A Phase II Trial of the CD40 Agonistic Antibody Sotigalimab (APX005M) in Combination with Nivolumab in Subjects with Metastatic Melanoma with Confirmed Disease Progression on Anti-PD-1 Therapy.

PURPOSE: Disease progression during or after anti-PD-1-based treatment is common in advanced melanoma. Sotigalimab is a CD40 agonist antibody with a unique epitope specificity and Fc receptor binding profile optimized for activation of CD40-expressing antigen-presenting cells. Preclinical data indicated that CD40 agonists combined with anti-PD1 could overcome resistance to anti-PD-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase II trial to evaluate the combination of sotigalimab 0.3 mg/kg and nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks in patients with advanced melanoma following confirmed disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled and evaluable for safety. Thirty-three were evaluable for activity. Five confirmed partial responses (PR) were observed for an ORR of 15%. Two PRs are ongoing at 45.9+ and 26+ months, whereas the other three responders relapsed at 41.1, 18.7, and 18.4 months. The median duration of response was at least 26 months. Two additional patients had stable disease for >6 months. Thirty-four patients (89%) experienced at least one adverse event (AE), and 13% experienced a grade 3 AE related to sotigalimab. The most common AEs were pyrexia, chills, nausea, fatigue, pruritus, elevated liver function, rash, vomiting, headache, arthralgia, asthenia, myalgia, and diarrhea. There were no treatment-related SAEs, deaths, or discontinuation of sotigalimab due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Sotigalimab plus nivolumab had a favorable safety profile consistent with the toxicity profiles of each agent. The combination resulted in durable and prolonged responses in a subset of patients with anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma, warranting further evaluation in this setting. See related commentary by Wu and Luke, p. 9.

Incorporating radioligand therapy in clinical practice in the United States for patients with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Advanced PC evolves to metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC). Theranostics combining prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted positron emission tomography imaging and radioligand therapy (RLT) represents a precision medicine approach to PC treatment. With the recent approval of lutetium Lu 177 (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan for men with mCRPC, the utilization of RLT will increase. In this review, we suggest a framework for incorporating RLT for PC into clinical practice. A search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed using keywords related to PC, RLT, prostate-specific membrane antigen, and novel RLT centers. The authors also provided opinions based on their clinical experience. The setup and operation of an RLT center requires the diligence and cooperation of a well-trained multidisciplinary team committed to patient safety and clinical efficacy. Administrative systems should ensure that treatment scheduling, reimbursement, and patient monitoring are efficient. For optimal outcomes, the clinical care team must have an organizational plan that delineates the full range of required tasks. Establishing new RLT centers for treatment of PC is possible with appropriate multidisciplinary planning. We provide an overview of the key elements to consider when establishing a safe, efficient, and high-quality RLT center.

SALVO: Single-Arm Trial of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab as Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Mucosal Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Mucosal melanoma is a rare, aggressive form of melanoma with extremely high recurrence rates despite definitive surgical resection with curative intent. Currently there is no consensus on adjuvant therapy. Data on checkpoint inhibitors for adjuvant therapy are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a single-arm, multicenter clinical trial using "flip dose" ipilimumab (1 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), and nivolumab (3 mg/kg q3w × 4 cycles), then nivolumab 480 mg q4w × 11 cycles to complete a year of adjuvant therapy. Participants must have had R0/R1 resection ≤90 days before registration, no prior systemic therapy (adjuvant radiotherapy allowed), ECOG 0/1, and no uncontrolled autoimmune disease or other invasive cancer. Patients were recruited through the Midwest Melanoma Partnership/Hoosier Oncology Network. RESULTS: From September 2017 to August 2021, 35 patients were enrolled. Of these, 29 (83%) had R0 resections, and 7 (20%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median age was 67 years, 21 (60.0%) female. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 50% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31%-66%] and 37% (95% CI, 19%-55%), respectively. Overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 87% (95% CI, 68%-95%) and 68% (95% CI, 46%-83%), respectively. Median RFS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 5.7-25.8). Most common grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (14%), hypertension (14%), and hyponatremia (11%), with no grade 4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Flip-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab after resection of mucosal melanoma is associated with outcomes improved over that of surgical resection alone. Long-term follow-up, subgroup analyses and correlative studies are ongoing.

Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations for the management of patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a systematic literature review to obtain evidence to guide treatment recommendations. RESULTS: The panel considered peer-reviewed reports published in English. RECOMMENDATIONS: The diagnosis of metastatic ccRCC should be made using tissue biopsy of the primary tumor or a metastatic site with the inclusion of markers and/or stains to support the diagnosis. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria should be used to inform treatment. Cytoreductive nephrectomy may be offered to select patients with kidney-in-place and favorable- or intermediate-risk disease. For those who have already had a nephrectomy, an initial period of active surveillance may be offered if they are asymptomatic with a low burden of disease. Patients with favorable-risk disease who need systemic therapy may be offered an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI); patients with intermediate or poor risk should be offered a doublet regimen (no recommendation was provided between ICIs or an ICI in combination with a VEGFR TKI). For select patients, monotherapy with either an ICI or a VEGFR TKI may be offered on the basis of comorbidities. Interleukin-2 remains an option, although selection criteria could not be identified. Recommendations are also provided for second- and subsequent-line therapy as well as the treatment of bone metastases, brain metastases, or the presence of sarcomatoid features. Participation in clinical trials is highly encouraged for patients with metastatic ccRCC.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.

TRANSFORMER: A Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Bipolar Androgen Therapy Versus Enzalutamide in Asymptomatic Men With Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) becomes resistant to androgen ablation through adaptive upregulation of the androgen receptor in response to the low-testosterone microenvironment. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), defined as rapid cycling between high and low serum testosterone, disrupts this adaptive regulation in castration-resistant PCa (CRPC). METHODS: The TRANSFORMER (Testosterone Revival Abolishes Negative Symptoms, Fosters Objective Response and Modulates Enzalutamide Resistance) study is a randomized study comparing monthly BAT (n = 94) with enzalutamide (n = 101). The primary end point was clinical or radiographic progression-free survival (PFS); crossover was permitted at progression. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and objective response rates, PFS from randomization through crossover (PFS2), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The PFS was 5.7 months for both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.55; P = .42). For BAT, 50% decline in PSA (PSA50) was 28.2% of patients versus 25.3% for enzalutamide. At crossover, PSA50 response occurred in 77.8% of patients crossing to enzalutamide and 23.4% to BAT. The PSA-PFS for enzalutamide increased from 3.8 months after abiraterone to 10.9 months after BAT. The PFS2 for BAT→enzalutamide was 28.2 versus 19.6 months for enzalutamide→BAT (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; P = .02). OS was 32.9 months for BAT versus 29.0 months for enzalutamide (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.39; P = .80). OS was 37.1 months for patients crossing from BAT to enzalutamide versus 30.2 months for the opposite sequence (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.28; P = .225). BAT adverse events were primarily grade 1-2. Patient-reported QoL consistently favored BAT. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial establishes meaningful clinical activity and safety of BAT and supports additional study to determine its optimal clinical integration. BAT can sensitize CRPC to subsequent antiandrogen therapy. Further study is required to confirm whether sequential therapy with BAT and enzalutamide can improve survival in men with CRPC.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the advanced non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) cohort of CheckMate 374. METHODS: Eligible patients received 0 to 3 prior systemic therapies. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤24 months or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty-four patients had advanced nccRCC (papillary [n = 24], chromophobe [n = 7], unclassified [n = 8], other [n = 5]); 34.1% received ≥1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. With median follow-up of 11 (range, 0.4-27) months, no all-cause grade 3-5 IMAEs or treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were reported. ORR was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-27.4), with 1 complete response (chromophobe) and 5 partial responses (papillary [n = 2], chromophobe [n = 1], collecting duct [n = 1], and unclassified [n = 1] histology). Median PFS was 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-5.4). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2-not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: Safety of flat-dose nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was consistent with previous results. Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with responses in several histologies, supporting nivolumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced nccRCC, a patient population with high unmet need.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 Study.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 374 study (NCT02596035) was conducted to validate the safety and efficacy of flat-dose nivolumab monotherapy 240 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in previously treated advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Three cohorts included patients with predominantly clear cell histology, non-clear cell histologies, or brain metastases. We report safety and efficacy from the CheckMate 374 advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients received prior treatment regimens (1-2 antiangiogenic; 0-3 systemic) with progression on/after last treatment and ≤ 6 months of enrollment. Patients received nivolumab 240 mg Q2W for ≤ 24 months or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of high-grade (grade 3-5) immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs). Exploratory endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients had advanced predominantly ccRCC; 75.3% received only 1 prior systemic regimen in the advanced/metastatic setting. After a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 0.4-26.9 months), no grade 5 IMAEs occurred, and 9.3% of patients reported grade 3/4 IMAEs (hepatitis, 4.1%; diabetes mellitus, 2.1%; nephritis and renal dysfunction, 1.0%; rash, 1.0%; adrenal insufficiency, 1.0%). The objective response rate was 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.8%-32.3%). Three patients had a complete response; 19 had partial responses. The median progression-free survival was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.5 months). The median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI, 17.4 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the safety and efficacy of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W flat-dose monotherapy for previously treated advanced ccRCC and adds to previous safety and efficacy data using the 3 mg/kg Q2W dose.

Severe Hepatotoxicity of Mithramycin Therapy Caused by Altered Expression of Hepatocellular Bile Transporters.

Mithramycin demonstrates preclinical anticancer activity, but its therapeutic dose is limited by the development of hepatotoxicity that remains poorly characterized. A pharmacogenomics characterization of mithramycin-induced transaminitis revealed that hepatotoxicity is associated with germline variants in genes involved in bile disposition: ABCB4 (multidrug resistance 3) rs2302387 and ABCB11 [bile salt export pump (BSEP)] rs4668115 reduce transporter expression (P < 0.05) and were associated with ≥grade 3 transaminitis developing 24 hours after the third infusion of mithramycin (25 mcg/kg, 6 hours/infusion, every day ×7, every 28 days; P < 0.0040). A similar relationship was observed in a pediatric cohort. We therefore undertook to characterize the mechanism of mithramycin-induced acute transaminitis. As mithramycin affects cellular response to bile acid treatment by altering the expression of multiple bile transporters (e.g., ABCB4, ABCB11, sodium/taurocholate cotransporting polypeptide, organic solute transporter α/ß) in several cell lines [Huh7, HepaRG, HepaRG BSEP (-/-)] and primary human hepatocytes, we hypothesized that mithramycin inhibited bile-mediated activation of the farnesoid X receptor (FXR). FXR was downregulated in all hepatocyte cell lines and primary human hepatocytes (P < 0.0001), and mithramycin inhibited chenodeoxycholic acid- and GW4046-induced FXR-galactose-induced gene 4 luciferase reporter activity (P < 0.001). Mithramycin promoted glycochenodeoxycholic acid-induced cytotoxicity in ABCB11 (-/-) cells and increased the overall intracellular concentration of bile acids in primary human hepatocytes grown in sandwich culture (P < 0.01). Mithramycin is a FXR expression and FXR transactivation inhibitor that inhibits bile flow and potentiates bile-induced cellular toxicity, particularly in cells with low ABCB11 function. These results suggest that mithramycin causes hepatotoxicity through derangement of bile acid disposition; results also suggest that pharmacogenomic markers may be useful to identify patients who may tolerate higher mithramycin doses. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The present study characterizes a novel mechanism of drug-induced hepatotoxicity in which mithramycin not only alters farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and small heterodimer partner gene expression but also inhibits bile acid binding to FXR, resulting in deregulation of cellular bile homeostasis. Two novel single-nucleotide polymorphisms in bile flow transporters are associated with mithramycin-induced liver function test elevations, and the present results are the rationale for a genotype-directed clinical trial using mithramycin in patients with thoracic malignancies.

Phase 2 Trial of Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Cancer and Impact of DNA Damage Response Gene Mutations on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy may exert immunomodulatory effects, thereby combining favorably with the immune checkpoint blockade. The pharmacodynamic effects of such combinations, and potential predictive biomarkers, remain unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and immunomodulatory effects of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) plus ipilimumab and explore the impact of somatic DNA damage response gene alterations on antitumor activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter single arm phase 2 study enrolling 36 chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. Peripheral blood flow cytometry was performed serially on all patients and whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissue was performed on 28/36 patients. INTERVENTION: Two cycles of GC followed by four cycles of GC plus ipilimumab. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was 1-yr overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate, and progression-free survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 81% of patients, the majority of which were hematologic. The objective response rate was 69% and 1-yr OS was 61% (lower bound 90% confidence interval: 51%). On exploratory analysis, there were no significant changes in the composition and frequency of circulating immune cells after GC alone. However, there was a significant expansion of circulating CD4 cells with the addition of ipilimumab which correlated with improved survival. The response rate was significantly higher in patients with deleterious somatic DNA damage response mutations (sensitivity=47.6%, specificity=100%, positive predictive value=100%, and negative predictive value=38.9%). Limitations are related to the sample size and single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: GC+ipilimumab did not achieve the primary endpoint of a lower bound of the 90% confidence interval for 1-yr OS of >60%. However, within the context of a small single-arm trial, the results may inform current approaches combining chemotherapy plus immunotherapy from the standpoint of feasibility, appropriate cytotoxic backbones, and potential predictive biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01524991. PATIENT SUMMARY: Combining chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer is feasible. Further studies are needed to refine optimal combinations and evaluate tests that might identify patients most likely to benefit.

Discussing the predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic value of germline DNA-repair gene mutations in metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Recent trends in cancer therapy have begun emphasizing the use of precision medicine, especially genetic tools, in the evaluation of malignancies and decision-making. Prostate cancer is a malignancy where the benefits and utility of screening and early treatment are still heavily controversial. A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients with metastatic prostate cancer presented germline mutations in DNA-repair genes at a significantly higher incidence than those with localized prostate cancer. These findings indicate the need for further research in this field as genetic differences between metastatic and localized prostate cancer could have great clinical value.

Safety and Antitumor Activity of Apalutamide (ARN-509) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer with and without Prior Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of apalutamide before or after treatment with abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).Experimental Design: Two cohorts were studied: AAP-naïve and post-AAP patients who had received ≥6 months of AAP. Patients had progressive mCRPC per rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or imaging, without prior chemotherapy exposure. All received apalutamide 240 mg/day. Primary endpoint was ≥50% decline in 12-week PSA according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression and time on treatment.Results: Forty-six patients enrolled in the AAP-naïve (n = 25) and post-AAP (n = 21) cohorts. The 12-week PSA response rate was 88% (22/25) and 22% (4/18), median time to PSA progression was 18.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.3 months-not reached) and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6 months), and median time on treatment 21 months (range, 2.6-37.5) and 4.9 months (range, 1.3-23.2), for the AAP-naïve and post-AAP cohorts, respectively. Eighty percent (95% CI, 59-93) and 64% (95% CI, 43-82) of AAP-naïve and 43% (95% CI, 22-66) and 10% (95% CI, 1-30) of post-AAP patients remained on treatment for 6+ and 12+ months, respectively. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both cohorts were grade 1 or 2 fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain.Conclusions: Apalutamide was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated clinical activity in mCRPC, with 80% of AAP-naïve and 43% of post-AAP patients, remaining on treatment for 6 months or longer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3544-51. ©2017 AACR.

Impact of Sequencing Targeted Therapies With High-dose Interleukin-2 Immunotherapy: An Analysis of Outcome and Survival of Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma From an On-going Observational IL-2 Clinical Trial: PROCLAIMSM.

BACKGROUND: This analysis describes the outcome for patients who received targeted therapy (TT) prior to or following high-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with renal cell carcinoma (n = 352) receiving HD IL-2 were enrolled in ProleukinR Observational Study to Evaluate the Treatment Patterns and Clinical Response in Malignancy (PROCLAIMSM) beginning in 2011. Statistical analyses were performed using datasets as of September 24, 2015. RESULTS: Overall, there were 4% complete response (CR), 13% partial response (PR), 39% stable disease (SD), and 43% progressive disease (PD) with HD IL-2. The median overall survival (mOS) was not reached in patients with CR, PR, or SD, and was 15.5 months in patients with PD (median follow-up, 21 months). Sixty-one patients had prior TT before HD IL-2 with an overall response rate (ORR) to HD IL-2 of 19% (1 CR, 9 PR) and an mOS of 22.1 months. One hundred forty-nine patients received TT only after HD IL-2 with an mOS of 35.5 months. One hundred forty-two patients had no TT before or after HD IL-2, and mOS was not reached. The mOS was 8.5 months in PD patients who received HD IL-2 without follow-on TT and 29.7 months in PD patients who received follow-on TT after HD IL-2. CONCLUSIONS: HD IL-2 as sole front-line therapy, in the absence of added TT, shows extended clinical benefit (CR, PR, and SD). Patients with PD after HD IL-2 appear to benefit from follow-on TT. Patients who progressed on TT and received follow-on HD IL-2 experienced major clinical benefit. HD IL-2 therapy should be considered in eligible patients.

Chemotherapy options in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment landscape for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving, with recent approvals of immune therapy, novel hormonal therapy, and bone-targeted therapy. Chemotherapy remains an essential component of the armamentarium. Herein, we review current chemotherapy options for patients with CRPC and discuss future challenges. METHODS: We reviewed literature for chemotherapy agents in prostate cancer, with special attention to the evidence for efficacy of the currently approved agents. We also reviewed emerging data on biomarkers of response to chemotherapy for CRPC. RESULTS: Taxanes, especially docetaxel and cabazitaxel, have first- and second-line indications for CRPC, respectively, with both providing a survival benefit. Multiple attempts to improve on the single agent efficacy of docetaxel with combination therapy have not generally been successful although platinum combinations are used for resistant phenotypes. Reductions in prostate-specific antigen by ≥30% and reductions in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) to ≤ 5 are associated with improved survival on chemotherapy. Chemotherapy may continue to be effective therapy for patients with biomarkers that are associated with resistance to androgen-directed therapies (androgen receptor splice variant 7 positivity in CTCs or high CTC heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy remains an essential component of CRPC therapy, and biomarkers are being identified to define clinical scenarios where chemotherapy may be the optimal therapy choice.

Contemporary experience with high-dose interleukin-2 therapy and impact on survival in patients with metastatic melanoma and metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) was approved for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 1992 and for metastatic melanoma (mM) in 1998, in an era predating targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. The PROCLAIMSM registry was established to collect and analyze data for patients treated with HD IL-2 in the current era. This analysis includes 170 patients with mM and 192 patients with mRCC treated between 2005 and 2012 with survival data current as of July 27, 2015. For patients with mM, complete response (CR) was observed in 5 %, partial response (PR) in 10 %, stable disease (SD) in 22 %, and 63 % had progressive disease (PD). The median overall survival (mOS) for these patients was 19.6 months, with a median follow-up of 43.1 months. The mOS was not reached for patients achieving CR or PR, and was 33.4 months for patients with SD. For patients with mRCC, 6 % achieved CR, 9 % had PR, 22 % had SD, and 62 % had PD. The mOS was 41 months, with a median follow-up of 46.6 months. The mOS for patients who had CR and PR was not reached and was 49.6 months for patients with SD. There were no treatment-related deaths among 362 patients. The duration of mOS for patients with mM and mRCC is longer than historically reported. These data support a continued role for IL-2 in the treatment of eligible patients with mM or mRCC and warrant further evaluation of HD IL-2 in combination or sequence with other therapeutic agents.

Guideline on Muscle-Invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer (European Association of Urology Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement.

PURPOSE: To endorse the European Association of Urology guideline on muscle-invasive (MIBC) and metastatic bladder cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The guideline on MIBC and metastatic bladder cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The ASCO Endorsement Panel then reviewed the content and recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the European Association of Urology guideline on MIBC and metastatic bladder cancer, published online in March 2015, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses the guideline on MIBC and metastatic bladder cancer and has added qualifying statements, including highlighting the use of chemoradiotherapy for select patients with MIBC and recommending a preference for clinical trials in the treatment of metastatic disease in the second-line setting. RECOMMENDATIONS: Multidisciplinary care for patients with MIBC and metastatic bladder cancer is critical. The standard treatment of MIBC (cT2-T4a N0M0) is neoadjuvant cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy. In cisplatin-ineligible patients, radical cystectomy alone is recommended. Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy may be offered to high-risk patients who have not received neoadjuvant therapy. Chemoradiotherapy may be offered as an alternative to cystectomy in appropriately selected patients with MIBC and in some patients for whom cystectomy is not an option. Metastatic disease should be treated with cisplatin-containing combination chemotherapy or with carboplatin combination chemotherapy or single agents in patients ineligible for cisplatin.Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/endorsements/MIBC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Phase II study of fosaprepitant + 5HT3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone in patients with germ cell tumors undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a Hoosier Cancer Research Network study.

PURPOSE: A phase III study adding aprepitant to a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) plus dexamethasone in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients treated with 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in complete response (CR) (J Clin Onc 30:3998-4003, 2012). Fosaprepitant has demonstrated non-inferiority compared to aprepitant in single-day cisplatin chemotherapy and is approved as a single-dose alternative. This single-arm phase II study is the first clinical trial evaluating fosaprepitant in patients receiving multi-day cisplatin regimen. METHODS: GCT patients receiving a 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy were enrolled. Fosaprepitant 150 mg was given IV on days 3 and 5. A 5HT3-RA days 1-5 (days 1, 3, and 5, if palonosetron) plus dexamethasone 20 mg days 1 and 2 and 4 mg po bid days 6, 7, and 8 was administered. Rescue antiemetics were allowed. The primary objective was to determine the CR rate-no emetic episodes or use of rescue medications. Accrual of 64 patients was planned with expected CR > 27 %. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled of whom 54 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 33. Fifty-one patients received bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. CR was observed in 13 (24.1 %) patients (95 % Agresti-Coull binomial C.I. 14.5 %, 37.1 %). CONCLUSION: The data in this phase II study, in contrast to our prior phase III study, appears to indicate a lower CR rate with the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant. It is unknown whether the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant provides the same benefit in multi-day cisplatin that was achieved with single-day cisplatin. Trial registration Clinical trial information NCT01736917.

Sequential Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed dramatically in the past decade. As the number of available agents, and related volume of research, has grown, it is increasingly complex to know how to optimally treat patients. The authors are practicing medical oncologists at the US Oncology Network, the largest community-based network of oncology providers in the country, and represent the leadership of the Network's Genitourinary Research Committee. We outline our thought process in approaching sequential therapy of mRCC and the use of real-world data to inform our approach. We also highlight the evolving literature that will impact practicing oncologists in the near future.

Prostate cancer survivorship care guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement.

PURPOSE: The guideline aims to optimize health and quality of life for the post-treatment prostate cancer survivor by comprehensively addressing components of follow-up care, including health promotion, prostate cancer surveillance, screening for new cancers, long-term and late functional effects of the disease and its treatment, psychosocial issues, and coordination of care between the survivor's primary care physician and prostate cancer specialist. METHODS: The American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines were reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Endorsement Panel reviewed the content and recommendations, offering modifications and/or qualifying statements when deemed necessary. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the 2014 ACS Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines are clear, thorough, and relevant, despite the limited availability of high-quality evidence to support many of the recommendations. ASCO endorses the ACS Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines, with a number of qualifying statements and modifications. RECOMMENDATIONS: Assess information needs related to prostate cancer, prostate cancer treatment, adverse effects, and other health concerns and provide or refer survivors to appropriate resources. Measure prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years and then annually, considering more frequent evaluation in men at high risk for recurrence and in candidates for salvage therapy. Refer survivors with elevated or increasing PSA levels back to their primary treating physician for evaluation and management. Adhere to ACS guidelines for the early detection of cancer. Assess and manage physical and psychosocial effects of prostate cancer and its treatment. Annually assess for the presence of long-term or late effects of prostate cancer and its treatment.

Immunological basis in the pathogenesis and treatment of bladder cancer.

The pathogenesis and transition of normal urothelium into bladder carcinoma are multifactorial processes. Chronic inflammation causes initiation and progression of the underlying pathophysiology of invasive and metastatic cancer. A dichotomy is observed in the role of immune cells in bladder cancer. While the immune response defends the host by suppressing neoplastic growth, several immune cells, including neutrophils, macrophages and T-lymphocytes, promote tumor development and progression. The levels of human neutrophil peptide-1, -2 and -3, produced by neutrophils, increase in bladder cancer and might promote tumor angiogenesis and growth. The effect of macrophages is primarily mediated by pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL-6 and TNF-α. In addition, the underlying immunological mechanisms of two treatments, BCG and cytokine gene-modified tumor vaccines, and future directions are critically discussed.

Immunological effects and therapeutic role of C5a in cancer.

The specific role of C5a in cancer, especially in melanoma, has yet to be determined. Differential effects of C5a could be cancer specific. In the host defense system, C5a functions to protect the body from harmful entities via a plethora of mechanisms. Yet, C5a may also serve to potentiate cancerous process. C5a facilitates cellular proliferation and regeneration by attracting myeloid-derived suppressor cells and supporting tumor promotion. In this article, we critically reviewed the properties, mechanisms of action and functions of C5a, with particular emphasis on cancer inhibition and promotion, and clinical application of such knowledge in better management of patients with cancer. Outstanding questions and future directions in regard to the function of C5a in melanoma and other cancers are discussed.