Challenges of Treating a Patient With Advanced Prostate Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A 78-year-old man had a medical history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). He had progressed to first-line therapy for CRPC with abiraterone plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and as second-line therapy he was being treated with docetaxel, with biochemical progression in his last prostate specific antigen measurement. He was admitted to the hospital on April 2020, in the middle of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, because of painful bone lesions and deterioration of renal function.

Meta-analysis of perioperative immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma: Available, but the jury is still out.

INTRODUCTION: While surgical management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is curative for many patients, others may relapse and could benefit from adjuvant treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been proposed as a potential adjuvant therapy for improving survival in these patients, but the benefit/risk ratio of ICI in the perioperative setting remains unclear. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of phase III trials of perioperative ICI (anti PD1/PD-L1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 agents) in RCC was conducted. RESULTS: The analysis included results from 4 phase III trials, comprising 3,407 patients. ICI did not show a significant increase in disease-free survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.04; p: 0.11) or overall survival [OS] (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40-1.34; p: 0.31). High-grade adverse events were more frequent in the immunotherapy arm (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.53-4.59; p: <0.001), and high-grade treatment-related adverse events were 8 times more frequent in the experimental arm (OR: 8.07; 95% CI: 3.14-20.75; p: <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences favoring the experimental arm in females (HR: 0.71; 95 CI 0.55-0.92; p: 0.009), in sarcomatoid differentiation (HR: 0.60 95% CI 0.41-0.89; p: 0.01), and PD-L1 positive tumors (HR HR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p: 0.003). No significant effect was found in patients according to age, type of nephrectomy (radical vs. partial), and stage (M1 without evidence of disease vs. M0 patients). CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive meta-analysis generally suggests that immunotherapy does not confer a survival advantage in the perioperative setting for RCC, with the exception of one positive study. While the overall results are not statistically significant, individual patient factors and other variables may play a role in determining who benefits from immunotherapy. Therefore, despite the mixed findings, immunotherapy may still be a viable treatment option for certain patients, and further studies are needed to determine which patient subgroups would be most likely to benefit.

Theranostic Targeting of CUB Domain-Containing Protein 1 (CDCP1) in Multiple Subtypes of Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite recent approvals for checkpoint inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates targeting NECTIN4 or TROP2, metastatic bladder cancer remains incurable and new treatment strategies are urgently needed. CUB domain-containing protein 1 (CDCP1) is a cell surface protein and promising drug target for many cancers. This study aimed to determine whether CDCP1 is expressed in bladder cancer and whether CDCP1 can be targeted for treatment with radiolabeled antibodies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: CDCP1 expression was evaluated in four bladder cancer datasets (n = 1,047 biopsies). A tissue microarray of primary bladder cancer biopsies was probed for CDCP1 by IHC. CDCP1 expression was evaluated in patient-derived xenografts and cell lysates by immunoblot, flow cytometry, and saturation binding assays. Tumor detection in mouse bladder cancer models was tested using 89Zr-labeled 4A06, a monoclonal antibody targeting the ectodomain of CDCP1. 177Lu-4A06 was applied to mice bearing UMUC3 or HT-1376 xenografts to evaluate antitumor effects (CDCP1 expression in UMUC3 is 10-fold higher than HT-1376). RESULTS: CDCP1 was highest in the basal/squamous subtype, and CDCP1 was expressed in 53% of primary biopsies. CDCP1 was not correlated with pathologic or tumor stage, metastatic site, or NECTIN4 and TROP2 at the mRNA or protein level. CDCP1 ranged from 105 to 106 receptors per cell. Mechanism studies showed that RAS signaling induced CDCP1 expression. 89Zr-4A06 PET detected five human bladder cancer xenografts. 177Lu-4A06 inhibited the growth of UMUC3 and HT-1376 xenografts, models with high and moderate CDCP1 expression, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data establish that CDCP1 is expressed in bladder cancer, including TROP2 and NECTIN4-null disease, and suggest that bladder cancer can be treated with CDCP1-targeted radiotherapy.

Characterization of plasma circulating small extracellular vesicles in patients with metastatic solid tumors and newly diagnosed brain metastasis.

Nearly 40% of the advanced cancer patients will present brain metastases during the course of their disease, with a 2-year life expectancy of less than 10%. Immune system impairment, including the modulation of both STAT3 and PD-L1, is one of the hallmarks of brain metastases. Liquid biopsy could offer several advantages in brain metastases management, such as the possibility of noninvasive dynamic monitoring. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been recently proposed as novel biomarkers especially useful in liquid biopsy due to their secretion in biofluids and their role in cell communication during tumor progression. The main aim of this work was to characterize the size and protein cargo of plasma circulating EVs in patients with solid tumors and their correlation with newly diagnosed brain metastases, in addition to their association with other relevant clinical variables. We analyzed circulating EVs in the plasma of 123 patients: 42 patients with brain metastases, 50 without brain metastases and 31 healthy controls. Patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases had a lower number of circulating EVs in the plasma and a higher protein concentration in small EVs (sEVs) compared to patients without brain metastases and healthy controls. Interestingly, melanoma patients with brain metastases presented decreased STAT3 activation and increased PD-L1 levels in circulating sEVs compared to patients without central nervous system metastases. Decreased STAT3 activation and increased PD-L1 in plasma circulating sEVs identify melanoma patients with brain metastasis.

Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combinations versus standard of care in cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as monotherapy in different solid tumors showed an early detrimental effect in a subset of patients reflected by the early crossover of the progression-free survival (PFS) curves. Currently, combination therapies with ICIs added to chemotherapy or targeted therapy are expanding the landscape of metastatic solid tumors. We have examined the benefits and risks of adding ICIs to the standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone. A search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ICIs combinations versus the corresponding SOC in different metastatic tumors according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. Selected endpoints included PFS, time-to-response (TTR), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analyses based on backbone treatment and tumor type were included. A total of 10536 patients (19 studies) were included (ICIs-arm: 5596 patients; SOC-arm: 4940 patients). Globally, PFS, OS, and ORR results favored ICIs-arm. No differences in terms of TTR were found between arms. ICI-arm was associated with a slight increase of ≥ G3 AEs (relative risk: 1.07). The results in multiple myeloma patients are controversial in favor of ICIs combinations. Adding ICIs to SOC benefits a greater number of patients, prolonging survival with no early detrimental effect. The toxicity profile is safe, with a mild increase of high-grade manageable AEs.

Systemic Analysis and Review of Nivolumab-ipilimumab Combination as a Rescue Strategy for Renal Cell Carcinoma After Treatment With Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Therapy.

Nivolumab-ipilimumab has become the standard of care in the frontline setting for intermediate-/poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This regimen is associated with survival improvement but significant toxicity. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) monotherapy may provide response and offers a better safety profile. In this context, nivolumab-ipilimumab has been postulated as a rescue treatment after anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Recent retrospective data has shown positive results, and several nonrandomized clinical trials (NRCTs) have evaluated this strategy. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of available NRCTs to clarify the efficacy and safety of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab in mRCC after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in patients with mRCC. Only phase II NRCTs were available for the analysis. The pooled effect of single proportions with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the measure of effect (overall response rate [ORR] and incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events). Four studies accounting for 237 patients were included. All patients received prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The pooled ORR of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 failure was 10.0% (95% CI, 6%-14%; I2 = 41%; P = .17). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs was 27.0% (95% CI, 20%-35%; I2 = 0%; P = .56). The results of this analysis suggest that the use of salvage nivolumab-ipilimumab in mRCC after prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 has limited activity with a 10% ORR, and a non-negligible toxicity with 1 of 4 patients developing grade ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events.

The Value of PD-L1 Expression as Predictive Biomarker in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are soluble antibodies that have dramatically changed the outcomes including overall survival in a subset of kidney tumors, specifically in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). To date, there is no a single predictive biomarker approved to be used to select the patients that achieve benefit from ICIs targeting. It seems reasonable to analyze whether the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression could be useful. To assess the role of PD-L1 expression as a potential predictive biomarker for benefit of ICIs in RCC patients, we performed a search of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing ICIs (monotherapy or in combination with other therapies) to standard of care in metastatic RCC patients according to PRISMA guidelines. Trials must have included subgroup analyses evaluating the selected outcomes (progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) in different subsets of patients according to PD-L1 expression on tumor samples. Hazard ratios with confidence intervals were used as the measure of efficacy between groups. A total of 4635 patients (six studies) were included (ICIs arm: 2367 patients; standard of care arm: 2268 patients). Globally, PFS and OS results favored ICIs. Differential expression of PD-L1 on tumor samples could select a subset of patients who could benefit more in terms of PFS (those with higher levels; p-value for difference between subgroups: <0.0001) but it did not seem to impact in OS results (p-value for difference: 0.63). As different methods to assess PD-L1 positivity were used among trials, this heterogeneity could have an influence on the results. PD-L1 could represent a biomarker to test PFS in clinical trials but its value for OS is less clear. In this meta-analysis, the usefulness of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker to select treatment in metastatic RCC patients was not clearly shown.

Three case reports: Temporal association between tyrosine-kinase inhibitor-induced hepatitis and immune checkpoint inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma.

RATIONALE: Hepatotoxicity is a well-known adverse effect of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), usually employed for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been shown to improve survival in specific patients with mRCC, but concerns have arisen over their safety profile, particularly as regards the risk of liver damage in those patients receiving TKIs sequentially or concurrently with these new drugs. Here, we report three cases of hepatitis presentation in patients receiving TKIs after ICIs that should potentially be considered in current clinical practice, where a combination of these hepatotoxic drugs is becoming increasingly used. PATIENTS CONCERNS: All three patients were receiving TKIs therapy and presented with nonspecific clinical deterioration and liver enzyme elevation in different time frames according to the start of treatment. All were previously treated with ICIs. DIAGNOSES: After performing imaging techniques and complementary laboratory tests for the differential diagnosis of hepatic injury, the diagnosis of potentially TKI-induced hepatitis was assumed in all these cases. Hepatic biopsy was performed only in the first case in order to confirm the diagnosis. INTERVENTIONS: Potential toxic drugs were interrupted and steroids course with slow reduction regimen was administered in all these cases because of the previous use of ICIs. OUTCOMES: The patients described improved with this conservative treatment without complications during the following weeks. Only one case presented a new episode of mild hepatic alteration while on treatment with following treatment. LESSONS: Taking into account this new therapeutic context, stricter monitoring for potentially increased/altered adverse events should be indicated. Adequate patient selection and consideration of the safety profile of the different drugs used could help to optimize treatment in the near future.

Comparative safety analysis of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus monotherapy in solid tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Combination treatment (chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint blockade [ICB]) has shown promising activity in terms of efficacy, but it has been suggested that its toxicity profile is less favorable compared to monotherapy. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials comparing combination treatment to monotherapy (chemotherapy or ICB) in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Differences in rates of safety issues (all-grade adverse events, grade 3/4 adverse events, treatment-related deaths, treatment discontinuations) between groups were estimated. Subgroup analyses for the control group (chemotherapy or ICB as monotherapy) and immune checkpoint inhibitor (anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies) were performed. Results: A total of 4379 patients (ten studies) were included (monotherapy: 2026 patients; combination treatment: 2353 patients). Combination treatment presented more grade 3/4 adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-1.55) and discontinuations (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.28-4.16). There were no differences in the mortality rate between groups. Subgroup analyses showed a potentially more toxic profile with anti-CTLA-4 agents. Conclusions: Combination treatment is associated with an increase in grade 3/4 adverse events and treatment discontinuations compared to monotherapy, but not increased mortality. The toxicity profile of combination therapy should be considered with regard to the overlapping safety profiles.

Exosomes: Definition, Role in Tumor Development and Clinical Implications.

Exosomes are microvesicles released by cells in both physiological and pathological situations. They are surrounded by a lipid bilayer with proteins derived from the origin cell, and contain a variety of molecules, such as nucleic acids. They represent an emerging mechanism of intercellular communication, and they play an important role in the pathogenesis of cancer, stimulating proliferation and aggressiveness of cancer cells, inducing a microenvironment favorable to tumor development and controlling immune responses. Because of the growing understanding of the potential implications of extracellular vesicles in the development of malignancies, research on exosomes, and its role as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, constitutes nowadays a very exciting and promising field.

Analysis of response rate with ANTI PD1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies in advanced solid tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) increase overall survival compared to standard of care (SOC) in different tumors. However, a proportion of patients (pts) will have progressive disease (PD) as best response. We conducted a meta-analysis to study the rates of response comparing these antibodies with SOC. METHODS: A search of published trials in MEDLINE and EMBASE analyzing anti-PD1/PD-L1mAbs monotherapy compared to SOC. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of response rates between groups was estimated. Subgroup analyses for location of primary tumor, number of previous treatment lines, selected population by PD-L1 expression and type of radiological assessment were made. RESULTS: Twelve studies accounting for 6,700 pts were included (anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs: 3,451 pts; SOC: 3,249 pts [2,823 pts: chemotherapy, 426 pts: targeted therapy]). Adjusted response rates were (N, %): Complete Response (CR) (69/3153, 2.19%), Partial Response (PR) (596/3153, 18.90%), Stable Disease (SD) (632/2463, 25.66%) and PD (1027/2463, 41.70%); and CR (16/2955, 0.54%), PR (263/2955, 8.90%), SD (835/2269, 36.80%) and PD (834/2269, 36.76%) with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs and SOC, respectively. Anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs improved CR rate (RR 3.48) and PR rate (RR 2.27). There were no differences in the PD rate between groups (RR 1.10). Subgroup analyses showed an improvement in clinical benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs for melanoma (RR 1.59; 1.37-1.84 95% CI) and those treated in the first line setting (RR 1.57; 1.27-1.95 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs increase overall response rate compared to SOC without an increase in PD rate. Melanoma and pts treated in first line setting seem to have greater benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs. FINDINGS: In this systematic meta-analysis, anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs were associated with a greater overall response rate. Patients with melanoma and those managed in the first line setting seem to have an additional benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs.