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.).

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Phase I trial of copanlisib, a selective PI3K inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background The phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathway is often altered in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and is involved in the resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Objective We investigated the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of copanlisib, an intravenous, pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab in recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients in a phase I dose-escalation trial. Patients and methods Copanlisib was given intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles at the dose of 45 mg and 30 mg, in combination with standard doses of weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, and 22, and weekly thereafter). Results Three patients received copanlisib 45 mg, of whom two experienced grade 3 hyperglycemia during Cycle 1 that met the DLT criteria. Eight patients were then treated with copanlisib at the dose of 30 mg. Because of the occurrence of hyperglycemia, a premedication with metformine was introduced on the day of the injections. No DLTs were reported at this dose level. The trial was stopped early because of the unfavourable toxicity profile of the combination. Among eight evaluable patients for response, four patients (50%) had disease stabilization according to RECIST1.1 as best response. Conclusion Copanlisib combined with cetuximab demonstrated unfavorable toxicity and limited efficacy in heavily pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients.Trial registration NCT02822482, Date of registration: June 2016.

Debio 1143 and high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy in high-risk locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Debio 1143 is an orally available antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins with the potential to enhance the antitumour activity of cisplatin and radiotherapy. The radiosensitising effect of Debio 1143 is mediated through caspase activation and TNF, IFNγ, CD8 T cell-dependent pathways. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Debio 1143 in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study by the French Head and Neck Radiotherapy Oncology Group (GORTEC) was run at 19 hospitals in France and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with locoregionally advanced, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (characterised as non-metastatic, measurable stage III, IVa, or IVb [limited to T ≥2, N0-3, and M0] disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a history of heavy tobacco smoking (>10 pack-years) with no previous or current treatment for invasive head and neck cancer, and no previous treatment with inhibitor of apoptosis protein antagonists. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral Debio 1143 (200 mg per day on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, for three cycles) or oral placebo (20 mg/mL, administered at the same dosing schedule) using a stochastic minimisation technique according to node involvement and primary tumour site, and HPV-16 status in patients with an oropharyngeal primary tumour site. All patients received standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and repeated in the per-protocol population. Responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022098, and is still active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and April 24, 2017, 48 patients were randomly assigned to the Debio 1143 group and 48 to the placebo group (one patient in the placebo group did not receive the study drug and was not included in the safety analysis). Median duration of follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 19·6-29·4) in the Debio 1143 group and 24·2 months (6·6-26·8) in the placebo group. Locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy was achieved in 26 (54%; 95% CI 39-69) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group versus 16 (33%; 20-48) of 48 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·69 [95% CI 1·13-6·42], p=0·026). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 41 (85%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and in 41 (87%) of 47 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (in 24 [50%] patients in the Debio 1143 group vs ten [21%] in the placebo group), mucositis (in 15 [31%] vs ten [21%]), and anaemia (in 17 [35%] vs 11 [23%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and 28 (60%) of 47 in the placebo group. In the placebo group, two (4%) deaths were due to adverse events (one multiple organ failure and one asphyxia; neither was considered to be related to treatment). No deaths due to adverse events occurred in the Debio 1143 group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first treatment regimen to achieve superior efficacy in this disease setting against a high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy comparator in a randomised trial. These findings suggest that inhibition of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins is a novel and promising approach in this poor prognostic population and warrant confirmation in a phase 3 study with the aim of expanding the therapeutic options for these patients. FUNDING: Debiopharm.

Long survival of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Results of real life study of 344 patients.

The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed fundamentally over the last decade by the development of antiangiogenic agents, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and immunotherapy. Outside of the context of a clinical trial, the treatments are used sequentially. We describe results under real-life conditions of a sequential treatment strategy, before the era of immunotherapy. All patients were treated according to their prognostic score (either Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) for advanced renal cell carcinoma. A treatment strategy involving 1 to 4 lines was determined including a rechallenge criterion for the repeat use of a treatment class. Three hundred forty-four patients were included over 3 years. Overall survival was 57 months in patients with good or intermediate prognosis and 19 months in patients with poor prognosis. In the former group, the proportions of patients treated with 2 to 4 treatment lines were 70%, 38% and 16%, respectively. The best objective response rates for lines 1 to 4 were 46%, 36%, 16% and 17%, respectively. Grade III/IV toxicity did not appear to be cumulative. The recommended strategy was followed in 68% of patients. A large proportion of patients with good or intermediate prognosis who progress after two lines of treatment still have a performance status good enough to receive a systemic treatment, which justifies such a strategy. Overall survival of patients with good and intermediate prognosis was long, suggesting a benefit from the applied approach. These results might be used as selection criterion for the treatment of patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A prospective observational study on the evaluation of everolimus-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after first-line anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy: the AFINITE study in France.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to describe the occurrence of stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with second-line everolimus in a real-world setting. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in France by physicians with experience of treatment of patients with mRCC. Patients aged ≥18 years who received everolimus after first-line antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy were included in the study. The primary safety assessments were occurrence of stomatitis (in terms of severity, event dates, and therapeutic management) and noninfectious pneumonitis (in terms of detection methodology, severity, event dates, and therapeutic management). RESULTS: Between September 2010 and August 2012, 284 patients were enrolled at 77 centers, of whom, 274 received everolimus therapy. Most patients had mRCC of clear cell histology (88%), and most of them (84%) received first-line sunitinib. In total, 40% of patients experienced treatment-related stomatitis, and 15% of patients experienced noninfectious lung disease. Most of them had a single episode. The incidence of grade 3 stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease were 8 and 3%, respectively. Mean time to the first episode was 27 days for stomatitis and 72 days for noninfectious lung disease from treatment initiation. Stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease resulted in treatment discontinuations in 2 and 7% of patients, respectively. The primary first-episode treatment was mouthwash (86%) for stomatitis and corticosteroids (65%) for noninfectious lung disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that stomatitis and noninfectious lung disease are commonly associated with everolimus use. Both adverse events were rarely severe and were managed easily and efficiently.

Validation of VEGFR1 rs9582036 as predictive biomarker in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib.

OBJECTIVES: To validate vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 (VEGFR1) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs9582036 as a potential predictive biomarker in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) patients treated with sunitinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: m-ccRCC patients receiving sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy were included. We assessed response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical and biochemical parameters associated with outcome. We genotyped five VEGFR1 SNPs: rs9582036, rs7993418, rs9554320, rs9554316 and rs9513070. Association with outcome was studied by univariate analysis and by multivariate Cox regression. Additionally, we updated survival data of our discovery cohort as described previously. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included in the validation cohort. rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer PFS (8 vs 12 months, P = 0.02) and OS (11 vs 27 months, P = 0.003) compared to AC/AA-carriers. rs7993418 CC-carriers had a poorer OS (8 vs 24 months, P = 0.004) compared to TC/TT-carriers. rs9554320 AA-carriers had a poorer RR (0% vs 53%, P = 0.009), PFS (5 vs 12 months, P = 0.003) and OS (10 vs 25 months, P = 0.004) compared to AC/CC-carriers. When pooling patients from the discovery cohort, as described previously (n = 88), and the validation cohort, in the total series of 157 patients, rs9582036 CC-carriers had a poorer RR (8% vs 49%, P = 0.004), PFS (8 vs 14 months, P = 0.003) and OS (13 vs 30 months, P = 0.0004) compared to AC/AA-carriers. Unfavorable prognostic markers at start of sunitinib were well balanced between rs9582036 CC- and AC/AA-carriers. CONCLUSION: VEGFR1 rs9582036 is a candidate predictive biomarker in m-ccRCC-patients treated with sunitinib.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION: Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Docetaxel rechallenge after an initial good response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of docetaxel rechallenge in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) relapsing after an initial good response to first-line docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients with mCRPC with a good response to first-line docetaxel [serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) decrease ≥50%; no clinical/radiological progression]. We analysed the impact of management at relapse (docetaxel rechallenge or non-taxane-based therapy) on PSA response, symptomatic response (performance status/pain/analgesic consumption), and overall survival (OS). We used multivariate stepwise logistic regression to analyse potential predictors of a favourable outcome. RESULTS: We identified 270 good responders to first-line docetaxel. The median progression-free interval (PFI) was 6 months from the last docetaxel dose. At relapse, 223 patients were rechallenged with docetaxel (82.5%) and 47 received non-taxane-based therapy. There was no significant difference in median OS {18.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.1-22.00] and 16.8 [95%CI 13.4-21.5] months, respectively, P = 0.35}. However, good PSA response and symptom relief/stable disease were more frequent on docetaxel rechallenge (40.4% vs 10.6%, P < 0.001 for PSA). A PFI of >6 months and added estramustine predicted a good PSA response and symptomatic response on docetaxel rechallenge but only a PFI of >6 months predicted longer OS. Haemoglobin (<13 g/dL) and pain were associated with reduced OS. Docetaxel rechallenge increased the incidence of grade ≥3 sensory neuropathy, nail disorders and asthenia/fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel rechallenge is a management option for responders to docetaxel with a PFI of >6 months, but did not prolong survival. Potential benefits should be weighed against the risk of cumulative toxicity.

Personalised chemotherapy based on tumour marker decline in poor prognosis germ-cell tumours (GETUG 13): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor prognosis germ-cell tumours are only cured in about half of patients. We aimed to assess whether treatment intensification based on an early tumour marker decline will improve progression-free survival for patients with germ-cell tumours. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial, patients were enrolled from France (20 centres), USA (one centre), and Slovakia (one centre). Patients were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had evidence of testicular, retroperitoneal, or mediastinal non-seminomatous germ cell tumours based on histological findings or clinical evidence and highly elevated serum human chorionic gonadotropin or alfa-fetoprotein concentrations that matched International Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group poor prognosis criteria. After one cycle of BEP (intravenous cisplatin [20 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], etoposide [100 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], and intramuscular or intravenous bleomycin [30 mg per day on days 1, 8, and 15]), patients' human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein concentrations were measured at day 18-21. Patients with a favourable decline in human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein continued BEP (Fav-BEP group) for 3 additonal cycles, whereas patients with an unfavourable decline were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either BEP (Unfav-BEP group) or a dose-dense regimen (Unfav-dose-dense group), consisting of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) before BEP plus intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 10; two cycles), followed by intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) over 2 h on day 1), intravenous ifosfamide (2 g/m(2) over 3 h on days 10, 12, and 14), plus mesna (500 mg/m(2) at 0, 3, 7 and 11 h), and bleomycin (25 units per day, by continuous infusion for 5 days on days 10-14; two cycles), with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (lenograstim) support. Centrally blocked computer-generated randomisation stratified by centre was used. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The planned trial accrual was completed in May, 2012, and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104676. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2003, and May 16, 2012, 263 patients were enrolled and 254 were available for tumour marker assessment. Of these 51 (20%) had a favourable marker assessment, and 203 (80%) had an unfavourable tumour marker decline; 105 were randomly assigned to the Unfav-dose-dense group and 98 to the Unfav-BEP group. 3-year progression-free survival was 59% (95% CI 49-68) in the Unfav-dose-dense group versus 48% (38-59) in the Unfav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·44-1·00, p=0·05). 3-year progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 57-81) in the Fav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·49-0·88, p=0·01 for progression-free survival compared with the Unfav-BEP group). More grade 3-4 neurotoxic events (seven [7%] vs one [1%]) and haematotoxic events occurred in the Unfav-dose-dense group compared with in the Unfav-BEP group; there was no difference in grade 1-2 febrile neutropenia (18 [17%] vs 18 [18%]) or toxic deaths (one [1%] in both groups). Salvage high-dose chemotherapy plus a stem-cell transplant was required in six (6%) patients in the Unfav-dose-dense group and 16 (16%) in the Unfav-BEP group. INTERPRETATION: Personalised treatment with chemotherapy intensification reduces the risk of progression or death in patients with poor prognosis germ-cell tumours and an unfavourable tumour marker decline. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique).

An international phase 3 trial in head and neck cancer: quality of life and symptom results: EORTC 24954 on behalf of the EORTC Head and Neck and the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 24954 phase 3 randomized clinical trial compared 2 schemes of combined chemotherapy for patients with resectable cancers of the hypopharynx and larynx: sequential induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus alternating chemoradiotherapy. The current study reports detailed effects of both treatment arms on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms. METHODS: A total of 450 patients aged 35 years to 76 years (World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS) ≤ 2) with untreated, resectable advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx (tumor classification of T3-T4) or hypopharynx (tumor classification of T2-T3-T4) with regional lymph nodes in the neck classified as N0 to N2 with no metastases were randomized in this prospective phase 3 trial into either the sequential arm (control) or the alternating arm (experimental). QOL assessment was performed at randomization; at baseline; at 42 days; and at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. RESULTS: There were no observed differences with regard to the primary endpoint of Fatigue and secondary endpoint of Dyspnea. Significant differences were found in the secondary endpoints of Swallowing and Speech problems at 42 days after randomization in favor of patients in the sequential arm. Explanatory and sensitivity analysis revealed that the primary analysis favored the sequential arm, but the majority of differences in HRQOL did not exist at the end of treatment, and returned to baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, a trend toward worse scores was noted in the patients treated on the alternating chemoradiotherapy arm but very few differences reached the level of statistical significance. The HRQOL scores of the majority of patients returned to baseline after therapy.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in elderly patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Analysis of the NIVOREN GETUG-AFU 26 study.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma but their activity and safety in elderly patients is insufficiently explored. We evaluated outcomes of elderly patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial (NCT03013335) and conducted exploratory circulating biomarker analyses. METHODS: Patients with mRCC were treated with nivolumab after at least one antiangiogenic therapy. The main endpoint of this analysis was safety in patients ≥ 70 years old (y.o), as per the rate of treatment-related grade 3-5 events (TRAE). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival. Exploration of candidate biomarkers associated with aging included baseline circulating cytokines involved in inflammation, adhesion, immune checkpoints, angiogenesis (IL6, IL7, IL8, BAFF, CXCL13, VCAM-1, 4-1BB, VEGF). RESULTS: Of 720 patients, 515 were < 70 y.o and 205 ≥ 70 y.o. Patients ≥ 70 y.o exhibited numerically less IMDC poor risk disease (21.0% vs 26.9%), sarcomatoid component (4.9% vs 9.8%) or brain metastases (5.9% vs. 14.7%), but more previous treatment lines (≥ 2 in 54.1% vs 48.5%). TRAE were higher in patients ≥ 70 y.o (24.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.033). Respective ORR (19.2% vs. 22.1%) and median PFS (4.5 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.97 [95%CI 0.81-1.15]) were similar. Overall survival was shorter in patients ≥ 70 y.o (19.3 versus 26.9 months, HR 1.26 [95%CI 1.04-1.51]), but not significantly in a competitive risk model. Only V-CAM1 and 4-1BB were found to be increased in patients ≥ 70 y.o. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab displayed higher grade 3/4 TRAE but manageable toxicity in elderly patients, with sustained activity. Elderly patients did not display specific inflammatory or angiogenic circulating profiles.

PD-L1 expression and its prognostic value in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Results from a GETUG multicenter retrospective cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is a rare and aggressive cancer with no specifically established therapeutic strategy in the metastatic setting. Combinations of tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a promising option. We aimed to study the immune landscape of metastatic pRCC, and its interactions with angiogenesis pathways, to search for potential therapeutic targets. METHODS: The expression of immune markers (PD-L1, PD-1, PD-L2, LAG-3) and angiogenic pathways (CAIX, c-MET), was analyzed by immunohistochemistry on 68 metastatic pRCC retrieved from a retrospective multicenter GETUG cohort. Our primary endpoint was to estimate the prevalence of PD-L1 expression and its prognostic impact in metastatic pRCC. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of other immune markers (PD-1, PD-L2, and LAG-3) and their association with PD-L1. We also assessed angiogenic markers and their association with PD-L1. RESULTS: Overall, 27.9 % of tumors were PD-L1 positive. PD-L2 was more frequently expressed (45.6 %), PD-1 and LAG-3 were positive in 17.6 % and 19.1 % respectively. None of these markers was correlated with PD-L1 expression. 66 % (45/68) expressed at least one immune marker, and 43 % (29/68) were "double-positive", as they expressed both immune and angiogenic markers. OS was significantly shorter for patients with PD-L1 positive pRCC. A multivariate analysis confirmed a significant association between PD-L1 expression and shorter overall survival (HR = 4.0, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results reinforce clinical data on the expected benefit of ICI in metastatic pRCC treatment, as PD-L1 expression is a factor of poor prognosis in this multicenter cohort.

Adapted EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (ELAN-FIT): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standard treatment for fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is yet to be established. In the previous EXTREME trial, few older patients were included. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of an adapted EXTREME regimen in fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: This single-arm, phase 2 study was done at 22 centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older and assessed as not frail (fit) using the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation (EGE) and had recurrent or metastatic HNSCC in the first-line setting that was not eligible for local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. The adapted EXTREME regimen consisted of six cycles of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on days 1-4, carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on cycle 1-day 1, and 250 mg/m2 subsequently), all intravenously, with cycles starting every 21 days. In patients with disease control after two to six cycles, cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued once every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was systematically administered and erythropoietin was recommended during chemotherapy. The study was based on the two-stage Bryant and Day design, combining efficacy and toxicity endpoints. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate at week 12 after the start of treatment, assessed by central review (with an unacceptable rate of ≤15%). The primary toxicity endpoint was morbidity, defined as grade 4-5 adverse events, or cutaneous rash (grade ≥3) that required cetuximab to be discontinued, during the chemotherapy phase, or a decrease in functional autonomy (Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥2 points from baseline) at 1 month after the end of chemotherapy (with an unacceptable morbidity rate of >40%). Analysis of the coprimary endpoints, and of safety in the chemotherapy phase, was based on the per-protocol population, defined as eligible patients who received at least one cycle of the adapted EXTREME regimen. Safety in the maintenance phase was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of cetuximab as maintenance therapy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01864772, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2013, and June 20, 2018, 85 patients were enrolled, of whom 78 were in the per-protocol population. 66 (85%) patients were male and 12 (15%) were female, and the median age was 75 years (IQR 72-79). The median number of chemotherapy cycles received was five (IQR 3-6). Objective response at week 12 was observed in 31 patients (40% [95% CI 30-51]) and morbidity events were observed in 24 patients (31% [22-42]). No fatal adverse events occurred. Four patients presented with a decrease in functional autonomy 1 month after the end of chemotherapy versus baseline. During chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological events (leukopenia [22 patients; 28%], neutropenia [20; 26%], thrombocytopenia [15; 19%], and anaemia [12; 15%]), oral mucositis (14; 18%), fatigue (11; 14%), rash acneiform (ten; 13%), and hypomagnesaemia (nine; 12%). Among 44 patients who received cetuximab during the maintenance phase, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypomagnesaemia (six patients; 14%) and acneiform rash (six; 14%). INTERPRETATION: The study met its primary objectives on objective response and morbidity, and showed overall survival to be as good as in younger patients treated with standard regimens, indicating that the adapted EXTREME regimen could be used in older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who are deemed fit with use of a geriatric evaluation tool adapted to patients with head and neck cancer, such as the EGE. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), Sandoz, GEFLUC, and GEMLUC. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

A phase 2, multicenter, open-label study of anti-LAG-3 ieramilimab in combination with anti-PD-1 spartalizumab in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

Ieramilimab, a humanized anti-LAG-3 monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated in combination with the anti-PD-1 antibody spartalizumab in a phase 1 study. This phase 2 study aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of combination treatment in patients with selected advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) solid malignancies. Eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), mesothelioma, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were grouped depending on prior anti-PD-1/L1 therapy (anti-PD-1/L1 naive or anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated). Patients received ieramilimab (400 mg) followed by spartalizumab (300 mg) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), along with safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarker assessments. Of 235 patients, 142 were naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and 93 were pretreated with anti-PD-1/L1 antibodies. Durable responses (>24 months) were seen across all indications for patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and in melanoma and RCC patients pretreated with anti-PD1/L1. The most frequent study drug-related AEs were pruritus (15.5%), fatigue (10.6%), and rash (10.6%) in patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and fatigue (18.3%), rash (14.0%), and nausea (10.8%) in anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated patients. Biomarker assessment indicated higher expression of T-cell-inflamed gene signature at baseline among responding patients. Response to treatment was durable (>24 months) in some patients across all enrolled indications, and safety findings were in accordance with previous and current studies exploring LAG-3/PD-1 blockade.

A double-blind, randomized phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of acetyl-L-carnitine in the prevention of sagopilone-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a recognized side effect of microtubule-targeting agents and the most clinically relevant toxicity observed with the epothilone sagopilone (SAG). Studies suggest that acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) may prevent chemotherapy-induced PN. We conducted a prospective, placebo (PBO)-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of ALC for the prevention of SAG-induced PN. Methods. Patients with ovarian cancer (OC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and no evidence of neuropathy received SAG (16 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 hours every 3 weeks) with ALC (1,000 mg every 3 days) or placebo (PBO). The primary endpoint was incidence of PN within six or fewer cycles in both treatment groups. Results. Overall, 150 patients enrolled (98 OC patients, 52 CRPC patients), with 75 per treatment arm. No significant difference in overall PN incidence was observed between treatment arms. The incidence of grade ≥3 PN was significantly lower in the ALC arm in OC patients. Median duration of neuropathy was similar between treatment arms. The best overall response (according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), response according to tumor markers, time-to-event variables, and discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs) were comparable between treatment arms. Conclusion. Administration of ALC with SAG did not result in a significant difference in overall PN incidence compared with a PBO. OC patients in the SAG/ALC arm had a significantly lower incidence of grade 3 or 4 PN compared with OC patients in the SAG/PBO arm.

Geriatric Assessment Implementation before Chemotherapy in MEtastatic Prostate Cancer, Results from the Real-Life Study GAMERS.

Geriatric assessment (GA) can predict and improve treatment tolerance and estimate overall survival in older patients with cancer. Several international organizations promote GA; however, data related to its implementation in daily clinical practice are still limited. We aimed to describe GA implementation in patients over 75 years old with metastatic prostate cancer treated with docetaxel as first-line treatment, and with positive G8 screening test or frailty criteria. This retrospective real-world study included 224 patients treated from 2014 to 2021 in four French centers, including 131 patients with a theoretical indication of GA. Among the latter, 51 (38.9%) patients had GA. The main barriers to GA were the lack of systematic screening (32/80, 40.0%), unavailability of geriatric physician (20/80, 25.0%), and absence of referral despite a positive screening test (12/80, 15.0%). With GA performed in only one-third of the patients with a theoretical indication in daily clinical practice, mostly due to an absence of screening test, the use of GA is currently sub-optimal.