Impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligoprogressive metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in areas of oligoprogressive metastatic disease (OPD). Our main objective was to investigate the impact of SBRT on overall survival (OS) and the incidence of systemic therapy treatment switches in this population. METHODS: A retrospective institutional review of patients treated with SBRT for OPD was performed. Patients were included if they received SBRT for 1-3 discrete progressing metastases, using a dose of at least 5 Gy per fraction. The study aimed to calculate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and incidence of treatment switch (TS). PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, while LC and TS were determined using cumulative incidence. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a total of 118 lesions were treated with SBRT from July 2014 to November 2020. The Median SBRT dose was 40 (18-60) Gy in 5 (2-8) fractions. Patients had primarily kidney, lung, or breast cancer. Most patients were treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (30.9%) or chemotherapy (29.6%) before OPD. The median follow-up post-SBRT was 14 months. Median OS and PFS were 25.1 (95% CI 11.2-39.1) months and 7.8 (95% CI 4.6-10.9) months, respectively. The cumulative incidence of local progression of treated lesions was 5% at 1 year and 7.3% at 2 years. Sixty patients progressed after SBRT and 17 underwent additional SBRT. Thirty-eight patients (47%) changed systemic therapy following SBRT; the cumulative incidence of TS was 28.5% at 6 months, 37.4% at 1 year, and 43.9% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT effectively controls locally progressing lesions but distant progression still occurs frequently. A sizeable number of patients can be salvaged by further SBRT or have minimally progressing diseases that may not warrant an immediate initiation/switch in systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this benefit.

Examining the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict toxicity in older men receiving chemotherapy or androgen-receptor-targeted therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because multiple treatments are available for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and most patients are elderly, the prediction of toxicity risk is important. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) tool predicts chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with mixed solid tumors, but has not been validated in mCRPC. In this study, its ability to predict toxicity risk with docetaxel chemotherapy (CHEMO) was validated, and its utility was examined in predicting toxicity risk with abiraterone or enzalutamide (A/E) among older adults with mCRPC. METHODS: Men aged 65+ years were enrolled in a prospective observational study at 4 Canadian academic cancer centers. All clinically relevant grade 2 to 5 toxicities over the course of treatment were documented via structured interviews and chart review. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of toxicity. RESULTS: Seventy-one men starting CHEMO (mean age, 73 years) and 104 men starting A/E (mean age, 76 years) were included. Clinically relevant grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 56% and 37% of CHEMO and A/E patients, respectively. The CARG tool was predictive of grade 3+ toxicities with CHEMO, which occurred in 36%, 67%, and 91% of low, moderate, and high-risk groups (P = .003). Similarly, grade 3+ toxicities occurred among A/E users in 23%, 48%, and 86% with low, moderate, and high CARG risk (P < .001). However, it was not predictive of grade 2 toxicities with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is external validation of the CARG tool in predicting grade 3+ toxicity in older men with mCRPC undergoing CHEMO and demonstrated utility during A/E therapy. This may aid with treatment decision-making.

A Practical Approach to the Management of Cancer Patients During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An International Collaborative Group.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by rapid human-to-human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID-19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high-risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 virology and epidemiology.

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.

A randomized phase 2 study of a HSP27 targeting antisense, apatorsen with prednisone versus prednisone alone, in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Purpose Heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) is implicated in prostate cancer progression. Apatorsen is a second generation phosphorothioate antisense inhibitor of Hsp27 expression. We evaluated apatorsen in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Experimental design Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous apatorsen (3 loading doses of 600 mg within 5-9 days followed by weekly doses of 1000 mg) with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily or prednisone alone. The primary endpoint was disease progression at 12 weeks. Crossover from prednisone alone was allowed after radiographic progression. Results 74 patients received apatorsen + prednisone (n = 36) or prednisone alone (n = 38). Twenty-five patients crossed-over to receive apatorsen + prednisone. Apatorsen treated patients received a median of 19 infusions. 50% of apatorsen + prednisone patients (95% CI: 32.9%, 67.1%) compared with 42% of prednisone patients (95% CI: 26.3%, 59.2%) did not have disease progression at week 12 (P = 0.33). A PSA decline of ≥50% was observed in 47% of apatorsen + prednisone and 24% of prednisone patients (P = 0.04), with a median duration of response of 24.1 weeks (95% CI: 12.0, 52) and 14.0 weeks (95% CI: 4.0, 44.4), respectively. A PSA decline of ≥50% was observed in 5 patients (20%) that received cross-over apatorsen. Infusion reactions were the most commonly reported adverse event occurring in 77% of apatorsen-treated patients. Conclusions Apatorsen + prednisone did not change the proportion of CRPC patients without disease progression at 12 weeks compared to prednisone but was associated with significant PSA declines. Further evaluation of Hsp27 targeting in prostate cancer is warranted.

Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bone health is a significant concern in men with prostate cancer. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of drug, supplement, and lifestyle interventions aimed at preventing fracture, improving bone mineral density (BMD), or preventing or delaying osteoporosis in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 19 January 2017), EMBASE (1980 to 18 January 2017), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (19 January 2017). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and systematic reviews of trials that were published in English; involved men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and compared bone-targeted therapies with placebo, usual care, or other active treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed study risk of bias for each outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews and 28 reports of 27 trials met inclusion criteria. All trials focused on men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who were initiating or continuing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Bisphosphonates were effective in increasing BMD, but no trial was sufficiently powered to detect reduction in fractures. Denosumab improved BMD and reduced the incidence of new radiographic vertebral fractures in 1 high-quality trial. No trials compared calcium or vitamin D versus placebo. Three lifestyle intervention trials did not show a statistically significant difference in change in BMD between exercise and usual care. LIMITATIONS: Most trials were of moderate quality. Only 2 randomized controlled trials were designed to examine fracture outcomes. Potential harms of treatments were not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Both bisphosphonates and denosumab improve BMD in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who are receiving ADT. Denosumab also reduces risk for radiographic vertebral fractures, based on 1 trial. More trials studying fracture outcomes are needed in this population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Program in Evidence-Based Care.

Custirsen (OGX-011) combined with cabazitaxel and prednisone versus cabazitaxel and prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (AFFINITY): a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel and cabazitaxel improve overall survival compared with mitoxantrone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Custirsen (OGX011) is a second generation highly specific antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits the production of clusterin, an antiapoptotic protein that is upregulated in response to chemotherapy and that confers treatment resistance. We aimed to assess whether custirsen in combination with cabazitaxel and prednisone increases overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial, men with radiographically documented metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment with a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70% and who were fit for chemotherapy, were recruited from 95 cancer treatment centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally using permuted blocks (block size 8) to receive cabazitaxel plus prednisone (cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days plus oral prednisone 10 mg daily) with or without custirsen (640 mg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15, plus three previous loading doses) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or the completion of ten treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by use of opioids for prostate cancer-related pain at screening, disease progression following first-line docetaxel treatment established by radiographic evidence, and previous treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival in all randomly assigned patients and in a poor-prognosis subgroup. All analyses were intention to treat with the exception of safety, which was reported for patients who received any assigned treatment. The trial has been completed and the results presented here are the final analysis. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01578655. FINDINGS: Between Sept 9, 2012, and Sept 29, 2014, 795 patients were screened for enrolment. 635 men were eligible for inclusion and were randomly assigned (n=317 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone plus custirsen group and n=318 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone group). Median follow up was 28·3 months (IQR 24·4-34·5) for the custirsen group and 29·8 months (IQR 25·3-35·2) for the control group. Median overall survival in all randomly assigned patients did not differ between the two groups (14·1 months [95% CI 12·7-15·9] in the curtisen group vs 13·4 months [12·1-14·9] in the control group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·80-1·12]; log-rank p=0·53). In the poor prognosis subgroup, median overall survival also did not differ between the two treatment groups (11·0 months [95% CI 9·3-13·3] in the custursin group vs 10·9 months [8·2-12·4] in the control group; HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·80-1·21]; two-sided p=0·80). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events in the custirsen versus control groups were neutropenia (70 [22%] of 315 vs 61 [20%] of 312), anaemia (68 [22%] vs 49 [16%]), fatigue (23 [7%] vs 18 [6%]), asthenia (16 [5%] vs 8 [3%]), bone pain (16 [5%] vs 5 [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (16 [5%] vs 9 [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 155 (49%) versus 132 (42%). 27 patients died within 30 days of treatment in the cabazitaxel and prednisone plus custirsen group, seven of which were deemed to be treatment related, versus 17 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone group, eight of which were deemed to be treatment related. Of the 21 deaths reported, 15 were reported as complications related to study treatment, either chemotherapy (eight and three, respectively) or study drug (none and four, respectively). INTERPRETATION: We noted no survival benefit in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with the addition of custirsen to cabazitaxel and prednisone treatment. Cabazitaxel and prednisone remains the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel chemotherapy. FUNDING: OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals.

Addressing taxane resistance in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a focus on chaperone proteins.

Despite the significant survival benefit of taxane therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), all patients inevitably develop treatment resistance. An understanding of resistance mechanisms has led to new therapies for prostate cancer (cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide), all of which have improved survival following first-line docetaxel. Another treatment, currently in development, targets the prosurvival molecule clusterin. Custirsen, an antisense molecule that inhibits clusterin production, has shown promise in combination with docetaxel in mCRPC patients at risk for poor outcomes. Although optimal sequence and combination of available therapies is unclear, the heterogeneity of mCRPC suggests a continuing need for personalized treatment regimens and improved abilities to predict which patients will respond to the available treatment options.

A phase I trial of ANG1/2-Tie2 inhibitor trebaninib (AMG386) and temsirolimus in advanced solid tumors (PJC008/NCI♯9041).

BACKGROUND: There is crosstalk between the ANG-Tie2 and the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Combined ANG1/2 and mTOR blockade may have additive anti-cancer activity. The combination of trebananib, an inhibitor of ANG1/2-Tie2 interaction, with temsirolimus was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: Patients were enrolled using 3 + 3 design, and were given intravenous trebananib and temsirolimus on Day 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during cycle 1. Peripheral blood was collected for evaluation of Tie2-expressing monocytes (TEMs) and thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Sparse pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling for trebananib drug levels was performed on Day 1 and 8 of cycle 2. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, 6 at dose level (DL) 1, 7 at DL -1, and 8 at DL -2. No effect of temsirolimus on trebananib PK was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were: fatigue (81 %), edema (62 %), anorexia (57 %), nausea (52 %), rash (43 %) and mucositis (43 %). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs included lymphopenia (28 %) and fatigue (28 %). The MTD was exceeded at DL-2. Of 18 response evaluable patients, 1 partial response was observed (ER+/HER2-/PIK3CA mutant breast cancer) and 4 patients had prolonged SD ≥ 24 weeks. No correlation with clinical benefit was observed with change in number TEMs or TP expression in TEMs with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was exceeded at trebananib 10 mg/kg weekly and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly, with frequent overlapping toxicities including fatigue, edema, and anorexia.