Instrumental activities of daily living in older patients with metastatic prostate cancer: results from the meet-URO network ADHERE prospective study.

Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) are significant health indicators closely related to executive functions and able to detect mild cognitive impairment. A decline in IADL usually precedes ADL limitation, including taking medications, and may therefore predict a cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the association of patients' IADL score with other clinical factors, with a particular focus on the presence of a caregiver, and the impact on adherence to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) and survival outcomes within the Meet-URO 5-ADHERE study. It was a large prospective multicentre observational cohort study monitoring adherence to ARPIs in 234 metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥ 70. We observed an association between impaired IADL and lower geriatric G8 scores (p < 0.01), and lower adherence to ARPIs whether assessed by pill counting (p = 0.01) or self-reported by the patient himself (p = 0.03). The combination of an IADL < 6 and the absence of a caregiver resulted in a significantly high risk of non-adherence to the ARPIs at the multivariable analysis (HR 9.23, 95% confidence interval 2.28-37.43, p = 0.01). IADL alongside the geriatric G8 scales represent essential tools to identify frail and less auto-sufficient patients who are extremely vulnerable particularly if not supported by a caregiver and have the highest risk of nonadherence to ARPIs.

Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Patients With Urothelial Cancer.

Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have clinical activity in several cancers. The rationale of their therapeutic use in urothelial cancer (UC) resides in the high homologous-recombination repair (HRR) deficiency (HRD) prevalence and potential cross-sensitivity with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT). This review aims to summarize and analyze trials exploring the activity of PARPis in UC, focusing on patients who may benefit from those agents, the best clinical setting for the treatment and the benefit of the association with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We included all the available trials analyzing the activity of PARPis in UC in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, first or subsequent lines, and maintenance setting. We included PARPis in monotherapy and in association with other agents. The results in the maintenance setting are intriguing: ATLANTIS trial showed signals of improved progression-free survival in patients with known HRR aberrations, although the Meet-URO12 trial, with its negative results, suggested the failure of clinical selection based on platinum sensitivity only. Single-agent PARPis in pretreated patients showed discouraging results in an unselected population of chemo-refractory patients. Concerning the association of PARPis with ICIs, several trials are exploring their role in platinum-naïve setting; the results in the advanced setting were globally negative. Prior selection of HRD status is essential to identify patients who might benefit from PARPis. The ideal clinical settings seem to be the maintenance treatment and the combination with ICIs in platinum-naïve patients. Definitive results of ongoing and further trials will delineate the position for PARPis, if any, in UC therapy.

Analysis of the adequacy of control arms in oncology randomised clinical trials published between 2017 and 2021: a meta-research study.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are usually considered the highest level of evidence for clinical practice. Patients assigned to control arm in RCTs should always receive the best available treatments to protect participants while also allowing for proper interpretation and applicability of study results. Here we analysed RCTs published in oncology between 2017 and 2021 to describe the frequency of suboptimal control arms. METHODS: We identified phase III studies testing active treatments in patients with solid tumours among 11 major oncology journals. Each control arm was analysed, and the standard of care was determined according to international guidelines and scientific evidence at accrual beginning and until accrual completion. We identified studies with suboptimal control arm from the beginning (type 1) and studies with an initially optimal control arm which became outdated during the accrual period (type 2). RESULTS: This analysis included 387 studies. Forty-three (11.1%) control arms were judged as suboptimal: 24 (6.2%) type 1 and 19 (4.9%) type 2. These rates were higher in industry-sponsored compared to academic trials: 9.3% versus 1.9% for type 1 (p = 0.003); 7.9% versus 0.6% for type 2 (p = 0.001). Rates of suboptimal control arms were higher in studies with positive results: 8.1% versus 4.0% for type 1 (p = 0.09); 7.6% versus 1.7% for type 2 (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Many trials have suboptimal control arms, even in journals with high-impact factors, leading to suboptimal treatment of control patients and biased evaluation of trial results.

The role of the caregiver in older patients with advanced prostate cancer: results from the ADHERE Prospective Study of the Meet-URO network.

PURPOSE: To assess caregivers' characteristics and influence of the presence or absence of the caregiver on clinical outcomes of older (≥70 years) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with abiraterone (ABI) or enzalutamide (ENZ). METHODS: Patients from the Meet-URO 5 ADHERE study were assessed with a 5-item caregiver evaluation questionnaire focusing on the presence, age, degree of kinship, working status and qualification of the caregiver. We investigated the association between the presence of a caregiver and the clinical characteristics and outcomes of enrolled patients. RESULTS: No differences were found in the main clinical characteristics between patients with or without a caregiver, except for a lower median G8 score (p = 0.0453) in the caregiver group. A longer radiographic PFS (rPFS) was observed in the group without a caregiver, with a trend towards more prolonged overall survival (OS) in the same group. CONCLUSION: Our work suggests a detrimental effect of caregivers in managing older mCRPC patients treated with ABI or ENZ, especially those identified as frail by the geriatric G8 screening score. Further work is needed to identify and address patients' vulnerability areas, which could have a detrimental effect on prognosis.

Addition of Niraparib to Best Supportive Care as Maintenance Treatment in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Whose Disease Did Not Progress After First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy: The Meet-URO12 Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBCT) is the standard first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Potential cross-sensitivity can be hypothesized between platinum drugs and poly-ADP ribose-polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To compare maintenance treatment with the PARP inhibitor niraparib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced UC without disease progression after first-line PBCT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Meet-URO12 is a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial. Patients with advanced UC, without disease progression after four to six cycles of PBCT, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, were enrolled between August 2019 and March 2021. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status (0/1) and response to PBCT (objective response/stable disease). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized (2:1) to experimental arm A (niraparib 300 or 200 mg daily according to body weight and baseline platelets, plus BSC) or control arm B (BSC alone). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The secondary endpoints reported in this primary analysis are progression-free rate at 6 mo and safety (adverse event rate). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifty-eight patients were randomized (39 in arm A and 19 in arm B). The median age was 69 yr, ECOG performance status was 0 in 66% and 1 in 34%; and the best response with chemotherapy was objective response in 55% and stable disease in 45%. The median PFS was 2.1 mo in arm A and 2.4 mo in arm B (hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.75, p = 0.81). The 6-mo progression-free rates were 28.2% and 26.3%, respectively. The most common adverse events with niraparib were anemia (50%, grade [G]3 11%), thrombocytopenia (37%, G3-4 16%), neutropenia (21%, G3 5%), fatigue (32%, G3 16%), constipation (32%, G3 3%), mucositis (13%, G3 3%), and nausea (13%, G3 3%). The main limitation of the study is the small sample size: in March 2021, approval of maintenance avelumab for the same setting rendered randomization of patients in the control arm to BSC alone unethical, and accrual was stopped prematurely. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of maintenance niraparib to BSC after first-line PBCT did not demonstrate a significant improvement in PFS in patients with UC. These results do not support the conduction of a phase 3 trial with single agent niraparib in this population. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial, we tested the efficacy of niraparib as maintenance treatment in patients affected by advanced urothelial cancer after the completion of first-line chemotherapy. We could not demonstrate a significant improvement in progression-free survival with maintenance niraparib.

The Geriatric G8 Score Is Associated with Survival Outcomes in Older Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the ADHERE Prospective Study of the Meet-URO Network.

Introduction: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) have been increasingly offered to older patients with prostate cancer (PC). However, prognostic factors relevant to their outcome with ARPIs are still little investigated. Methods and Materials: The Meet-URO network ADHERE was a prospective multicentre observational cohort study evaluating and monitoring adherence to ARPIs metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥70. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses for radiographic progression-free (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were performed. Unsupervised median values and literature-based thresholds where available were used as cut-offs for quantitative variables. Results: Overall, 234 patients were enrolled with a median age of 78 years (73-82); 86 were treated with abiraterone (ABI) and 148 with enzalutamide (ENZ). With a median follow-up of 15.4 months (mo.), the median rPFS was 26.0 mo. (95% CI, 22.8-29.3) and OS 48.8 mo. (95% CI, 36.8-60.8). At the MVA, independent prognostic factors for both worse rPFS and OS were Geriatric G8 assessment ≤ 14 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and PSA decline ≥50% (p < 0.001 for both); time to castration resistance ≥ 31 mo. and setting of treatment (i.e., post-ABI/ENZ) for rPFS only (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively); age ≥78 years for OS only (p = 0.008). Conclusions: Baseline G8 screening is recommended for mCRPC patients aged ≥70 to optimise ARPIs in vulnerable individuals, including early introduction of palliative care.

Adherence to Oral Treatments in Older Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer, the ADHERE Study: A Prospective Trial of the Meet-URO Network.

BACKGROUND: Novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors for prostate cancer (PC) impose the burden of self-administration on older patients overwhelmed by the requirement of many other concomitant medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study evaluated the proportion of non-adherence in a 12-month follow-up period and the first 3 months to abiraterone (ABI) or enzalutamide (ENZ). In a prospective multicenter observational cohort study, patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) aged ≥70 years receiving ABI or ENZ pre- or post-docetaxel were enrolled. Treatment monitoring included pill counting, a self-assessment questionnaire, and clinical diaries at each clinical visit. Non-adherence rates were based on proportions of missed/prescribed pills ratios by pill counting. RESULTS: Overall, 234 patients were recruited with median age of 78 years (range, 73-82); 86 (37%) were treated with ABI, and 148 (63%) with ENZ. The median follow-up for adherence was seven monthly cycles (IQR: 4-12). The two cohorts were well balanced for baseline characteristics. The percentage of non-adherence by pill counting was slightly higher for ABI than ENZ (5.2% vs. 4.2%, P < .001). By self-reporting, patients on ENZ tended to report more frequently than those with ABI forgetfulness as the reason for missing events (42% vs. 17%, P < .001). A lower Geriatric G8 score correlated with non-adherence (P = .004). Overall survival (OS) was 48.8 months. Patients on ABI had radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) of 28.4 [24.2-32.5], while for ENZ patients, we reported a median rPFS of 23.1 [18.2-28.1] months. CONCLUSION: Physicians tend to treat older mCRPC patients with ENZ. Non-adherence rate is relatively low overall but can be higher with ABI than with ENZ and correlates with the Geriatric G8 score. Forgetfulness is a potential barrier for ENZ.

Adoption of multiple primary endpoints in phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions. METHODS: Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints). RESULTS: Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity.

A review of molecularly targeted therapy in biliary tract carcinoma: what is the next step?

Patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas (BTCs) have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of fewer than 12 months following systemic chemotherapy. In recent years, the identification of distinct molecular alterations with corresponding targeted therapies is modifying this therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this review is to present an overview of targeted therapy for BTCs, describing published available data and potential future challenges in ongoing trials. From clinicaltrials.gov online database all ongoing trials for BTCs (any stage) was examinated in July 2021, and data regarding study design, disease characteristics and type of treatments were registered. Oncogenic-driven therapy (targeted therapy) was investigated in 67 trials. According to research, 15 ongoing trials (22.4%) are investigating fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor (FGFR)-inhibitors in BTCs. Three (18.7%) are open-label randomized multicenter phase 3 trials, 8 (50%) are single-arm phase two trials, and 4 (25%) are phase one studies. Twelve (17.9%) clinical trials dealt with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1/2 targeting therapy either in combination with cisplatin (Cis) and gemcitabine (Gem) as first-line treatment for BTCs or in monotherapy in patients with IDH1 mutant advanced malignancies, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Nine (13.4%) clinical trials tested human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 2 targeting therapy. Four (44.4%) studies are phase I trials, two (22.2%) are phase I/II trials, and three (33.3%) phase II trials. Rare molecular alterations in BTCs, such as anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene1 receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1), and v-RAF murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1 (BRAF), are also under investigation in a few trials. Forty-four clinical trials (17.2%) are investigating not oncogenic-driven multitarget therapy like multireceptor tyrosin kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenetic agents. In conclusion, this review shows that BTCs management is experiencing important innovations, especially in biomarker-based patient selection and in the new emerging therapeutic approach. Many ongoing trials could answer questions regarding the role of molecular inhibitors leading to new therapeutic frontiers for molecular subcategories of BTCs.

Evaluation of Cognitive Function in Trials Testing New-Generation Hormonal Therapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

In patients with prostate cancer, earlier use and longer duration of new-generation hormonal therapy (NGHT), added to androgen deprivation therapy, requires careful evaluation of cognitive function. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the evidence about cognitive function in all the randomized trials (RCTs) testing NGHT (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide). We assessed the availability of both investigator-assessed cognitive impairment and disorders and patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function. Nineteen RCTs (17,617 patients) were included. The investigator-based evaluation of cognitive impairment was available in seven RCTs (36.8%). In total, 19/19 RCTs (100%) included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection, but PRO tools adopted allowed evaluation of cognitive function in two RCTs (10.5%). Among them, PRO-based cognitive function results were presented only in one RCT (5.3%): in ENZAMET, mean changes from baseline were worse with enzalutamide than with placebo, but deterioration-free survival favored enzalutamide. Despite cognitive deterioration could be relevant, clinical development of NGHT has not included a systematic evaluation of cognitive function. Assessment by investigators is at risk of underreporting, and commonly used PROs do not allow proper cognitive function analysis. Furthermore, the methodology of analysis can jeopardize the interpretation of results. Although direct comparisons are scanty, there could be differences between different NGHTs.