Psychosocial Factors Associated with Cognitive Function in Prostate Cancer Survivors on Hormonal Treatments: A Systematic Review.

Hormonal treatments (HT) for prostate cancer (e.g., androgen deprivation therapy) yield clinical and survival benefits, yet adverse cognitive changes may be a side effect. Since psychosocial factors are largely modifiable, interventions targeting these factors may help mitigate these adverse cognitive effects. This systematic review aimed to identify a range of psychosocial factors associated with cognitive function in individuals with prostate cancer undergoing HT and to determine whether these factors mitigate or exacerbate this effect. Applying PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of relevant databases conducted in September 2023 using terms related to prostate cancer, hormone therapy, and cognitive outcomes was undertaken. The search yielded 694 unique abstracts, with 11 studies included for analysis examining the relationship between cognitive function and the following psychosocial factors: psychological distress, fatigue, insomnia, and coping processes. Findings were mixed with only two studies reporting significant associations between cognitive performance with fatigue and depression. Three studies that included measures of perceived cognitive function identified associations with depression, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, illness threat appraisals, and coping styles. However, no studies found evidence for an association between self-reported and objective measures of cognitive functioning. Evidence regarding the association of interpersonal factors is lacking. Moreover, whether these factors mitigate or exacerbate the effect of HT on cognitive function still needs to be determined. Overall, the research exploring the association between psychosocial factors and cognitive function in prostate cancer survivors undergoing HT is still in its infancy. Further research is required to optimize the implementation of neuropsychological interventions for prostate cancer survivors.

Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Clinical validation of circulating GDF15/MIC-1 as a marker of response to docetaxel and survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elevated circulating growth differentiation factor (GDF15/MIC-1), interleukin 4 (IL4), and IL6 levels were associated with resistance to docetaxel in an exploratory cohort of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study aimed to establish level 2 evidence of cytokine biomarker utility in mCRPC. METHODS: IntVal: Plasma samples at baseline (BL) and Day 21 docetaxel (n = 120). ExtVal: Serum samples at BL and Day 42 of docetaxel (n = 430). IL4, IL6, and GDF15 levels were measured by ELISA. Monocytes and dendritic cells were treated with 10% plasma from men with high or low GDF15 or recombinant GDF15. RESULTS: IntVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 21 were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (BL; p = 0.03 and Day 21; p = 0.004). IL4 and IL6 were not associated with outcomes. ExtVal: Higher GDF15 levels at BL and Day 42 predicted shorter OS (BL; p < 0.0001 and Day 42; p < 0.0001). Plasma from men with high GDF15 caused an increase in CD86 expression on monocytes (p = 0.03), but was not replicated by recombinant GDF15. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated circulating GDF15 is associated with poor prognosis in men with mCRPC receiving docetaxel and may be a marker of changes in the innate immune system in response to docetaxel resistance. These findings provide a strong rationale to consider GDF15 as a biomarker to guide a therapeutic trial of drugs targeting the innate immune system in combination with docetaxel in mCRPC.

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

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

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

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

Pembrolizumab and Enzalutamide in Patients with Abiraterone Acetate-Pretreated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Cohort C of the Phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited responses have been observed in patients treated with enzalutamide after disease progression on abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but androgen receptor signaling impacts T-cell function. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide in mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients in cohort C of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study, who received ≥4 wk of treatment with abiraterone acetate in the prechemotherapy mCRPC state and experienced treatment failure or became drug-intolerant, were included. INTERVENTION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were safety, the confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 on blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) on BICR and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 102 patients received pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide. Median follow-up was 51 mo (interquartile range 37-56). The confirmed PSA response rate was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-33%). The confirmed ORR was 11% (95% CI 2.9-25%; 4/38 patients; two complete responses). Median rPFS was 6.0 mo (95% CI 4.1-6.3). Median OS was 20 mo (95% CI 17-24). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 94 patients (92%); grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 44 patients (43%). The incidence of treatment-related rash was higher with combination therapy than expected from the safety profile of each drug. One patient (1.0%) died of a TRAE (cause unknown). Study limitations include the single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide had limited antitumor activity in patients who received prior abiraterone treatment without previous chemotherapy for mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with the individual profiles of each agent. PATIENT SUMMARY: Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide showed limited antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The KEYNOTE-365 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573.

Case Series: "Silent" Spinal Epidural Metastases in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Introduction: Spinal epidural metastases (SEM) are an uncommon phenomenon and traditionally occur as a preterminal event in heavily pre-treated patients. The introduction of novel anti-androgen therapies, such as enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate, has greatly improved the survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer but may be changing the pattern of disease. Case Presentation: Four patients diagnosed with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were commenced on enzalutamide prior to chemotherapy. Baseline scans in all patients demonstrated extensive bony disease and lymph node involvement. All patients experienced a moderate initial PSA response to treatment (median PSA at baseline 53.5 ng/mL to median nadir 24.5 ng/mL). In all four cases, clinical presentation of spinal cord compression was unexpected with no prodromal neurological symptoms, PSA levels either stable or slowly rising, and CT scans and whole-body bone scans showing stable disease at other metastatic sites. Whole-spine MRI on presentation of neurological deficits showed epidural and dural metastases on the background of stable bone disease. Spinal cord compression occurred at a median of 11.4 months after starting enzalutamide. Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of this change in the pattern of CRPC in patients treated with novel anti-androgen therapy. Onset of "silent" spinal cord compression due to SEM rather than bone metastases, can occur relatively early with minimal warning despite stable disease on PSA and standard imaging. Differential progression in nontraditional sites suggests that research into the androgen microenvironment in a wide range of tissue sites should be undertaken, and may explain why prostate cancer metastasizes preferentially to bone and lymph nodes.

LITESPARK-012: pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Combination treatment with immunotherapy agents and/or vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are a standard of care for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Novel therapeutic combinations that include the hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor belzutifan and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor quavonlimab are being investigated for their potential to further improve patient outcomes. This protocol describes the rationale and design of the randomized, phase III LITESPARK-012 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib with or without belzutifan or quavonlimab as first-line treatment for advanced ccRCC. Results from this study may support triplet combination therapies as a potential new standard of care for advanced ccRCC. Clinical trial registry: NCT04736706 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Systemic treatment of advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer: The landscape in Australia.

The 5-year survival rate of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is estimated to be as low as 5%. Currently, systemic platinum-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy is the only first-line treatment for mUC that has an overall survival benefit. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy (usually in combination with gemcitabine) is the preferred treatment but carboplatin is substituted where contraindications to cisplatin exist. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and kinase inhibitors has not yet demonstrated superiority to chemotherapy as first-line therapy and remains investigational in this setting. A recent media release indicates that chemotherapy plus nivolumab gives an OS advantage as first-line treatment but results of this study have not yet been made public. Pembrolizumab remains an option in those having primary progression on first-line chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The antibody-drug conjugate, enfortumab vedotin has TGA approval for patients whose cancer has progressed following chemotherapy and immunotherapy and has just received a positive Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme recommendation. The use of molecular screens for somatic genetic mutations, gene amplifications, and protein expression is expanding as drugs that target such abnormalities show promise. However, despite these advances, a substantial proportion of patients with mUC have significant barriers to receiving any treatment, including advancing age, frailty, and comorbidities, and less toxic, effective therapies are needed.

Prevalence of Australians exposed to potentially cardiotoxic cancer medicines: a population-based cohort study.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are leading causes of death and people with cancer are at higher risk of developing CVD than the general population. Many cancer medicines have cardiotoxic effects but the size of the population exposed to these potentially cardiotoxic medicines is not known. We aimed to determine the prevalence of exposure to potentially cardiotoxic cancer medicines in Australia. Methods: We identified potentially cardiotoxic systemic cancer medicines through searching the literature and registered product information documents. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Australians dispensed potentially cardiotoxic cancer medicines between 2005 and 2021, calculating age-standardised annual prevalence rates of people alive with exposure to a potentially cardiotoxic medicine during or prior to each year of the study period. Findings: We identified 108,175 people dispensed at least one potentially cardiotoxic cancer medicine; median age, 64 (IQR: 52-74); 57% female. Overall prevalence increased from 49 (95%CI: 48.7-49.3)/10,000 to 232 (95%CI: 231.4-232.6)/10,000 over the study period; 61 (95%CI: 60.5-61.5)/10,000 to 293 (95%CI: 292.1-293.9)/10,000 for females; and 39 (95%CI: 38.6-39.4)/10,000 to 169 (95%CI: 168.3-169.7)/10,000 for males. People alive five years following first exposure increased from 29 (95%CI: 28.8-29.2)/10,000 to 134 (95%CI: 133.6-134.4)/10,000; and from 22 (95%CI: 21.8-22.2)/10,000 to 76 (95%CI: 75.7-76.3)/10,000 for those alive at least 10 years following first exposure. Most people were exposed to only one potentially cardiotoxic medicine, rates of which increased from 39 (95%CI: 38.7-39.3)/10,000 in 2005 to 131 (95%CI: 130.6-131.4)/10,000 in 2021. Interpretation: The number of people exposed to efficacious yet potentially cardiotoxic cancer medicines in Australia is growing. Our findings can support the development of service planning and create awareness about the magnitude of cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicities. Funding: NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Medicines Intelligence, Cancer Institute NSW Early Career Fellowship.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations including pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib are the standard of care for patients with first-line clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, but these combinations are not well characterised in non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-B61 is a single-arm, phase 2 trial being conducted at 48 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Russia, Spain, Türkiye, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA). Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated stage IV non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher were eligible for enrolment. All enrolled patients received pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously every 6 weeks for up to 18 cycles (2 years) plus lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal; lenvatinib could be continued beyond 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response as per adjusted Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) assessed by independent central review. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment (the as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704219) and is no longer recruiting participants but is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 21, 2022, 215 patients were screened; 158 were enrolled and received treatment. Median age at baseline was 60 years (IQR 52-69), 112 (71%) of 158 patients were male, 46 (29%) were female, 128 (81%) were White, 12 (8%) were Asian, three (2%) were Black or African American, and 15 (9%) were missing data on race. As of data cutoff (Nov 7, 2022), median study follow-up was 14·9 months (IQR 11·1-17·4). 78 of 158 patients had a confirmed objective response (49%; 95% CI 41-57), including nine (6%) patients with a confirmed complete response and 69 (44%) with a confirmed partial response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 81 (51%) of 158 patients, the most common of which were hypertension (37 [23%] of 158), proteinuria (seven [4%]), and stomatitis (six [4%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31 (20%) of 158 patients. Eight (5%) patients died due to adverse events, none of which was considered related to the treatment by the investigators (one each of cardiac failure, peritonitis, pneumonia, sepsis, cerebrovascular accident, suicide, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has durable antitumour activity in patients with previously untreated advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that of previous studies. Results from KEYNOTE-B61 support the use of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, NJ, USA), and Eisai.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib in the East Asian subset of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the CLEAR trial.

In the CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab met study endpoints of superiority vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We report the efficacy and safety results of the East Asian subset (ie, patients in Japan and the Republic of Korea) from the CLEAR trial. Of 1069 patients randomly assigned to receive either lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, lenvatinib plus everolimus or sunitinib, 213 (20.0%) were from East Asia. Baseline characteristics of patients in the East Asian subset were generally comparable with those of the global trial population. In the East Asian subset, progression-free survival was considerably longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (median 22.1 vs 11.1 months; HR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.23-0.62). The HR for overall survival comparing lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib was 0.71; 95% CI: 0.30-1.71. The objective response rate was higher with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs sunitinib (65.3% vs 49.2%; odds ratio 2.14; 95% CI: 1.07-4.28). Dose reductions due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) commonly associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors occurred more frequently than in the global population. Hand-foot syndrome was the most frequent any-grade TEAE with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (66.7%) and sunitinib (57.8%), a higher incidence compared to the global population (28.7% and 37.4%, respectively). The most common grade 3 to 5 TEAEs were hypertension with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (20%) and decreased platelet count with sunitinib (21.9%). Efficacy and safety for patients in the East Asian subset were generally similar to those of the global population, except as noted.

A Phase Ib, Open-label Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Ipatasertib plus Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the safety and efficacy of ipatasertib (AKT inhibitor) combined with rucaparib (PARP inhibitor) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-part phase Ib trial (NCT03840200), patients with advanced prostate, breast, or ovarian cancer received ipatasertib (300 or 400 mg daily) plus rucaparib (400 or 600 mg twice daily) to assess safety and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A part 1 dose-escalation phase was followed by a part 2 dose-expansion phase in which only patients with mCRPC received the RP2D. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) in patients with mCRPC. Patients were not selected on the basis of tumor mutational status. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (part 1 = 21; part 2 = 30). Ipatasertib 400 mg daily plus rucaparib 400 mg twice daily was the selected RP2D, received by 37 patients with mCRPC. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 46% (17/37) of patients, with one grade 4 adverse event (anemia, deemed related to rucaparib) and no deaths. Adverse events leading to treatment modification occurred in 70% (26/37). The PSA response rate was 26% (9/35), and the objective response rate per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 was 10% (2/21). Median radiographic progression-free survival per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria was 5.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.0-8.1], and median overall survival was 13.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-not evaluable). CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib plus rucaparib was manageable with dose modification but did not demonstrate synergistic or additive antitumor activity in previously treated patients with mCRPC.

Avelumab First-Line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results From the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Trial After ≥2 Years of Follow-Up.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Initial results from the phase III JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02603432) showed that avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free after 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance treatment is now a standard of care for aUC. Here, we report updated data with ≥ 2 years of follow-up in all patients, including OS (primary end point), PFS, safety, and additional novel analyses. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). At data cutoff (June 4, 2021), median follow-up was 38.0 months and 39.6 months, respectively; 67 patients (19.5%) had received ≥2 years of avelumab treatment. OS remained longer with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone in all patients (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91]; 2-sided P = .0036). Investigator-assessed PFS analyses also favored avelumab. Longer-term safety was consistent with previous analyses; no new safety signals were identified with longer treatment duration. In conclusion, longer-term follow-up continues to show clinically meaningful efficacy benefits with avelumab 1L maintenance plus BSC versus BSC alone in patients with aUC. An interactive visualization of data reported in this article is available.

Avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma: JAVELIN Bladder 100 Asian subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) with avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. Here, efficacy and safety were assessed from the initial analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (data cutoff October 21, 2019) in patients enrolled in Asian countries. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 4 to 6 cycles of first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy (gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin) were randomized 1:1 to receive avelumab first-line maintenance + BSC or BSC alone, stratified by best response to first-line chemotherapy and visceral vs. nonvisceral disease when initiating first-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was OS assessed from randomization in all patients and patients with PD-L1+ tumors (Ventana SP263 assay). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients in JAVELIN Bladder 100 were enrolled in Asian countries (Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). In this Asian subgroup, 73 and 74 patients received avelumab + BSC or BSC alone, respectively. Median OS was 25.3 months (95% CI, 18.6 to not estimable [NE]) in the avelumab + BSC arm vs. 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.8-NE) in the BSC alone arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.43-1.26]); median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-7.5) vs. 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9-1.9), respectively (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.38-0.86]). In the avelumab + BSC vs. BSC alone arms, grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (any causality) occurred in 44.4% vs. 16.2%, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the avelumab + BSC arm were anemia (9.7%), amylase increased (5.6%), and urinary tract infection (4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety results for avelumab first-line maintenance in the Asian subgroup of JAVELIN Bladder 100 were generally consistent with those in the overall trial population. These data support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance as standard of care for Asian patients with advanced UC that has not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. NCT02603432.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Comprehensive Clinical Subgroup Analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries. OBJECTIVE: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry assessment of bone health in Australian men with prostate cancer commencing androgen deprivation therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence in Australia of bone health assessment of men with prostate cancer by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), from six months before to twelve months after initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). DESIGN, SETTING: Cross-sectional national study; linkage of de-identified Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data. PARTICIPANTS: Men (18 years or older) first dispensed PBS-subsidised ADT during 1 May 2017 - 31 July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of MBS-subsidised DXA assessments undertaken from six months before to twelve months after first ADT prescription. RESULTS: Of 33 836 men with prostate cancer commencing ADT therapy during 2017-20, 6683 (19.8%) underwent DXA bone heath assessments between six months before and twelve months after commencing ADT; the mean time from first ADT dispensing to DXA scanning was +90 days (standard deviation, 134 days). The proportion of men aged 54 years or younger who had scans (66 of 639, 10%) was smaller than that of men aged 70-84 years (4528 of 19 378, 23.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.28-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: For about 80% of men with prostate cancer commencing ADT in Australia, therapy initiation was not accompanied by DXA assessment of bone health. Given the excellent long term prognosis for men with prostate cancer and the availability of bone protective therapy, bone health monitoring should be a routine component of prostate cancer care for men receiving ADT.

FORT-1: Phase II/III Study of Rogaratinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Selected Based on FGFR1/3 mRNA Expression.

PURPOSE: Rogaratinib, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR1-4) inhibitor, showed promising phase I efficacy and safety in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) with FGFR1-3 mRNA overexpression. We assessed rogaratinib efficacy and safety versus chemotherapy in patients with FGFR mRNA-positive advanced/metastatic UC previously treated with platinum chemotherapy. METHODS: FORT-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03410693) was a phase II/III, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with FGFR1/3 mRNA-positive locally advanced or metastatic UC with ≥ 1 prior platinum-containing regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) to rogaratinib (800 mg orally twice daily, 3-week cycles; n = 87) or chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 88). The primary end point was overall survival, with objective response rate (ORR) analysis planned following phase II accrual. Because of comparable efficacy between treatments, enrollment was stopped before progression to phase III; a full interim analysis of phase II was completed. RESULTS: ORRs were 20.7% (rogaratinib, 18/87; 95% CI, 12.7 to 30.7) and 19.3% (chemotherapy, 17/88; 95% CI, 11.7 to 29.1). Median overall survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not estimable) and 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.8 to not estimable; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.72; P = .67). Grade 3/4 events occurred in 37 (43.0%)/4 (4.7%) patients and 32 (39.0%)/15 (18.3%), respectively. No rogaratinib-related deaths occurred. Exploratory analysis of patients with FGFR3 DNA alterations showed ORRs of 52.4% (11/21; 95% CI, 29.8 to 74.3) for rogaratinib and 26.7% (4/15; 95% CI, 7.8 to 55.1) for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, these are the first data to compare FGFR-directed therapy with chemotherapy in patients with FGFR-altered UC, showing comparable efficacy and manageable safety. Exploratory testing suggested FGFR3 DNA alterations in association with FGFR1/3 mRNA overexpression may be better predictors of rogaratinib response.