Impact of COVID-19 crisis on medical care of patients with metastasized uro-oncologic disease under systemic cancer therapy: a multicenter study in German university hospitals.

PURPOSE: To date, over 4.2 million Germans and over 235 million people worldwide have been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Uro-oncology (UO) patients are particularly vulnerable but in urgent need of life-saving systemic treatments. Our multicentric study examined the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the medical care of UO patients in German university hospitals receiving ongoing systemic anti-cancer treatment and to detect the delay of medical care, defined as deferred medical treatment or deviation of the pre-defined follow-up assessment. METHODS: Data of 162 UO patients with metastatic disease undergoing systemic cancer treatment at five university hospitals in Germany were included in our analyses. The focus of interest was any delay or change in treatment between February 2020 and May 2020 (first wave of the COVID-19 crisis in Germany). Statistical analysis of contingency tables were performed using Pearson's chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Effect size was determined using Cramér's V (V). RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 162 patients (14.8%) experienced a delay in systemic treatment of more than 2 weeks. Most of these received immuno-oncologic (IO) treatments (13/24, 54.2%, p = 0.746). Blood tests were delayed or canceled significantly more often in IO patients but with a small effect size (21.1%, p = 0.042, V = 0.230). Treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (12/73, 16.4%) and urothelial carcinoma (7/32, 21.9%) was affected the most. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the medical care of UO patients, but deferment remained modest. There was a tendency towards delays in IO and ADT treatments in particular.

Consensus paper: current state of first- and second-line therapy in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

The therapy of advanced (clear-cell) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has recently experienced tremendous changes. Several new treatments have been developed, with PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibition being the backbone of therapy. Diverse immunotherapy combinations change current first-line standards. These changes also require new approaches in subsequent lines of therapy. In an expert panel, we discussed the new treatment options and how they change clinical practice. While first-line immunotherapies introduce a new level of response rates, data on second-line therapies remains poor. This scenario poses a challenge for clinicians as guideline recommendations are based on historical patient cohorts and agents may lack the appropriate label for their in guidelines recommended use. Here, we summarize relevant clinical data and consider appropriate treatment strategies.

Correlation of CTNNB1 Mutation Status with Progression Arrest Rate in RECIST Progressive Desmoid-Type Fibromatosis Treated with Imatinib: Translational Research Results from a Phase 2 Study of the German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG-01).

BACKGROUND: CTNNB1 gene mutations are the molecular key events in the majority of sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF). The specific S45F mutation has been reported to be associated with a more aggressive clinical course in DF. For the current study, the CTNNB1 mutation status was analyzed in DF samples from the prospective German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG) phase 2 study evaluating imatinib to induce progression arrest in DF Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) progressive patients. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were treated with a planned dose of imatinib 800 mg daily over 2 years (NCT01137916). The progression arrest rate (PAR) after 6 months of treatment was the primary endpoint of the study. CTNNB1 exon 3 mutation status was analyzed using Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: Thirty-three (97 %) of 34 patients reaching the primary endpoint were evaluable for CTNNB1 mutation exon 3 status. T41A mutations accounted for 30.3 % of the study samples and S45 mutations for 48.5 %, whereas CTNNB1 wild-type status was found in 21.2 %. The respective PAR at 6 months was 70, 81, and 43 %. Patients harboring CTNNB1 mutations demonstrated a higher PAR compared to wild-type DF. There was a statistically significant difference comparing patients with S45F mutations (85 % PAR) versus wild-type status (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mutations at position S45 were overrepresented in the GISG-01 trial recruiting RECIST progressive patients only. The positive correlation of CTNNB1 mutation status with the progression arrest rate after imatinib therapy supports the idea of a potential predictive impact of the mutation status on DF treatment decision making.

Study protocol of REGOSARC trial: activity and safety of regorafenib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma: a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis, among other signaling pathways, plays a key-role in sarcoma biology. Regorafenib (RE) has recently been shown to be effective in imatinib and sunitinib-refractory GIST in a phase III trial. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting an international trial (France, Austria and Germany) consisting in 4 parallel double-blind placebo-controlled randomized (1/1) phase II trials to assess the activity and safety of RE in doxorubicin-refractory STS (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900743). Each phase II trial is dedicated to one of the 4 following histological subgroups: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma and other sarcoma. Within each randomized trial the following stratification factors will be applied: countries and prior exposure to pazopanib. Key-eligibility criteria are: measurable disease, age ≥18, not > 3 previous systemic treatment lines for metastatic disease, metastatic disease not amenable to surgical resection. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) according to central radiological review. Secondary endpoints are: Toxicity (NCI-CTC AE V4.0); time to progression; Growth modulation index in pts receiving RE after randomization; 3 and 6 months PFS-Rates, best response rate and overall survival. Each phase II trial will be separately analyzed. In 3 trials, statistical assumptions are: PFS0 = 1.6 & PFS1 = 4.6 months; 1-sided α = 0.1; ß = 0.05 with a total sample size of 192 pts. To take into account the rarity of synovial sarcoma, the statistical assumptions are: PFS0 = 1.6 & PFS1 = 4.6 months; 1-sided α = 0.1; ß = 0.2 Tumor assessment is done monthly during the 4 first months, and every 3 months thereafter. After central radiological confirmation of tumor progression, an optional open-label option is offered to eligible patients. DISCUSSION: The design of this trial allows an assessment of regorafenib activity over placebo in four sarcoma strata and might provide evidence for launching a phase III trial. This study includes both integrative and exploratory translational research program. The study is enrolling since June 2013 (TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT N°: 2012-005743-24, on the 15(th) February 2012).

Positive effects of zoledronate on skeletal-related events in patients with renal cell cancer and bone metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 30% of patients with renal cell cancer (RCC) develop bone metastasis causing skeletal-related events (SRE): pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, surgery to bone and radiotherapy. Zoledronic acid demonstrated significant clinical benefit in RCC patients in a retrospective analysis. Primary objective of this prospective study was the proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 1 SRE during 12 months of zoledronic acid treatment and to verify the retrospective data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with histologically confirmed RCC and evidence of ≥ 1 cancer-related bone lesion and ≤ 3 prior bisphosphonate applications were enrolled in 19 German centers between 2004 and 2007. The patients received 4 mg zoledronic acid every 3 weeks for 12 months followed by a follow up period for overall survival of 12 months. Bone lesions were diagnosed by bone scan or MRI-quickscan. Greater and equal to 1 lesion had to be confirmed by x-ray, CT or MRI scan. Additional bone scans were performed after completion of study treatment and if clinically indicated. In case of suspicion or evidence of a SRE it had to be confirmed radiologically. RESULTS: In total, 49 of the 50 enrolled patients were treated. Only 11 of them (22.4%) experienced any SRE until month 12. Patients with > 6 lesions and higher baseline MSKCC (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) score had a higher risk for SREs. Zoledronic acid was generally well tolerated and its known safety profile was affirmed. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study confirms the results of prior data about the efficacy of zoledronic acid in patients with metastatic (m)RCC, supporting its beneficial use in these patients.

Editorial: Immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma.

This collection contains 10 reports published In Frontiers in Oncology between August 2020 and March 2022 broadly focused on the immunobiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the impact of immunotherapy in the setting of RCC, and the identification of biomarkers that are prognostic of RCC patient outcomes and response to immunotherapy.

Circulating endothelial cells are an early predictor in renal cell carcinoma for tumor response to sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have enriched the therapeutic options in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which frequently induce morphological changes in tumors. However, only little is known about the biological activity of TKI. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) have been associated with endothelial damage and, hence, may serve as a putative marker for the biological activity of TKI. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the predictive value of CEC, monocytes, and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (sVEGFR)-2 in RCC patients receiving sunitinib treatment. METHODS: Analyses of CEC, monocytes, and sVEGFR-2 were accomplished for twenty-six consecutive patients with metastatic RCC who received treatment with sunitinib (50 mg, 4 wks on 2 wks off schedule) at our institution in 2005 and 2006. RESULTS: In RCC patients CEC are elevated to 49 ± 44/ml (control 8 ± 8/ml; P = 0.0001). Treatment with sunitinib is associated with an increase in CEC within 28 days of treatment in patients with a Progression free survival (PFS) above the median to 111 ± 61 (P = 0.0109), whereas changes in patients with a PFS below the median remain insignificant 69 ± 61/ml (P = 0.1848). Monocytes and sVEGFR2 are frequently altered upon sunitinib treatment, but fail to correlate with clinical response, defined by PFS above or below the median. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib treatment is associated with an early increase of CEC in responding patients, suggesting superior endothelial cell damage in these patients as a putative predictive biomarker.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment patterns in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19. FINDINGS: For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both. CONCLUSION: mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy.

ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO): improving the efficiency of clinical research through rationalisation of bureaucracy.

During the last years, there has been a dramatic increase in the administrative and bureaucratic burden associated with clinical research, which has clearly had an impact on its overall efficiency and on the activity of clinical investigators and research teams. Indeed, the supervision of the adherence of clinical research to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and legal regulations is of the utmost importance. Yet, while such regulations have remained largely unchanged during recent years, the number of administrative tasks and their complexity have grown markedly, as supported by the results of a survey performed among 940 clinical investigators that we report in this manuscript. Therefore, many investigators believe that it has become necessary to undertake a rigorous analysis of the causes and consequences of this issue, and to create a conduit to channel the advice from experienced investigators regarding clinical research procedures, in order to improve them. Based on these premises, ESMO has launched the ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO), a task force that will analyse different aspects of clinical research. ECRO will aim to provide the views of ESMO on clinical research procedures based on the feedback from clinical investigators, under complete adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki, the GCP guidelines and any other applicable legal regulations, while at the same time showing profound respect for all the stakeholders involved in clinical research. This manuscript provides the background and rationale for the creation of ECRO, its planned activity and an analysis of the current administrative burden in clinical research with recommendations to rationalise it. Indeed, we expect that this effort shall lead to a relevant improvement in the care of patients and in the development of clinical research.

Randomised phase II trial of trofosfamide vs. doxorubicin in elderly patients with untreated metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.

Doxorubicin represents the standard first-line treatment for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of trofosfamide in elderly patients. In this controlled phase II trial, we randomly (1:2) assigned 120 previously untreated patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, older than 60 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-2, to receive either doxorubicin for 6 cycles (arm A) or oral trofosfamide (arm B). The primary end-point was a 6-month progression-free rate (PFR) in the experimental arm (clinical trial information: NCT00204568). Between August 2004 and October 2012, forty and 80 patients were randomly assigned to arm A and arm B, respectively, in 16 centres. The median age was 70 years (range, 60-89). The primary study end-point (6-month PFR) was exceeded, with 27.6% in arm B (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0-39.1) and 35.9% in arm A: (95% CI, 21.2-52.8). Survival data in terms of progression-free survival were 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.2-6.3) and 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.7-3.6) and in terms of overall survival were 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.7-11.6) and 12.3 months (95% CI, 9.6-16.2), respectively. The number of serious adverse event (SAE) was 59% in arm A and 30.3% in arm B (p = 0.005). Trofosfamide caused more often dyspnoea and low-grade fatigue, whereas with doxorubicin, more often leukocytopenia, neutropenia and mucositis were seen. Discontinuation rates for reasons other than disease progression were 15.4% (arm A) vs. 7.9% (arm B). In an elderly population of patients, oral trofosfamide achieved the estimated primary end-point 6-month PFR and was associated with a favourable toxicity profile compared with doxorubicin.

Phase II trial of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with adeno- and undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary.

BACKGROUND: Carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP) account for approximately 2-5% of all cancer diagnoses. Except for some subsets with favorable prognosis, for most of these patients treatment options are limited, and no standard first-line regimen has been identified. We performed a phase II study with oxaliplatin (OX) and capecitabine (CAP) as first-line treatment for patients with histo-or cytologically proven adeno- or undifferentiated CUP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Protocol treatment in this multicenter trial consisted of CAP 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily orally (days 1-14) and OX 130 mg/m(2) intravenously (day 1), repeated every 21 days at a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: 51 patients with CUP (71% with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; 41% ECOG performance status (PS) 0, 39% PS 1, 10% PS 2, 55% with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and 39% with liver metastases) were enrolled in this study. We observed an objective RR of 11.7% and a median PFS of 2.5 months as well as an OS of 7.5 months with a good toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: CAP/OX did not reach higher RR compared to a standard regimen with paclitaxel/carboplatin, which discourages further investigation of this schedule in CUP.

Comparative analysis of the phase III clinical trials of anti-PD1 monotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients (CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE 040).

Two phase III clinical trials (CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE 040) have independently demonstrated that overall survival (OS) in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) patients, who have failed platinum-based therapy, can be improved with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab or pembrolizumab in R/M HNSCC patients led to an improved OS with a hazards ratio (HR) of 0.70 (95%CI 0.51-0.96; p = 0.01) and HR of 0.80 (95%CI 0.65-0.98, p = 0.0161), respectively, as compared to standard of care (SOC) chemo monotherapy regimens (specifically, cetuximab, docetaxel, or methotrexate). The gain in OS was similar in both studies, underscoring the role of anti-PD1 drugs in R/M HNSCC patients. One of the striking discrepancies between CheckMate 141 and KEYNOTE 040 was the OS observed in the control SOC arms (6.9 months median in KEYNOTE 040 versus 5.1 months in CheckMate 141), which inadvertently set a higher threshold in the bio-statistical analysis of KEYNOTE 040 so that the clinical outcome of every patient was influential in the analysis. We perform a comparative analysis of the two studies to identify potential factors in the control arm that can impact clinical trial bio-statistical outcomes and which may have implications for future immunotherapy clinical trial designs.

Publisher Correction: Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

In the version of this article originally published, there was an error in Fig. 2n. The top line of the HR comparison chart originally was Atezo + bev vs sun. It should have been Atezo + bev vs atezo. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of this article.

Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.

We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82-1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63-1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.

Imatinib induces sustained progression arrest in RECIST progressive desmoid tumours: Final results of a phase II study of the German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG).

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumours describe a rare monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterised by an often unpredictable clinical course. Surgery is one therapeutic option for progressing patients, except if mutilating and associated with considerable function loss. Different systemic treatment approaches have been investigated and promising results could be demonstrated using imatinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We initiated a phase II trial within the German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG) evaluating imatinib to induce progression arrest in desmoid tumour patients being Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) progressive, not amenable to surgical resection with R0 intent or accompanied by unacceptable function loss (NCT01137916). Thirty-eight patients (median age 44 years [range: 19-80]; 68% female; 90% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0) were treated with a daily dose of 800 mg imatinib planned over 2 years. The progression arrest rate after 6 months of imatinib treatment (PAR6mo) was the primary end-point. Patients showing disease progression under imatinib could be treated with nilotinib 800 mg daily. Accrual started in July 2010 in four GISG centres and finalised in September 2013. RESULTS: The final analysis for the primary end-point in the evaluable patients of the full analysis set revealed a PAR6mo of 65%. Subsequent progression arrest rates at 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24 months were 65%, 59%, 53%, 53%, 50% and 45%, respectively. None of the patients died within the study observational period. Best reported response was seven partial responses at 21 months revealing an overall response rate of 19%. Eight patients treated with nilotinib demonstrated a PAR at 3 months of 88% (7/8); no more disease progressions occurred until end of study. In general imatinib adverse events were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Imatinib induces sustained progression arrest in RECIST progressive desmoid tumour patients. In addition, nilotinib had the potential to stabilise desmoid tumour growth after treatment failure with imatinib.