Perceptions around bone-modifying agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast and castration resistant prostate cancer: a patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Optimal use of bone-modifying agent (BMA) therapy in patients with bone metastases from breast and castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is evolving. METHODS: Patients receiving BMA for bone metastases from breast or CRPC were surveyed. Information was collected on patient and disease characteristics, BMA treatments and perceptions regarding BMA benefits and side effects. Interest in participation in trials of de-escalated BMA therapy was also gauged. RESULTS: Of 220 patients contacted, 172 eligible patients responded (response rate 78%). Median age was 67 (range: 21-91); 137 (80%) had breast cancer and 35 (20%) CRPC. Symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) occurred prior to starting BMAs in 61% (84/137) of breast and 48% (17/35) of CRPC patients. Among breast cancer patients, 47, 33 and 13% received zoledronate, pamidronate and denosumab, respectively. Eighty-five percent (30/35) of CRPC patients received denosumab. De-escalation of therapy was more common among breast cancer patients. Although most patients correctly reported the goals of BMA therapy were to "help stop fractures" (62%) and "[improve] quality of life" (63%), 46.5% felt it prolonged survival and 54% felt it reduced bone progression. Most respondents (102/129, 79%) were comfortable with de-escalating to 6-monthly treatment after 2 years of BMA therapy. Patients considered the most important endpoints of de-escalation studies to be "stability of bone metastases" (45%), "quality of life" (22%) and "SSE rates" (14%). CONCLUSION: Twelve weekly BMA was more common in breast than in prostate cancer. There remain misconceptions about the benefits of BMAs, highlighting potential gaps in patient education. Patients were interested in further BMA de-escalation after 2 years of prior BMA and provided study endpoints that were most important to them.

Management of Germ Cell Tumors During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic: A Survey of International Expertise Centers.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. RESULTS: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity.

Development and Implementation of a Continuing Medical Education Program in Canada: Knowledge Translation for Renal Cell Carcinoma (KT4RCC).

An in-person multidisciplinary continuing medical education (CME) program was designed to address previously identified knowledge gaps regarding quality indicators of care in kidney cancer. The objective of this study was to develop a CME program and determine if the program was effective for improving participant knowledge. CME programs for clinicians were delivered by local experts (uro-oncologist and medical oncologist) in four Canadian cities. Participants completed knowledge assessment tests pre-CME, immediately post-CME, and 3-month post-CME. Test questions were related to topics covered in the CME program including prognostic factors for advanced disease, surgery for advanced disease, indications for hereditary screening, systemic therapy, and management of small renal masses. Fifty-two participants attended the CME program and completed the pre- and immediate post-CME tests. Participants attended in Ottawa (14; 27%), Toronto (13; 25%), Québec City (18; 35%), and Montréal (7; 13%) and were staff urologists (21; 40%), staff medical oncologists (9; 17%), fellows (5; 10%), residents (16; 31%), and oncology nurses (1; 2%). The mean pre-CME test score was 61% and the mean post-CME test score was 70% (p = 0.003). Twenty-one participants (40%) completed the 3-month post-CME test. Of those that completed the post-test, scores remained 10% higher than the pre-test (p value 0.01). Variability in test scores was observed across sites and between French and English test versions. Urologists had the largest specialty-specific increase in knowledge at 13.8% (SD 24.2, p value 0.02). The kidney cancer CME program was moderately effective in improving provider knowledge regarding quality indicators of kidney cancer care. These findings support continued use of this CME program at other sites.

Checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, outcomes and prognostic tools have yet to be clearly defined in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are treated with immuno-oncology (IO) checkpoint inhibitors (programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] inhibitors). In the current study, the authors aimed to establish IO efficacy benchmarks in patients with mRCC and update patient outcomes in each International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic class. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the IMDC database with data from 38 centers. It included patients with mRCC who were treated with ≥1 line of IO. Overall response rates (ORRs), duration of treatment (DOT), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients were stratified using IMDC prognostic factors. RESULTS: A total of 687 patients (90% with clear cell and 10% with non-clear cell) were included. The ORR was 27% in evaluable patients (461 patients). In patients treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab (49 patients), the combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (72 patients), and PD-L1 inhibitor (51 patients), the ORR was 31%, 39%, and 40%, respectively, and the median DOT was 8.3 months, 14.7 months, and 8.3 months, respectively. The ORR for second-line, third-line, and fourth-line nivolumab was 22%, 24%, and 26%, respectively. The median DOT was 5.7 months, 6.2 months, and 8.3 months, respectively, in the second-line, third-line, and fourth-line settings. When segregated into IMDC favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups, the median OS rates for the first-line, second-line, third-line, and fourth-line treatment settings were not reached (NR), NR, and NR, respectively (P = .163); NR, 26.7 months, and 7.4 months, respectively (P < 0. 0001); 36.1 months, 28.2 months, and 11.1 months, respectively (P = .016); and NR, NR, and 6.7 months, respectively (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: The ORR was not found to deteriorate from the first-line to the fourth-line of IO therapy. In the second line through fourth line, the IMDC criteria appropriately stratified patients into favorable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk groups for OS.

Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population. METHODS: For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS: Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Real-world Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with or Without Sarcomatoid Features Treated with First-line Systemic Therapies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients have been reported to have better outcomes when treated with immunotherapies (IO) compared to targeted therapies (TT). This study aims to evaluate the impact of first-line systemic therapies on survival of mRCC patients with or without sarcomatoid features using real-world data. METHODS: Metastatic RCC patients of International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system. Patients were classified by initial treatment: (1) targeted therapy (TT) used alone or (2) immunotherapy (IO)-based systemic therapies used in combination of either IO-IO or IO-TT. The inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance for covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the impact of initial treatment received on overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1202 eligible patients, 791 were treated with TT and 411 with IO combinations. Of the patients, 76% were male, and the majority (91%) had a nephrectomy before systemic therapy. In nonsarcomatoid patients (639 TT and 320 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS compared with patients treated with TT (median of 72 vs 48 mo, hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.80, objective response rate [ORR] of 38.5% for IO and 23.5% for TT). In sarcomatoid patients (152 TT and 91 IO patients), treatment with IO was associated with improved OS (median of 48 vs 18 mo, HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.64, ORR of 49.5% for IO and 13.8% for TT). Similar results were observed in patients with synchronous metastatic disease only. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IO treatment was associated with improved survival in mRCC patients. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC, consequently, identifying the sarcomatoid status early on could help healthcare providers make a better treatment decision. PATIENT SUMMARY: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients of International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate and high risk, diagnosed from January 2011 to December 2022, treated with first-line systemic therapies, and with histological documentation of the presence or absence of sarcomatoid features in nephrectomy specimens were identified using the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis). In this study, treatment with immunotherapy was associated to an improved survival and response rates for mRCC patients with and without sarcomatoid features. The magnitude of benefit is increased in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC.

Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: 2023 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Several recent randomized trials evaluated the impact of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy on post-surgical outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with disparate results. The objective of this consensus statement is to provide data-driven guidance regarding the use of ICIs after complete resection of clear-cell RCC in a Canadian context. METHODS: An expert panel of genitourinary medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, and radiation oncologists with expertise in RCC management was convened in a dedicated session during the 2022 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum in Toronto, Canada. Topic statements on the management of patients after surgery for RCC, including counselling, risk stratification, indications for medical oncology referral, appropriate followup, eligibility and management for adjuvant ICIs, as well as treatment options for patients with recurrence who received adjuvant immunotherapy, were discussed. Participants were asked to vote if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Consensus was achieved if greater than 75% of participants agreed with the topic statement. RESULTS: A total of 22 RCC experts voted on 14 statements. Consensus was achieved on all topic statements. The panel felt patients with clear-cell RCC at increased risk of recurrence after surgery, as per the Keynote-564 group definitions, should be counselled about recurrence risk by a urologist, should be informed about the potential role of adjuvant ICI systemic therapy, and be offered referral to discuss risks and benefits with a medical oncologist. The panel felt that one year of pembrolizumab is currently the only regimen that should be considered if adjuvant therapy is selected. Panelists emphasized current opinions are based on disease-free survival given the available results. Significant uncertainty regarding the benefit and harms of adjuvant therapy remains, primarily due to a lack of consistent benefit observed across similar trials of adjuvant ICI-based therapies and immature overall survival (OS) data. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus document provides guidance from Canadian RCC experts regarding the potential role of ICI-based adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. This rapidly evolving field requires frequent evidence-based re-evaluation.

UnCHAARTED territory: The role of docetaxel rechallenge following chemohormonal therapy for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of docetaxel rechallenge (DR) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following chemohormonal therapy for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Additionally, we sought to define clinical factors predicting treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of men treated with docetaxel for mCSPC and then rechallenged in the mCRPC setting from four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) following DR were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty five patients were identified between 2015 and 2020. Prior to DR, 94.5% of patients received androgen-receptor axis targeted therapy, 20% received radium-223, and 1.8% received cabazitaxel. Among 54 evaluable patients, 27.8% had a PSA decline ≥50%. Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.1-4.8) and median OS from androgen deprivation therapy initiation was 38.3 months (95% CI, 32.9-41.0). A Gleason Score of ≥8 was an independent predictor of prolonged PFS (HR 0.32, 95% CI, 0.12-0.81; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: DR following chemohormonal therapy for mCSPC produced a meaningful PSA response in approximately one-quarter of patients, with relatively short PFS. The impact of Gleason Score on docetaxel response warrants further investigation.

Outcomes of Radiation Therapy Plus Immunotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System.

Purpose: With the integration of immunotherapy (IO) agents in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), there has been interest in the combined use with radiation therapy (RT). However, real world data are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients with mRCC receiving both RT and IO compared with IO alone. Methods and Materials: Data were collected from Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System from January 2011 to September 2019 across 14 academic centers. Patients with mRCC who received IO as first- or second-line therapy were included. RT was categorized as radical dose or palliative dose. Kaplan-Meier estimates were reported for overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure. Cox proportional hazard models were used adjusted for age and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk categories. Results: In total, 505 patients were included in the study: 179 received RT + IO and 326 received IO alone. Two-year OS for the RT + IO group was 55.0% compared with 66.4% in the IO alone cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.38; P = .07). At 2 years, 12.2% of the RT + IO patients remained on therapy versus 30.9% in the IO alone group (aHR, 1.30; P = .02). For patients receiving first-line therapy, 2-year OS in the RT + IO group was 56.4% versus 78.4% in the IO alone arm, though this difference was not statistically significant (aHR, 1.23; P = .56). For patients receiving radical dose and palliative dose, 2-year OS was 57.0% and 53.9%, respectively (aHR, 0.86; P = .63). Conclusions: In this descriptive analysis, more than one-third of patients with mRCC received RT and demonstrated inferior outcomes compared with IO alone. Potential explanations include greater presence of adverse metastatic sites in those receiving RT. Prospective clinical trials evaluating potential benefits of RT in an IO era remain an important need.

Outcomes of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy for Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Real World Data from Canadian Centers.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and systemic therapy (ST). Results from the CARMENA and SURTIME trials suggest that CN before ST may not be the optimal treatment strategy for mRCC. OBJECTIVE: To use real-world data to evaluate and compare outcomes for patients with mRCC who underwent CN before, after, or without ST to those patients who only received ST. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) database was used to identify patients diagnosed with mRCC between January 2011 and April 2020. Only patients with synchronous disease, treated within 12 mo from their initial RCC diagnosis, with International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/high risk, and confirmed RCC histology were included. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients were classified into four groups according to the initial treatment received for mRCC. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance the treatment groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of CN after adjusting for potential confounding variables in the weighted cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 788 patients were included in the study cohort. Of these 383 patients underwent CN before ST, 73 underwent CN after ST, 80 underwent CN only, and 252 patients received ST only. The median patient age was 63 yr and 73% of the cohort were men. In weighted analysis, the groups undergoing CN before ST (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.82) and CN after ST (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.60) both had better survival compared to the ST only group. No survival benefit was observed for CN only compared to ST only, or for CN before ST compared to CN after ST. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the association between different sequences of treatment with CN and survival in patients with mRCC using CKCis real world data. The results demonstrate that the selected patients who undergo CN, whether performed before or after ST, have an associated improvement in survival. PATIENT SUMMARY: Two of the treatment options for metastatic kidney cancer are surgery and systemic therapy (chemotherapy or immunotherapy). We used data from the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system to determine whether there are differences in survival according to the sequencing of these treatments. Patients who had both surgery and systemic therapy, regardless of which treatment was first, had better survival than patients who only received systemic therapy.

Primary skull-based yolk-sac tumour: case report and review of central nervous system germ cell tumours.

Primary intra-cranial germ-cell tumours (GCT) are rare and it is important to differentiate them histologically as their prognosis and treatment is quite different. Moreover, highly malignant non-germinomatous GCT (NG GCT) comprise a small portion of these tumours with limited data available on appropriate treatment approaches. We present the case of a 22-year-old male with a unique primary skull-based yolk-sac subtype NG GCT with a literature review of current treatment options. To our knowledge, there have not been any previously published reports of a primary yolk-sac tumour arising from the petrous apex.

Surgical Management of Genitourinary Cancer Liver Metastases.

Genitourinary cancers are common. Liver metastases from genitourinary cancers are uncommon; isolated liver metastasis is rare. Liver resection in select patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma can lead to prolonged survival. Patients with metachronous and low-burden disease are most likely to benefit. Chemotherapy is first-line treatment of metastatic germ cell tumors. Liver resection is dependent on germ cell lineage and initial response to chemotherapy. Prognosis with liver metastases from prostate cancer is poor; liver-only lesions are rare. Liver resection generally is not indicated. Cumulative experience with liver resection for metastatic bladder cancer is limited. Liver metastases are poor prognostic indicators for metastasectomy.

Stereotactic Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Paraneoplastic Vasculitis in Oligometastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Approximately 20% of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is diagnosed because of paraneoplastic manifestations. RCC has been associated with a large variety of paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS), but it is rarely associated with PNS vasculitis. We present a case of a previously healthy male who presented with systemic vasculitis; bitemporal headaches, diplopia, polyarthritis, palpable purpura, tongue lesion, peri-orbital edema, scleritis, chondritis and constitutional symptoms. He was subsequently found to have oligometastatic RCC. Both his primary lesion and site of oligometastasis were treated with stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) and resulted in the resolution of his vasculitis, as well as sustained oncologic response. This is the first case to demonstrate that effective sustained treatment for PNS vasculitis due to oligometastatic RCC is possible with SBRT.

A randomised trial of 4- versus 12-weekly administration of bone-targeted agents in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal dosing of bone-targeted agents (BTAs), in patients with bone metastases remains an important clinical question. This trial compared 4-weekly versus 12-weekly therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), who were going to start or already on BTAs, were randomised 1:1 to 4-weekly or 12-weekly BTA treatment for one year. Primary end point was change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-physical function European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30). Secondary end points included pain (EORTC-QLQ-BM22), global health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30), symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) rates and time to SSEs. Primary analysis was per protocol and a non-inferiority margin of 5 points was used. RESULTS: Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). Using repeated-measures analysis, across all time points, patients in the 4-weekly arm had a mean HRQL-physical subdomain score which was 1.2 (95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 4.0) higher than the 12-weekly arm. The study met the definition of non-inferiority for our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes showed no significant difference in scores for pain, global health status, SSE rates and SSE-free survival between arms. Subgroup analyses for cancer type, prior BTA use or BTA type showed no significant difference between arms. CONCLUSION: These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate and systematic reviews in both breast and prostate cancers, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable treatment option.

Real-world management of advanced prostate cancer: A description of management practices of community-based physicians and prostate cancer specialists.

INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted a consensus development conference leading to 31 recommendations. Using the GURC consensus development questionnaire, we conducted a survey to measure the corresponding community-based practices on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). METHODS: An 87-item online questionnaire was sent to 600 community urologists and oncologists involved in the treatment of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Seventy-two community physicians responded to the survey. Of note, 50% community physicians indicated they would treat nmCRPC with agents approved for this indication if advanced imaging showed metastases. Radiation to the prostate for low-volume mCSPC was identified as a treatment practice by 27% of community physicians, and 35% indicated docetaxel as the next line of treatment after use of apalutamide. Use of genetic testing was reported in 36% of community physicians for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are several areas of community-based management of advanced prostate cancer that could represent potential areas for education, practice tools, and future research.

Evaluation of Clear Cell, Papillary, and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasis Sites and Association With Survival.

Importance: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse. Objective: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020. Exposures: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases. Results: A total of 10 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site. Conclusions and Relevance: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged.

Results from a Canadian consensus forum of key controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer: Recommendations for Canadian healthcare providers.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid progress in diagnostics and therapeutics for the management of prostate cancer (PCa) has created areas where high-level evidence to guide practice is lacking. The Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted its second Canadian consensus forum to address areas of controversy in the management of PCa and provide recommendations to guide treatment. METHODS: A panel of PCa specialists discussed topics related to the management of PCa. The core scientific committee finalized the design, questions, and analysis of the consensus results. Attendees then voted to indicate their management choice regarding each statement/topic. Questions for voting were adapted from the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference. The thresholds for agreement were set at ≥75% for "consensus agreement," >50% for "near-consensus," and ≤50% for "no consensus." RESULTS: The panel was comprised of 29 PCa experts, including urologists (n=12), medical oncologists (n=12), and radiation oncologists (n=5). Voting took place for 65 predetermined questions and three ad hoc questions. Consensus was reached for 34 questions, spanning a variety of areas, including biochemical recurrence, treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive PCa, management of non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant PCa, bone health, and molecular profiling. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus forum identified areas of consensus or near-consensus in more than half of the questions discussed. Areas of consensus typically aligned with available evidence, and areas of variability may indicate a lack of high-quality evidence and point to future opportunities for further research and education.

Docetaxel dose-intensity effect on overall survival in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several studies assessed the association of docetaxel dose intensity (DI) and efficacy in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with contradicting conclusions. In this retrospective analysis, we will assess whether the docetaxel DI used in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is associated with overall survival (OS). METHODS: All patients with mCSPC treated at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre that received docetaxel chemotherapy between June 2014 and September 2017 were identified. The association between relative dose intensity (RDI) and OS was assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, Gleason score, burden of disease, visceral involvement, de novo metastases and baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included in the analysis. Only 35 patients (43%) were able to complete the planned treatment with a RDI of at least 90%. On a univariate analysis, higher RDI and number of cycles of docetaxel received were associated with longer OS. For every 10% decrease in RDI, the risk of death increased by 23% (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.4, P = 0.001). For every increment of one cycle (and up to six), the risk of death decreased by 27% (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88, P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, reduced RDI was the only predictor significantly associated with OS (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.36, P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that in mCSPC, reduced docetaxel RDI is associated with shorter survival. Unnecessary dose reductions, treatment delays and early discontinuation should be avoided. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor may be considered to maintain standard DI.

Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status <80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p <  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p <  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p <  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p <  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome.

Controversial issues in the management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: Results from a Canadian consensus forum.

INTRODUCTION: The management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) continues to evolve with the emergence of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. As a result, there are multiple areas in this landscape with a lack of high-level evidence to guide practice. Consensus initiatives are an approach to establishing practice guidance in areas where evidence is unclear. We conducted a Canadian-based consensus forum to address key controversial areas in the management of advanced PCa. METHODS: As part of a modified Delphi process, a core scientific group of PCa physicians (n=8) identified controversial areas for discussion and developed an initial set of questions, which were then reviewed and finalized with a larger group of 29 multidisciplinary PCa specialists. The main areas of focus were non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), oligometastatic prostate cancer, genetic testing in prostate cancer, and imaging in advanced prostate cancer. The predetermined threshold for consensus was set at 74% (agreement from 20 of 27 participating physicians). RESULTS: Consensus participants included uro-oncologists (n=13), medical oncologists (n=10), and radiation oncologists (n=4). Of the 64 questions, consensus was reached in 30 questions (n=5 unanimously). Consensus was more common for questions related to biochemical recurrence, sequencing of therapies, and mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian consensus forum in PCa identified areas of agreement in nearly 50% of questions discussed. Areas of variability may represent opportunities for further research, education, and sharing of best practices. These findings reinforce the value of multidisciplinary consensus initiatives to optimize patient care.