Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study. METHODS: The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

The Overall Survival Benefit in EV-302: Is Enfortumab Vedotin plus Pembrolizumab the New Frontline Standard of Care for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma?

Recent findings reported for the phase 3 EV-302 trial indicate a survival benefit from enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We discuss several key points regarding post-protocol therapies, extending the duration of therapy, toxicity, and costs, all of which may have a bearing on how physicians and patients balance the benefit against the potential harms associated with this regimen.

A remnant never forgotten: the utility of circulating tumor DNA in treatment guidance of urachal cancer.

Urachal cancer is a rare malignancy of the urachus that is treated with surgical resection if localized and systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a single-stranded or double-stranded DNA released by tumor cells into the blood and harbored the mutations of the original tumor, shedding new light on molecular diagnosis and monitoring of cancer. We report a case of resected localized urachal cancer with clear surgical margins and negative lymph node dissection but elevated ctDNA that progressed to metastatic disease. We also highlight the possibility of using ctDNA levels to assist in adjuvant therapy.

Supplement Use and Increased Risks of Cancer: Unveiling the Other Side of the Coin.

There is a rising trend in the consumption of dietary supplements, especially among adults, with the purpose of improving health. While marketing campaigns tout the potential health benefits of using dietary supplements, it is critical to evaluate the potential harmful effects associated with these supplements as well. The majority of the scarce research on the potential harmful effects of vitamins focuses on the acute or chronic toxicities associated with the use of dietary supplements. Quality research is still required to further investigate the risks of long-term use of dietary supplements, especially the risk of developing cancers. The present review concentrates on studies that have investigated the association between the risk of developing cancers and associated mortality with the risk of dietary supplements. Such an association has been reported for several vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements. Even though several of these studies come with their own shortcomings and critics, they must draw attention to further investigate long-term adverse effects of dietary supplements and advise consumers and healthcare providers to ponder the extensive use of dietary supplements.

Prostate Cancer in Sexual Minorities: Epidemiology, Screening and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Quality of Life.

Prostate cancer has the highest incidence among all cancers in men. Sexual minorities, including gay and bisexual men, as well as transgender, were previously a "hidden population" that experienced prostate cancer. Although there continues to remain a paucity of data in this population, analyses from studies do not reveal whether this population is more likely to endure prostate cancer. Nonetheless, several qualitative and quantitative studies have established worse quality-of-life outcomes for sexual minorities following prostate cancer treatment. Increased awareness of this previously "hidden population" among healthcare workers, as well as more research, is warranted to gain further understanding on potential disparities faced by this growing population.

Hormonal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer: a population-based study from the California cancer registry.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate how often men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) receive standard of care treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS: Men aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed mPC (stage IV) between 2010 and 2018 were identified using California Cancer Registry data. Receipt of hormonal therapy as initial cancer treatment was examined by patient/tumor characteristics at time of diagnosis. Chi-square tests and logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, were performed to assess association between receipt of hormonal therapy and patient/tumor characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 13,680 men with newly diagnosed mPC, of which 3637 had local metastasis (N1) only while 9596 had distant metastasis (M1) with or without N1 disease. 21.8 % (n = 2980) of men did not receive ADT. The highest rate of receiving ADT was among men between ages 75-84 (81.6%) and the lowest rate was in men over 85 (76.0%). Asian men had the largest proportion receiving ADT (n = 962, 81.5%) with remaining subgroups having similar proportion of men receiving ADT (76.8% to 77.2%). Once adjusted for covariates, regression results showed men with a higher Gleason score (8-10) were more likely to receive ADT (OR 2.04, 1.82-2.27, p = < 0.001) as well as men with distant sites of metastatic disease (OR 4.02, 3.62-4.46, p = < 0.001). Men residing in neighborhoods with the lowest socioeconomic status were least likely to receive ADT (OR 0.79, 0.68-0.93, p = 0.0032). No differences in receipt of ADT were observed by race/ethnicity. DISCUSSION: Despite significant advancements in the treatment of mPC in recent years, over one-fifth of patients did not receive ADT, which is the backbone for all new systemic therapies. This dataset might help address some of the prostate cancer care disparities in California.

Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma after Anti-programmed Death-(ligand) 1 Therapy by Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Gene Alteration Status: An Observational Study.

Background: Clinical outcomes of anti-programmed death­(ligand) 1 (anti-PD-[L]1) therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations (FGFRa+) remain unclear; recent studies have reported either comparable or poorer outcomes versus patients without FGFR alterations (FGFRa-). Objective: To analyze the outcomes of patients with mUC and any FGFRa (mutations or fusions) who received anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Design setting and participants: In this noninterventional, retrospective, multicenter study, clinical practice data were collected from FGFRa+/- patients who received prior immunotherapy between May 2018 and July 2019. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Investigator­determined overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS) were assessed in multivariate and unadjusted analyses. Results and limitations: Ninety-four patients (66% men; median age, 63 yr) with mUC and known FGFR status were included; 38 (40%) were FGFRa+ and 56 (60%) were FGFRa-. In FGFRa+ versus FGFRa- patients who received any line of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy (n = 92), ORR, DCR, and OS were 16% versus 26%, 29% versus 52% (relative risk: 1.14 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.92-1.40]; p = 0.3), and 8.57 versus 13.2 mo (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33 [95% CI, 0.77-2.30]; p = 0.3), respectively. A multivariate analysis provided some evidence supporting shorter OS in FGFRa+ versus FGFRa- (any line of anti-PD-L[1] therapy; HR: 1.81 [95% CI, 0.99-3.31]; p = 0.054). Limitations include this study's retrospective nature and a potential selection bias from small sample size. Conclusions: Some evidence of lower response rates and shortened OS following anti-PD-(L)1 therapy was observed in FGFRa+ patients. The phase 3 THOR study (NCT03390504) will prospectively compare FGFRa+ patients with advanced mUC treated with erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab. Patient summary: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations (FGFRa) potentially have worse clinical outcomes when treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy than those without FGFRa.

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment-emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design setting and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non-central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Overall Survival by Response to First-line Induction Treatment with Atezolizumab plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy or Placebo plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours. Patient summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.

Immunotherapy With Checkpoint Inhibitors in FGFR-Altered Urothelial Carcinoma.

The treatment landscape of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) remained unchanged for over 30 years until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2016. Since then, several ICIs have been approved for the treatment of mUC. In addition, recent molecular characterization of bladder cancer has revealed several subtypes, including those harboring fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusion proteins. Erdafitinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of metastatic/advanced UC in 2019. Some available evidence suggests ICI may have inferior response in advanced FGFR+ UC for unclear reasons, but may possibly be related to the tumor microenvironment. Several ongoing trials are evaluating erdafitinib in metastatic/advanced UC including the ongoing phase IB/II NORSE trial combining erdafitinib plus ICI, which may prove to offer a more robust and durable response in patients with FGFR+ metastatic/advanced UC.

Late recurrence of localized pure seminoma in prostate gland: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Late relapses of early-stage germ cell tumors are rare. Most patients (-85%) with stage I seminoma are cured by radical orchiectomy. The detection of late relapse is challenging given the relative rarity of this phenomenon, and the fact that patients who have completed surveillance are usually not undergoing regular oncologic workup nor imaging. While many treatment options do exist for a patient with late relapse of seminoma, surgery is typically the mainstay as these tumors are generally thought to be more chemo-resistant. CASE SUMMARY: In this article, we describe the management of a patient with an early-stage pure seminoma who was subsequently identified to have a recurrence two decades later. We provide a review of the literature not only focused on clinical factors and biology, but also the management of late recurrences specifically in pure seminoma and in prostate gland. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of data and treatment recommendations for this clinical entity, and a multidisciplinary approach emphasizing subspecialty expert consultation and patient education is imperative.

Prostate cancer immunotherapy: a review of recent advancements with novel treatment methods and efficacy.

Immunotherapy remains to be an appealing treatment option for prostate cancer with some documented promise. Prostate cancer is traditionally considered as an immunologically "cold" tumor with low tumor mutation burden, low expression of PD-L1, sparse T-cell infiltration, and a immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) is the first FDA approved immunotherapeutic agent for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); demonstrating a benefit in overall survival. However various clinical trials by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their combinations with other drugs have shown limited responses in mCRPC. Up to now, only a small subset of patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability high and CDK12 mutations can clinically benefit from ICIs and/or their combinations with other agents, such as DNA damage agents. The existence of a large heterogeneity in genomic alterations and a complex TME in prostate cancer suggests the need for identifying new immunotherapeutic targets. As well as designing personalized immunotherapy strategies based on patient-specific molecular signatures. There is also a need to adjust strategies to overcome histologic barriers such as tissue hypoxia and dense stroma. The racial differences of immunological responses between men of diverse ethnicities also merit further investigation to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy and better patient selection in prostate cancer.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from the phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954) is a multicohort, phase 3b/4 clinical trial of nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment in predominantly US community-based patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and clinical features mostly excluded from phase 3 trials. We report safety and efficacy results from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 920. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated advanced/metastatic nccRCC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk received up to four doses of nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks for ≤2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS; both investigator-assessed), time to response (TTR), and duration of response (DOR), all using RECIST V.1.1. Overall survival (OS) was exploratory. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with nccRCC (unclassified histology, 42.3%; papillary, 34.6%; chromophobe, 13.5%; translocation-associated, 3.8%; collecting duct, 3.8%; renal medullary, 1.9%) received treatment. With 24.1 months minimum study follow-up, median duration of therapy (range) was 3.5 (0.0-25.8) months for nivolumab and 2.1 (0.0-3.9) months for ipilimumab. Median (range) number of doses received was 4.5 (1-28) for nivolumab and 4.0 (1-4) for ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AEs were diarrhea/colitis (7.7%), rash (5.8%), nephritis and renal dysfunction (3.8%), hepatitis (1.9%), adrenal insufficiency (1.9%), and hypophysitis (1.9%). No grade 5 immune-mediated AEs occurred. ORR (n=46) was 19.6% (95% CI 9.4 to 33.9). Two patients achieved complete response (papillary, n=1; unclassified, n=1), seven achieved partial response (papillary, n=4; unclassified, n=3), and 17 had stable disease. Median TTR was 2.8 (range 2.1-14.8) months. Median DOR was not reached (range 0.0+-27.8+); eight of nine responders remain without reported progression. Median PFS (n=52) was 3.7 (95% CI 2.7 to 4.6) months. Median OS (n=52) was 21.2 (95% CI 16.6 to not estimable) months. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for previously untreated advanced nccRCC showed no new safety signals and encouraging antitumor activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982954.

Safety and efficacy of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab alternating with nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: the non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 920 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The non-randomised, open-label, phase IIIb/IV multicohort CheckMate 920 trial explored the safety and efficacy with a less frequent, but continual nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) dosing regimen (cohort 1) to determine whether this modification could potentially retain efficacy benefits while improving on the manageable safety profile previously observed with this combination in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). SETTING: Patients were enrolled from 48 largely community-based sites in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: 106 patients with previously untreated, predominantly clear cell aRCC received treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received NIVO 6 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg on day 1 of the first week of each 8-week cycle; the combination alternated with NIVO 480 mg monotherapy on day 1 of the fifth week of each 8-week cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or study end. The maximum treatment duration was 2 years. The primary endpoint was the incidence of high-grade (grade 3/4 and grade 5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) within 100 days of the last dose. Select secondary endpoints included time to onset and resolution of high-grade IMAEs, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events and the overall survival (OS) were the exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: The most common grade 3/4 IMAEs were diarrhoea/colitis (7.5%) and rash (6.6%) and no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, with a minimum follow-up of 28.5 months. The median PFS was 4.8 (95% CI 3.0 to 8.3) months, the ORR in evaluable patients (n=96) was 34.4% (95% CI 25.0 to 44.8), and the median OS was not reached (95% CI 24.8 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: While no new safety signals were reported with less frequent, but continual NIVO+IPI dosing in CheckMate 920, the modified regimen was not associated with clinical benefits relative to the approved NIVO+IPI dose. These results support the continued use of the currently approved NIVO+IPI combination dosing schedule for patients with aRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02982954.

Nivolumab plus docetaxel in patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the phase II CheckMate 9KD trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel has immunostimulatory effects that may promote an immunoresponsive prostate tumour microenvironment, providing a rationale for combination with nivolumab (programmed death-1 inhibitor) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: In the non-randomised, multicohort, global phase II CheckMate 9KD trial, 84 patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (NHTs) received nivolumab 360 mg and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks with prednisone 5 mg twice daily (≤10 cycles) and then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (≤2 years). The co-primary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% decrease from baseline). RESULTS: The confirmed ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 40.0% (25.7-55.7), and the confirmed PSA50-RR (95% CI) was 46.9% (35.7-58.3). The median (95% CI) radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.0 (8.0-11.6) and 18.2 (14.6-20.7) months, respectively. In subpopulations with versus without prior NHT, the ORR was 38.7% versus 42.9%, the PSA50-RR was 39.6% versus 60.7%, the median rPFS was 8.5 versus 12.0 months and the median OS was 16.2 months versus not reached. Homologous recombination deficiency status or tumour mutational burden did not appear to impact efficacy. The most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (39.3%) and neutropenia (16.7%), respectively. Three treatment-related deaths occurred (1 pneumonitis related to nivolumab; 2 pneumonias related to docetaxel). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus docetaxel has clinical activity in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Safety was consistent with the individual components. These results support further investigation in the ongoing phase III CheckMate 7DX trial. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT03338790.

Immune-Related Meningoencephalitis following Nivolumab in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

While immunotherapy with nivolumab is promising for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overactivation of the immune system can lead to serious side effects. Immune-related meningoencephalitis without a viral or microbial etiology is a rare complication that may occur in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). Herein, we report a 66-year-old man who underwent a partial nephrectomy which revealed a papillary RCC with clear cell component. Three years later, an abdomen and pelvic CT revealed metastatic lesions in the left psoas muscle and in the left 12th rib. The patient was treated with pazopanib which was discontinued after 2 weeks due to significant hepatic and renal toxicity. He subsequently started sunitinib. Two months later, a chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT demonstrated progressive metastatic RCC in the retroperitoneal mass of the left psoas muscle and paraspinal musculature as well as a left renal mass. The patient was treated with 7 cycles of the CPI nivolumab. He was subsequently hospitalized for 3 weeks after experiencing bilateral lower extremity weakness, lethargy, several falls, hyperthermia, confusion, and gait abnormalities. A CSF analysis demonstrated a lymphocyte pleocytosis with elevated protein and no bacterial or viral growth. The patient was treated with high-dose steroids after which his symptoms resolved. Chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans over the next 3 years revealed no evidence of metastatic disease, reflecting a progression-free survival of 40 months. We highlight the unique case of a patient with metastatic RCC who experienced immune-related meningoencephalitis following immunotherapy with nivolumab. Medical oncologists should be alert to the potential development of immune-related encephalitis in patients treated with nivolumab and should promptly diagnose and treat this concerning condition. The excellent oncologic outcome of this case emphasizes the need for continued aggressive measures for management of CNS toxicity resulting from CPI therapy.

Thromboembolic events in metastatic testicular cancer treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) is the most curable solid tumor and most common cancer among men 18-39 years. While cisplatin-based chemotherapy has significantly lengthened the survival of patients with TGCT, it is associated with a high rate of thromboembolic events (TEE). AIM: To summarize our single-center experience highlighting patients who were diagnosed with TGCT and received platinum-based chemotherapy, with special attention to those patients who suffered a TEE. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the medical records and imaging studies of 68 consecutive individuals who were diagnosed with TGCT and received platinum-based chemotherapy at our Institution in a metropolitan community between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019. RESULTS: A total of 19 (28%) patients experienced a TEE following orchiectomy which occurred during chemotherapy in 13 (68%) of these patients. Patients with a higher pathologic stage (stage III) were significantly (P = 0.023) more likely to experience a TEE compared to patients who had a lower stage. Additionally, patients who were treated with 3 cycles of bleomycine, etoposide, and cisplatin and 1 cycle of etoposide and cisplatin or 4 cycles of etoposide and cisplatin were significantly 5 (P = 0.02) times more likely to experience a TEE compared to patients who were treated with only 3 cycles of bleomycine, etoposide, and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Due to numerous factors that predispose to a TEE such as large retroperitoneal disease, higher clinical stage, greater number of chemotherapy cycle, central venous catheter, cigarette smoking, and possible cannabis use, high-risk ambulatory patients with TGCT treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy may benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation. Randomized studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulants are warranted in this young patient population generally devoid of medical co-morbidities.

Niraparib with androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and pharmacokinetic results from a phase 1b study (BEDIVERE).

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics and determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of niraparib with apalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: BEDIVERE was a multicenter, open-label, phase 1b study of niraparib 200 or 300 mg/day with apalutamide 240 mg or AAP (abiraterone acetate 1000 mg; prednisone 10 mg). Patients with mCRPC were previously treated with ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy, including ≥ 1 androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (niraparib-apalutamide, 6; niraparib-AAP, 27). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported when combinations included niraparib 200 mg; five patients receiving niraparib 300 mg experienced DLTs [niraparib-apalutamide, 2/3 patients (66.7%); niraparib-AAP, 3/8 patients (37.5%)]. Although data are limited, niraparib exposures were lower when given with apalutamide compared with historical niraparib monotherapy exposures in patients with solid tumors. Because of the higher incidence of DLTs, the niraparib-apalutamide combination and niraparib 300 mg combination with AAP were not further evaluated. Niraparib 200 mg was selected as the RP2D with AAP. Of 19 patients receiving niraparib 200 mg with AAP, 12 (63.2%) had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being thrombocytopenia (26.3%) and hypertension (21.1%). Five patients (26.3%) had adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the choice of niraparib 200 mg as the RP2D with AAP. The niraparib-AAP combination was tolerable in patients with mCRPC, with no new safety signals. An ongoing phase 3 study is further assessing this combination in patients with mCRPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT02924766 (ClinicalTrials.gov).