PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding.

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

Accelerator-Based Production of Scandium Radioisotopes for Applications in Prostate Cancer: Toward Building a Pipeline for Rapid Development of Novel Theranostics.

In the field of nuclear medicine, the ß+ -emitting 43Sc and ß- -emitting 47Sc are promising candidates in cancer diagnosis and targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT) due to their favorable decay schema and shared pharmacokinetics as a true theranostic pair. Additionally, scandium is a group-3 transition metal (like 177Lu) and exhibits affinity for DOTA-based chelators, which have been studied in depth, making the barrier to implementation lower for 43/47Sc than for other proposed true theranostics. Before 43/47Sc can see widespread pre-clinical evaluation, however, an accessible production methodology must be established and each isotope's radiolabeling and animal imaging capabilities studied with a widely utilized tracer. As such, a simple means of converting an 18 MeV biomedical cyclotron to support solid targets and produce 43Sc via the 42Ca(d,n)43Sc reaction has been devised, exhibiting reasonable yields. The NatTi(γ,p)47Sc reaction is also investigated along with the successful implementation of chemical separation and purification methods for 43/47Sc. The conjugation of 43/47Sc with PSMA-617 at specific activities of up to 8.94 MBq/nmol and the subsequent imaging of LNCaP-ENZaR tumor xenografts in mouse models with both 43/47Sc-PSMA-617 are also presented.

Comparison of out-of-pocket costs and adherence between the two arms of the prospective, randomized abiraterone food effect trial.

PURPOSE: Abiraterone acetate, prescribed for metastatic prostate cancer, has enhanced absorption with food. This effect was exploited in a randomized trial which showed noninferiority of PSA decline for 250 mg abiraterone with a low-fat meal (LOW) compared to 1,000 mg abiraterone fasting (STD). Drug was obtained via patient insurance. Patient out-of-pocket costs and adherence were surveyed. METHODS: Trial participants were randomized to STD or LOW, and surveys of adherence and out-of-pocket costs were administered at baseline and just before coming off study (follow-up). RESULTS: Out-of-pocket costs were available from 20 of 36 STD and 21 of 36 LOW patients. Median out-of-pocket costs for a month of drug were $0 (LOW) and $5 (STD); mean costs were $43.61 (LOW) and $393.83 (STD). The two groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.421). Maximum out-of-pocket cost was $1,000 (LOW) and $4,000 (STD). Monthly out-of-pocket costs > $500 were found in 1 LOW and 5 STD patients. For adherence, only 11 STD and 19 LOW patients had questionnaires completed at both baseline and follow-up. STD adherence was 98.18% at baseline and 91.69% at follow-up, differing significantly (p = 0.0078). LOW adherence was 96.52% at baseline and 97.86% at follow-up, not differing significantly (p = 0.3511). Adherence did not correlate with demographics. At follow-up, increasing adherence correlated significantly with decreasing dose (p = 0.013; rho = - 0.458). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-pocket costs did not differ significantly in this limited analysis. Adherence was significantly different in STD as the trial progressed, which was not found in LOW. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01543776; registered March 5, 2012.

Prevalence of potential interactions of medications, including herbs and supplements, before, during, and after chemotherapy in patients with breast and prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of herbs and supplements (HS) is common among patients with cancer, yet limited information exists about potential medication interactions (PMIs) with HS use around chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with breast or prostate cancer who had recently finished chemotherapy at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed by telephone. Interviewers inquired about all medications, including HS, before, during, and after chemotherapy. Micromedex, Lexicomp, and Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database interaction software programs were used to determine PMIs. RESULTS: A total of 67 subjects (age range, 39-77 years) were evaluated in this study. Participants were primarily White patients (73%) with breast cancer (87%). The median number of medications was 11 (range, 2-28) during the entire study and was highest during chemotherapy (7; range, 2-22). Approximately four-fifths (84%) used HS. A total of 1747 PMIs were identified, and they represented 635 unique PMIs across all 3 timeframes, with most occurring during chemotherapy. Prescription-related PMIs (70%) were the most common type, and they were followed by HS-related (56%) and anticancer treatment-related PMIs (22%). Approximately half of the PMIs (54%) were categorized as moderate interactions, and more than one-third (38%) were categorized as major interactions. Patient use of HS increased from 51% during chemotherapy to 66% after chemotherapy, and this correlated with an increased prevalence of HS PMIs (46% to 60%). HS users were more likely to be at risk for a major PMI than non-HS users (92% vs 70%; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HS remains prevalent among patients with cancer and may place them at risk for PMIs both during chemotherapy and after the completion of treatment. LAY SUMMARY: This study evaluates the risk of potential medication interactions for patients with breast or prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The results show that patients often use herbs and supplements during treatment. Prescription medications are most often associated with medication interactions, which are followed by herb and supplement-related interactions. More than one-third of potential medication interactions are considered major. Patients should be educated about the risk of herb and supplement-related medication interactions during treatment.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

A randomized phase 2 study of temsirolimus and cetuximab versus temsirolimus alone in recurrent/metastatic, cetuximab-resistant head and neck cancer: The MAESTRO study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cetuximab-resistant, recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have poor outcomes. This study hypothesized that dual blockade of mammalian target of rapamycin and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) would overcome cetuximab resistance on the basis of the role of phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling in preclinical models of EGFR resistance. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized clinical study, patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC with documented progression on cetuximab (in any line in the recurrent/metastatic setting) received 25 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus cetuximab at 400/250 mg/m2 weekly (TC) or single-agent temsirolimus (T). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) in the TC arm versus the T arm. Response rates, overall survival, and toxicity were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized to therapy with TC or T alone. There was no difference for the primary outcome of median PFS (TC arm, 3.5 months; T arm, 3.5 months). The response rate was 12.5% in the TC arm (5 responses, including 1 complete response [2.5%]) and 2.5% in the T arm (1 partial response; P = .10). Responses were clinically meaningful in the TC arm (range, 3.6-9.1 months) but not in the T-alone arm (1.9 months). Fatigue, electrolyte abnormalities, and leukopenia were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events and occurred in less than 20% of patients in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS. However, TC induced responses in cetuximab-refractory patients with good tolerability. The post hoc observation of activity in patients with acquired resistance (after prior benefit from cetuximab monotherapy) may warrant further investigation.

A randomized phase 2 network trial of tivantinib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

Cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is approved for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma on the basis of studies done in clear-cell histology. The activity of cabozantinib in patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma is poorly characterised. We sought to analyse the antitumour activity and toxicity of cabozantinib in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, retrospective cohort study of patients with metastatic non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with oral cabozantinib during any treatment line at 22 centres: 21 in the USA and one in Belgium. Eligibility required patients with histologically confirmed non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma who received cabozantinib for metastatic disease during any treatment line roughly between 2015 and 2018. Mixed tumours with a clear-cell histology component were excluded. No other restrictive inclusion criteria were applied. Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution. Demographic, surgical, pathological, and systemic therapy data were captured with uniform database templates to ensure consistent data collection. The main objectives were to estimate the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, time to treatment failure, and overall survival after treatment. FINDINGS: Of 112 identified patients with non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated at the participating centres, 66 (59%) had papillary histology, 17 (15%) had Xp11.2 translocation histology, 15 (13%) had unclassified histology, ten (9%) had chromophobe histology, and four (4%) had collecting duct histology. The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response across all histologies was 30 (27%, 95% CI 19-36) of 112 patients. At a median follow-up of 11 months (IQR 6-18), median time to treatment failure was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·5-8·6), median progression-free survival was 7·0 months (5·7-9·0), and median overall survival was 12·0 months (9·2-17·0). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58 [52%]), and diarrhoea (38 [34%]). The most common grade 3 events were skin toxicity (rash and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia; five [4%]) and hypertension (four [4%]). No treatment-related deaths were observed. Across 54 patients with available next-generation sequencing data, the most frequently altered somatic genes were CDKN2A (12 [22%]) and MET (11 [20%]) with responses seen irrespective of mutational status. INTERPRETATION: While we await results from prospective studies, this real-world study provides evidence supporting the antitumour activity and safety of cabozantinib across non-clear-cell renal cell carcinomas. Continued support of international collaborations and prospective ongoing studies targeting non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma subtypes and specific molecular alterations are warranted to improve outcomes across these rare diseases with few evidence-based treatment options. FUNDING: None.

Phase 1 study of lenalidomide plus dose-adjusted EPOCH-R in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas with deregulated MYC and BCL2.

BACKGROUND: Dual translocation of MYC and BCL2 or the dual overexpression of these proteins in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas (termed double-hit lymphoma [DHL] and double-expressor lymphoma [DEL], respectively) have poor outcomes after chemoimmunotherapy with the combination of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Retrospective reports have suggested improved outcomes with dose-intensified regimens. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and preliminary efficacy of adding lenalidomide to dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin with rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) in patients with DHL and DEL. METHODS: The primary objective of the current study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide in combination with DA-EPOCH-R. A standard 3+3 design was used with lenalidomide administered on days 1 to 14 of each 21-day cycle (dose levels of 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg). Patients attaining a complete response after 6 cycles of induction therapy proceeded to maintenance lenalidomide (10 mg daily for 14 days every 21 days) for 12 additional cycles. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were enrolled, 10 of whom had DEL and 5 of whom had DHL. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities at a lenalidomide dose of 20 mg, consisting of grade 4 sepsis. The maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide was determined to be 15 mg. The most common nonhematologic grade ≥3 adverse events included thromboembolism (4 patients; 27%) and hypokalemia (2 patients; 13%) (toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). The preliminary efficacy of the regimen was encouraging, especially in the DEL cohort, in which all 10 patients achieved durable and complete metabolic responses with a median follow-up of 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of lenalidomide with DA-EPOCH-R appears to be safe and feasible in patients with DHL and DEL. These encouraging results have prompted an ongoing phase 2 multicenter study.

Assessment of provider-perceived barriers to clinical use of pharmacogenomics during participation in an institutional implementation study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study provider attitudes of and perceived barriers to the clinical use of pharmacogenomics before and during participation in an implementation program. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From 2012 to 2017, providers were recruited. After completing semistructured interviews (SSIs) about pharmacogenomics, providers received training on and access to a clinical decision support tool housing patient-specific pharmacogenomic results. Thematic analysis of SSI was conducted (inter-rater reliability κ≥0.75). Providers also completed surveys before and during study participation, and provider-perceived barriers to pharmacogenomic implementation were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged from the SSI (listed from most frequent to least): decision-making, concerns with pharmacogenomic adoption, outcome expectancy, provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, patient attitudes, individualized treatment, and provider interest in pharmacogenomics. Although there was prestudy enthusiasm among all providers, concerns with clinical utility, time, results accession, and knowledge of pharmacogenomics were frequently stated at baseline. Despite this, adoption of pharmacogenomics was robust, as patient-specific results were accessed at 64% of visits, and medication changes were influenced by provided pharmacogenomic information 42% of the time. Providers reported they had enough time to evaluate the information and the results were easily understood on 74 and 98% of surveys, respectively. Nevertheless, providers consistently felt there was insufficient pharmacogenomic information for most drugs they prescribed and clear guidelines for using pharmacogenomic information were lacking. CONCLUSION: Despite initial concerns about adequate time and knowledge for adoption, providers frequently utilized pharmacogenomic results. Provider-perceived barriers to wider use included lack of clear guidelines and evidence for most drugs, highlighting important considerations for the field of pharmacogenomics.

Patient-provider communications about pharmacogenomic results increase patient recall of medication changes.

Effective doctor-patient communication is critical for disease management, especially when considering genetic information. We studied patient-provider communications after implementing a point-of-care pharmacogenomic results delivery system to understand whether pharmacogenomic results are discussed and whether medication recall is impacted. Outpatients undergoing preemptive pharmacogenomic testing (cases), non-genotyped controls, and study providers were surveyed from October 2012-May 2017. Patient responses were compared between visits where pharmacogenomic results guided prescribing versus visits where pharmacogenomics did not guide prescribing. Provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, before and during study participation, was also analyzed. Both providers and case patients frequently reported discussions of genetic results after visits where pharmacogenomic information guided prescribing. Importantly, medication changes from visits where pharmacogenomics influenced prescribing were more often recalled than non-pharmacogenomic guided medication changes (OR = 3.3 [1.6-6.7], p = 0.001). Case patients who had separate visits where pharmacogenomics did and did not, respectively, influence prescribing more often remembered medication changes from visits where genomic-based guidance was used (OR = 3.4 [1.2-9.3], p = 0.02). Providers also displayed dramatic increases in personal genomic understanding through program participation (94% felt at least somewhat informed about pharmacogenomics post-participation, compared to 61% at baseline, p = 0.04). Using genomic information during prescribing increases patient-provider communications, patient medication recall, and provider understanding of genomics, important ancillary benefits to clinical use of pharmacogenomics.

The future of perioperative therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma: how can we PROSPER?

Patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience high rates of recurrence despite definitive surgical resection. Recent trials of adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy have provided conflicting efficacy results at the cost of significant adverse events. PD-1 blockade via monoclonal antibodies has emerged as an effective disease-modifying treatment for metastatic RCC. There is emerging data across other solid tumors of the potential efficacy of neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade, and preclinical evidence supporting a neoadjuvant over adjuvant approach. PROSPER RCC is a Phase III, randomized trial evaluating whether perioperative nivolumab increases recurrence-free survival in patients with high-risk RCC undergoing nephrectomy. The neoadjuvant component, intended to prime the immune system for enhanced efficacy, distinguishes PROSPER from other purely adjuvant studies and permits highly clinically relevant translational studies.

Prognostic importance of lymphovascular invasion in urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the impact of lymphovascular invasion on the survival of patients with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis. METHODS: Patients with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis who underwent radical nephroureterectomy from 2010 through 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Patients were characterized according to demographic and clinical factors, including pathologic tumor stage and lymphovascular invasion. Associations with overall survival were assessed through proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4177 patients were identified; 1576 had lymphovascular invasion. Patients with T3 disease and lymphovascular invasion had 5-year survival that was significantly worse than that of patients with T3 disease without lymphovascular invasion (34.7% vs 52.6; P < .001 by the log-rank test), and approached that of patients with T4 disease without lymphovascular invasion (34.7% vs 26.5%; P = .002). On multivariate analysis controlling for age, comorbidities, grade, lymph node status, surgical margin status, race, sex, and chemotherapy administration, patients with T3 disease and lymphovascular invasion also were found to have significantly worse survival compared with patients with T3 disease without lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Lymphovascular invasion status is a key prognostic marker that can stratify the risk of patients with pT3 upper tract urothelial carcinoma further. Patients with this pathologic feature should be carefully considered for clinical trials exploring existing and novel therapies. Cancer 2018;124:2507-14. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Analyzing the clinical actionability of germline pharmacogenomic findings in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Germline and tumor pharmacogenomics impact drug responses, but germline markers less commonly guide oncology prescribing. The authors hypothesized that a critical number of clinically actionable germline pharmacogenomic associations exist, representing clinical implementation opportunities. METHODS: In total, 125 oncology drugs were analyzed for positive germline pharmacogenomic associations in journals with impact factors ≥5. Studies were assessed for design and genotyping quality, clinically relevant outcomes, statistical rigor, and evidence of drug-gene effects. Associations from studies of high methodologic quality were deemed potentially clinically actionable, and translational summaries were written as point-of-care clinical decision support (CDS) tools and formally evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: The authors identified germline pharmacogenomic results for 56 of 125 oncology drugs (45%) across 173 publications. Actionable associations were detected for 12 drugs, including 6 that had germline pharmacogenomic information within US Food and Drug Administration labels or published guidelines (capecitabine/fluorouracil/dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase [DPYD], irinotecan/uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 [UGT1A1], mercaptopurine/thioguanine/thiopurine S-methyltransferase [TPMT], tamoxifen/cytochrome P450 [CYP] family 2 subfamily D member 6 [CYP2D6]), and 6 others were novel (asparaginase/nuclear factor of activated T-cells 2 [NFATC2]/human leukocyte antigen D-related ß1 [HLA-DRB1], cisplatin/acylphosphatase 2 [ACYP2], doxorubicin/adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette subfamily C member 2/Rac family small guanosine triphosphatase 2/neutrophil cytosolic factor 4 [ABCC2/RAC2/NCF4], lapatinib/human leukocyte antigen DQ α1 [HLA-DQA1], sunitinib/cytochrome P450 family 3 subfamily A member 5 [CYP3A5], vincristine/centrosomal protein 72 [CEP72]). By using AGREE II, the developed CDS summaries had high mean ± standard deviation scores (maximum score, 100) for scope and purpose (92.7 ± 5.1) and rigour of development (87.6 ± 7.4) and moderate yet robust scores for clarity of presentation (58.6 ± 25.1) and applicability (55.9 ± 24.6). The overall mean guideline quality score was 5.2 ± 1.0 (maximum score, 7). Germline pharmacogenomic CDS summaries for these 12 drugs were recommended for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Several oncology drugs have actionable germline pharmacogenomic information, justifying their delivery through institutional pharmacogenomic implementations to determine clinical utility. Cancer 2018;124:3052-65. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tivantinib in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Background Tivantinib is a non-ATP competitive inhibitor of c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase that may have additional cytotoxic mechanisms including tubulin inhibition. Prostate cancer demonstrates higher c-MET expression as the disease progresses to more advanced stages and to a castration resistant state. Methods 80 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were assigned (2:1) to either tivantinib 360 mg PO BID or placebo (P). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results Of the 80 pts. enrolled, 78 (52 tivantinib, 26 P) received treatment and were evaluable. Median follow up is 8.9 months (range: 2.3 to 19.6 months). Patients treated with tivantinib had significantly better PFS vs. those treated with placebo (medians: 5.5 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively; HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Grade 3 febrile neutropenia was seen in 1 patient on tivantinib while grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was recorded in 1 patient each on tivantinib and placebo. Grade 3 sinus bradycardia was recorded in two men on the tivantinib arm. Conclusions Tivantinib has mild toxicity and improved PFS in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC.

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

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

Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal-cell carcinoma is highly vascular, and proliferates primarily through dysregulation of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. We tested sunitinib and sorafenib, two oral anti-angiogenic agents that are effective in advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in patients with resected local disease at high risk for recurrence. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients at 226 study centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients had pathological stage high-grade T1b or greater with completely resected non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma and adequate cardiac, renal, and hepatic function. Patients were stratified by recurrence risk, histology, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and surgical approach, and computerised double-blind randomisation was done centrally with permuted blocks. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 54 weeks of sunitinib 50 mg per day orally throughout the first 4 weeks of each 6 week cycle, sorafenib 400 mg twice per day orally throughout each cycle, or placebo. Placebo could be sunitinib placebo given continuously for 4 weeks of every 6 week cycle or sorafenib placebo given twice per day throughout the study. The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival between each experimental group and placebo in the intention-to-treat population. All treated patients with at least one follow-up assessment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00326898. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2006, and Sept 1, 2010, 1943 patients from the National Clinical Trials Network were randomly assigned to sunitinib (n=647), sorafenib (n=649), or placebo (n=647). Following high rates of toxicity-related discontinuation after 1323 patients had enrolled (treatment discontinued by 193 [44%] of 438 patients on sunitinib, 199 [45%] of 441 patients on sorafenib), the starting dose of each drug was reduced and then individually titrated up to the original full doses. On Oct 16, 2014, because of low conditional power for the primary endpoint, the ECOG-ACRIN Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released. The primary analysis showed no significant differences in disease-free survival. Median disease-free survival was 5·8 years (IQR 1·6-8·2) for sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 97·5% CI 0·85-1·23, p=0·8038), 6·1 years (IQR 1·7-not estimable [NE]) for sorafenib (HR 0·97, 97·5% CI 0·80-1·17, p=0·7184), and 6·6 years (IQR 1·5-NE) for placebo. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (105 [17%] patients on sunitinib and 102 [16%] patients on sorafenib), hand-foot syndrome (94 [15%] patients on sunitinib and 208 [33%] patients on sorafenib), rash (15 [2%] patients on sunitinib and 95 [15%] patients on sorafenib), and fatigue 110 [18%] patients on sunitinib [corrected]. There were five deaths related to treatment or occurring within 30 days of the end of treatment; one patient receiving sorafenib died from infectious colitis while on treatment and four patients receiving sunitinib died, with one death due to each of neurological sequelae, sequelae of gastric perforation, pulmonary embolus, and disease progression. Revised dosing still resulted in high toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or sunitinib showed no survival benefit relative to placebo in a definitive phase 3 study. Furthermore, substantial treatment discontinuation occurred because of excessive toxicity, despite dose reductions. These results provide a strong rationale against the use of these drugs for high-risk kidney cancer in the adjuvant setting and suggest that the biology of cancer recurrence might be independent of angiogenesis. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Pfizer, and Bayer.