Erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer with select FGFR alterations: cohort 2 of the randomized phase III THOR trial.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved to treat locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in patients with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations (FGFRalt) who progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy. FGFR-altered tumours are enriched in luminal 1 subtype and may have limited clinical benefit from anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] treatment. This cohort in the randomized, open-label phase III THOR study assessed erdafitinib versus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-(L)1-naive patients with mUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with unresectable advanced/mUC, with select FGFRalt, disease progression on one prior treatment, and who were anti-PD-(L)1-naive were randomized 1 : 1 to receive erdafitinib 8 mg once daily with pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg or pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population (median follow-up 33 months) comprised 175 and 176 patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between erdafitinib and pembrolizumab [median 10.9 versus 11.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.51; P = 0.18]. Median PFS for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab was 4.4 and 2.7 months, respectively (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.70-1.10). ORR was 40.0% and 21.6% (relative risk 1.85; 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and median duration of response was 4.3 and 14.4 months for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. 64.7% and 50.9% of patients in the erdafitinib and pembrolizumab arms had ≥1 grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs); 5 (2.9%) and 12 (6.9%) patients, respectively, had AEs that led to death. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib and pembrolizumab had similar median OS in this anti-PD-(L)1-naive, FGFR-altered mUC population. Outcomes with pembrolizumab were better than assumed and aligned with previous reports in non- FGFR-altered populations. Safety results were consistent with the known profiles for erdafitinib and pembrolizumab in this patient population.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The evolving oncology treatment paradigm has created an unmet need for administration options that improve patient experiences and health care efficiencies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078) was a phase III, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial in which patients with advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to subcutaneous nivolumab (1200 mg every 4 weeks; coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 20 000 units) or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab by coprimary endpoints determined from a population pharmacokinetics analysis [time-averaged serum concentration over the first 28 days (Cavgd28), and minimum steady-state serum concentration (Cminss); noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratios (GMR) ≥0.8]. Objective response rate (ORR) was a key secondary endpoint powered for noninferiority [noninferiority threshold: lower boundary of 95% CI of relative risk of ORR (subcutaneous versus intravenous nivolumab) ≥0.60]. RESULTS: Overall, 495 patients were randomized. Relative exposure in the subcutaneous versus intravenous arm reported by the GMR of Cavgd28 and Cminss was 2.098 (90% CI 2.001-2.200) and 1.774 (90% CI 1.633-1.927), respectively. After 8 months of minimum follow-up, ORR was 24.2% with subcutaneous nivolumab (95% CI 19.0%-30.0%) versus 18.2% with intravenous nivolumab [95% CI 13.6%-23.6%; relative risk: 1.33 (95% CI 0.94-1.87)]. Coprimary endpoints and ORR met noninferiority thresholds. Additional efficacy and safety measures were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous nivolumab was noninferior to intravenous nivolumab based on pharmacokinetics and ORR. No new safety signals were observed.

Induction avelumab followed by chemoimmunotherapy and maintenance versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy in cis-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma (INDUCOMAIN): a randomized phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy (ChT) has been the standard first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of induction avelumab followed by avelumab in combination with carboplatin-gemcitabine (carbo/gem) followed by avelumab maintenance. We tested the hypothesis that induction immunotherapy (IO) could enhance the response to ChT and prevent its detrimental effect on immune cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: INDUCOMAIN is a multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, open-label phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of induction avelumab before carboplatin-gemcitabine-avelumab, followed by avelumab maintenance (arm A), compared to carbo/gem (arm B). Eligibility criteria included patients with mUC, no prior systemic therapy, and ineligibility for cisplatin by Galsky criteria. Patients were stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastasis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 versus 2. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included and randomized to arm A (n = 42) and arm B (n = 43), respectively. ORR was similar between treatment arms: 59.5% in arm A and 53.5% in arm B (P = 0.57). Fourteen patients (33%) in arm A early progressed/died before or at first response assessment, compared to three patients (7%) in arm B. Median OS was 11.1 months in arm A and 13.2 months in arm B [hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.46, P = 0.69]. Median PFS was 6.9 months in arm A versus 7.4 months in arm B (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.60, P = 0.95). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 70.7% of patients in arm A and in 72.1% in arm B. No predictive role of programmed death-ligand 1 expression was found. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that induction avelumab could enhance the efficacy of subsequent ChT was not proven. Administering IO alone as induction before ChT is not an adequate strategy.

Kanamycin treatment in the pre-symptomatic stage of a Drosophila PD model prevents the onset of non-motor alterations.

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor alterations, which is preceded by a prodromal stage where non-motor symptoms are observed. Over recent years, it has become evident that this disorder involves other organs that communicate with the brain like the gut. Importantly, the microbial community that lives in the gut plays a key role in this communication, the so-called microbiota-gut-brain axis. Alterations in this axis have been associated to several disorders including PD. Here we proposed that the gut microbiota is different in the presymptomatic stage of a Drosophila model for PD, the Pink1B9 mutant fly, as compared to that observed in control animals. Our results show this is the case: there is basal dysbiosis in mutant animals evidenced by substantial difference in the composition of midgut microbiota in 8-9 days old Pink1B9 mutant flies as compared with control animals. Further, we fed young adult control and mutant flies kanamycin and analyzed motor and non-motor behavioral parameters in these animals. Data show that kanamycin treatment induces the recovery of some of the non-motor parameters altered in the pre-motor stage of the PD fly model, while there is no substantial change in locomotor parameters recorded at this stage. On the other hand, our results show that feeding young animals the antibiotic, results in a long-lasting improvement of locomotion in control flies. Our data support that manipulations of gut microbiota in young animals could have beneficial effects on PD progression and age-dependent motor impairments. This article is part of the Special Issue on "Microbiome & the Brain: Mechanisms & Maladies".

SEOM clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2019).

In this article, we review de state of the art on the management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and provide recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. Recent advances in molecular biology have allowed the subclassification of renal tumours into different histologic variants and may help to identify future prognostic and predictive factors. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. No adjuvant therapy has demonstrated a clear benefit in overall survival. Considering the whole population of patients with advanced disease, the combination of axitinib with either pembrolizumab or avelumab increase response rate and progression-free survival, compared to sunitinib, but a longer overall survival has only been demonstrated so far with the pembrolizumab combo. For patients with IMDC intermediate and poor prognosis, nephrectomy should not be considered mandatory. In this subpopulation, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has also demonstrated a superior response rate and overall survival vs. sunitinib. In patients progressing to one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, both nivolumab and cabozantinib in monotherapy have shown benefit in overall survival compared to everolimus. Although no clear sequence can be recommended, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in patients with metastatic RCC.

Latest progress in molecular biology and treatment in genitourinary tumours.

The management of genitourinary cancer, including bladder, prostate, renal and testicular cancer, has evolved dramatically in recent years due to a better understanding of tumour genetic mutations, alterations in molecular pathways, and to the development of new kinds of drugs such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies. In the field of immunotherapy, new drugs focused on stimulating, enhancing and modulating the immune system to detect and destroy cancer, have been recently discovered. Research in oncology moves quickly and new data of great relevance for clinical practice are communicated every year. For this reason, a group of experts, focused exclusively on the treatment of genitourinary tumours and who get together every year in the BestGU conference to assess the latest progress in this field have summarized the most important advances in a single review, along with a critical assessment of whether these results should alter daily clinical practice.