Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Delphi consensus on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma-a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology study endorsed by the European Association of Urology.

The purpose of this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) project, endorsed by the European Association of Urology, is to explore expert opinion on the management of patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) on extracranial metastases, with the aim of developing consensus recommendations for patient selection, treatment doses, and concurrent systemic therapy. A questionnaire on SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma was prepared by a core group and reviewed by a panel of ten prominent experts in the field. The Delphi consensus methodology was applied, sending three rounds of questionnaires to clinicians identified as key opinion leaders in the field. At the end of the third round, participants were able to find consensus on eight of the 37 questions. Specifically, panellists agreed to apply no restrictions regarding age (25 [100%) of 25) and primary renal cell carcinoma histology (23 [92%] of 25) for SABR candidates, on the upper threshold of three lesions to offer ablative treatment in patients with oligoprogression, and on the concomitant administration of immune checkpoint inhibitor. SABR was indicated as the treatment modality of choice for renal cell carcinoma bone oligometatasis (20 [80%] of 25) and for adrenal oligometastases 22 (88%). No consensus or major agreement was reached regarding the appropriate schedule, but the majority of the poll (54%-58%) retained the every-other-day schedule as the optimal choice for all the investigated sites. The current ESTRO Delphi consensus might provide useful direction for the application of SABR in oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma and highlight the key areas of ongoing debate, perhaps directing future research efforts to close knowledge gaps.

Nivolumab plus Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P<0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P<0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab after Nephrectomy in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Analysis of the immunological markers BTLA, TIM-3, and PD-L1 at the invasion front and tumor center in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are then backbone in the therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The aim of this analysis was to explore the different expression of the ICI PD-L1, BTLA, and TIM-3 at the different tumor locations of the invasion front and the tumor center. METHODS: Large-area sections of the tumor center and invasion front of 44 stage pT1-4 clear cell RCCs were examined immunohistochemically using antibodies against BTLA, TIM-3, and PD-L1 and subsequently correlated with clinicopathologic data. RESULTS: TIM-3 was most strongly expressed at the invasion front (mean ± SD: 84.1 ± 46.6, p = 0.094). BTLA expression was highest in normal tissue, with weak staining in the tumor center and at the invasion front [110.2 vs. 18.6 (p < 0.001) vs. 32.2 (p = 0.248)]. PD-L1 was weakly expressed at the tumor center (n = 5/44) and at the invasion front (n = 5/44). Correlation with clinicopathological parameters revealed significantly higher BTLA expression in ≥ T3 tumors compared to T1/2 tumors (tumor center p = 0.009; invasion front p = 0.005). BTLA-positive tumors at the tumor center correlated with worse CSS (median 48.46 vs. 68.91 months, HR 4.43, p = 0.061). PD-L1 expression was associated with worse CSS (median 1.66 vs. 4.5 years, HR 1.63, p = 0.652). For TIM-3, there were no significant associations with clinicopathological parameters and survival. CONCLUSION: The present results show heterogeneous intratumoral and intertumoral expression of the investigated checkpoint receptors PD-L1, BTLA, and TIM-3. In the clinical practice tumor sampling should include different tumor locations, and multiple inhibition of different checkpoint receptors seems reasonable to increase the therapeutic success.

CREST: phase III study of sasanlimab and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin for patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-naïve high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the standard of care for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). BCG in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors may yield greater anti-tumor activity compared with either agent alone. CREST is a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG for patients with BCG-naive high-risk NMIBC. Eligible participants are randomized to receive sasanlimab plus BCG (induction ± maintenance) or BCG alone for up to 25 cycles within 12 weeks of TURBT. The primary outcome is event-free survival. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy end points and safety. The target sample size is around 1000 participants.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common type of bladder cancer. Most people have surgery to remove the cancer cells while leaving the rest of the bladder intact. This is called transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT). For people with high-risk NMIBC, a medicine called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is placed directly inside the bladder after TURBT. A 'high risk' classification means that the cancer is more likely to spread or come back after treatment. Some people's cancer does not respond to BCG or returns after BCG treatment. Researchers are currently looking at whether BCG combined with other immunotherapies may prevent cancer growth more than BCG on its own. Immunotherapy helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. Sasanlimab is an immunotherapy medicine that is not yet approved to treat people with NMIBC. It is given as an injection under the skin. In this CREST study, researchers are looking at how safe and effective sasanlimab plus BCG is for people with high-risk NMIBC. Around 1000 people are taking part in CREST. They must have had TURBT 12 weeks or less before joining the study. Researchers want to know how long people live without certain events occurring, such as bladder cancer cells returning. A plain language summary of this article can be found as Supplementary Material. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04165317; 2019-003375-19 (EudraCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Female Hyperplastic PSA-Positive Prostate Tissue in the Bladder Neck.

INTRODUCTION: We report a rare case of Skene's gland hyperplasia where the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was measurable. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a 91-year-old woman with a suspected bladder mass at the bladder trigone. Cystoscopy revealed a suspected lesion and an obstructed anterior bladder neck with a large mass located from a "7 o'clock" to "11 o'clock" area. The photodynamic diagnosis was negative. Transurethral subtotal resection of the mass was performed. The serum PSA level at the third postoperative day was 0.08 ng/mL. Postoperative cystography showed no contrast media extravasation. Thus, histopathology revealed massive adenomyomatous hyperplasia of the Skene's gland, as well as nondysplastic urothelium and glandular and squamous epithelium. Immunohistochemistry showed strong PSA and NKX3.1 positivity, confirming the diagnosis of "female prostate." FISH analysis showed only green signals that confirm an XX karyotype. In follow-up to 17 months, there was no disease recurrence or need for a urinary catheter. CONCLUSION: Effective therapeutic strategies for these lesions are unknown due to the absence of reported cases. Given the patient's age, we assumed that bladder neck resection by transurethral resection with a controlled level of serum PSA would be a suitable therapeutic approach.

Novel drug transporter substrates identification: An innovative approach based on metabolomic profiling, in silico ligand screening and biological validation.

Solute carrier (SLC) transport proteins are fundamental for the translocation of endogenous compounds and drugs across membranes, thus playing a critical role in disease susceptibility and drug response. Because only a limited number of transporter substrates are currently known, the function of a large number of SLC transporters is elusive. Here, we describe the proof-of-concept of a novel strategy to identify SLC transporter substrates exemplarily for the proton-coupled peptide transporter (PEPT) 2 (SLC15A2) and multidrug and toxin extrusion (MATE) 1 transporter (SLC47A1), which are important renal transporters of drug reabsorption and excretion, respectively. By combining metabolomic profiling of mice with genetically-disrupted transporters, in silico ligand screening and in vitro transport studies for experimental validation, we identified nucleobases and nucleoside-derived anticancer and antiviral agents (flucytosine, cytarabine, gemcitabine, capecitabine) as novel drug substrates of the MATE1 transporter. Our data confirms the successful applicability of this new approach for the identification of transporter substrates in general, which may prove particularly relevant in drug research.

Ten recommendations for sarcoma surgery: consensus of the surgical societies based on the German S3 guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas".

PURPOSE: The evidence-based (S3) guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas" (AWMF Registry No. 032/044OL) published by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) covers all aspects of sarcoma treatment with 229 recommendations. Representatives of all medical specialties involved in sarcoma treatment contributed to the guideline. This paper compiles the most important recommendations for surgeons selected by delegates from the surgical societies. METHODS: A Delphi process was used. Delegates from the surgical societies involved in guideline process selected the 15 recommendations that were most important to them. Votes for similar recommendations were tallied. From the resulting ranked list, the 10 most frequently voted recommendations were selected and confirmed by consensus in the next step. RESULTS: The statement "Resection of primary soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities should be performed as a wide resection. The goal is an R0 resection" was selected as the most important term. The next highest ranked recommendations were the need for a preoperative biopsy, performing preoperative MRI imaging with contrast, and discussing all cases before surgery in a multidisciplinary sarcoma committee. CONCLUSION: The evidence-based guideline "Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas" is a milestone to improve the care of sarcoma patients in Germany. The selection of the top ten recommendations by surgeons for surgeons has the potential to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the guideline and thus improve the overall outcome of sarcoma patients.

Differential Expression and Clinical Relevance of C-X-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 4 (CXCR4) in Renal Cell Carcinomas, Benign Renal Tumors, and Metastases.

C-X-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 4 (CXCR4) is part of the human chemokine system and involved in progression and metastasis in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the role of CXCR4 protein expression in RCC remains controversial. In particular, data regarding the subcellular distribution of CXCR4 in RCC and RCC metastasis as well as CXCR4 expression in renal tumors of variant histology are limited. The aim of the present study was the evaluation of the differential CXCR4 expression in RCC primary tumor and metastatic tissue as well as in variant renal histologies. In addition, the prognostic capacity of CXCR4 expression in organ-confined clear cell RCC (ccRCC) was evaluated. Three independent renal tumor cohorts (primary ccRCC cohort n1 = 64; cohort of various histological entities n2 = 146; metastatic RCC tissue cohort n3 = 92) were evaluated using tissue microarrays (TMA). After immunohistochemical staining for CXCR4, nuclear and cytoplasmic expression patterns were evaluated. CXCR4 expression was correlated with validated pathologic prognosticators, clinical data, and overall and cancer-specific survival. Positive cytoplasmic staining was observed in 98% of the benign and 38.9% of the malignant samples. Nuclear staining was positive for 94.1% of the benign samples and 83% of the malignant samples. The median cytoplasmic expression score was found to be higher in benign tissue than in ccRCC (130.00 vs. 0.00); median nuclear expression score analysis indicated the opposite (56.0 vs. 71.0). Within malignant subtypes, the highest expression score was seen in papillary renal cell carcinomas (cytoplasmic: 117.50, nuclear: 41.50). Within benign renal tumors, high cytoplasmic and nuclear CXCR4 expression scores were seen for oncocytomas (cytoplasmic: 100.00, nuclear: 31.00). Expression scores in RCC metastasis ranked between benign renal tissue and ccRCC in cytoplasmic and nuclear expression. Cytoplasmic CXCR4 expression was identified as a prognostic factor for OS and CSS (p = 0.042; p = 0.019). Multivariate analysis including clinicopathological parameters did not reveal an independent prognostic character of CXCR4 expression. CXCR4 expression differs significantly within benign lesions and renal neoplasms. Cytoplasmic and nuclear expression of CXCR4 could be detected across all RCC subtypes. The prognostic value of CXCR4 in ccRCC was confirmed in univariate analysis.

Single-dose carboplatin followed by involved-node radiotherapy for stage IIA and stage IIB seminoma (SAKK 01/10): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment options for patients with stage IIA or stage IIB seminoma include either para-aortic and pelvic radiotherapy or three to four cycles of cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. These options result in 3-year progression free survival rates of at least 90%, but bear risks for acute and late toxic effects, including secondary malignancies. We tested a novel approach combining de-escalated chemotherapy with de-escalated involved node radiotherapy, with the aim of reducing toxicity while preserving efficacy. METHODS: In the single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 SAKK 01/10 trial, patients with stage IIA or IIB classic seminoma (either at primary diagnosis or at relapse during active surveillance for stage I) were enrolled at ten centres of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and ten centres of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. WHO performance status 0-2, age 18 years or older, and adequate bone marrow and kidney function were required for eligibility. Treatment comprised one cycle of carboplatin (area under the curve 7) followed by involved-node radiotherapy (30 Gy in 15 fractions for stage IIA disease and 36 Gy in 18 fractions for stage IIB disease). The primary endpoint was 3-year progression-free survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the full analysis set, which comprised all patients who signed the informed consent, were registered in the trial, initiated trial treatment, and met all medically relevant inclusion or exclusion criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were treated at least once with one of the trial treatments. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting, and is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01593241. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2012, and June 22, 2018, 120 patients were registered in the study. 116 patients were eligible and started treatment according to the study protocol (46 patients with stage IIA disease and 70 with stage IIB disease). After a median follow-up of 4·5 years (IQR 3·9-6·0), 3-year progression-free survival was 93·7% (90% CI 88·5-96·6). With a target progression-free survival of 95% at 3 years, the primary endpoint was not met. Acute treatment-related adverse events of any grade were noted in 58 (48%) of 116 patients, and grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in the form of neutropenia in five (4%) patients, thrombocytopenia in three (3%) patients, and vomiting in one (1%) patient. No treatment-related deaths and no late treatment-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events were reported in five (4%) of 116 patients (one transient creatinine increase and four second primary tumours). INTERPRETATION: Despite the fact that the primary endpoint was not met, we observed favourable 3-year progression-free survival with single-dose carboplatin area under the curve 7 and involved-node radiotherapy, with minimal toxic effects. Our findings might warrant discussion with patients about the SAKK 01/10 regimen as an alternative to standard-of-care treatment, but more research on this strategy is needed. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation and Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research.

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 9ER): long-term follow-up results from an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death). INTERPRETATION: With extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

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.).

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

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

On the probability of lymph node negativity in pN0-staged prostate cancer-a theoretically derived rule of thumb for adjuvant needs.

PURPOSE: The extent of lymphadenectomy and clinical features influence the risk of occult nodes in node-negative prostate cancer. We derived a simple estimation model for the negative predictive value (npv) of histopathologically node-negative prostate cancer patients (pN0) to guide adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Approximations of sensitivities in detecting lymph node metastasis from current publications depending on the number of removed lymph nodes were used for a theoretical deduction of a simplified formulation of npv assuming a false node positivity of 0. RESULTS: A theoretical formula of npv = p(N0IpN0) = (100 - prevalence) / (100 - sensitivityâ€¯× prevalence) was calculated (sensitivity and preoperative prevalence in %). Depending on the number of removed lymph nodes (nLN), the sensitivity of pN0-staged prostate cancer was derived for three sensitivity levels accordingly: sensitivity = f(nLN) = 9â€¯× nLN /100 for 0 ≤ nLN ≤ 8 and f(nLN) = (nLN + 70) /100 for 9 ≤ nLN ≤ 29 and f(nLN) = 1 for nLN ≥ 30. CONCLUSION: We developed a theoretical formula for estimation of the npv in pN0-staged prostate cancer patients. It is a sine qua non to use the formula in a clinically experienced context before deciding to electively irradiate pelvic lymph nodes or to intensify adjuvant systemic treatment.

Prognostic impact of complete metastasectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of immuno-oncology-based combination therapies.

PURPOSE: Complete metastasectomy of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is receding into the past due to the progress of immuno-oncology-based combinations (IO) in systemic therapy. The prognostic impact of curative intended complete metastasectomy vs. immediate IO-based therapy or tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) on progression-free survival (PFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was investigated in the first-line setting. METHODS: 205 patients with synchronous or metachronous metastasis received complete metastasectomy (n = 80) or systemic therapy (n = 125, TKI: 87, TKI-IO: 13, IO-IO: 25) as first-line therapy. The prognostic impact of these therapies was assessed using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: First-line complete metastasectomy significantly improved CSS compared to both TKI monotherapy (6.1 vs. 2.6 years, HR 0.45, p < 0.001) and IO-based combination therapy (IO-IO/TKI-IO, 6.1 vs. 3.5 years, HR 0.28, p = 0.007). Repetitive complete metastasectomy without ever receiving systemic therapy vs. systemic therapy in first-line significantly prolonged CSS (11.3 vs. 3.1 years, HR 0.34, p = 0.002). First-line complete metastasectomy and subsequent systemic therapy at tumor progression was associated with a significant CSS benefit vs. systemic therapy (5.8 vs. 3.1 years, HR 0.53, p = 0.003), also compared to IO-based combinations (5.8 vs. 3.5 years, HR 0.30, p = 0.017). Median PFS was improved by IO-based therapy compared to TKI monotherapy in the first-line setting (HR 0.61, p = 0.05), with maximal benefit of the TKI-IO combination vs. TKI monotherapy (HR 0.27, p = 0.01), as well as compared to PFS of complete metastasectomy (HR 0.34, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Despite the progress of IO-based combination therapies in first line, complete metastasectomy remains an integral part of the multimodality treatment of metastatic RCC.

Head-to-head comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI of the prostate before robot-assisted transperineal fusion prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: Prostate biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) including T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) might be an alternative to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI, including dynamic contrast imaging, DCE) to detect and guide targeted biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, there is no upgrading peripheral zone PI-RADS 3 to PI-RADS 4 without DCE in bpMRI. The aim of this study was to evaluate bpMRI against mpMRI in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) scheduled for robot-assisted-transperineal fusion-prostate biopsy (RA-TB). METHODS: Retrospective single-center-study of 563 biopsy-naïve men (from 01/2015 to 09/2018, mean PSA 9.7 ± 6.5 ng/mL) with PI-RADSv2.1 conform mpMRI at 3 T before RA-TB. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2 in any core. Two experienced readers independently evaluated images according to PI-RADSv2.1 criteria (separate readings for bpMRI and mpMRI sequences, 6-month interval). Reference standard was histology from RA-TB. RESULTS: PI-RADS 2 was scored in 5.1% of cases (3.4% cancer/3.4% csPCa), PI-RADS 3 in 16.9% (32.6%/3.2%), PI-RADS 4 in 57.6% (66.1%/58.3%) and PI-RADS 5 in 20.4% of cases (79.1%/74.8%). For mpMRI/bpMRI test comparison, sensitivity was 99.0%/97.1% (p < 0.001), specificity 47.5%/61.2% (p < 0.001), PPV 69.5%/75.1% (p < 0.001) and NPV 97.6%/94.6% (n.s.). csPCa was considered gold standard. 35 cases without cancer were upgraded to PI-RADS 4 (mpMRI) and six PI-RADS 3 cases with csPCa were not upgraded (bpMRI). CONCLUSION: In patients planned for RA-TB with elevated PSA and clinical suspicion for PCa, specificity was higher in bpMRI vs. mpMRI, which could solve constrains regarding time and contrast agent.

T2 mapping for the characterization of prostate lesions.

PURPOSE: Purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative T2/ADC values in differentiating between PCa and lesions showing non-specific inflammatory infiltrates and atrophy, features of chronic prostatitis, as the most common histologically proven differential diagnosis. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, we analyzed 55 patients suspected of PCa, who underwent mpMRI (3T) including quantitative T2 maps before robot-assisted mpMRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. All prostate lesions were scored according to PI-RADS v2.1. Regions of interest (ROIs) were annotated in focal lesions and normal prostate tissue. Quantitative mpMRI values from T2 mapping and ADC were compared using two-tailed t tests. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) and cutoff were calculated to differentiate between PCa and chronic prostatitis. RESULTS: Focal lesions showed significantly lower ADC and T2 mapping values than normal prostate tissue (p < 0.001). PCa showed significantly lower ADC and T2 values than chronic prostatitis (p < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.97) for quantitative ADC values and 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.96) for T2 mapping. A significant correlation between ADC and T2 values was observed (r = 0.70; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: T2 mapping showed high diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between PCa and chronic prostatitis, comparable to the performance of ADC values.