Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Placebo in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Treatment of muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with nivolumab (CheckMate 274 study): a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a paper published in a medical journal that describes the results of a study called CheckMate 274. This study looked at a new treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer, a type of cancer found in the urinary tract that has spread from the inner lining of the urinary tract or bladder and into the surrounding muscle wall where it can then spread to other parts of the body. The standard treatment for muscle-invasive urothelial cancer is surgery to remove affected parts of the urinary tract. However, cancer returns in more than half of people after this surgery. Adjuvant therapy is given to people after surgery with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer with a goal to reduce the risk of the cancer coming back; however, at the time this study started, there was no standard adjuvant treatment. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: In the CheckMate 274 study, researchers compared nivolumab with a placebo as an adjuvant treatment for people with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer. The aim of the study was to understand how well nivolumab worked to reduce the chance of the cancer returning after surgery. The study also looked at what side effects (unwanted or unexpected results or conditions that are possibly related to the use of a medication) people had with treatment. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results showed that people who received nivolumab versus placebo: Survived longer before the cancer was detected again, including people who had programmed death ligand-1 (shortened to PD-L1) on their cancer cells. Survived longer before a secondary cancer outside of the urinary tract was detected. Experienced no differences in health-related quality of life (the impact of the treatment on a person's mental and physical health). Had similar side effects to the people who received nivolumab in other studies. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02632409 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cardiovascular Proteomics: A Post Hoc Analysis from a Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing GnRH Antagonist vs GnRH Agonist among Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recent studies demonstrated reduced cardiovascular (CV) risk with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, yet the underlying mechanism remains undetermined. The objective of this study was to examine longitudinal changes over time in established CV related proteins among men treated with GnRH agonists vs GnRH antagonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a proteomics analysis of serum samples collected during a phase II randomized study among 80 men with advanced prostate cancer and preexisting CV disease who were randomized to receive a GnRH agonist (39) or GnRH antagonist (41) for 1 year. Serum samples were collected at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months following treatment, and analyzed levels of 188 proteins using the CV panel II and III of the Olink Multiplex platform (Olink Proteomics AB, Uppsala, Sweden). We fitted a linear mixed effects model to assess evidence of a treatment effect across CV related protein values. This included terms for treatment arm, protein levels and time-by-treatment interaction. Results were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. RESULTS: The CV proteomics analysis included 283 samples from 78 subjects. We identified 5 proteins with distinct patterns over time depending on study arm: human chitotriosidase, macrophage receptor with collagenous structure, cathepsin D, superoxide dismutase 2 and hydroxyacid oxidase 1. All 5 are associated with plaque stability and demonstrated an increased level among subjects in the GnRH antagonist arm compared to agonist. CONCLUSIONS: We compared longitudinal changes in CV proteins among men using androgen deprivation therapy. Our results support a direct protective effect of GnRH antagonist on plaque stability rather than a hazardous consequence of GnRH agonists on plaque rupture. This is a hypothesis generating study, and requires further confirmation.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): overall survival and updated results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist-plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (60 mg/m2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5-13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3-4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6-2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573-0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9-11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0-9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724-1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Re-treatment with radium-223: 2-year follow-up from an international, open-label, phase 1/2 study in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is approved for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), symptomatic bone metastases, and no visceral disease using a dosing regimen of 6 injections (55 kBq/kg intravenously; 1 injection every 4 weeks). Early results from international, open-label, phase 1/2 study NCT01934790 showed that re-treatment with radium-223 was well tolerated with favorable effects on disease progression. Here we report safety and efficacy findings from 2-year follow-up of the radium-223 re-treatment study. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases who completed 6 initial radium-223 injections with no disease progression in bone and later progressed were eligible for radium-223 re-treatment (up to 6 additional radium-223 injections), provided that hematologic parameters were adequate and chemotherapy had not been administered after the initial course of radium-223. Concomitant cytotoxic agents were not allowed during re-treatment but were allowed at the investigator's discretion during follow-up; other concomitant agents for prostate cancer (including abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) were allowed at investigator's discretion. The primary objective was safety. Exploratory objectives included time to radiographic bone progression, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to total alkaline phosphatase (tALP), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, overall survival (OS), time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), and SSE-free survival, all calculated from re-treatment start. Evaluation of safety and exploratory efficacy objectives included active 2-year follow-up. Safety results from active follow-up and updated efficacy are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients were re-treated with radium-223; 29 (66%) completed all 6 injections, and 34 (77%) entered 2-year active follow-up, during which no new safety concerns and no serious drug-related adverse events were noted. rPFS events (progression or death) occurred in 19 (43%) of 44 patients; median rPFS was 9.9 months. Radiographic bone progression occurred in 5 (11%) of 44 patients. Median OS was 24.4 months. Median times to first SSE and SSE-free survival were 16.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Median time to tALP progression was not reached; median time to PSA progression was 2.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with radium-223 in this selected patient population was well tolerated, led to minimal hematologic toxicity, and provided continued disease control in bone at 2-year follow-up.

Cannabis Impacts Tumor Response Rate to Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: There has been a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy and cannabis recently, two modalities that have immunomodulatory effects and may have possible interaction. We evaluated the influence of cannabis use during immunotherapy treatment on response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, data were collected from the files of patients treated with nivolumab in the years 2015-2016 at our hospital, and cannabis from six cannabis-supplying companies. Included were 140 patients (89 nivolumab alone, 51 nivolumab plus cannabis) with advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal clear cell carcinoma. The groups were homogenous regarding demographic and disease characteristics. A comparison between the two arms was made. RESULTS: In a multivariate model, cannabis was the only significant factor that reduced RR to immunotherapy (37.5% RR in nivolumab alone compared with 15.9% in the nivolumab-cannabis group (p = .016, odds ratio = 3.13, 95% confidence interval 1.24-8.1). Cannabis use was not a significant factor for PFS or OS. Factors affecting PFS and OS were smoking (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.41 and 2.41, respectively (and brain metastases (adjusted HR = 2.04 and 2.83, respectively). Low performance status (adjusted HR = 2.83) affected OS alone. Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol percentages did not affect RR in any group (p = .393 and .116, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, the use of cannabis during immunotherapy treatment decreased RR, without affecting PFS or OS and without relation to cannabis composition. Considering the limitations of the study, further prospective clinical study is needed to investigate possible interaction. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although the data are retrospective and a relation to cannabis composition was not detected, this information can be critical for cannabis users and indicates that caution is required when starting immunotherapy.

Cardiovascular Morbidity in a Randomized Trial Comparing GnRH Agonist and GnRH Antagonist among Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer and Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease.

PURPOSE: Androgen deprivation therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Limited data suggest that GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) antagonist may be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than GnRH agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a phase II, randomized, open label study in men with prostate cancer and preexisting cardiovascular disease who were randomized to receive GnRH agonists or antagonists for 1 year. The primary outcome was endothelial function measured by the EndoPAT 2000 device (Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel). The predefined secondary outcome was a new cardiovascular event. Patients were followed for the development of cardiovascular disease, defined as death, myocardial infarction, a cerebrovascular event, percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion or hospitalizations due to cardiac events. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled in study, including 41 and 39 who received GnRH antagonist and agonist, respectively. Patients in each arm had similar baseline characteristics. We did not detect a difference in the primary end point (endothelial function) between the groups (mean ± SD reactive hyperemia index 2.07 ± 0.15 vs 1.92 ± 0.11, p=0.42). However, during the trial period a new cardiovascular event (the secondary end point) developed in 15 patients. Of cases new major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events developed in 9, including death in 2, myocardial infarction in 1, a cerebrovascular event in 2 and percutaneous angioplasty with coronary stent insertion in 4. Of the patients 20% randomized to GnRH agonist experienced a major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event compared to 3% of those on GnRH antagonist (p=0.013). The absolute risk reduction in major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 12 months using GnRH antagonist was 18.1% (95% CI 4.6-31.2, p=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this is the first prospective study to test cardiovascular outcomes among patients with prostate cancer who received androgen deprivation therapy. No differences in the primary end point were noted between the study arms. However, the secondary end point revealed that patients treated with GnRH agonist experienced significantly more major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events than those treated with GnRH antagonist. These phase II results suggest that in patients with prostate cancer who have preexisting cardiovascular disease selecting the androgen deprivation therapy modality may differentially affect cardiac outcomes.

Radium-223 in combination with paclitaxel in cancer patients with bone metastases: safety results from an open-label, multicenter phase Ib study.

PURPOSE: Concomitant treatment with radium-223 and paclitaxel is a potential option for cancer patients with bone metastases; however, myelosuppression risk during coadministration is unknown. This phase Ib study in cancer patients with bone metastases evaluated the safety of radium-223 and paclitaxel. METHODS: Eligible patients had solid tumor malignancies with ≥2 bone metastases and were candidates for paclitaxel. Treatment included seven paclitaxel cycles (90 mg/m2 per week intravenously per local standard of care; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus six radium-223 cycles (55 kBq/kg intravenously; one injection every 4 weeks, starting at paclitaxel cycle 2). The primary end point was percentage of patients with grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia during coadministration of radium-223 and paclitaxel (cycles 2, 3) versus paclitaxel alone (cycle 1). RESULTS: Of 22 enrolled patients, 15 were treated (safety population), with 7 completing all six radium-223 cycles. Treated patients had primary cancers of breast (n = 7), prostate (n = 4), bladder (n = 1), non-small cell lung (n = 1), myxofibrosarcoma (n = 1), and neuroendocrine (n = 1). No patients discontinued treatment from toxicity of the combination. In the 13 patients who completed cycle 3, the rates of grade 3 neutropenia in cycles 2 and 3 were 31% and 8%, respectively, versus 23% in cycle 1; there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia or grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. Breast cancer subgroup safety results were similar to the overall safety population. CONCLUSION: Radium-223 was tolerated when combined with weekly paclitaxel, with no clinically relevant additive toxicities. This combination should be explored further in patients with bone metastases.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments with a distinct mechanism of action are available for patients with platinum-refractory advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus either ramucirumab-a human IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist-or placebo in this patient population. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 sites in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomised (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus either intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or matching placebo on day 1 of repeating 21-day cycles, until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat in the first 437 randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02426125. FINDINGS: Between July, 2015, and April, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated either ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267). Progression-free survival was prolonged significantly in patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel (median 4·07 months [95% CI 2·96-4·47] vs 2·76 months [2·60-2·96]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·757, 95% CI 0·607-0·943; p=0·0118). A blinded independent central analysis was consistent with these results. An objective response was achieved by 53 (24·5%, 95% CI 18·8-30·3) of 216 patients allocated ramucirumab and 31 (14·0%, 9·4-18·6) of 221 assigned placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of causality, in either treatment group (any grade) were fatigue, alopecia, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, and nausea. These events occurred predominantly at grade 1-2 severity. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar for patients allocated ramucirumab and placebo (156 [60%] of 258 vs 163 [62%] of 265 had an adverse event), with no unexpected toxic effects. 63 (24%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 54 (20%) of 265 assigned placebo had a serious adverse event that was judged by the investigator to be related to treatment. 38 (15%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 43 (16%) of 265 assigned placebo died on treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, of which eight (3%) and five (2%) deaths were deemed related to treatment by the investigator. Sepsis was the most common adverse event leading to death on treatment (four [2%] vs none [0%]). One fatal event of neutropenic sepsis was reported in a patient allocated ramucirumab. INTERPRETATION: To the best of our knowledge, ramucirumab plus docetaxel is the first regimen in a phase 3 study to show superior progression-free survival over chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. These data validate inhibition of VEGFR-2 signalling as a potential new therapeutic treatment option for patients with urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Outcome of Patients With Metastatic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a standard treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Data on its activity in the rare variant of metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (mchRCC), are limited. We aimed to analyze the activity of sunitinib in a relatively large and homogenous international cohort of mchRCC patients in terms of outcome and comparison with mccRCC. METHODS: Records from mchRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib in 10 centers across 4 countries were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of association between clinicopathologic factors and outcome were performed. Subsequently, mchRCC patients were individually matched to mccRCC patients. We compared the clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the groups. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2014, 36 patients (median age, 64 years; 47% male) with mchRCC were treated with first-line sunitinib. Seventy-eight percent achieved a clinical benefit (partial response + stable disease). Median PFS and OS were 10 and 26 months, respectively. Factors associated with PFS were the Heng risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; p = .03) and pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >3 (HR, 0.63; p = .02). Factors associated with OS were the Heng risk (HR, 4.1; p = .04), liver metastases (HR, 3.8; p = .03), and pretreatment NLR <3 (HR, 0.55; p = .03). Treatment outcome was not significantly different between mchRCC patients and individually matched mccRCC patients. In mccRCC patients (p value versus mchRCC), 72% achieved a clinical benefit (p = .4) and median PFS and OS were 9 (p = .6) and 25 (p = .7) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib therapy may be associated with similar outcome and toxicities as in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The Heng risk and pretreatment NLR may be associated with PFS and OS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Data on the activity of sunitinib in metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (mchRCC) are limited. This study analyzed the activity of sunitinib in a cohort of mchRCC patients. Of 36 patients with mchRCC who were treated with first-line sunitinib, 78% achieved a clinical benefit. Median PFS and OS were 10 and 26 months, respectively. Treatment outcome was not significantly different between mchRCC patients and individually matched metastatic clear cell RCC patients.

Comparison of abiraterone acetate versus ketoconazole in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer refractory to docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone, a potent CYP 17 inhibitor, is standard treatment in docetaxel refractory, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, in countries where abiraterone has not been approved yet, or for patients who cannot afford it, ketoconazole is used as an alternative CYP 17 inhibitor. Although preclinical data suggests that ketoconazole is a less potent inhibitor of CYP 17, there are limited clinical data comparing both agents. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of abiraterone versus ketoconazole in docetaxel refractory mCRPC. METHODS: Records from mCRPC patients treated with ketoconazole (international multicenter database, n = 162) were reviewed retrospectively. Twenty-six patients treated post docetaxel were individually matched by clinicopathologic factors to patients treated with abiraterone (national multicenter database, n = 140). We compared the PSA response, biochemical and radiological progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the groups. PFS and OS were determined by Cox regression. RESULTS: The groups were matched by Gleason score, pre-treatment disease extent, ECOG PS, pre-treatment risk category (Keizman, Oncologist 2012). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding other known confounding risk factors. In the groups of abiraterone versus ketoconazole, PSA response was 46% versus 19% (OR 4.3, P = 0.04), median biochemical PFS 7 versus 2 months (HR 1.54, P = 0.02), median radiological PFS 8 versus 2.5 months (HR 1.8, P = 0.043), median OS 19 versus 11 months (HR 0.53, P = 0.79), and treatment interruption d/t severe adverse events 8% (n = 2) versus 31% (n = 8) (0R 0.6, P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In docetaxel refractory mCRPC, the outcome of abiraterone treatment may be superior to ketoconazole.

Active smoking may negatively affect response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Obesity, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes are risk factors for renal cell carcinoma development. Their presence has been associated with a worse outcome in various cancers. We sought to determine their association with outcome of sunitinib treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study of sunitinib-treated mRCC patients was performed. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between outcome and the pretreatment status of smoking, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and other known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2013, 278 mRCC patients were treated with sunitinib: 59 were active smokers, 67 were obese, 73 were diabetic, and 165 had pretreatment hypertension. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months, and overall survival (OS) was 22 months. Factors associated with PFS were smoking status (past and active smokers: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.17, p = .39; never smokers: HR: 2.94, p < .0001), non-clear cell histology (HR: 1.62, p = .011), pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio >3 (HR: 3.51, p < .0001), use of angiotensin system inhibitors (HR: 0.63, p = .01), sunitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption (HR: 0.72, p = .045), and Heng risk (good and intermediate risk: HR: 1.07, p = .77; poor risk: HR: 1.87, p = .046). Factors associated with OS were smoking status (past and active smokers: HR: 1.25, p = .29; never smokers: HR: 2.7, p < .0001), pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio >3 (HR: 2.95, p < .0001), and sunitinib-induced hypertension (HR: 0.57, p = .002). CONCLUSION: Active smoking may negatively affect the PFS and OS of sunitinib-treated mRCC. Clinicians should consider advising patients to quit smoking at initiation of sunitinib treatment for mRCC.

Experience with sunitinib treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large cohort of Israeli patients: outcome and associated factors.

BACKGROUND: The VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor sunitinib was approved in Israel in 2008 for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), based on an international trial. However, the efficacy of sunitinib treatment in Israeli mRCC patients has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVES: To report the outcome and associated factors of sunitinib treatment in a large cohort of Israeli mRCC patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of an unselected cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with sunitinib during the period 2006-2013 in six Israeli hospitals. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between treatment outcome and clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: We identified 145 patients; the median age was 65 years, 63% were male, 80% had a nephrectomy, and 28% had prior systemic treatment. Seventy-nine percent (n = 115) had clinical benefit (complete response 5%, n = 7; partial response 33%, n = 48; stable disease 41%, n = 60); 21% (n = 30) were refractory to treatment. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months and median overall survival 21 months. Factors associated with clinical benefit were sunitinib-induced hypertension: [odds ratio (OR) 3.6, P = 0.042] and sunitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption (OR 2.4, P = 0.049). Factors associated with PFS were female gender [hazard ratio (HR) 2, P = 0.0041, pre-sunitinib treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio < or = 3 (HR 2.19, P = 0.002), and active smoking (HR 0.19, P < 0.0001). Factors associated with overall survival were active smoking (HR 0.25, P < 0.0001) and sunitinib-induced hypertension (HR 0.48, P = 0.005). To minimize toxicity, the dose was reduced or the treatment interrupted in 39% (n = 57). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of sunitinib treatment for mRCC among Israeli patients is similar to that in international data.

Pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma: exploratory ctDNA biomarker analyses of the KEYNOTE-361 phase 3 trial.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a potential biomarker in early-stage urothelial cancer but its utility in metastatic disease remains unknown. In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 study, pembrolizumab with and without chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. The study did not meet prespecified efficacy thresholds for statistical significance. To identify potential biomarkers of response, we retrospectively evaluated association of pre- and post-treatment ctDNA with clinical outcomes in a subset of patients who received pembrolizumab (n = 130) or chemotherapy (n = 130) in KEYNOTE-361. Baseline ctDNA were associated with best overall response (BOR;P = 0.009), progression-free survival (PFS;P < 0.001), and overall survival (OS;P < 0.001) for pembrolizumab, but not chemotherapy (all, P > 0.05). Chemotherapy induced larger ctDNA decreases from baseline to treatment cycle 2 than pembrolizumab; however, change with pembrolizumab (n = 87) were more associated with BOR (P = 4.39 × 10-5) and OS (P = 7.07 × 10-5) versus chemotherapy (n = 102; BOR: P = 1.01 × 10-4; OS: P = 0.018). Tumor tissue-informed versions of ctDNA change metrics were most associated with clinical outcomes but did not show statistically significant independent value for explaining OS beyond radiographic change by RECIST v1.1 when jointly modeled (pembrolizumab P = 0.364; chemotherapy P = 0.823). These results suggest distinct patterns in early ctDNA changes with immunotherapy and chemotherapy and differences in their association with long-term outcomes, which provide preliminary insights on the utility of liquid biopsies for treatment monitoring in metastatic urothelial cancer. Clinical trial registration: NCT02853305.

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.

Modified Citrus Pectin Treatment in Non-Metastatic Biochemically Relapsed Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Phase II Study.

The optimal therapy for patients with non-metastatic biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC-M0) after local therapy is elusive. Thus, the evaluation of new non-toxic compounds in BRPC-M0 patients is warranted. PectaSol®-Modified citrus pectin (P-MCP) is a food supplement categorized as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) by the FDA. It is a competitive inhibitor of the galectin-3 protein, which is involved in cancer pathogenesis. In an early report of the present phase 2 study, P-MCP treatment for 6 months led to prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) improvement in 75% of patients with BRPC-M0. Herein, we report the second long-term treatment phase of an additional 12 months of P-MCP therapy (4.8 g × 3/day orally) in patients without disease progression after the initial 6 months of therapy. Of the 46 patients that entered the second treatment phase, 7 patients withdrew consent and decided to continue therapy out of pocket, and 39 initiated the second treatment phase. After a total of 18 months of P-MCP treatment, 85% (n = 33) had a durable long-term response, with 62% (n = 24) showing decreased/stable PSA, 90% (n = 35) PSADT improvement, and all with negative scans. No patient had grade 3/4 toxicity. In conclusion, P-MCP may have long-term durable efficacy and is safe in BRPC-M0.

Erdafitinib treatment in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a real-world analysis.

Background: Erdafitinib, a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor is a standard post chemotherapy advanced treatment line for metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2/3 genomic alterations. It was approved based on a phase 2 clinical trial, revealing a 40% response rate, and 13.8 months overall survival. These FGFR genomic alterations are uncommon. Thus, real-world data on erdafitinb use is scant. We herein describe erdafitinib treatment outcome in a real world patient cohort. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients treated with erdafitinib from 9 Israeli medical centers. Results: Twenty-five patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (median age 73, 64% male, 80% with visceral metastases) were treated with erdafitinib between January 2020 to October 2022. A clinical benefit (complete response 12%, partial response 32%, stable disease 12%) was seen in 56%. Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and median overall survival 6.73 months. Treatment related toxicity ≥ grade 3 occurred in 52%, and 32% discontinued therapy due to adverse events. Conclusions: Erdafitinib therapy is associated with a clinical benefit in the real world setting, and associated with similar toxicity as reported in prospective clinical trials.