessing OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), from therapy start, as co-primary endpoints. Results: Of the 420 patients selected, 170 (40.5%) had LV and received AA (LV/AA), 76 (18.1%) LV and had Enza (LV/Enza), 124 (29.5%) HV and were given AA (HV/AA), and 50 (11.9%) HV and received Enza (HV/Enza). Among patients with LV, OS was significantly longer when treated with Enza [57.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 52.1-62.2 months] versus AA (51.6 months; 95% CI, 42.6-60.6 months; p = 0.003). Consistently, those with LV receiving Enza showed increased rPFS (40.3 months; 95 CI, 25.0-55.7 months) than those having AA (22.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1-26.0 months; p = 0.004). No significant difference in OS or rPFS was observed in those with HV treated with AA versus Enza (p = 0.51 and p = 0.73, respectively). In multivariate analysis of patients with LV, treatment with Enza was independently associated with better prognosis than AA. Conclusion: Within the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our report suggests that volume of disease could be a useful predictive biomarker for patients starting first-line ARSi for mCRPC.

Grade 3-4 Immune-Related Adverse Events Induced by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients Are Correlated with Better Outcome: A Real-Life Observational Study.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a major advance in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 blockade enhances immune function, mediating anti-tumor activity, yet causing immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We investigated the prognostic role of Grade 3−4 irAEs on overall survival (OS). Methods: This observational study recruited advanced NSCLC patients who received ICIs at Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital and in a community hospital, Saint-Joseph Foundation (Paris), between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019. Immunotherapy as a single-agent or double-drug combination was applied in the first and later lines. Univariable and multivariable analyses were instrumental in evaluating the prognostic impact of irAEs. Results: Overall, 201 consecutive ICI-treated patients were enrolled. High-grade irAEs (Grades 3−4) occurred in 36 patients (17.9%), including 11 (30.5%) cases of pneumonitis, 8 (22.2%) of colitis, 4 (11.1%) hepatic, 3 (8.3%) dermatological, 2 (5.5%) neurological events, and 2 cases (5.5%) of poly-arthralgia. The median OS was 10.4 ± 1.36 months (95% CI:7.7−13.1), being significantly higher in patients with high-grade irAEs than those without, 27.8 months vs. 8.1 months, respectively (HR = 2.5; p < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed an independent association between high-grade irAEs and longer OS (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.2−0.6, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our real-life study confirms that high-grade irAEs predict longer OS in advanced NSCLC.

REchallenge of NIVOlumab (RENIVO) or Nivolumab-Ipilimumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Ambispective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progressive disease often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Patients and Methods. This ambispective multicenter study included 45 mRCC patients rechallenged with nivolumab ± ipilimumab between 2014 and 2020. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR) for ICI rechallenge (ICI-2). Factors associated with ICI-2 progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated with multivariate Cox models. RESULTS: ORR was 51% (n = 23) at first ICI therapy (ICI-1) and 16% (n = 7) for ICI-2. Median PFS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.8-23.5) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.7), and median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 37.8-NR) and 24 months (95% CI, 9.9-NR) for ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. Factors associated with poorer ICI-2 PFS were a high number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, use of an intervening treatment between ICI regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at ICI-2 start. Conversely, ICI-1 PFS >6 months was associated with better ICI-2 PFS. In multivariate analysis, there were only statistical trends toward better ICI-2 PFS in patients with ICI-1 PFS >6 months (p=0.07) and toward poorer ICI-2 PFS in patients who received a treatment between ICI regimens (p=0.07). CONCLUSION: Rechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. We identified various prognostic factors in univariate analysis but only statistical trends in multivariate analysis. Our findings bring new evidence on ICI rechallenge and preliminary but unique data that may help clinicians to select patients who will benefit from this strategy.

Poor performance status patient with long-lasting major response to pembrolizumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with coexisting POLE mutation and deficient mismatch repair pathway.

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represents a major breakthrough in lung cancer treatment. For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status (PS), the availability of sensitivity markers to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) would be useful for attending physicians and assist them in their decision-making process. Deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) can lead to high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and coexist with mutations in polymerase proofreading (DNA polymerase Epsilon POLE and delta 1 POLD1) with a specific mutational signature. This would result in high tumor mutational burden and programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) overexpression. We report herein on a NSCLC case with MSI-H and POLE mutation in a patient with inaugural poor general condition, who exhibited prolonged response to anti-programmed cell death protein (PD-1) therapy. Additionally, there was a marked improvement of the patient's performance status, from PS 3 before ICI administration to PS 1 upon ICI therapy.

[Issues of oral targeted therapies in daily clinical practice: 5th edition of the congress of pharmacology of anticancer drugs]. / Enjeux et écueils des thérapies ciblées orales en pratique clinique quotidienne : 5e journée de pharmacologie des anti-tumoraux.

Oral targeted therapies are a growing class of medication. After clinical trials conducted on a selected population, these molecules are usually approved at a fixed dose. However, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors are characterized by a large intra and inter-individual pharmacokinetic variability, and a narrow therapeutic index. Hence, their prescription is hazardous and unsafe in non-selected people from daily clinical practice. The increasing number of available targeted therapies point out new challenges. These challenges should especially concern prescription for out of the ordinary patients, rules for dose adjustment according to factors of frailty. The ultimate goal is to ensure a safe and individualized prescription. Moreover, many of these molecules are metabolized by the CYP3A4, leading to a serious risk of drug interaction. These interactions might involve not only conventional medicine but also alternative and complementary medicines. These latter are more and more common but oncologists often lack experience about them. Finally, the oral route raises the issues of adherence, and the question of its assessment should now become a permanent part of patients care.