Identification of incidental brain tumors in prostate cancer patients via PSMA PET/CT.

PURPOSE: Brain metastases are rare in patients with prostate cancer and portend poor outcome. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET)/CT scans including the brain have identified incidental tumors. We sought to identify the incidental brain tumor detection rate of PSMA PET/CT performed at initial diagnosis or in the setting of biochemical recurrence. METHODS: An institutional database was queried for patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 or 18F-DCFPyL (18F-piflufolastat) PET/CT imaging at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center from 1/2018 to 12/2022. Imaging reports and clinical courses were reviewed to identify brain lesions and describe clinical and pathologic features. RESULTS: Two-thousand seven hundred and sixty-three patients underwent 3363 PSMA PET/CT scans in the absence of neurologic symptoms. Forty-four brain lesions were identified, including 33 PSMA-avid lesions: 10 intraparenchymal metastases (30%), 4 dural-based metastases (12%), 16 meningiomas (48%), 2 pituitary macroadenomas (6%), and 1 epidermal inclusion cyst (3%) (incidences of 0.36, 0.14, 0.58, 0.07, and 0.04%). The mean parenchymal metastasis diameter and mean SUVmax were 1.99 cm (95%CI:1.25-2.73) and 4.49 (95%CI:2.41-6.57), respectively. At the time of parenchymal brain metastasis detection, 57% of patients had no concurrent extracranial disease, 14% had localized prostate disease only, and 29% had extracranial metastases. Seven of 8 patients with parenchymal brain metastases remain alive at a median 8.8 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer brain metastases are rare, especially in the absence of widespread metastatic disease. Nevertheless, incidentally detected brain foci of PSMA uptake may represent previously unknown prostate cancer metastases, even in small lesions and in the absence of systemic disease.

Protecting Patient Privacy in Narratives: The Lifespan-Brown Checklist for Appropriate Use of Patient Narratives.

How can we support narratives written by clinicians in a way that promotes reflection without breaching the confidentiality inherent within the patient­provider relationship? This narrative provides some guidance, with the Brown­Lifespan Checklist for Narratives.

A Phase 2 Trial of Talazoparib and Avelumab in Genomically Defined Metastatic Kidney Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although different kidney cancers represent a heterogeneous group of malignancies, multiple subtypes including Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)-altered clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), fumarate hydratase (FH)- and succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) are affected by genomic instability. Synthetic lethality with poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) has been suggested in preclinical models of these subtypes, and paired PARPis with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) may achieve additive and/or synergistic effects in patients with previously treated advanced kidney cancers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate combined PARPi + ICB in treatment-refractory metastatic kidney cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a single-center, investigator-initiated phase 2 trial in two genomically selected advanced kidney cancer cohorts: (1) VHL-altered RCC with at least one prior ICB agent and one vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, and (2) FH- or SDH-deficient RCC with at least one prior ICB agent or VEGF inhibitor and RMC with at least one prior line of chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Patients received talazoparib 1 mg daily plus avelumab 800 mg intravenously every 14 d in 28-d cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by Immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 4 mo, and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Cohort 1 consisted of ten patients with VHL-altered ccRCC. All patients had previously received ICB. The ORR was 0/9 patients; one patient was not evaluable due to missed doses. In this cohort, seven patients achieved stable disease (SD) as the best response. The median PFS was 3.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0, 3.9 mo). Cohort 2 consisted of eight patients; four had FH-deficient RCC, one had SDH-deficient RCC, and three had RMC. In this cohort, six patients had previously received ICB. The ORR was 0/8 patients; two patients achieved SD as the best response and the median PFS was 1.2 mo (95% CI 0.4, 2.9 mo). The most common treatment-related adverse events of all grades were fatigue (61%), anemia (28%), nausea (22%), and headache (22%). There were seven grade 3-4 and no grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS: The first clinical study of combination PARPi and ICB therapy in advanced kidney cancer did not show clinical benefit in multiple genomically defined metastatic RCC cohorts or RMC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We conducted a study to look at the effect of two medications, talazoparib and avelumab, in patients with metastatic kidney cancer who had disease progression on standard treatment. Talazoparib blocks the normal activity of molecules called poly ADP-ribose polymerase, which then prevents tumor cells from repairing themselves and growing, while avelumab helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. We found that the combination of these agents was safe but not effective in specific types of kidney cancer.

Immunotherapy of elderly acute myeloid leukemia: light at the end of a long tunnel?

Although it is possible to induce remission in the majority of the patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), many patients still die due to disease relapse. Immunotherapy is an attractive option. It is more specific. The memory T cells induced by immunotherapy may also provide the long-term tumor immunosurveillance to prevent disease relapse. Although immunotherapy of AML started in the early 1970s, its clinical impact has been disappointing. Recent advances in tumor immunology and immunotherapeutic agents have rekindled interest. Here, we provide a review of the history of AML immunotherapy, discuss why AML is well suited for immunotherapeutic approaches and present the biological obstacles that affect the success of immunotherapy. Finally, we put forward a new paradigm of AML immunotherapy that utilizes a combination of immunotherapeutic agents sequentially to enhance the in vivo tumor immunogenicity and effective priming and propagation of tumor-specific cytotoxic T cells.