Perioperative dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (VESPER): survival endpoints at 5 years in an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal perioperative chemotherapy for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer is not defined. The VESPER (French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group and French Association of Urology V05) trial reported improved 3-year progression-free survival with dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, but not in the overall perioperative setting. In this Article, we report on the secondary endpoints of overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer at 5-year follow-up. METHODS: VESPER was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 28 university hospitals or comprehensive cancer centres in France, in which adults (age ≤18 years and ≤80 years) with primary bladder cancer and histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were randomly allocated (1:1; block size four) to treatment with dd-MVAC (every 2 weeks for a total of six cycles) or GC (every 3 weeks for a total of four cycles). Overall survival and time to death due to bladder cancer (presented as 5-year cumulative incidence of death due to bladder cancer) was analysed by intention to treat (ITT) in all randomly assigned patients. Overall survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method with the treatment groups compared with log-rank test stratified for mode of administration of chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and lymph node involvement. Time to death due to bladder cancer was analysed with an Aalen model for competing risks and a Fine and Gray regression model stratified for the same two covariates. Results were presented for the total perioperative population and for the neoadjuvant and adjuvant subgroups. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01812369, and is complete. FINDINGS: From Feb 25, 2013, to March 1, 2018, 500 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 493 were included in the final ITT population (245 [50%] in the GC group and 248 [50%] in the dd-MVAC group; 408 [83%] male and 85 [17%] female). 437 (89%) patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·3 years (IQR 5·1-5·4); 190 deaths at the 5-year cutoff were reported. In the perioperative setting (total ITT population), we found no evidence of association of overall survival at 5 years with dd-MVAC treatment versus GC treatment (64% [95% CI 58-70] vs 56% [50-63], stratified hazard ratio [HRstrat] 0·79 [95% CI 0·59-1·05]). Time to death due to bladder cancer was increased in the dd-MVAC group compared with in the GC group (5-year cumulative incidence of death: 27% [95% CI 21-32] vs 40% [34-46], HRstrat 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·84]). In the neoadjuvant subgroup, overall survival at 5 years was improved in the dd-MVAC group versus the GC group (66% [95% CI 60-73] vs 57% [50-64], HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·52-0·97]), as was time to death due to bladder cancer (5-year cumulative incidence: 24% [18-30] vs 38% [32-45], HR 0·55 [0·39-0·78]). In the adjuvant subgroup, the results were not conclusive due to the small sample size. Bladder cancer progression was the cause of death for 157 (83%) of the 190 deaths; other causes of death included cardiovascular events (eight [4%] deaths), deaths related to chemotherapy toxicity (four [2%]), and secondary cancers (four [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Our results on overall survival at 5 years were in accordance with the primary endpoint analysis (3-year progression-free survival). We found no evidence of improved overall survival with dd-MVAC over GC in the perioperative setting, but the data support the use of six cycles of dd-MVAC over four cycles of GC in the neoadjuvant setting. These results should impact practice and future trials of immunotherapy in bladder cancer. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the follow-up of non-muscle-invasive bladder tumors after intravesical instillations: a promising tool.

PURPOSE: The standard follow-up for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is based on cystoscopy. Unfortunately, post-instillation inflammatory changes can make the interpretation of this exam difficult, with lower specificity. This study aimed to evaluate the interest of bladder MRI in the follow-up of patients following intravesical instillation. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent cystoscopy and bladder MRI in a post-intravesical instillation setting between February 2020 and March 2023 were retrospectively collected. Primary endpoint was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of cystoscopy and bladder MRI in the overall cohort (n = 67) using the pathologic results of TURB as a reference. The secondary endpoint was to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of cystoscopy and bladder MRI according to the appearance of the lesion on cystoscopy [flat (n = 40) or papillary (n = 27)]. RESULTS: The diagnostic performance of bladder MRI was better than that of cystoscopy, with a specificity of 47% (vs. 6%, p < 0.001), a negative predictive value of 88% (vs. 40%, p = 0.03), and a positive predictive value of 66% (vs. 51%, p < 0.001), whereas the sensitivity did not significantly differ between the two exams. In patients with doubtful cystoscopy and negative MRI findings, inflammatory changes were found on TURB in most cases (17/19). The superiority in MRI bladder performance prevailed for "flat lesions", while no significant difference was found for "papillary lesions". CONCLUSIONS: In cases of doubtful cystoscopy after intravesical instillations, MRI appears to be relevant with good performance in differentiating post-therapeutic inflammatory changes from recurrent tumor lesions and could potentially allow avoiding unnecessary TURB.

Efficacy and tolerance of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) according to the number of instillations administered.

PURPOSE: To report the oncological outcomes and the tolerance between 6 instillations and more than 6 cycles of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy(HIVEC) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer(NMIBC). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study from a national database including 9 expert centers. All patients treated with HIVEC between 2016 and 2023 for NMIBC were included. Patients were classified into two groups according to the total number of HIVEC instillations, including induction plus maintenance. Kaplan-Meier curves were computed to present survival outcomes. RESULTS: 261 patients with a median follow-up of 25.5 months were included. 199(76.2%) and 62(23.8%) were treated by 6 and more than 6 cycles of HIVEC, respectively. The 2-years RFS(40.2% vs. 34.4%,p = 0.3) and the 2-years PFS(86% vs. 87%,p = 0.85) were similar between group treated with 6 and more than 6 instillations. 2-years CSS and OS were also similar between both groups. Univariate Cox regression showed no association between the number of bladder instillation and RFS (HR = 1.2 95%CI[0.8-1.84], p = 0.3) or PFS (HR = 0.8 95%CI[0.29-2.02], p = 0.2). In the group treated with more than 6 cycles, 2-years RFS and 2-years PFS were similar between patients who received induction plus maintenance compared to those treated with induction only. Finally, hematuria and urinary burning were significantly higher in the group treated by more than 6 cycles (21% vs. 8.5%(p < 0.01),and 29% vs. 17% (p = 0.03), respectively). Serious side effects(grade ≥ 3) are rare(3.1%) and similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results show no significant difference in two years RFS, PFS, CSS and OS according to number of instillations received, while toxicity profile seems better in the group receiving six instillations only.

Long-Term Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up of Abiraterone Acetate in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

This ABIGENE pharmacokinetic (PK) study sought mainly to characterize the unchanged drug PK during long-term abiraterone acetate (AA) administration in advanced prostate cancer patients (81 patients). It was observed that individual AA concentrations remained constant over treatment time, with no noticeable changes during repeated long-term drug administration for up to 120 days. There was no correlation between AA concentrations and survival outcomes. However, a significant association between higher AA concentrations and better clinical benefit was observed (p = 0.041). The safety data did not correlate with the AA PK data. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) was observed between mean AA concentration and patient age: the older the patient, the higher the AA concentration. Patient age was found to impact steady-state AA concentration: the older the patient, the higher the mean AA concentration. Altogether, these data may help to guide future research and clinical trials in order to maximize the benefits of AA metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. METHOD/DESIGN: This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. DISCUSSION: Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient's QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05078047.

Efficacy of hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer after BCG failure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy (HIVEC) efficacy regarding 1-year disease-free survival (RFS) rate and bladder preservation rate in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) who fail bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective series from a national database (7 expert centers). Between January 2016 and October 2021, patients treated with HIVEC for NMIBC who failed BCG have been included in our study. These patients had a theoretical indication for cystectomy but were ineligible for surgery or refused it. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients treated with HIVEC and with a follow-up > 6 months were included in this study and retrospectively analyzed. The median follow-up was 20.6 months. The 12 month-RFS (recurrence-free survival) rate was 62.9%. The bladder preservation rate was 87.1%. Fifteen patients (12.9%) progressed to muscle infiltration, three of them having a metastatic disease at the time of progression. Predictive factors of progression were T1 stage, high grade and very high-risk tumors according to the EORTC classification. CONCLUSION: Chemohyperthermia using HIVEC achieved an RFS rate of 62.9% at 1 year and enabled a bladder preservation rate of 87.1%. However, the risk of progression to muscle-invasive disease is not negligible, particularly for patients with very high-risk tumors. In these patients who fail BCG, cystectomy should remain the standard of care and HIVEC may be discussed cautiously for patients who are not eligible for surgery and well informed of the risk of progression.

External validation of the computerized analysis of TRUS of the prostate with the ANNA/C-TRUS system: a potential role of artificial intelligence for improving prostate cancer detection.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging has been revolutionized by the introduction of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has always been considered a low-performance modality. To overcome this, a computerized artificial neural network analysis (ANNA/C-TRUS) of the TRUS based on an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis has been proposed. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system and its ability to improve conventional TRUS in PCa diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 64 patients with PCa and scheduled for radical prostatectomy who underwent TRUS followed by ANNA/C-TRUS analysis before the procedure. The results of ANNA/C-TRUS analysis with whole mount sections from final pathology. RESULTS: On a per-sectors analysis, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were 62%, 81%, 80%, 64% and 78% respectively. The values for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer were 69%, 77%, 88%, 50% and 75%. The diagnostic values for high grade tumours were 70%, 74%, 91%, 41% and 74%, respectively. Cancer volume (≤ 0.5 or greater) did not influence the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system. CONCLUSIONS: ANNA/C-TRUS represents a promising diagnostic tool and application of AI for PCa diagnosis. It improves the ability of conventional TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer, preserving its simplicity and availability. Since it is an AI system, it does not hold the inter-observer variability nor a learning curve. Multicenter biopsy-based studies with the inclusion of an adequate number of patients are needed to confirm these results.

Pain and health-related quality of life with olaparib versus physician's choice of next-generation hormonal drug in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (PROfound): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; pnominal=0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; pnominal=0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; pnominal=0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; pnominal=0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; pnominal=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Cabozantinib-nivolumab sequence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CABIR study.

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS2-3 and OS2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFSL3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade.

Self-reported functional assessment after treatment for prostate cancer: 5-year results of the prospective cohort VICAN.

Objective: We aimed to assess the long-term association of therapeutic strategies with urinary, sexual function and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) for 5-year prostate cancer (PC) survivors. Materials & methods: The VICAN survey consisted of self-reported data prospectively collected, including living conditions, treatment side effects and quality of life (QoL) of cancer survivors. Results: Among the 434 PC survivors, 52.8% reported urinary incontinence (UI) and 55.8% reported erectile dysfunction (ED). Patients treated with radical prostatectomy with salvage radiotherapy reported significantly more UI (p = 0.014) and more ED (p = 0.012) compared with other strategies. UI was significantly associated with physical and mental health-related QoL (p = 0.045 and p = 0.049, respectively). Conclusion: Self-assessed functional outcomes 5 years after PC diagnosis remain poor and could have an impact on health-related QoL.

Patients treated for prostate cancer may have long-term consequences due to the treatment they receive ­ in particular urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED). We analyzed self-reported data from 434 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer 5 years earlier, focusing especially on treatment side effects and the impact on patient quality of life. Of these patients, 52.8% reported UI and 55.8% reported ED. Patients treated with surgery plus radiotherapy reported significantly more UI and more ED compared with other treatment strategies. We have also shown that UI has an impact on physical and mental quality of life of these patients. In conclusion, functional recovery 5 years after prostate cancer diagnosis remains poor and requires implementation of new, long-term management strategies for cancer survivors.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery for Radical Cystectomy Decreases Postoperative Complications at Different Times.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess whether enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves, at different time points, postoperative complications in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective monocentric study using prospectively maintained databases including all patients treated by radical cystectomy between January 2015 and July 2019. An ERAS protocol was applied in all patients from February 2018. We analyzed and compared between non-ERAS and ERAS groups early and 90-day postoperative complications and 90-day readmission. ERAS was analyzed to know its implication in fast recovery improvement over time. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients underwent radical cystectomy, 74 without ERAS and 76 with ERAS protocol. ERAS decreased significantly early (p = 0.039) and 90-day (0.012) postoperative complications. In multivariate analysis, ERAS was an independent factor associated with less early (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.96; p = 0.37) and 90-day (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68; p = 0.004) postoperative complications. There was no significant difference between groups for 90-day readmission (p = 0.349). Mean length of stay did not differ significantly between ERAS and non-ERAS groups (12.7 ± 6.2 and 13.1 ± 5.7 days, respectively; p = 0.743). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our study shows that ERAS has an early positive impact that lasts over time on postoperative complications. ERAS implementation has decreased early and 90-day postoperative complications without increasing 90-day readmission. In our cohort, length of stay was not improved with ERAS protocol.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: local treatment strategies.

PURPOSE: The landscape of the management of metastatic prostate cancer is changing rapidly and there is growing interest in the local treatment of the primary in these patients. The effect of local treatment on the outcome of metastatic prostate cancer patients was addressed based on retrospective analysis but now also based on prospective randomized trials. This article provides an overview of the currently available literature in this field. METHODS: A literature review was done searching the Medline database for English language articles using the keywords "metastatic prostate cancer", and "local treatment", "radiotherapy", "prostatectomy". The data of prospective randomized studies and the data of case-control studies or retrospective analysis were summarized in a narrative fashion. RESULTS: Data from two prospective randomized trials exploring the effect of local treatment of the prostate in hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer showed no improvement of overall survival in the individual overall cohorts as well as in the pooled analysis (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.04). There was an improvement of failure-free survival (pooled analysis HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.0.84). There was also an improved overall survival associated with radiotherapy in patients with < 5 metastases and with low volume disease. Data from prospective non-randomized or retrospective studies are inconclusive and underlies major selection biases. CONCLUSION: Based on prospective randomized trials, local treatment by radiotherapy does not improve the overall survival in unselected metastatic prostate cancer patients. An effect can be seen in low volume patients or patients with < 5 metastases.

Efficacy of HIVEC in patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer who are contraindicated to BCG and in patients who fail BCG therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate Hyperthermic-Intra-Vesical Chemotherapy (HIVEC) efficacy regarding 1-year disease-free survival (RFS) rate and bladder preservation rate in patients with High-risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) who fail BCG therapy or are contraindicated to BCG. METHODS: Between June 2016 and October 2019, patients treated with HIVEC for mostly high-risk NMIBC who failed BCG or BCG-naive if BCG contraindicated have been included in our study. These patients had a theoretical indication for cystectomy but were ineligible for surgery or refused it. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients, median age 72 [39-93] years, were included in this study (n = 29 BCG-failure and n = 24 BCG-naive). The median follow-up was 18 months. The bladder preservation rate was 92.4%. The 12 months-RFS rate was 60.5%. The RFS rates for BCG-naive and BCG-failure groups were respectively 70% and 52.2% at 12 months. Three patients progressed to muscle infiltration, all in the BCG-failure group and all in the very high-risk EORTC group. Two of them developed metastatic disease and died from bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: Chemohyperthermia using HIVEC achieved a RFS rate of 60% at 1 year and enabled a bladder preservation rate of 92%. Given the low risk of progression in the BCG-naive group, HIVEC could be a good alternative. Conversely, for patients with very high-risk tumors that fail BCG, cystectomy should remain the standard of care and HIVEC may be discussed cautiously for patients who are not eligible for surgery and well informed of the risk of progression to muscle-invasive disease.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacogenetic Study of Etoposide in High-Dose Protocol (TI-CE) for Advanced Germ Cell Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Etoposide dosing is based on body surface area. We evaluated if further dose individualization would be required for high dose (HD) etoposide within the TI-CE (taxol, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) protocol. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients received 400 mg/m2/day of etoposide as a 1-hour IV infusion on 3 consecutive days over 3 cycles as part of a phase II trial evaluating efficacy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of carboplatin in the TI-CE HD protocol. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data were analyzed using population PK model on NONMEM to quantify inter- and intra-individual variabilities. Relationship between etoposide exposure and pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints, and between selected genetic polymorphisms and tumor response or toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: The inter-patient, inter- and intra-cycle variabilities of clearance were 16%, 9% and 0.1%, respectively. The PK-PD relationship was not significant despite a trend toward higher etoposide exposure in patients responding to treatment. A significant correlation was found between exposure and extended neutropenia at cycle 3. A significant association between UGT1A1*28 polymorphism and late neutropenia was observed but needs further evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that neither a priori dose individualization nor dose adaptation using TDM is required validating body surface area dosing of etoposide in the TI-CE protocol.

Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after progression with platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus chemotherapy in this patient population. METHODS: We conducted this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial (IMvigor211) at 217 academic medical centres and community oncology practices mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web response system with a permuted block design (block size of four), to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg or chemotherapy (physician's choice: vinflunine 320 mg/m2, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel) intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expression on <1% [IC0] or 1% to <5% [IC1] of tumour-infiltrating immune cells vs ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells [IC2/3]), chemotherapy type (vinflunine vs taxanes), liver metastases (yes vs no), and number of prognostic factors (none vs one, two, or three). Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. The primary endpoint of overall survival was tested hierarchically in prespecified populations: IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the intention-to-treat population. This study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02302807. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2015, and Feb 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 931 patients from 198 sites to receive atezolizumab (n=467) or chemotherapy (n=464). In the IC2/3 population (n=234), overall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in the chemotherapy group (median 11·1 months [95% CI 8·6-15·5; n=116] vs 10·6 months [8·4-12·2; n=118]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·63-1·21; p=0·41), thus precluding further formal statistical analysis. Confirmed objective response rates were similar between treatment groups in the IC2/3 population: 26 (23%) of 113 evaluable patients had an objective response in the atezolizumab group compared with 25 (22%) of 116 patients in the chemotherapy group. Duration of response was numerically longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median 15·9 months [95% CI 10·4 to not estimable] vs 8·3 months [5·6-13·2]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·26-1·26). In the intention-to-treat population, patients receiving atezolizumab had fewer grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events than did those receiving chemotherapy (91 [20%] of 459 vs 189 [43%] of 443 patients), and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (34 [7%] vs 78 [18%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab was not associated with significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing PD-L1 (IC2/3). However, the safety profile for atezolizumab was favourable compared with chemotherapy, Exploratory analysis of the intention-to-treat population showed well-tolerated, durable responses in line with previous phase 2 data for atezolizumab in this setting. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Estimation of Unbound Carboplatin Clearance From Total Plasma Concentrations as a Means of Facilitating Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring of carboplatin is based on its unbound clearance (CLU) determined by Bayesian analysis on unbound (U) concentrations. However, the ultrafiltration of plasma samples presents technical and time constraints. Therefore, this study aims to estimate CLU using total plasma (P) concentrations. METHODS: U and P concentration data of 407 patients were obtained from 2 clinical studies in which actual CLU had been determined for each patient. The patients were then split into development (277 patients) and prospective data sets (130 patients). Two approaches were evaluated. PK-model-only approach: a 3-compartment pharmacokinetic (PK) model based on U and P concentrations and taking into account the protein binding process was developed. The model with patient covariates was also evaluated. Linear regression approach: an equation (CLU = aCLP + b) was obtained by linear regression analysis between actual CLU and CLP, which is the total plasma clearance obtained by analyzing P concentrations according to a 2-compartment PK model. Predictive performance was then assessed within the prospective data set by estimating CLU from P concentrations using each approach and computing the relative percentage error (PE) between estimated CLU and actual CLU. RESULTS: The linear regression equation was CLU (L/h) = 1.15 CLP (L/h) + 0.13. The mean PE (MPE) between CLU (estimated using the equation) and the actual CLU was +1.2% (ranging from -31% to +33%) and the mean absolute PE (MAPE) was 9.7%. With the 3-compartment PK model, the MPE was +2.3% (ranging from -41% to +31%) and the MAPE was 11.1%. Inclusion of covariates in the 3-compartment model did not improve the estimation of CLU [MPE = +6.3% (from -33% to +37%); MAPE = 11.4%]. CONCLUSIONS: The linear equation gives a relatively good estimation of CLU based on P concentrations, making PK-based carboplatin dose adaptation possible for centers without ultrafiltration facilities.