Patient-Reported Outcomes in KEYNOTE-564: Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 496) or placebo (n = 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (-2.5; 95% CI -5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (-0.87; 95% CI -2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334.

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.).

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review. RESULTS: In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib (256 patients) or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy (131 patients). Cohort A included 245 patients with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM, and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had tumors with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

Pain and health-related quality of life with olaparib versus physician's choice of next-generation hormonal drug in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (PROfound): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; pnominal=0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; pnominal=0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; pnominal=0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; pnominal=0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; pnominal=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-564): 30-month follow-up analysis of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7-36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50-0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (<1%) participant in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from KEYNOTE-564 support the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard of care for participants with renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ, USA.

TALASUR trial: a single arm phase II trial assessing efficacy and safety of TALazoparib and Avelumab as maintenance therapy in platinum-Sensitive metastatic or locally advanced URothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide, with a 3.8/1 male to female ratio. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the first line standard of care for fit patients with advanced UC. However, despite a response rate (RR) for approximately half of patients receiving standard chemotherapy, durable responses are rare (median progression-free progression (PFS) around 8 months). Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as new therapeutic options. Among them, Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, was assessed in maintenance treatment, demonstrating an overall survival improvement in the JAVELIN Bladder-100 phase III trial. These findings led to its approval as first line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who have not progressed on prior platinum-containing chemotherapy. However, disease progression as best response was noticed for 37% of patients under Avelumab as maintenance treatment. UC has targetable genomic alterations, including DNA damage repair (DDR) alterations. DDR deficiency is known to major sensitivity to both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and the combination of ICI and PARP inhibitors showed promising results. It therefore warrants to assess the interest of combining ICI plus PARP inhibitors as maintenance treatment in UC patients. METHODS: The TALASUR trial is a single-arm multicenter phase 2 study aiming to assess the antitumor activity of the combination of Avelumab with Talazoparib among patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC in maintenance therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of the combination, assessed through PFS. Secondary objectives are as follows: safety profile of the association, objective response, duration of tumoral response, disease control rate, time to subsequent therapy, quality of life. A blood and tumor collections will be also constituted. Patient will receive the combination therapy of daily oral Talazoparib (1 mg/day) and intra-venous Avelumab 800 mg on days 1 and 15, in a 28-day cycle. Fifty patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: Talazoparib with Avelumab combination may have additive activity when administrated jointly. We hypothesize that combination will increase the antitumor activity in UC first line maintenance setting with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04678362, registered December 21, 2020. PROTOCOL VERSION:  Version 1.3 dated from 2020 09 11.

Post Hoc Health-Related Quality of Life Analysis According to Response Among Patients with Prostate Cancer in the PROSELICA and FIRSTANA Studies.

BACKGROUND: The phase III PROSELICA (NCT01308580) and FIRSTANA (NCT01308567) trials investigated taxane chemotherapy among men with postdocetaxel metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, respectively. We present a post hoc analysis of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) among patients with or without a clinical (pain, tumor, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROSELICA and FIRSTANA HRQL and pain data were collected and analyzed using protocol-defined Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and McGill-Melzack (Present Pain Intensity scale) questionnaires. Outcomes included definitive FACT-P Total Score (TS) improvements and longitudinal assessment of FACT-P TS. RESULTS: In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, the proportion of patients receiving taxane chemotherapy with a definitive FACT-P TS improvement was significantly higher among patients with versus without a pain or PSA response (pain: PROSELICA: 67% vs. 33.5%; p < .001; FIRSTANA: 75.2% vs. 45.8%; p < .001; PSA: PROSELICA: 50.3% vs. 34.2%; p < .001; FIRSTANA: 49.8% vs. 38.9%; p = .001). In PROSELICA, the proportion of patients receiving taxane chemotherapy with a definitive FACT-P TS improvement was significantly higher among patients with versus without a tumor response; the proportion was numerically higher in FIRSTANA (PROSELICA: 54.4% vs. 36.7%; p = .001; FIRSTANA: 50.6% vs. 45.3%). FACT-P TS was significantly improved or maintained for the majority of treatment cycles analyzed. CONCLUSION: In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, HRQL improvements were significantly higher among patients with a pain, tumor, or PSA response versus those without, with the exception of patients with a tumor response in FIRSTANA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using data from the FIRSTANA and PROSELICA phase III clinical trials, this study demonstrated that patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving docetaxel or cabazitaxel who exhibited a response (pain, tumor, prostate-specific antigen), often experienced significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQL) compared with patients without a response. For patients with a pain response, significant HRQL improvements occurred early and were maintained. This study provides further insight into the impact of taxane chemotherapy on the HRQL of patients with mCRPC and allows for a better understanding of the relationship between treatment, response, and HRQL, supporting therapeutic decision making.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Metronomic cyclophosphamide induces regulatory T cells depletion and PSA-specific T cells reactivation in patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer.

Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in up to 40% of prostate cancer patients after prostatectomy. In our study, we performed an immune monitoring study in 20 prostate cancer patients with BCR previously treated with metronomic cyclophosphamide (mCTX). We observed a decrease of regulatory T cells (Tregs) from 2 months and this was more pronounced after 6 months of mCTX treatment. This drop of Tregs was associated with increased level of activated HLADR+ CD45R0+ T cells in peripheral blood. Furthermore, a reactivation of Th1 polarized anti-PSA T-cell response was detected in BCR patients treated with mCTX. However, dendritic cell subsets counts and activation were not influenced by the treatment. In the clinical setting, we found that PSA level control was observed in 82% (9/11) of patients with a significant diminution of Tregs after mCTX compared to 33% (3/9) in patients without Tregs decrease. In addition, 30% (6/20) of patients previously treated with mCTX remained free for androgen deprivation therapy. In conclusion, Tregs diminution and immune activation associated with PSA level control occurred after mCTX in prostate cancer patients with BCR.

Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Parenteral Nutrition for Patients with Advanced Cancer Cachexia: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition worsens health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the prognosis of patients with advanced cancer. This study aimed to assess the clinical benefits of parenteral nutrition (PN) over oral feeding (OF) for patients with advanced cancer cachexia and without intestinal impairment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective multicentric randomized controlled study, patients with advanced cancer and malnutrition were randomly assigned to optimized nutritional care with or without supplemental PN. Zelen's method was used for randomization to facilitate inclusions. Nutritional and performance status and HRQoL using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire were evaluated at baseline and monthly until death. Primary endpoint was HRQoL deterioration-free survival (DFS) defined as a definitive deterioration of ≥10 points compared with baseline, or death. RESULTS: Among the 148 randomized patients, 48 patients were in the experimental arm with PN, 63 patients were in the control arm with OF only, and 37 patients were not included because of early withdrawal or refused consent. In an intent to treat analysis, there was no difference in HRQoL DFS between the PN arm or OF arm for the three targeted dimensions: global health (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.94; p = .18), physical functioning (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.06-2.35; p = .024), and fatigue (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.80-1.77; p = .40); there was a negative trend for overall survival among patients in the PN arm. In as treated analysis, serious adverse events (mainly infectious) were more frequent in the PN arm than in the OF arm (p = .01). CONCLUSION: PN improved neither HRQoL nor survival and induced more serious adverse events than OF among patients with advanced cancer and malnutrition. Clinical trial identification number. NCT02151214 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This clinical trial showed that parenteral nutrition improved neither quality of life nor survival and generated more serious adverse events than oral feeding only among patients with advanced cancer cachexia and no intestinal impairment. Parenteral nutrition should not be prescribed for patients with advanced cancer, cachexia, and no intestinal failure when life expectancy is shorter than 3 months. Further studies are needed to assess the useful period with a potential benefit of artificial nutrition for patients with advanced cancer.

Economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and quality evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Scientific advances in the last decade have highlighted the use of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to be an effective strategy in cancer therapy. However, these immunotherapeutic agents are expensive, and their use must take into account economic criteria. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published EE related to the use of ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab in melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer or renal cell carcinoma, and to assess their quality. METHODS: The systematic literature research was conducted on Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify economic evaluations published before July 2018. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: Our systematic review was based on 32 economic evaluations using different methodological approaches, different perspectives and different time horizons. Three-quarters of the economic evaluations are full (n = 24) with a Drummond score ≥ 7, synonymous of "high quality". Among them, 66% reported a strategy that was cost-effective. The most assessed immunotherapeutic agent was nivolumab. In patients with renal cell carcinoma or head and neck cancer, it was less likely to be cost-effective than in patients with melanoma or lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not these findings will be confirmed remains to be seen when market approval to cover more indications is extended and new effective immunotherapeutic agents become available.

Health-related quality of life assessment for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor using electronic patient-reported outcomes in daily clinical practice (QUANARIE trial): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Two main therapies, pazopanib and sunitinib, are used in the first-line setting for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). These two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are equally effective in terms of survival; however, they frequently induce adverse events. In this setting, Health-Related Quality of life (HRQoL) is a key element in the choice between these two treatments and the evaluation of treatment effectiveness. It could be of interest to evaluate HRQoL in daily clinical practice to aid adequate therapy choice and management. Currently, the development of information and communication technology may allow HRQoL monitoring in routine practice. The objective of the QUANARIE study is to evaluate the use of HRQoL assessment in daily clinical practice for patients with mRCC treated with TKI using electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO). The present article describes the key elements of the study protocol. METHODS: The QUANARIE study is an interventional, prospective, multicentre trial. Patients diagnosed with mRCC initiating sunitinib or pazopanib treatment will be invited to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, nine additional questions from the EORTC items library, and the EuroQoL EQ-5D, prior to each visit with the physician. Questionnaires will be completed by patients using tablets and/or computer terminals via the e-PRO software. The physician will have real-time access to a visual summary of the HRQoL evaluation. The primary objective is to assess the proportion of patients having good compliance with Routine Electronic Monitoring of HRQoL (REMOQOL) during the first 12 months. Physicians' satisfaction with REMOQOL will be assessed as a secondary objective. We hypothesise that 80% of patients having good compliance with REMOQOL would be meaningful. A sample size of 56 patients would be needed. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will show whether REMOQOL is feasible on a large scale and whether patients are receptive to this new practice. This study will also determine how real-time multidimensional evaluation of patient perception can help physicians in their daily practice and how they used it in conjunction with other clinical information to manage patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT03062410 ; First Posted: February 23, 2017; Last Update Posted: August 9, 2017.

Impact of Chemotherapy Beyond the Third Line in Patients With Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the benefit in terms of time disease control (TDC) achieved by the succession of chemotherapy beyond the third line in patients treated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Secondary objectives were to identify patients who benefited from treatments beyond 3 lines and to estimate overall survival and disease-free progression lengths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort of 122 patients was identified from a pharmacy database of patients treated with chemotherapy between 1992 and 2010. The evaluation of benefit obtained by each line was based on TDC duration, defined as the interval between the beginning of the treatment and the date of progressive disease or death. RESULTS: Median TDC durations was 4.15 (0-54.7), 4 (0-21.7), 3.34 (0-29.6), 4.97 (0-29.2), and 3.13 months (0-15) for the fourth to eighth lines, respectively. Time to disease control was longer than 6 months in 34% to 40% of patients treated by lines 4 to 8. The most important factor influencing TDC length beyond the third line was the TDC duration observed in the 2 previous lines of therapy. Median overall survival after the third line was 15.3 months (95% confidence interval, 12-20 months). Factors associated with longer overall survival after 3 lines were performance status lower than 2 (P = 0.0058), no hepatic metastasis (P = 0.0098), no pulmonary metastasis (P = 0.0003), and platinum sensitivity (P = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: These results may justify the administration of chemotherapy beyond the third line, in particular when the 2 previous lines are effective and resulted in disease control longer than 6 months.

In the era of genomics, should tumor size be reconsidered as a criterion for neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND: The Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS) assay has been validated for prediction of 10-year risk of distant recurrence and likelihood of benefit from chemotherapy in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Patients with high RS tumors have substantial benefit, and patients with low RS tumors have minimal if any benefit from chemotherapy. Tumor size is used as a key parameter when selecting patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of RS in patients selected for neoadjuvant chemotherapy primarily according to tumor size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ER-positive and HER2-negative tumors that were node-negative or had no more than 1 positive node from three trials were included in this study. Oncotype DX was performed at Genomic Health, Inc., blinded to the clinical data. Descriptive statistics were calculated for distribution of RS for all cases. RESULTS: Of 277 patients, 96 met eligibility criteria, and 81 had sufficient material for analysis. Median tumor size was 40 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 30-50 mm). Grade I, II, and III were observed in 13, 49, and 17 cases, respectively. There was a wide distribution of RS with a median of 21.4 (IQR, 16.05-26.75). In total, 23 (28.3%) had high, 28 (34.6%) intermediate, and 30 (37%) low RS results. CONCLUSION: The RS may provide relevant information for neoadjuvant treatment decisions in select patients both in clinical practice and in studies. Inclusion of low RS disease patients in neoadjuvant trials will likely only dilute the ability to look at treatment effects.

Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Carboplatin in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with molecular alterations of the DNA damage repair pathway: the PRO-CARBO phase II trial.

Introduction: DNA damage repair genes are altered in 20-35% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Poly-ADP (Adénosine Diphosphate)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) showed significant activity for these selected tumors, especially with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency. These alterations could also predict platinum sensitivity. Although carboplatin was inconclusive in unselected mCRPC, the literature suggests an anti-tumoral activity in mCRPC with HHR gene alterations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of carboplatin monotherapy in mCRPC patients with HRR deficiency. Methods: This prospective multicenter single-arm two-stage phase II addressed mCRPC men with HRR somatic and/or germline alterations, pretreated with ⩾2 taxane chemotherapy regimens and one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. Prior PARPi treatment was allowed. Enrolled patients received intravenous carboplatin (AUC5) every 21 days for 6-9 cycles. The primary endpoint was the best response rate according to adapted PCWG3 guidelines: radiological response (RECIST 1.1 criteria) and/or biological response [⩾50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline]. Results: A total of 15 out of 16 enrolled patients started carboplatin treatment. Genomic alterations were identified for BRCA2 (n = 5), CDK12 (n = 3), ATM (n = 3) CHEK2 (n = 2), CHEK1 (n = 1), and BRCA1 (n = 1) genes. Objective response (partial biological response + stable radiological response) was achieved in one patient (6.7%), carrying a BRCA2 mutation and not pre-treated with PARPi; stable disease was observed for five patients (33.5%). Among seven patients (46.7%) with previous PARPi treatment, four patients (57.1%) had a stable disease. The median progression-free and overall survivals were 1.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.8-9.5] and 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.3-19.5), respectively. The most common severe (grade 3-4) treatment-related toxicities were thrombocytopenia (66.7%), anemia (66.7%), and nausea (60%). Overall, 8 (53.3%) patients experienced a severe hematological event. Conclusion: The study was prematurely stopped as pre-planned considering the limited activity of carboplatin monotherapy in heavily pre-treated, HHR-deficient mCRPC patients. Larger experience is needed in mCRPC with BRCA alterations. Trial registration: NCT03652493, EudraCT ID number 2017-004764-35.