Adjuvant everolimus after surgery for renal cell carcinoma (EVEREST): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of renal cell carcinoma are at risk of disease relapse. We evaluated the effectiveness of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus administered after surgery. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma who had undergone a full surgical resection and were at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence at 398 academic and community institution centres in the USA. After nephrectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central web-based application using a dynamic balancing algorithm to receive 10 mg oral everolimus daily or placebo for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Efficacy analyses included all eligible, randomly assigned patients; safety analysis included all patients who received treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01120249 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2011, and Sept 15, 2016, a total of 1545 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=775) or placebo (n=770), of whom 755 assigned to everolimus and 744 assigned to placebo were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis. With a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 61-92), recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo (5-year recurrence-free survival 67% [95% CI 63-70] vs 63% [60-67]; stratified log-rank p=0·050; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·00; p=0·051) but did not meet the prespecified p value for statistical significance of 0·044. Recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo in the very-high-risk group (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·97; p=0·022) but not in the intermediate-high-risk group (0·99, 0·73-1·35; p=0·96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 343 (46%) of 740 patients who received everolimus and 79 (11%) of 723 who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative everolimus did not improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo among patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. These results do not support the adjuvant use of everolimus for renal cell carcinoma after surgery. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and The Hope Foundation.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Cediranib and Olaparib Combination in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma without BRCA Mutation.

LESSONS LEARNED: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma without known BRCA mutation. BACKGROUND: Cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of BRCA1/2 and RAD51 inducing homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) in several cancer cell lines and xenograft models [1]. Olaparib provides a clinical benefit in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) with germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmt) [2]. We hypothesized that cediranib induces HRD in the absence of gBRCAmt and synergizes with olaparib, resulting in an objective response in patients with mPDAC. METHODS: Patients with mPDAC with at least one prior systemic chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients with known gBRCAmt were excluded. Patients took cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib 200 mg twice daily, orally. The primary endpoint was objective response (OR) rate. RESULTS: Nineteen patients received the study drugs. Seven patients came off treatment before the first restaging scan: six because of clinical progression and one because of an adverse event. No OR was observed. Six patients had stable disease (SD) as a best overall response. The median duration of SD was 3.1 months. The median overall survival was 3.4 months. Common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with mPDAC without gBRCAmt.

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. CONCLUSION: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.

Real-World Assessment of Clinical Outcomes Among First-Line Sunitinib Patients with Clear Cell Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) by the International mRCC Database Consortium Risk Group.

BACKGROUND: International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups are important when considering therapeutic options for first-line treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with clear cell mRCC initiating first-line sunitinib between 2010 and 2018 were included in this retrospective database study. Median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Outcomes were stratified by IMDC risk groups and evaluated for those in the combined intermediate and poor risk group and separately for those in the intermediate risk group with one versus two risk factors. RESULTS: Among 1,769 patients treated with first-line sunitinib, 318 (18%) had favorable, 1,031 (58%) had intermediate, and 420 (24%) had poor IMDC risk. Across the three risk groups, patients had similar age, gender, and sunitinib initiation year. Median TTD was 15.0, 8.5, and 4.2 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 7.1 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS was 52.1, 31.5, and 9.8 months in the favorable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively, and 23.2 months in the combined intermediate and poor risk group. Median OS (35.1 vs. 21.9 months) and TTD (10.3 vs. 6.6 months) were significantly different between intermediate risk patients with one versus two risk factors. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found a median OS of 52 months for patients with favorable IMDC risk treated with first-line sunitinib, setting a new benchmark on clinical outcomes of clear cell mRCC. Analysis of intermediate risk group by one or two risk factors demonstrated distinct clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This analysis offers a contemporary benchmark for overall survival (median, 52.1 months; 95% confidence interval, 43.4-61.2) among patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib as first-line therapy in a real-world setting and classified as favorable risk according to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification. This study demonstrates that clinical outcomes differ between IMDC risk groups as well as within the intermediate risk group based on the number of risk factors, thus warranting further consideration of risk group when counseling patients about therapeutic options and designing clinical trials.

Tumor downstaging as an intermediate endpoint to assess the activity of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has been associated with improved overall survival (OS). This study was aimed at evaluating the impact of pathologic downstaging (pDS; ie, a pT stage at least 1 stage lower than the pre-NAC cT stage) on the OS of patients with MIBC treated with NAC. METHODS: The Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were queried for cT2-4N0M0 patients treated with NAC. A multivariable Cox model including either pDS or pCR was generated. A nested model was built to evaluate the added value of pDS (excluding patients achieving a pCR) to a model including pCR alone. C indices were computed to assess discrimination. NCDB was used for validation. The treatment effect of NAC versus cystectomy alone in achieving pDS was estimated through an inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 189 and 2010 patients from the RISC and NCDB cohorts, respectively, were included; pDS and pCR were achieved by 33% and 35% and by 20% and 15% in RISC and NCDB, respectively. In both data sets, pDS and pCR were associated with better OS and C indices. Adding pDS excluding pCR to the model with pCR fit the data better (likelihood ratio, P = .019 for RISC and P < .001 for NCDB), and it yielded better discrimination (incremental C index, 4.2 for RISC and 1.6 for NCDB). The treatment effect of NAC in achieving pDS was 2.07-fold (P < .001) in comparison with cystectomy alone. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease of at least 1 stage from the cT stage to the pT stage is associated with improved OS in patients with MIBC treated with NAC.

Characterization of metastatic urothelial carcinoma via comprehensive genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-guided clinical trials are increasingly common in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), yet patients for whom contemporary tumor tissue is not available are not eligible. Technological advancements in sequencing have made cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) readily available in the clinic. The objective of the current study was to determine whether the genomic profile of mUC detected by NGS of cfDNA is similar to historical tumor tissue NGS studies. A secondary objective was to determine whether the frequency of genomic alterations (GAs) differed between lower tract mUC (mLTUC) and upper tract mUC (mUTUC). METHODS: Patients from 13 academic medical centers in the United States who had a diagnosis of mUC between 2014 and 2017 and for whom cfDNA NGS results were available were included. cfDNA profiling was performed using a commercially available platform (Guardant360) targeting 73 genes. RESULTS: Of 369 patients with mUC, 294 were diagnosed with mLTUC and 75 with mUTUC. A total of 2130 GAs were identified in the overall mUC cohort: 1610 and 520, respectively, in the mLTUC and mUTUC cohorts. In the mLTUC cohort, frequently observed GAs were similar between cfDNA NGS and historical tumor tissue studies, including tumor protein p53 (TP53) (P = 1.000 and .115, respectively), AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) (P = .058 and .058, respectively), phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) (P = .058 and .067, respectively), erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) (P = .565 and .074, respectively), and fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) (P = .164 and .014, respectively). No significant difference was observed with regard to the frequency of GAs between patients with mLTUC and mUTUC. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mUC for whom no tumor tissue was available, cfDNA NGS was able to identify a similar profile of GAs for biomarker-driven clinical trials compared with tumor tissue. Despite the more aggressive clinical course, cases of mUTUC demonstrated a circulating tumor DNA genomic landscape that was similar to that of mLTUC. Cancer 2018;124:2115-24. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line chemotherapy for patients with cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is associated with short response duration, poor survival, and high toxicity. This study assessed atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) as treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer in cisplatin-ineligible patients. METHODS: For this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study, in 47 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in seven countries in North America and Europe, we recruited previously untreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible. Patients were given 1200 mg intravenous atezolizumab every 21 days until progression. The primary endpoint was independently confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (central review), assessed in prespecified subgroups based on PD-L1 expression and in all patients. All participants who received one or more doses of atezolizumab were included in the primary and safety analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2014, and March 30, 2015, we enrolled 123 patients, of whom 119 received one or more doses of atezolizumab. At 17·2 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the complete response rate was 9% (n=11), and 19 of 27 responses were ongoing. Median response duration was not reached. Responses occurred across all PD-L1 and poor prognostic factor subgroups. Median progression-free survival was 2·7 months (2·1 to 4·2). Median overall survival was 15·9 months (10·4 to not estimable). Tumour mutation load was associated with response. Treatment-related adverse events that occurred in 10% or more of patients were fatigue (36 [30%] patients), diarrhoea (14 [12%] patients), and pruritus (13 [11%] patients). One treatment-related death (sepsis) occurred. Nine (8%) patients had an adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. Immune-mediated events occurred in 14 (12%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab showed encouraging durable response rates, survival, and tolerability, supporting its therapeutic use in untreated metastatic urothelial cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Impact of the Number of Cycles of Platinum Based First Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of the number of cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy (fewer than 6 cycles vs the conventional 6 cycles or more) on the survival of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the RISC (Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium) database. The association of the number of cycles of chemotherapy with overall survival was investigated by Cox multiple regression analysis after controlling for recognized prognostic factors. We excluded patients who received fewer than 3 or more than 9 platinum chemotherapy cycles to reduce confounding factors. The primary analysis was a comparison of overall survival for 3 to 5 vs 6 to 9 cycles using 6-month landmark analysis when 281 death events were observed. RESULTS: Of the 1,020 patients in the RISC 472 received cisplatin or carboplatin, of whom 338 and 134, respectively, were evaluable. A total of 157 patients received 3 to 5 cycles (median 4) and 315 received 6 to 9 cycles (median 6). There was no significant difference in overall survival between 3 to 5 and 6 to 9 cycles (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.33, p = 0.91). No significant interactions were observed for the type of platinum (p = 0.09) and completed planned chemotherapy (p = 0.56). The limitations of a hypothesis generating, retrospective analysis applied. CONCLUSIONS: Four cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy appeared adequate and did not significantly compromise the survival of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. The omission of excessive cycles may avoid unnecessary cumulative toxicity and facilitate a better transition to second line therapy and investigational switch maintenance therapy strategies. These results require prospective validation but they may impact practice in select patients.

Bevacizumab alone or in combination with TRC105 for patients with refractory metastatic renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway has improved outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, resistance inevitably occurs. CD105 (endoglin) is an angiogenic pathway that is strongly upregulated after VEGF inhibition, potentially contributing to resistance. The authors tested whether TRC105, a monoclonal antibody against endoglin, impacted disease control in patients with previously treated RCC who were receiving bevacizumab. METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic RCC who had previously received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy, including VEGF-targeted agents, were randomized 1:1 to receive bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm A) or the same plus TRC105 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (arm B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 and 24 weeks. Correlative studies included serum transforming growth factor ß (TGFß) and CD105 levels as well as tissue immunostaining for TGFß receptors. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled (28 on arm A and 31 on arm B), and 1 patient on each arm had a confirmed partial response. The median PFS for bevacizumab alone was 4.6 months compared with 2.8 for bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .09). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred in 16 patients (57%) who received bevacizumab compared with 19 (61%) who received bevacizumab plus TRC105 (P = .9). Baseline serum TGFß levels below the median (<10.6 ng/mL) were associated with longer median PFS (5.6 vs 2.1 months; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: TRC105 failed to improve PFS when added to bevacizumab. TGFß warrants further study as a biomarker in RCC. Cancer 2017;123:4566-4573. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development.

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs. The Oncologist 2017;22:369-374.

Changing face of metastatic prostate cancer: the law of diminishing returns holds true.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer presents with a multitude of faces. It ranges from localized cancers staying quiescent for many years during active surveillance to the raging diffuse liver metastases causing terminal disease. The incidence of metastatic disease is increasing. This review will highlight some of the recent developments as well as ongoing challenges of managing advanced prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant strides are being made in managing metastatic prostate cancer. With the evolution of multiple new therapies, now the optimal use of these therapies and their proper sequencing is being addressed. Research is ongoing for mapping out pathways of resistance to therapies and for discovering new targets. Genomic alterations and abnormalities in circulating tumor DNA are being detected and will hopefully lead us more toward biomarker based therapies. The next era in oncology belongs to immune therapy. However, in prostate cancer the immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown modest responses and a phase III trial of radiation therapy ± ipilimumab revealed no benefit. Efforts are ongoing with combination trials of enzalutamide and atezolizumab or pembrolizumab. PARP inhibitors are gradually being established for therapeutic purposes, with olaparib achieving breakthrough status for prostate cancer patients with BRCA1 and 2 and ATM mutations. SUMMARY: The future will bring an era of personalized medicine in advanced prostate cancer as well as optimization and more strategic sequencing of existing therapies.

First-in-human trial of an anti-5T4 antibody-monomethylauristatin conjugate, PF-06263507, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background The antibody-drug conjugate PF-06263507 targets the cell-surface, tumor-associated antigen 5T4 and consists of a humanized IgG1 conjugated to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethylauristatin-F by a non-cleavable maleimidocaproyl linker. In this first-in-human, dose-finding trial (NCT01891669), we evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of PF-06263507 in pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors, unselected for 5T4 expression. starting at 0.05 mg/kg, with 25, 56, and 95% dose increments, depending on observed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), applying a modified continual reassessment method. Results Twenty-six patients received PF-06263507 at 0.05 to 6.5 mg/kg. The first DLT, grade 3 photophobia, occurred at 4.34 mg/kg and two additional DLTs, grade 2 keratitis and grade 1 limbal stem cell deficiency (> 2-week dosing delay), at 6.5 mg/kg. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (38.5%), photophobia (26.9%), and decreased appetite, dry eye, nausea, and thrombocytopenia (23.1% each). No treatment-related grade 4-5 AEs were reported. Systemic exposure of PF-06263507 increased in a dose-related manner. At the maximum tolerated dose (MTD, 4.34 mg/kg), mean terminal half-life for PF-06263507 and unconjugated payload were ~6 and 3 days, respectively. Payload serum concentrations were substantially lower compared with PF-06263507. No objective responses were observed. Conclusions The MTD and recommended phase II dose were determined to be 4.34 mg/kg. Ocular toxicities accounted for the DLTs observed, as previously reported with monomethylauristatin-F payloads. Further studies are warranted to investigate clinical activity of this agent in patients with 5T4-expressing tumors.Trial registration ID: NCT01891669.

Management and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma: a multicentre collaborative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the management strategies and outcomes of patients with renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) and characterise predictors of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: RMC is a rare and aggressive malignancy that afflicts young patients with sickle cell trait; there are limited data on management to date. This is a study of patients with RMC who were treated in 2000-2015 at eight academic institutions in North America and France. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS, measured from initial RMC diagnosis to date of death. Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of OS. RESULTS: In all, 52 patients (37 males) were identified. The median (range) age at diagnosis was 28 (9-48) years and 49 patients (94%) had stage III/IV. The median OS for all patients was 13.0 months and 38 patients (75%) had nephrectomy. Patients who underwent nephrectomy had superior OS compared to patients who were treated with systemic therapy only (median OS 16.4 vs 7.0 months, P < 0.001). In all, 45 patients received chemotherapy and 13 (29%) had an objective response; 28 patients received targeted therapies, with 8-week median therapy duration and no objective responses. Only seven patients (13%) survived for >24 months. CONCLUSIONS: RMC carries a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy provides palliation and remains the mainstay of therapy, but <20% of patients survive for >24 months, underscoring the need to develop more effective therapy for this rare tumour. In this study, nephrectomy was associated with improved OS.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Castration resistance occurs in most patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. Replacing androgens before progression of the disease is hypothesized to prolong androgen dependence. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, a performance status of 0 to 2, and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5 ng per milliliter or higher received a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue and an antiandrogen agent for 7 months. We then randomly assigned patients in whom the PSA level fell to 4 ng per milliliter or lower to continuous or intermittent androgen deprivation, with patients stratified according to prior or no prior hormonal therapy, performance status, and extent of disease (minimal or extensive). The coprimary objectives were to assess whether intermittent therapy was noninferior to continuous therapy with respect to survival, with a one-sided test with an upper boundary of the hazard ratio of 1.20, and whether quality of life differed between the groups 3 months after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3040 patients were enrolled, of whom 1535 were included in the analysis: 765 randomly assigned to continuous androgen deprivation and 770 assigned to intermittent androgen deprivation. The median follow-up period was 9.8 years. Median survival was 5.8 years in the continuous-therapy group and 5.1 years in the intermittent-therapy group (hazard ratio for death with intermittent therapy, 1.10; 90% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.23). Intermittent therapy was associated with better erectile function and mental health (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively) at month 3 but not thereafter. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of treatment-related high-grade adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were statistically inconclusive. In patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the confidence interval for survival exceeded the upper boundary for noninferiority, suggesting that we cannot rule out a 20% greater risk of death with intermittent therapy than with continuous therapy, but too few events occurred to rule out significant inferiority of intermittent therapy. Intermittent therapy resulted in small improvements in quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002651.).

The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Previous prognostic models for second-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have not been studied in the setting of targeted therapy. We sought to validate the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving next-line targeted therapy after progression on first-line targeted therapy. METHODS: In this population-based study, we analysed patients who received second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at 19 centres in Canada, USA, Greece, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark. The primary endpoint was overall survival since the initiation of second-line therapy. We compared the prognostic performance of the IMDC model with the three-factor MSKCC model used for previously treated patients for overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, we included 1021 patients treated with second-line targeted therapy. Median overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy was 12·5 months (95% CI 11·3-14·3). Five of six predefined factors in the IMDC model (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80, and <1 year from diagnosis to first-line targeted therapy) were independent predictors of poor overall survival on multivariable analysis. The concordance index using all six prognostic factors (ie, also including hypercalcaemia) was 0·70 (95% CI 0·67-0·72) with the IMDC model and was 0·66 (95% CI 0·64-0·68) with the three-factor MSKCC model. When patients were divided into three risk categories using IMDC criteria, median overall survival was 35·3 months (95% CI 28·3-47·8) in the favourable risk group (n=76), 16·6 months (14·9-17·9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5·4 months (4·7-6·8) in the poor risk group (n=261). INTERPRETATION: The IMDC prognostic model can be applied to patients previously treated with targeted therapy, in addition to previously validated populations in first-line targeted therapy. The IMDC prognostic model in the second-line targeted therapy setting has an improved prognostic performance and is applicable to a more contemporary patient cohort than that of the three-factor MSKCC model. FUNDING: DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50 CA101942-01, Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Trust Family, Loker Pinard, Michael Brigham, and Gerald DeWulf.

Comparative effectiveness of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) has been adopted as a neoadjuvant regimen for muscle-invasive bladder cancer despite the lack of Level I evidence in this setting. METHODS: Data were collected using an electronic data-capture platform from 28 international centers. Eligible patients had clinical T-classification 2 (cT2) through cT4aN0M0 urothelial cancer of the bladder and received neoadjuvant GC or methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin (MVAC) before undergoing cystectomy. Logistic regression was used to compute propensity scores as the predicted probabilities of patients being assigned to MVAC versus GC given their baseline characteristics. These propensity scores were then included in a new logistic regression model to estimate an adjusted odds ratio comparing the odds of attaining a pathologic complete response (pCR) between patients who received MVAC and those who received GC. RESULTS: In total, 212 patients (146 patients in the GC cohort and 66 patients in the MVAC cohort) met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of patients in the MVAC cohort (77%) received dose-dense MVAC. The median age of patients was 63 years, they were predominantly men (74%), and they received a median of 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The pCR rate was 29% in the MVAC cohort and 31% in the GC cohort. There was no significant difference in the pCR rate when adjusted for propensity scores between the 2 regimens (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.72; P = .77). In an exploratory analysis evaluating survival, the hazard ratio comparing hazard rates for MVAC versus GC adjusted for propensity scores was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.54; P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received neoadjuvant GC and MVAC achieved comparable pCR rates in the current analysis, providing evidence to support what has become routine practice.

Sequences and combinations of multifaceted therapy in advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Multiple agents with very distinct mechanisms of actions and unique toxicities and efficacies have become available for use in advanced prostate cancer. The next wave of investigations is focused on the development of combinations and optimal sequences of the currently available agents. The focus of this article is to provide an update on clinical developments in advanced prostate cancer occurring within the past year and to highlight the ongoing investigations of promising novel targets and compounds. RECENT FINDINGS: The clinical use of enzalutamide prior to chemotherapy demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with placebo in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. This report of the Enzalutamide in men with chemotherapy-naive metastatic prostate cancer (PREVAIL) trial led to the Food and Drug Administration approval of this agent. Novel agents such as cabozantinib and custirsen that had shown promising results in phase II trials revealed disappointing results in the phase III setting. The breakthrough report, of the ability of the androgen receptor splice variant mutation, detected in circulating tumor cells, to predict lack of response to abiraterone or enzalutamide, and the remarkable responses of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in prostate cancer with breast cancer genes 1 and 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations, have elevated hopes of a bright future in the biomarker-driven therapeutic arena. SUMMARY: As the clinical application of the recently approved multifaceted therapies widens, trials addressing optimal sequences and combinations are gaining importance. In addition, exploring the utility of therapies in the hormone naive or nonmetastatic settings is an area of active investigation. Early use of available agents, optimal sequencing and aid of biomarkers to guide therapeutic choices will make the achievement of lifetime remissions in advanced prostate cancer a reachable goal.