Pilot study of the implementation of G8 screening tool, Cognitive screening assessment and Chemotherapy Toxicity assessment in older adults with cancer in a Tertiary University Hospital in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended by international guidelines prior to initiation of systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT). In practice, CGA is limited by time constraints, lack of resources and expert interpretation. AIMS: The primary objective of this pilot study was to establish the prevalence of frailty (assessed by G8), cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Cog), and risk of chemotherapy toxicity (assessed by CARG Chemo-Toxicity Calculator) among patients (pts) ≥65 years commencing SACT. We selected these three screening tools due to the ease of conducting them in a busy outpatient setting. In addition, they have been validated to predict frailty and risk of toxicity from SACT among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Eligible participants were identified from medical oncology clinics. Assessments were conducted in an outpatient setting by treating physicians. Pt records were reviewed to gather demographic and cancer details. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants were enrolled. The mean age of participants was 73yrs (range=65-88). Thirty-three (52.4%) were female and 30 (47.6%) were male. The majority (n=38, 60.3%) had metastatic cancer. The mean G8 score was 11.9 (range=6-19). Eighty-three percent had a G8 score ≤14. Mini-Cog was positive in 13 pts (21%). The mean CARG score was 7.5 (range=0-16), and 80% had a risk of at least 50% grade ≥3 toxicity. Of these, 48 (76.2%) received chemotherapy and 15 (23.8%) received non-cytotoxic SACT. In multi-variate analyses, age, cancer type, treatment type, and disease stage did not impact G8, Mini-Cog, or CARG scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has several limitations but suggests that the majority of older adults with cancer would qualify for formal CGA assessment. The risk of high-grade toxicity from SACT is substantial in this cohort. Chronological age was not found to negatively impact pts' frailty, cognition, or risk of toxicity.

Trimodality therapy versus perioperative chemotherapy in the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction (Neo-AEGIS): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum curative approach to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction is unknown. We aimed to compare trimodality therapy (preoperative radiotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel [CROSS regimen]) with optimum contemporaneous perioperative chemotherapy regimens (epirubicin plus cisplatin or oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil or capecitabine [a modified MAGIC regimen] before 2018 and fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel [FLOT] subsequently). METHODS: Neo-AEGIS (CTRIAL-IE 10-14) was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 24 centres in Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with clinical tumour stage T2-3, nodal stage N0-3, and M0 adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy (three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous 50 mg/m2 epirubicin on day 1 plus intravenous 60 mg/m2 cisplatin or intravenous 130 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 plus continuous infusion of 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil daily or oral 625 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily up to 2018, with four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 50 mg/m2 docetaxel intravenously on day 1 as an option from 2018) or trimodality therapy (41·4 Gy in 23 fractions on days 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22-26, and 29-31 with intravenous area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min carboplatin plus intravenous 50 mg/m2 paclitaxel on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, regardless of which study drug they received, by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, site of treatment failure, operative complications, toxicity, pathological response (complete [ypT0N0] and major [tumour regression grade 1 and 2]), margin-free resection (R0), and health-related quality of life. Toxicity and safety data were analysed in the safety population, defined as patients who took at least one dose of study drug, according to treatment actually received. The initial power calculation was based on superiority of trimodality therapy (n=366 patients); it was adjusted after FLOT became an option to a non-inferiority design with a margin of 5% for perioperative chemotherapy (n=540). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01726452. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2013, and Dec 23, 2020, 377 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 362 were included in the intention-to treat population (327 [90%] male and 360 [99%] White): 184 in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 178 in the trimodality therapy group. The trial closed prematurely in December, 2020, after the second interim futility analysis (143 deaths), on the basis of similar survival metrics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At a median follow-up of 38·8 months (IQR 16·3-55·1), median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 33·6-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 49·2 months (34·8-74·4) in the trimodality therapy group (3-year overall survival 55% [95% CI 47-62] vs 57% [49-64]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·77-1·38]; log-rank p=0·82). Median disease-free survival was 32·4 months (95% CI 22·8-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 24·0 months (18·0-40·8) in the trimodality therapy group [hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·68-1·17]; log-rank p=0·41). The pattern of recurrence, locoregional or systemic, was not significantly different (odds ratio 1·35 [95% CI 0·63-2·91], p=0·44). Pathological complete response (odds ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·14-0·81], p=0·012), major pathological response (0·21 [0·12-0·38], p<0·0001), and R0 rates (0·21 [0·08-0·53], p=0·0003) favoured trimodality therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (49 [27%] of 183 patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs 11 [6%] of 178 patients in the trimodality therapy group), followed by diarrhoea (20 [11%] vs none), and pulmonary embolism (ten [5%] vs nine [5%]). One (1%) patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three (2%) patients in the trimodality therapy group died from serious adverse events, two (one in each group) of which were possibly related to treatment. No differences were seen in operative mortality (five [3%] deaths in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs four [2%] in the trimodality therapy group), major morbidity, or in global health status at 1 and 3 years. INTERPRETATION: Although underpowered and incomplete, Neo-AEGIS provides the largest comprehensive randomised dataset for patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction treated with perioperative chemotherapy (predominantly the modified MAGIC regimen), and CROSS trimodality therapy, and reports similar 3-year survival and no major differences in operative and health-related quality of life outcomes. We suggest that these data support continued clinical equipoise. FUNDING: Health Research Board, Cancer Research UK, Irish Cancer Society, Oesophageal Cancer Fund, and French National Cancer Institute.

Association between gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in advanced gastric cancer: exploratory analysis from the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, controlled, phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial, second-line pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1) advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer but did elicit a longer duration of response and offered a favorable safety profile. This prespecified exploratory analysis was conducted to evaluate associations between tumor gene expression signatures and clinical outcomes in the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial. METHODS: Using RNA sequencing data obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded baseline tumor tissue samples, we evaluated the 18-gene T-cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) and 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (angiogenesis, glycolysis, granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (gMDSC), hypoxia, monocytic MDSC (mMDSC), MYC, proliferation, RAS, stroma/epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition/transforming growth factor-ß, WNT). The association between each signature on a continuous scale and outcomes was analyzed using logistic (objective response rate (ORR)) and Cox proportional hazards regression (progression-free survival (PFS) and OS). One-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided (paclitaxel) p values were calculated for TcellinfGEP (prespecified α=0.05) and the 10 non-TcellinfGEP signatures (multiplicity-adjusted; prespecified α=0.10). RESULTS: RNA sequencing data were available for 137 patients in each treatment group. TcellinfGEP was positively associated with ORR (p=0.041) and PFS (p=0.026) for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel (p>0.05). The TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR (p=0.077), PFS (p=0.057), and OS (p=0.033) for pembrolizumab, while the TcellinfGEP-adjusted glycolysis (p=0.018), MYC (p=0.057), and proliferation (p=0.002) signatures were negatively associated with OS for paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis of tumor TcellinfGEP showed associations with ORR and PFS for pembrolizumab but not for paclitaxel. TcellinfGEP-adjusted mMDSC signature was negatively associated with ORR, PFS, and OS for pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel. These data suggest myeloid-driven suppression may play a role in resistance to PD-1 inhibition in G/GEJ cancer and support a strategy of considering immunotherapy combinations which target this myeloid axis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02370498.

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (-0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0-14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2-17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82-1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87-1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95-1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups.

Characterization and Management of Treatment-emergent Hepatic Toxicity in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib. Results from the KEYNOTE-426 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved efficacy over sunitinib in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma in the KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study. However, a relatively high incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations was observed. OBJECTIVE: To further characterize treatment-emergent aminotransferase elevations in patients treated with pembrolizumab-axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Three Standardized MedDRA Queries for potential hepatic disorders were used to identify patients for the hepatic event analysis subpopulation (HEAS). Alanine aminotransferase events were characterized for time to onset, time to recovery, corticosteroid use, and rechallenge with study treatment(s). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The HEAS comprised 189/429 (44%) pembrolizumab-axitinib patients and 128/425 (30%) sunitinib patients. Grade 3/4 hepatic adverse events were more common in the combination arm: 22% (94/429) versus 7% (29/425); 3% (13/429) discontinued the combination due to hepatic adverse events. In the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm, 125/426 patients (29%) had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN), with median time to onset of 84 d (range, 7-840 d). Among patients with ALT ≥3× ULN, 120/125 (96%) recovered to <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation, with a median time to recovery of 15 d (3-176 d): 68/120 (57%) received corticosteroids. One hundred patients were rechallenged with one or both study treatment(s): 45/100 (45%) had ALT ≥3× ULN recurrence, and all 45 recovered to ALT <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation. No fatal hepatic events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A higher incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations occurs with pembrolizumab-axitinib. These events should be carefully evaluated and managed with prompt study treatment interruption or discontinuation, with or without corticosteroid treatment. The decision to rechallenge with one or both drugs should be based on severity of event and thorough causality assessment. PATIENT SUMMARY: Renal cell carcinoma patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib are at a higher risk of liver enzyme elevations, which could be reversed with appropriate management.

Radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multi-centre, phase II open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 and enzalutamide are approved agents for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Combining radium-223 and enzalutamide to improve outcomes is of clinical interest due to their differing modes of action and non-overlapping toxicity profiles. METHODS: This phase II study enrolled patients with mCRPC and bone metastases. Patients received six cycles of radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide, followed by enzalutamide alone. The primary endpoint was safety for the combination; secondary endpoints included radiographic/clinical progression-free survival (PFS), PSA PFS, overall survival (OS), change in alkaline phosphatase, patient-reported pain outcomes and skeletal related events. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received the combination treatment: 42 patients (93.3%) received all six cycles. Fourteen patients (31.1%) developed grade 3 or 4 toxicities, most commonly fatigue and neutropaenia. Fractures during the combination period occurred in four patients (8.9%). A further 13 patients (28.9%) developed fractures after completing combination treatment, giving a total of 17 patients (37.8%) who developed a fracture at any time on study. The median time to fracture was greater than 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.2-not estimable]. The median time to PSA progression was 18.1 months (95% CI, 12.68-22.60) and the median time to radiological/clinical progression was 28.0 months (95% CI, 22.54-not reached). At the primary analysis, 19 (42.2%) out of 45 patients had died with a median OS not reached (mean 34.8 months, standard error 1.4). CONCLUSION: In men with progressive mCRPC and bone metastases, the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide was tolerable with the majority of patients completing the combination treatment. Bone fractures during the combination period were uncommon; however, we did identify a higher incidence of fractures occurring in patients after completing combination treatment. Bone health agents should be administered and bone health should be closely monitored following treatment with radium-223 and enzalutamide.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE-061): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer that progresses on chemotherapy have poor outcomes. We compared pembrolizumab with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer that progressed on first-line chemotherapy with a platinum and fluoropyrimidine. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done at 148 medical centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1) in blocks of four per stratum with an interactive voice-response and integrated web-response system to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or standard-dose paclitaxel. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with a programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or higher. Safety was assessed in all patients, irrespective of CPS. The significance threshold for overall survival was p=0·0135 (one-sided). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02370498. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2015, and July 26, 2016, 592 patients were enrolled. Of the 395 patients who had a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher, 196 patients were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 199 patients were assigned to receive paclitaxel. As of Oct 26, 2017, 326 patients in the population with CPS of 1 or higher had died (151 [77%] of 196 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 175 [88%] of 199 patients in the paclitaxel group). Median overall survival was 9·1 months (95% CI 6·2-10·7) with pembrolizumab and 8·3 months (7·6-9·0) with paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·66-1·03; one-sided p=0·0421). Median progression-free survival was 1·5 months (95% CI 1·4-2·0) with pembrolizumab and 4·1 months (3·1-4·2) with paclitaxel (HR 1·27, 95% CI 1·03-1·57). In the total population, grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 42 (14%) of the 294 patients treated with pembrolizumab and 96 (35%) of the 276 patients treated with paclitaxel. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared with paclitaxel as second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher. Pembrolizumab had a better safety profile than paclitaxel. Additional trials of pembrolizumab in gastric and gastro-oesophageal cancer are ongoing. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Transesophageal Echocardiographically-Confirmed Pulmonary Vein Thrombosis in Association with Posterior Circulation Infarction.

Pulmonary venous thromboembolism has only been identified as a cause of stroke with pulmonary arteriovenous malformations/fistulae, pulmonary neoplasia, transplantation or lobectomy, and following percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of pulmonary vein ostia in patients with atrial fibrillation. A 59-year-old man presented with a posterior circulation ischemic stroke. 'Unheralded' pulmonary vein thrombosis was identified on transesophageal echocardiography as the likely etiology. He had no further cerebrovascular events after intensifying antithrombotic therapy. Twenty-eight months after initial presentation, he was diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and died 3 months later. This report illustrates the importance of doing transesophageal echocardiography in presumed 'cardioembolic' stroke, and that potential 'pulmonary venous thromboembolic' stroke may occur in patients without traditional risk factors for venous thromboembolism. Consideration should be given to screening such patients for occult malignancy.

Impact of zoledronic acid on renal function in patients with cancer: Clinical significance and development of a predictive model.

Zoledronic acid is a potent bisphosphonate licensed for the treatment of myeloma and bone metastases from solid tumors. Renal deterioration is the most significant toxicity associated with zoledronic acid. We attempted to define the incidence and clinical significance of renal deterioration in patients receiving zoledronic acid and to develop a risk-factor profile for this treatment sequela. This study is a retrospective analysis of all patients who received zoledronic acid at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pa, between 1/10/02 and 1/30/04. Data recorded included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, comorbid illnesses, concomitant medications, cancer therapy, number of zoledronic acid doses administered, and serial creatinine measurements. In total, 3,115 evaluable doses of zoledronic acid were administered to 446 patients (median, 4 doses; mean, 6.98 doses; range, 1-28 doses) at a dose of 4 mg over 15 minutes every 3-4 weeks. Of these 446 patients, 42 experienced renal deterioration (median rise in creatinine level, 1.0 mg/dL; range, 0.5-4.4 mg/dL), requiring discontinuation of zoledronic acid therapy in 8 cases. No patient required dialysis and no patient died as a result of zoledronic acid-induced renal dysfunction. On multivariable analysis, predictive factors for the development of renal deterioration were patient age, a diagnosis of myeloma or renal cell cancer, cumulative number of doses, concomitant therapy with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and current or prior therapy with cisplatin. Using these factors, we constructed a predictive model with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75. The incidence of clinically significant renal deterioration in patients treated with zoledronic acid is low.We present a predictive model for decision support when estimating this risk.

Cranial nerve deficits in patients with metastatic prostate carcinoma: clinical features and treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cranial nerve lesions due to metastases from prostate carcinoma to the skull base are an uncommon yet clinically significant finding. METHODS: The authors report the clinical features, treatment, and outcomes for 15 patients who presented with cranial nerve palsies complicating metastatic prostate carcinoma. Patient charts identified from a Fox Chase Cancer Center treatment data base were reviewed. RESULTS: All patients had hormone-refractory disease at the time of symptom onset. Twelve of 15 patients had received prior chemotherapy, and 13 of 15 patients had received prior radiation therapy to areas of bony pain. Symptoms varied from recognized clinical syndromes involving multiple cranial nerves to isolated cranial nerve lesions. All patients had lesions at the skull base that were visualized on computed tomography scans or magnetic resonance images. All patients were treated with palliative radiation therapy to either the whole brain or the skull base. Fourteen of 15 patients had a clinical (either partial or complete) response to radiation therapy. All responding patients subsequently died of prostate carcinoma without worsening of residual or development of new cranial nerve symptoms. Ten of 15 patients (67%) died within 3 months of developing symptoms, and the remaining 5 patients lived between 9 months and 31 months from onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that palliative radiation therapy should be considered in this heterogeneous group of patients given the potential for significant symptom improvement.

Circulating macrophage colony stimulating factor as a marker of tumour progression.

Tumour expression of the macrophage colony stimulating factor (CSF-1 or MCSF) has been associated with an adverse prognosis in breast cancer, through an effect on the promotion of metastasis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of high circulating CSF-1 levels in patients with newly diagnosed breast tumours and correlate CSF-1 with clinico-pathological parameters. A secondary aim was to also measure CSF-1 in patients with other tumour types and at different stages of disease. Using a commercially available ELISA, pre-treatment plasma levels of CSF-1 were assessed, in 471 consecutive patients diagnosed with breast tumours, in 70 patients with newly diagnosed cancer of the head & neck, in 32 men with prostate cancer metastatic to bone and in 39 women with advanced metastatic breast cancer. Mean CSF-1 levels were significantly higher in patients with locally advanced (p <.015) or metastatic breast tumours (p <.048) and in a group of primary breast cancer patients (n = 26) selected for intensive chemotherapy because of multiple adverse tumour characteristics (p <.0002). Mean CSF-1 was also higher in patients younger than 35 years (p <.02) and in post-menopausal patients (p <.03). There was no significant association with tumour histologic type, grade, or other individual histopathologic parameters. No significant association was found between pre-treatment CSF-1 and overall/relapse free survival. Median CSF-1 levels were dramatically higher in patients with newly diagnosed tumours of the head & neck (604 pg/ml), in men with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (627 pg/ml) and women with advanced metastatic breast cancer (867 pg/ml) than those seen in patients with newly diagnosed breast tumours (334 pg/ml). Our data support the hypothesis that CSF-1 may play a functional role in tumour progression to metastasis as has previously been reported in animal models.

Tumor antigens and antigen-presenting capacity in breast cancer.

AIMS: Cancer cells frequently express antigens capable of being recognized by the host immune system; however, any resultant immune response is often ineffective. This may be related in part to tumor-induced defects in antigen presentation. We screened for dendritic cell infiltration, tumor MHC II expression and associated lymphocytic reaction in the context of three established breast tumor antigens. METHODS: Forty primary breast tumors were evaluated by immunohistochemical techniques for expression of her2/neu, p53, and MUC1 and MHC class II molecules. Twenty-five samples were further analyzed for p53 mutations by PCR-SSCP analysis and DNA sequencing. The phenotype of tumor-infiltrating inflammatory cells was evaluated using the following markers: CD1a, MHC Class II, CD3, CD45, and CD45RO. RESULTS: Tumors with p53 mutations and overexpression, but not her2/neu or MUC1 overexpressing tumors, more frequently harbored marked CD1a+ dendritic cell infiltrates. An overall correlation between CD1a+ cell infiltrates and HLA class II expression on tumor cells (p = 0.0008) was also observed and these tumors had greater CD45RO+ lymphocytic infiltrates. CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer, p53 mutations may present a more visible signal to the immune system and hence provide a better target for immunotherapy. Infiltrating CD1a positive cells are associated with a more dense tumor lymphocytic infiltrate and tumor cell expression of MHC II molecules.