Intra-individual comparison of 18F-sodium fluoride PET-CT and 99mTc bone scintigraphy with SPECT in patients with prostate cancer or breast cancer at high risk for skeletal metastases (MITNEC-A1): a multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Detection of skeletal metastases in patients with prostate cancer or breast cancer remains a major clinical challenge. We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (99mTc-MDP) single-photon emission CT (SPECT) and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) PET-CT for the detection of osseous metastases in patients with high-risk prostate or breast cancer. METHODS: MITNEC-A1 was a prospective, multicentre, single-cohort, phase 3 trial conducted in ten hospitals across Canada. Patients aged 18 years or older with breast or prostate cancer with a WHO performance status of 0-2 and with high risk or clinical suspicion for bone metastasis, but without previously documented bone involvement, were eligible. 18F-NaF PET-CT and 99mTc-MDP SPECT were done within 14 days of each other for each participant. Two independent reviewers interpreted each modality without knowledge of other imaging findings. The primary endpoint was the overall accuracy of 99mTc-MDP SPECT and 18F-NaF PET-CT scans for the detection of bone metastases in the per-protocol population. A combination of histopathological, clinical, and imaging follow-up for up to 24 months was used as the reference standard to assess the imaging results. Safety was assessed in all enrolled participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01930812, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 11, 2014, and March 3, 2017, 290 patients were screened, 288 of whom were enrolled (64 participants with breast cancer and 224 with prostate cancer). 261 participants underwent both 18F-NaF PET-CT and 99mTc-MDP SPECT and completed the required follow-up for statistical analysis. Median follow-up was 735 days (IQR 727-750). Based on the reference methods used, 109 (42%) of 261 patients had bone metastases. In the patient-based analysis, 18F-NaF PET-CT was more accurate than 99mTc-MDP SPECT (84·3% [95% CI 79·9-88·7] vs 77·4% [72·3-82·5], difference 6·9% [95% CI 1·3-12·5]; p=0·016). No adverse events were reported for the 288 patients recruited. INTERPRETATION: 18F-NaF has the potential to displace 99mTc-MDP as the bone imaging radiopharmaceutical of choice in patients with high-risk prostate or breast cancer. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The Rapidly Evolving Landscape of First-Line Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) historically is treated with first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy, preferably cisplatin plus gemcitabine whenever possible. In recent years, multiple classes of targeted therapy have demonstrated benefit, with some receiving approval in mUC. This review will summarize phase III efficacy and safety data for targeted agents, principally immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as either first-line or first-line switch-maintenance therapy for mUC and interpret these findings in the context of the current treatment landscape. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published and presented phase III data on targeted therapy for the first-line or first-line switch-maintenance treatment of mUC were identified using the key search terms "targeted therapy" AND "urothelial carcinoma" AND "advanced" OR respective aliases according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Of the six eligible phase III targeted therapy trials, two assessing ICIs met their primary endpoints in platinum-eligible patients. First-line ICI plus chemotherapy combinations have not improved overall survival (OS), although final OS results of the IMVigor 130 trial are pending. Switch-maintenance using an ICI in patients achieving at least stable disease following platinum-based chemotherapy statistically significantly improved OS (21.4 vs. 14.3 months, hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.86; p = .001). Current sequencing options for mUC include first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with a switch to ICI either immediately or upon disease progression. CONCLUSION: Recent targeted therapy trials have expanded ICI sequencing options for mUC. The treatment landscape is likely to evolve rapidly, with results from multiple phase III trials expected in the next 5 years. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Multiple classes of targeted agents are approved for use in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Six phase III trials have recently provided insight on the benefit of these agents in the first-line setting. In platinum-eligible patients, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy failed to demonstrate improved survival, although ICI monotherapy as switch-maintenance significantly improved overall survival in patients with mUC who had achieved at least stable disease following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. In patients ineligible for any chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, or pembrolizumab in combination with enfortumab vedotin may be options.

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide are both used for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine the best sequence in which to use both drugs, as well as their second-line efficacy. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial done in six cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly-diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without neuroendocrine differentiation and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated random number table to receive either abiraterone acetate 1000 mg orally once daily plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily until PSA progression followed by crossover to enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily (group A), or the opposite sequence (group B). Treatment was not masked to investigators or participants. Primary endpoints were time to second PSA progression and PSA response (≥30% decline from baseline) on second-line therapy, analysed by intention-to-treat in all randomly assigned patients and in patients who crossed over, respectively. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125357. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2014, and Dec 13, 2016, 202 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either group A (n=101) or group B (n=101). At the time of data cutoff, 73 (72%) patients in group A and 75 (74%) patients in group B had crossed over. Time to second PSA progression was longer in group A than in group B (median 19·3 months [95% CI 16·0-30·5] vs 15·2 months [95% CI 11·9-19·8] months; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·45-0·97, p=0·036), at a median follow-up of 22·8 months (IQR 10·3-33·4). PSA responses to second-line therapy were seen in 26 (36%) of 73 patients for enzalutamide and three (4%) of 75 for abiraterone (χ2 p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events throughout the trial were hypertension (27 [27%] of 101 patients in group A vs 18 [18%] of 101 patients in group B) and fatigue (six [10%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) of 101 patients in group A and 20 (20%) of 101 patients in group B. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide showed activity as a second-line novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, whereas abiraterone acetate did not, leading to a longer time to second PSA progression for the sequence of abiraterone followed by enzalutamide than with the opposite treatment sequence. Our data suggest that using a sequencing strategy of abiraterone acetate followed by enzalutamide provides the greatest clinical benefit. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Prostate Cancer Canada, Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, BC Cancer Foundation, Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Janssen, and Astellas.

Clinical effectiveness of docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer in a real-world population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has known efficacy, with an overall survival benefit in Phase III clinical trials. The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in the general patient population remains undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective review using the British Columbia Provincial Pharmacy Database. To be included, patients had to have castration-sensitive prostate cancer not previously treated (except in the adjuvant setting) and have received at least one cycle of docetaxel, with complete records available for review. Safety and clinical effectiveness were evaluated. RESULTS: From April 2015 to February 2017, we identified 183 cases; 156 met inclusion criteria. Most patients had high-volume disease (80%). All 6 planned docetaxel cycles were delivered in 126 cases (81%). Dose reductions and delays were required in 39% and 16% of cases. Grade 3-4 adverse events were noted in 40%, with no treatment-related deaths. The rate of febrile neutropenia was 18% and was significantly associated with the presence of high-volume disease (P = 0.038). PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/L was achieved in 27% of patients after 6 months of ADT and maintained in 16% after 12 months. Patients with over 20 bone metastases had worse time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and time to treatment for CRPC, and a trend toward worse overall survival. CRPC developed in 41% within 1 year, with a median time to CRPC of 14.4 months. Treatment for CRPC was given in 84 cases, with 90% receiving either abiraterone or enzalutamide in the first-line, with a PSA decline ≥50% occurring in 47%. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in a general population of patients with mCSPC was associated with poorer outcomes and high rates of toxicity compared to the published studies. Response rates to first-line treatment for mCRPC with abiraterone or enzalutamide appear similar to reported outcomes.

Predictive Biomarkers for Checkpoint Blockade in Urothelial Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have had a major impact on the management of advanced urothelial cancer. Despite the impact only a minority of patients derive benefit. In this context predictive biomarkers which can assist in patient selection are needed. In this systematic review we surveyed the current biomarkers which have been investigated in clinical studies and their potential for patient selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® and EMBASE®, and manually reviewed major meeting abstracts to find studies in humans of immune checkpoint inhibitors given for urothelial cancer that included biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Studies had to provide the correlation between biomarkers and outcomes to be included in analysis. Results published only in abstract form were included since several important biomarker studies have yet to be published. RESULTS: We retrieved 1,236 studies, of which 921 were unique and screened, including 144 which met criteria for full review and 25 were included in the analysis. The manual search yielded 1 additional entry not included in our systematic review for a total of 26 entries. The checkpoint inhibitors used in these studies included atezolizumab, avelumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The biomarkers tested included PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, molecular subtyping and immune gene expression analysis by RNA sequencing, targeted gene panels for mutations in DNA damage repair genes and estimation of the tumor mutational burden, genomic alterations and the total mutational burden by exome sequencing, analysis of tumor immune infiltrate by immunohistochemistry and T-cell receptor sequencing, and analysis of circulating immune cells and cytokines. CONCLUSIONS: No single biomarker has been able to accurately predict the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most studies included only a treatment arm and without a comparator arm it is not possible to ascertain whether biomarkers are predictive or merely prognostic. While PD-L1 immunohistochemistry has been largely unsuccessful, other biomarkers reflecting the immunogenicity of the underlying tumor, the characteristics of the immune infiltrate and the properties of the patient immune system have shown promising data. However, all are in need of validation.

Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line chemotherapy for patients with cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is associated with short response duration, poor survival, and high toxicity. This study assessed atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) as treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer in cisplatin-ineligible patients. METHODS: For this single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study, in 47 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in seven countries in North America and Europe, we recruited previously untreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who were cisplatin ineligible. Patients were given 1200 mg intravenous atezolizumab every 21 days until progression. The primary endpoint was independently confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (central review), assessed in prespecified subgroups based on PD-L1 expression and in all patients. All participants who received one or more doses of atezolizumab were included in the primary and safety analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2014, and March 30, 2015, we enrolled 123 patients, of whom 119 received one or more doses of atezolizumab. At 17·2 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 16 to 31), the complete response rate was 9% (n=11), and 19 of 27 responses were ongoing. Median response duration was not reached. Responses occurred across all PD-L1 and poor prognostic factor subgroups. Median progression-free survival was 2·7 months (2·1 to 4·2). Median overall survival was 15·9 months (10·4 to not estimable). Tumour mutation load was associated with response. Treatment-related adverse events that occurred in 10% or more of patients were fatigue (36 [30%] patients), diarrhoea (14 [12%] patients), and pruritus (13 [11%] patients). One treatment-related death (sepsis) occurred. Nine (8%) patients had an adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. Immune-mediated events occurred in 14 (12%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab showed encouraging durable response rates, survival, and tolerability, supporting its therapeutic use in untreated metastatic urothelial cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

The impact of time to metastasis on overall survival in patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Time to metastasis is often used as a surrogate parameter of treatment success in clinical trials for prostate cancer. However, it has not been shown that there is a clear correlation between time to metastasis and overall survival. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of time to metastasis on OS in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, 269 patients with mPCa were included in this retrospective study with a median follow-up of 7.1 years. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) Presentation with metastasis within three months of initial diagnosis (de-novo-M); (2) patients free of metastasis initially but developed metastasis more than 6 months prior to castration resistance (CSPC-M); (3) patients who developed metastasis within 6 months of becoming castration resistant or after (CRPC-M). RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in OS when metastases were present at diagnosis (median 6.39 years) compared to CRPC-M (19.07) and CSPC-M (18.19 years). De-novo-M and CSPC-M showed a longer OS from occurrence of metastasis to death when compared to CRPC-M, although reaching CRPC earlier. There was no difference in OS between the groups once castration resistance was reached. Time from initial diagnosis to metastasis and to CRPC was correlated with OS and remained important prognosticators in multivariate Cox-regression (p < 0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Time from diagnosis to CRPC (all patients) and time to metastasis (for CRPC-M and CSPC-M patients) are significant prognosticators of overall survival and are therefore valid surrogates in a study setting. Therefore, time to CRPC should be prolonged as long as possible.

A case report of enzalutamide administration in a dialysis-dependent patient with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Enzalutamide, an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, is a standard of care treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We present the first reported case of enzalutamide in a patient with end-stage renal disease, on dialysis. While there were no significant toxicities, a sustained increase in systolic blood pressure was maintained after starting enzalutamide, suggestive of a degree of drug accumulation. Further evaluation of novel hormonal agents in end-stage renal disease patients should be encouraged as this population is typically excluded from clinical trials.

AR-V7 Transcripts in Whole Blood RNA of Patients with Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer Correlate with Response to Abiraterone Acetate.

PURPOSE: The expression of AR-V7 (androgen receptor splice variant) 7 in circulating tumor cells has been associated with resistance to abiraterone and enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. We used a sensitive, whole blood reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay that does not require circulating tumor cell enrichment to correlate outcomes of abiraterone with whole blood expression of AR-V7 and other prostate cancer associated transcripts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the expression of AR-V7, FOXA1, GRHL2, HOXB13, KLK2, KLK3 and TMPRSS2:ERG mRNA in 2.5 ml whole blood from each of 27 patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer and 33 controls without cancer as the discovery cohort. Cycle threshold values of controls with the highest gene expression were set as the threshold for a positive test. Thresholds were then applied to a validation cohort of 37 patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer who were commencing abiraterone. Gene expression was correlated with the prostate specific antigen response rate using the chi-square test, and with time to prostate specific antigen progression and overall survival using the log rank test. RESULTS: In the discovery cohort 3 of 27 patients (11.1%) with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer were AR-V7 positive vs 4 of 37 (10.8%) in the validation cohort. In the validation cohort patients with a positive AR-V7 test had a lower prostate specific antigen response rate (0% vs 42%, p = 0.27) together with shorter median prostate specific antigen progression (0.7 vs 4.0 months, p <0.001) and median overall survival (5.5 vs 22.1 months, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction detection of AR-V7 transcripts in whole blood was associated with inferior outcomes in patients treated with abiraterone. These results reinforce the potential usefulness of AR-V7 as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Sunitinib maintenance therapy after response to docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Background Docetaxel is a standard first-line treatment option for men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Sunitinib is attractive as a maintenance therapy due to its mechanism of action, oral route of administration, and acceptable toxicity profile. We designed a phase II study of sunitinib in patients with mCRPC who responded to docetaxel. Methods Patients with responding or stable disease at the completion of docetaxel treatment received 50 mg of sunitinib on 4 week on 2 week off cycles. Treatment continued until disease progression (either by RECIST 1.1 criteria or by cancer related symptomatic progression), intolerable toxicity, start of new cancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was progression free survival. Secondary endpoints included PSA response rate and safety. Results Twenty-three patients were enrolled and treated. The mean number of prior cycles of docetaxel given was 8.6 (range 4-12). The median number of cycles of sunitinib administered was 4 (range 1-11). Adverse events were generally grade 1-2 with 12 % grade ≥ 3 which were of a type and severity expected for sunitinib. Median PFS was 4.4 months (95 % CI: 1.6-5.1). Most patients had immediate PSA increases without other evidence of disease progression, with the mean increases in PSA over baseline being 197 %, 342 %, and 1437 % in Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Conclusion Sunitinib was tolerable as maintenance therapy but median PFS was significantly lower than the predefined threshold of 6 months.

A retrospective, Canadian multi-center study examining the impact of prior response to abiraterone acetate on efficacy of docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Questions about optimal sequencing of systemic therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and whether cross-resistance occurs between different drugs remain largely unanswered. Previous studies have produced conflicting data on the activity of docetaxel in patients who did not attain a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to abiraterone acetate (abiraterone). We investigated whether the biochemical response to abiraterone is associated with efficacy of subsequent docetaxel therapy. METHODS: mCRPC patients treated with docetaxel after abiraterone were retrospectively identified at three Canadian institutions. Patients who had also received docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed "docetaxel-experienced," while those not treated with docetaxel prior to abiraterone were termed "docetaxel-naïve." Treatment outcomes on docetaxel were stratified by prior response to abiraterone and compared using χ(2) -square test for confirmed PSA response rate (≥ 50% decline from baseline maintained for ≥ 3 weeks) and the log-rank method for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were treated with abiraterone, of whom 49 were docetaxel-experienced and 37 were docetaxel-naïve. Prior PSA response to abiraterone was no decline, <50% decline and ≥ 50% decline in 37%, 26%, and 37% of patients respectively. The overall PSA response rate to docetaxel was 34.9%, median PFS was 4.0 months and median OS was 11.66 months. Notably, no differences were seen in confirmed PSA response rates (38% vs. 36% vs. 31%, P = 0.86), median PFS (4.04 months vs. 3.94 months vs. 4.24 months, P = 0.43) and median OS (11.86 months vs. 15.38 months vs. 11.00 months, P = 0.56) on docetaxel for patients with no PSA decline, <50% decline and ≥ 50% decline on abiraterone respectively. Importantly, PSA response rates to docetaxel were comparable in the docetaxel-experienced and docetaxel-naïve cohorts and were not linked to prior response to abiraterone in either group. CONCLUSION: Activity of docetaxel was not associated with the biochemical response to prior abiraterone therapy. These data suggest that prior response to abiraterone should not influence decisions on subsequent use of docetaxel in mCRPC.

A Real-World Retrospective Analysis of the Management of Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in Canada.

Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) presents a significant challenge with high mortality rates. Platinum-based chemotherapy remains the established frontline standard of care, and a switch-maintenance strategy with immunotherapy has now emerged as a new standard for aUC patients without disease progression, following initial platinum therapy. Examining the treatment patterns is imperative, given the evolving therapeutic landscape. In this study, we conducted a retrospective medical chart review of 17 Canadian oncologists treating patients with aUC to assess unmet needs in Canadian aUC patient care. Data from 146 patient charts were analyzed, revealing important clinical insights about the management of aUC. A substantial proportion of patients (53%) presented with de novo metastatic disease, which was possibly influenced by pandemic-related care disruptions. Variability was evident in the cisplatin eligibility criteria, with a majority (70%) of oncologists utilizing a 50 mL/min threshold. Most favored four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to spare the bone marrow for future therapies and prevent patient fatigue. Notably, some eligible patients were kept under surveillance rather than receiving maintenance therapy, suggesting a potential gap in awareness regarding evidence-based recommendations. Furthermore, managing treatment-related adverse events was found to be one of the biggest challenges in relation to maintenance immunotherapy. In conclusion, our findings provide the first comprehensive overview of aUC treatment patterns in Canada following the approval of maintenance immunotherapy, offering insights into the decision-making process and underscoring the importance of evidence-based guidelines in aUC patient management.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of AGS15E Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) providing targeted drug delivery have shown antitumor activity in this setting. AGS15E is an investigational ADC that delivers the cytotoxic drug monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing SLITRK6, a UC-associated antigen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase I dose-escalation and expansion trial of AGS15E in patients with mUC (NCT01963052). During dose escalation, AGS15E was administered intravenously at six levels (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 mg/kg), employing a continual reassessment method to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the dose-expansion cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AGS15E in patients with and without prior chemotherapy and with prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Best overall response was also examined. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were recruited, including 33 patients previously treated with CPI. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (54.8%), nausea (37.6%), and decreased appetite (35.5%). Peripheral neuropathy and ocular toxicities occurred at doses of ≥0.75 mg/kg. AGS15E increased in a dose-proportional manner after single- and multiple-dose administration; accumulation was low. Five DLT occurred from 0.50 to 1.25 mg/kg. The RP2D was assessed at 1.00 mg/kg; the objective response rate (ORR) was 35.7% at this dose level. The ORR in the total population and CPI-exposed subgroup were 18.3% and 27.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DLT with AGS15E were observed at 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 mg/kg, with an RP2D of 1.00 mg/kg being determined.

Prediction of plasma ctDNA fraction and prognostic implications of liquid biopsy in advanced prostate cancer.

No consensus strategies exist for prognosticating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Circulating tumor DNA fraction (ctDNA%) is increasingly reported by commercial and laboratory tests but its utility for risk stratification is unclear. Here, we intersect ctDNA%, treatment outcomes, and clinical characteristics across 738 plasma samples from 491 male mCRPC patients from two randomized multicentre phase II trials and a prospective province-wide blood biobanking program. ctDNA% correlates with serum and radiographic metrics of disease burden and is highest in patients with liver metastases. ctDNA% strongly predicts overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment response independent of therapeutic context and outperformed established prognostic clinical factors. Recognizing that ctDNA-based biomarker genotyping is limited by low ctDNA% in some patients, we leverage the relationship between clinical prognostic factors and ctDNA% to develop a clinically-interpretable machine-learning tool that predicts whether a patient has sufficient ctDNA% for informative ctDNA genotyping (available online: https://www.ctDNA.org ). Our results affirm ctDNA% as an actionable tool for patient risk stratification and provide a practical framework for optimized biomarker testing.

Adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Background: Orally administrated agents play a key role in the management of prostate cancer, providing a convenient and cost-effective treatment option for patients. However, they are also associated with adherence issues which can compromise therapeutic outcomes. This scoping review identifies and summarizes data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer and discusses associated factors and strategies for improving adherence. Methods: PubMed (inception to 27 January 2022) and conference databases (2020-2021) were searched to identify English language reports of real-world and clinical trial data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in prostate cancer using the key search terms 'prostate cancer' AND 'adherence' AND 'oral therapy' OR respective aliases. Results: Most adherence outcome data were based on the use of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Self-reported and observer-reported adherence data were used. The most common observer-reported measure, medication possession ratio, showed that the vast majority of patients were in possession of their medication, although proportion of days covered and persistence rates were considerably lower, raising the question whether patients were consistently receiving their treatment. Study follow-up for adherence was generally around 6 months up to 1 year. Studies also indicate that persistence may drop further with longer follow-up, especially in the non-mCRPC setting, which may be a concern when years of therapy are required. Conclusions: Oral hormonal therapy plays an important role in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Data on adherence to oral hormonal therapies in prostate cancer were generally of low quality, with high heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting across studies. Short study follow-up for adherence and focus on medication possession rates may further limit relevance of available data, especially in settings that require long-term treatment. Additional research is required to comprehensively assess adherence.

Comprehensive immune profiling of patients with advanced urothelial or renal cell carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are used in the treatment of urothelial and renal cell cancers. While some patients may have exceptional responses, better predictive biomarkers are needed. We profiled the circulating immune compartment of patients receiving ICI to identify possible immune markers associated with immunotherapy response or resistance. Peripheral blood samples were collected prior to, and 3 weeks after initiation of ICI. Using mass cytometry, 26 distinct immune populations were identified. Responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors had higher frequencies of naïve CD4+ T-cells, and lower frequencies of CD161+ Th17 cells and CCR4+ Th2 cells. Non-responders had a higher frequency of circulating PD1+ T-cells at baseline; there was a subsequent decrease in frequency with exposure to ICI with a concomitant increase in Ki67 expression. Flow cytometry for cytokines and chemokine receptors showed that CD4+ T cells of non-responder patients expressed less CXCR4 and CCR7. In addition, their PD1- CD4+ T cells had higher TNFα and higher CCR4 expression, while their PD1+ CD4+ T cells had higher interferon γ and lower CCR4 expression. The role of γ/δ T-cells was also explored. In responders, these cells had higher levels of interferon γ, TNFα and CCR5. One patient with a complete response had markedly higher frequency of γ/δ T-cells at baseline, and an expansion of these cells after treatment. This case was analyzed using single-cell gene expression profiling. The bulk of the γ/δ T cells consisted of a single clone of Vγ9/Vδ2 cells both before and after expansion, although the expansion was polyclonal. Gene expression analysis showed that exposure to an ICI led to a more activated phenotype of the γ/δ T cells. In this study, the circulating immune compartment was shown to have potential for biomarker discovery. Its dynamic changes during treatment may be used to assess response before radiographic changes are apparent, and these changes may help us delineate mechanisms that underpin both response and resistance to ICI. It also hypothesizes a potential role for γ/δ T cells as effector cells in some cases.

Urinary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma: A Clinicopathologic Analysis of 22 Cases.

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) of the urinary tract is a rare disease. We present a relatively large retrospective cohort of urinary LCNEC, 20 from the urinary bladder, and 2 from the ureter, from a single institution. The patients included 16 men and 6 women with a median age of 74.5 years. Most LCNEC presented at an advanced stage with tumors invading the muscularis propria and beyond (21/22). Eight cases were pure LCNEC, while 14 cases were mixed with other histologic types, including conventional urothelial carcinoma (n=9), carcinoma in situ (n=7), small cell carcinoma (n=6), and urothelial carcinoma with glandular (n=3) features. Most LCNEC expressed neuroendocrine markers synaptophysin (22/22), chromogranin (13/16), CD56 (7/7), TTF1 (8/8), and INSM1 (2/3). They were negative for common urothelial markers including HMWCK (0/3), p40/p63 (0/6), CK20 (0/10), and had variable GATA3 staining (4/8). Ki-67 stained 25% to nearly 100% tumor cell nuclei. Patient survival was associated with cancer stage, and pure LCNEC showed worse survival than mixed LCNEC. Compared with small cell carcinoma at similar stages from a prior study, LCNEC had a worse prognosis only when patients developed metastatic disease. For organ-confined LCNEC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical resection is the treatment option to achieve long-term survival.