Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Design and rationale of a single-arm phase II study of neoadjuvant Durvalumab and Gemcitabine associated with Cisplatin or Carboplatin for upper urinary tract urothelial cancer: the iNDUCT trial (NCT04617756).

BACKGROUND: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is often locally advanced at initial diagnosis and is associated with high recurrence and mortality rates after radical nephroureterectomy (RNU). Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has shown a recurrence-free survival benefit in a randomised phase III trial, while neoadjuvant treatment seems promising in retrospective series. On the contrary, little is known about the role of perioperative immunotherapy and its combination with chemotherapy for UTUC patients, although initial positive results have been published for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. STUDY DESIGN AND ENDPOINTS: Against this backdrop, we are running a multi-centre single-arm phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant Durvalumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death ligand 1, combined with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin or Carboplatin for high-risk UTUC patients. The primary outcome is pathological complete response rate at RNU. Secondary endpoints include the partial pathological response rate, safety, as well as disease-free and overall survival. A biomarker analysis is also planned. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Included patients must have a good performance status and harbour a non-metastatic UTUC, considered at high risk of progression, defined as either biopsy-proven high-grade disease or invasive features at imaging with or, more recently, without high-grade cytology at the multidisciplinary team discretion, as specified in the latest amendment. Enrolled patients receive 3 cycles of neoadjuvant immuno-chemotherapy before RNU, and the standard of care thereafter. The trial is registered as NCT04617756 and is supervised by an independent data monitoring committee.

Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 35-gene expression classifier identifying four clear-cell renal cell carcinoma groups (ccrcc1 to ccrcc4) with different tumour microenvironments and sensitivities to sunitinib in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Efficacy profiles might differ with nivolumab and nivolumab-ipilimumab. We therefore aimed to evaluate treatment efficacy and tolerability of nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) in patients according to tumour molecular groups. METHODS: This biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial included patients from 15 university hospitals or expert cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had previously untreated metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of varying sizes to receive either nivolumab or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc1 and ccrcc4 groups), or either a VEGFR-TKI or nivolumab-ipilimumab (ccrcc2 and ccrcc3 groups). Patients assigned to nivolumab-ipilimumab received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses followed by intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to nivolumab received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Patients assigned to VEGFR-TKIs received oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks every 6 weeks) or oral pazopanib (800 mg daily continuously). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate by investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the population who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02960906, and with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2016-003099-28, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2017, and July 18, 2019, 303 patients were screened for eligibility, 202 of whom were randomly assigned to treatment (61 to nivolumab, 101 to nivolumab-ipilimumab, 40 to a VEGFR-TKI). In the nivolumab group, two patients were excluded due to a serious adverse event before the first study dose and one patient was excluded from analyses due to incorrect diagnosis. Median follow-up was 18·0 months (IQR 17·6-18·4). In the ccrcc1 group, objective responses were seen in 12 (29%; 95% CI 16-45) of 42 patients with nivolumab and 16 (39%; 24-55) of 41 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·25-1·56]). In the ccrcc4 group, objective responses were seen in seven (44%; 95% CI 20-70) of 16 patients with nivolumab and nine (50% 26-74) of 18 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·20-3·01]). In the ccrcc2 group, objective responses were seen in 18 (50%; 95% CI 33-67) of 36 patients with a VEGFR-TKI and 19 (51%; 34-68) of 37 patients with nivolumab-ipilimumab (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·38-2·37]). In the ccrcc3 group, no objective responses were seen in the four patients who received a VEGFR-TKI, and in one (20%; 95% CI 1-72) of five patients who received nivolumab-ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hepatic failure and lipase increase (two [3%] of 58 for both) with nivolumab, lipase increase and hepatobiliary disorders (six [6%] of 101 for both) with nivolumab-ipilimumab, and hypertension (six [15%] of 40) with a VEGFR-TKI. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients in the nivolumab group, 38 (38%) in the nivolumab-ipilimumab group, and ten (25%) patients in the VEGFR-TKI group. Three deaths were treatment-related: one due to fulminant hepatitis with nivolumab-ipilimumab, one death from heart failure with sunitinib, and one due to thrombotic microangiopathy with sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate the feasibility and positive effect of a prospective patient selection based on tumour molecular phenotype to choose the most efficacious treatment between nivolumab with or without ipilimumab and a VEGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, ARTIC.

Cabozantinib-nivolumab sequence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CABIR study.

Nivolumab and cabozantinib are approved agents in mRCC patients after sunitinib/pazopanib (TKI) failure. However, the optimal sequence, cabozantinib then nivolumab (CN) or nivolumab then cabozantinib (NC), is still unknown. The CABIR study aimed to identify the optimal sequence between CN and NC after frontline VEGFR-TKI. In this multicenter retrospective study, we collected data from mRCC pts receiving CN or NC, after frontline VEGFR-TKI. A propensity score (PrS) was calculated to manage bias selection, and sequence comparisons were carried out with a cox model on a matched sample 1:1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second line to progression in third line (PFS2-3 ). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival from second line (OS2 ). Out of 139 included mRCC patients, 38 (27%) and 101 (73%) received CN and NC, respectively. Overlap in PrS allowed 1:1 matching for each CN pts, with characteristics well balanced. For both PFS2-3 and OS2 , NC sequence was superior to CN (PFS2-3 : HR = 0.58 [0.34-0.98], P = .043; OS2 : 0.66 [0.42-1.05], P = .080). Superior PFS2-3 was in patients treated between 6 and 18 months with prior VEGFR-TKI (P = .019) and was driven by a higher PFSL3 with cabozantinib when given after nivolumab (P < .001). The CABIR study shows a prolonged PFS of the NC sequence compared to CN in mRCC after first line VEGFR-TKI failure. The data suggest that cabozantinib may be more effective than nivolumab in the third-line setting, possibly related to an ability of cabozantinib to overcome resistance to PD-1 blockade.

BAG6 promotes PINK1 signaling pathway and is essential for mitophagy.

Bcl-2-associated athanogen-6 (BAG6) is a nucleocytoplasmic shuttling protein involved in protein quality control. We previously demonstrated that BAG6 is essential for autophagy by regulating the intracellular localization of the acetyltransferase EP300, and thus, modifying accessibility to its substrates (TP53 in the nucleus and autophagy-related proteins in the cytoplasm). Here, we investigated BAG6 localization and function in the cytoplasm. First, we demonstrated that BAG6 is localized in the mitochondria. Specifically, BAG6 is expressed in the mitochondrial matrix under basal conditions, and translocates to the outer mitochondrial membrane after mitochondrial depolarization with carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenyl hydrazine, a mitochondrial uncoupler that induces mitophagy. In SW480 cells, the deletion of BAG6 expression abrogates its ability to induce mitophagy and PINK1 accumulation. On the reverse, its ectopic expression in LoVo colon cancer cells, which do not express endogenous BAG6, reduces the size of the mitochondria, induces mitophagy, leads to the activation of the PINK1/PARKIN pathway and to the phospho-ubiquitination of mitochondrial proteins. Finally, BAG6 contains two LIR (LC3-interacting Region) domains specifically found in receptors for selective autophagy and responsible for the interaction with LC3 and for autophagosome selectivity. Site-directed mutagenesis showed that BAG6 requires wild-type LIRs domains for its ability to stimulate mitophagy. In conclusion, we propose that BAG6 is a novel mitophagy receptor or adaptor that induces PINK1/PARKIN signaling and mitophagy in a LIR-dependent manner.

PD-L1 expression and pattern of immune cells in pre-treatment specimens are associated with disease-free survival for HR-NMIBC undergoing BCG treatment.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between PD-L1 expression and disease-free survival (DFS) in High-Risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (HR-NMIBC) patients treated with intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) instillations (IBI). METHODS: Retrospective study in five French centres between 2001 and 2015. Participants were 140 patients with histologically confirmed HR-NMIBC. All patients received induction and maintenance IBI. Pathological stage/grade, concomitant carcinoma in situ, lesion number and tumour size were recorded. CD3, CD8 and PD-L1 expression in tumour cells and in T cells in the tumour microenvironment (TME) was determined immunohistochemically. Median follow-up was 54.2 months. The primary outcome measure was DFS. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of the 140 NMIBC, 52 (37.1%) were Ta, 88 (62.9%) were T1 and 100% were high grade. Median number of maintenance IBI was six (range 1-30). Twenty-five (17.9%) patients had recurrence/progression. In multivariable analysis, age (HR 1.07 [95% CI 1.02-1.13], p = 0.009), PD-L1 expression in tumour cells (HR per 10 units = 1.96 [95% CI 1.28-3.00], p = 0.02) and CD3/CD8 ratio (HR per 10 units = 3.38 [95% CI 1.61-7.11], p = 0.01) were significantly associated with DFS. However, using the cut-off corresponding for each PD-L1 antibodies, PD-L1 + status was not associated with DFS. CONCLUSION: Despite an association between PD-L1 expression and BCG failure in HR-NMIBC, the PD-L1 + status was not a prognostic factor in the response of BCG. Moreover, we confirmed the key role played by the IC within the microenvironment in BCG treatment. These findings highlighted the rationale to combine BCG and PD-L1/PD-1 antibodies in early bladder cancer.

Impact on quality of life 3 years after diagnosis of prostate cancer patients below 75 at diagnosis: an observational case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer patients are known to suffer from poor sexual and urinary long-term side-effects following treatment, potentially impacting quality of life. The purpose of our study was to compare health-related quality of life at 3 years between prostate cancer patients and healthy controls according to key life-style characteristics. Secondary objectives were to compare urological dysfunction, sexual function, anxiety and depression. METHODS: Multicentric, case-control, observational prospective, open, follow-up study including 819 prostate cancer patients < 75 years old from the EPICAP cohort, newly diagnosed from 1 December 2011 to 31 March 2014 and 879 healthy controls. Participants were excluded if they experienced a relapse. Controls from the same geographical region were age-matched and were excluded if they were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Patients received one of the following treatments: active surveillance (AS), radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), High-intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU), chemotherapy (CT), or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as appropriate. The primary outcome was the quality of life as evaluated by the QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Scores were analyzed by multivariate analysis to adjust for predefined socio-demographic confounding effects. RESULTS: In total, 564 participants were included (mean age 67.9 years): 376 patients and 188 controls. Treatment breakdown was: 258 underwent RP, 90 received EBRT, 52 brachytherapy or HIFU, 15 CT, 26 ADT and 61 AS. There was no difference in median global quality of life between patients and controls (94.87 vs 94.15, p = 0.71). Multivariate analysis showed poorer social functioning in patients (24.3% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.0209), more dyspnea (22% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.0078), and yet less current pain (23% vs 33%, p = 0.0151). CONCLUSIONS: Global health status score at 3 years after diagnosis was similar between patients and controls, though patients showed a significantly worse social functioning. Prostate cancer diagnosis per se does not seem to impact the quality of life of patients < 75 years at diagnosis. However, the therapeutic option that will be chosen following diagnosis should be carefully discussed with the medical staff in terms of benefit-risk ratios as it could have a long-term impact on urinary or erectile dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02854982 . Registered 4 August 2016, retrospectively registered.

Feasibility and efficacy of a supervised home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients receiving oral targeted therapy: study protocol for the phase II/III - UNICANCER SdS 01 QUALIOR trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, oral targeted therapies are known to be effective and are frequently used to treat metastatic cancer patients, but fatigue is a frequently reported early side effect of these treatments. This fatigue may impact the patient's treatment adherence and result in a negative impact on quality of life. Physical exercise significantly improved the general well-being and quality of life of advanced cancer patients. However, there is no specific physical activity program adapted for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: QUALIOR is a two-part, randomized, open-label, and multicenter with two arms phase II/III trial. Patients (phase II: n = 120; phase III: n = 312) with metastatic cancer (breast cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and other cancers [including but not limited to colon cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, or hepatocarcinoma]) treated with a first- or second-line oral targeted therapy without chemotherapy will be included. Patients will be randomized (2:1) to a 3-month supervised home-based standardized physical activity program or to a recommended adapted physical activity (via a booklet). The primary objective of the phase II is to evaluate the feasibility of the supervised program. The primary objective of the phase III is the evaluation of the benefit of the supervised home-based program compare to the recommended program in terms of fatigue and quality of life at 3 months. The secondary objectives aim to evaluate the impact of the supervised program on fatigue over time, pain, physical capacities, psychosocial and cognitive functions, general quality of life, frequency of dose reduction and patients' adherence to the targeted therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This study will also evaluate the medico-economic impact of supervised program compared to the recommended adapted physical activity program. DISCUSSION: The aim of this study is to evaluate home-based physical exercise program for metastatic cancer patients treated with oral targeted therapies to help patients to cope with fatigue and improve quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since May 2017 ( NCT03169075 ).

Safety and efficacy of temsirolimus as second line treatment for patients with recurrent bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer is the 7th cause of death from cancer in men and 10th in women. Metastatic patients have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of 14 months. Until recently, vinflunine was the only second-line chemotherapy available for patients who relapse. Deregulation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway was observed in more than 40% of bladder tumors and suggested the use of mTOR as a target for the treatment of urothelial cancers. METHODS: This trial assessed the efficacy of temsirolimus in a homogenous cohort of patients with recurrent or metastatic bladder cancer following first-line chemotherapy. Efficacy was measured in terms of non-progression at two months according to the RECIST v1.1 criteria. Based on a two-stage optimal Simon's design, 15 non-progressions out of 51 evaluable patients were required to claim efficacy. Patients were treated at a weekly dose of 25 mg IV until progression, unacceptable toxicities or withdrawal. RESULTS: Among the 54 patients enrolled in the study between November 2009 and July 2014, 45 were assessable for the primary efficacy endpoint. A total of 22 (48.9%) non-progressions were observed at 2 months with 3 partial responses and 19 stable diseases. Remarkably, 4 patients were treated for more than 30 weeks. Fifty patients experienced at least a related grade1/2 (94%) and twenty-eight patients (52.8%) a related grade 3/4 adverse event. Eleven patients had to stop treatment for toxicity. This led to recruitment being halted by an independent data monitoring committee with regard to the risk-benefit balance and the fact that the primary objective was already met. CONCLUSIONS: While the positivity of this trial indicates a potential benefit of temsirolimus for a subset of bladder cancer patients who are refractory to first line platinum-based chemotherapy, the risk of adverse events associated with the use of this mTOR inhibitor would need to be considered when such an option is envisaged in this frail population of patients. It also remains to identify patients who will benefit the most from this targeted therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01827943 (trial registration date: October 29, 2012); Retrospectively registered.

Development of immunotherapy in bladder cancer: present and future on targeting PD(L)1 and CTLA-4 pathways.

PURPOSE: Over the past 3 decades, no major treatment breakthrough has been reported for advanced bladder cancer. Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of five immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of advanced bladder cancer represent new therapeutic opportunities. This review examines the available data of the clinical trials leading to the approval of ICIs in the management of metastatic bladder cancer and the ongoing trials in advanced and localized settings. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov combining the MeSH terms: 'urothelial carcinoma' OR 'bladder cancer', and 'immunotherapy' OR 'CTLA-4' OR 'PD-1' OR 'PD-L1' OR 'atezolizumab' OR 'nivolumab' OR 'ipilimumab' OR 'pembrolizumab' OR 'avelumab' OR 'durvalumab' OR 'tremelimumab'. Prospectives studies evaluating anti-PD(L)1 and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies were included. RESULTS: Evidence-data related to early phase and phase III trials evaluating the 5 ICIs in the advanced urothelial carcinoma are detailed in this review. Anti-tumour activity of the 5 ICIs supporting the FDA approval in the second-line setting are reported. The activity of PD(L)1 inhibitors in the first-line setting in cisplatin-ineligible patients are also presented. Ongoing trials in earlier disease-states including non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Blocking the PD-1 negative immune receptor or its ligand, PD-L1, results in unprecedented rates of anti-tumour activity in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer. However, a large majority of patients do not respond to anti-PD(L)1 drugs monotherapy. Investigations exploring the potential value of predictive biomarkers, optimal combination and sequences are ongoing to improve such treatment strategies.

Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Clinical and biological profiles.

BACKGROUND: Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is a rare and aggressive subtype of prostate cancer (PCa). In the present study, we analyzed the clinical and biological characteristics of DAC, in comparison with high grade conventional acinar PCa. METHODS: Samples and data were retrospectively collected from seven institutions and centrally reviewed. Immunohistochemistry was performed on tissue microarrays to assess the expression of candidate proteins, based on the molecular classification of PCa, including ERG, PTEN, and SPINK1. SPOP mutations were investigated from tumor DNA by Sanger sequencing. Relationships with outcome were analyzed using log-rank analysis and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 56 reviewed prostatectomy specimens, 45 cases of DAC were finally confirmed. The pathological stage was pT3 in more than 66% of cases. ERG was expressed in 42% of DAC, SPINK1 in 9% (all ERG-negative), and two cases (ERG-negative) harbored a SPOP mutation. Compared to high grade conventional PCa matched for the pathological stage, cell proliferation was higher (P = 0.04) in DAC, and complete PTEN loss more frequent (P = 0.023). In multivariate analysis, SPINK1 overexpression (P = 0.017) and loss of PSA immunostaining (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with biochemical recurrence. CONCLUSION: these results suggest that, despite biological differences that highlighted DAC aggressiveness, the molecular classification recently proposed in conventional PCa could also be applied in DAC.

Intermediate analysis of a phase II trial assessing gemcitabine and cisplatin in locoregional or metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a phase II study evaluating a combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in a population of patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis and unresected locoregional lymph nodes and/or distant metastases, who had a poor prognosis with no standard of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed SCC of the penis with unresected locoregional lymph nodes and/or distant metastases, at initial diagnosis or at relapse, and measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Patients were treated with a combination of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on day 1 over 30 min and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 over 1 h, every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In all, 25 patients were included in the first phase of the study between February 2004 and January 2010 and received a median of five cycles. For the intent-to-treat population, two patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-26.0) presented an objective response and 13 patients (52%) had stable disease (95% CI 35.5-76.8). The median TTP was at 5.48 months (95% CI 2.40-11.73). After a median follow-up of 26.97 months (95% CI 17.77, not reached), nine patients were still alive. The median OS and 2-year OS rate were respectively estimated at 14.98 months (95% CI 9.76-32.9) and 39.32% (95% CI 19.15-59.03). Eleven patients had a serious adverse event (44%), 24% being relied to chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Every 2 weeks' administration of the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin showed non-significant responses in patients with unresected locoregional or metastatic penile SCC. Despite manageable side-effects, this combination cannot be recommended as a standard of care, due to disappointing response rates seen in this negative study. Further regimens should be explored to improve the OS of these patients with poor prognosis.

Docetaxel and prednisone with or without lenalidomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MAINSAIL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options. We investigated the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent with anti-angiogenic properties, in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned chemotherapy-naive patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and prednisone (5 mg twice daily) on days 1-21 and either lenalidomide (25 mg) or placebo once daily on days 1-14 of each 21 day treatment cycle. Permuted block randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, geographic region, and type of disease progression. Clinicians, patients, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988208. FINDINGS: 1059 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned between Nov 11, 2009, and Nov 23, 2011 (533 to the lenalidomide group and 526 to the control group), and 1046 patients received study treatment (525 in the lenalidomide group and 521 in the placebo group). At data cutoff (Jan 13, 2012) after a median follow-up of 8 months (IQR 5-12), 221 patients had died: 129 in the lenalidomide group and 92 in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·8-18·8) in the lenalidomide group and not reached in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·53, 95% CI 1·17-2·00, p=0·0017). The trial was subsequently closed early due to futility. The number of deaths that occurred during treatment or less than 28 days since the last dose were similar in both groups (18 [3%] of 525 patients in the lenalidomide group vs 13 [2%] of 521 patients). 109 (21%) patients in the lenalidomide group and 78 (15%) in the placebo group died more than 28 days from last dose, mainly due to disease progression. At least one grade 3 or higher adverse event was reported in 381 (73%) of 525 patients receiving lenalidomide and 303 (58%) of 521 patients receiving placebo. Grade 3-4 neutropenia (114 [22%] for lenalidomide vs 85 [16%] for placebo), febrile neutropenia (62 [12%] vs 23 [4%]), diarrhoea (37 [7%] vs 12 [2%]), pneumonia (24 [5%] vs five [1%]), dyspnoea (22 [4%] vs nine [2%]), asthenia (27 [5%] vs 17 [3%]), and pulmonary embolism (32 [6%] vs seven [1%]) occurred more frequently in the lenalidomide group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival with the combination of lenalidomide, docetaxel, and prednisone was significantly worse than with docetaxel and prednisone for chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Further research with this treatment combination is not warranted. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: long term outcome of the Temporary Authorization for Use programme in France.

BACKGROUND: COU-AA-301 trial has proved that abiraterone acetate (AA), a selective inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, improved overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after a first line of docetaxel. Based on this result, a Temporary Authorization for Use (TAU) was performed between December 2010 and July 2011 to provide patients with mCRPC the opportunity to receive AA before its commercialization. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of AA treatment in this TAU. METHODS: Between December 2010 and July 2011, we conducted an ambispective, multicentric cohort study and investigated data from 20 centres participating to the AA TAU for patients presenting mCRPC and already treated by a first line of chemotherapy (CT). Statistical analyses of the data were performed using the Stata software v13 to identify predictive and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among the 408 patients, 306 were eligible with a follow-up at 3 years. Median OS was 37.1 months from beginning of CT and 14.6 months from AA introduction. 211 patients (69%) received ≥ 3 months of AA and 95 patients (31%) were treated less than 3 months. In the multivariate analyses, duration of AA was significantly correlated with PSA decrease at 3 months. Additionally, shorter time under AA treatment, presence of multiple sites of metastasis and previous hormonal treatment duration were three independent factors associated with poorer OS. At the time of analysis ten patients were still under treatment for more than 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical response monitored by PSA changes at 3 months is a strong predictive factor for AA treatment duration. Some high responders' patients could beneficiate from AA for more than 3 years.

Prostate cancer incidence on cystoprostatectomy specimens is directly linked to age: results from a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence and age-related histopathological characteristics of incidentally diagnosed prostate cancer from specimens obtained via radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of the histopathological features of 2424 male patients who underwent a RCP for bladder cancer was done at eight centres between January 1996 and June 2012. No patient had preoperative suspicion of prostate cancer. Statistical analyses were performed in different age-related groups. RESULTS: Overall, prostate cancer was diagnosed in 518 men (21.4%). Incidences varied significantly according to age (5.2% in those aged <50 years to 30.5% in those aged >75 years, P < 0.001). Most of the prostate cancers were considered as 'non-aggressive', that is to say organ-confined (≤pT2) and well-differentiated (Gleason score <7). Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) stage and proportion with a Gleason score of ≥7 were significantly greater in older patients (P < 0.001). Apart from age, there were no preoperative predictive factors for 'non-aggressive' prostate-cancer status. At the end of the follow-up, only nine patients (1.7%) had biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, and no preoperative predictive factors were identified. CONCLUSION: The rate of incidentally diagnosed prostate cancer from RCP specimens is ≈20%, most of them being organ-confined and well-differentiated. The probability of having a 'non-aggressive' prostate cancer decreases in older men.

Clinical benefits of non-taxane chemotherapies in unselected patients with symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel: the GETUG-P02 study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overall benefits of non-taxane chemotherapies in a non-selected population including unfit patients presenting with symptoms and pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase II study reports data from 92 patients (52% >70 years old; 40% with a performance score of 2) previously treated with taxane-based chemotherapy, collected from 15 centres in France. Patients received i.v. mitoxantrone (MTX), oral vinorelbine, or oral etoposide, together with oral prednisone. Palliative benefit (pain response without progression of the disease), biological and tumoural responses, and toxicity profile as well as geriatric assessment (in elderly population) were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The palliative response rate was 17% for the whole population, and reached 29% when considering the MTX arm. Pain control was achieved in 40% of the patients. The median overall survival was 10.4 months, and was longer in palliative responders. Few grade 3-4 toxicities were observed. The subgroup analysis of elderly patients showed similar results regarding the number and dose intensity of treatments, efficacy and safety. CONCLUSION: In a population including frail and/or elderly patients, who are poorly represented in most clinical studies, non-taxane chemotherapy may remain a relevant option for metastatic prostate cancer having relapsed after a docetaxel-based regimen. Although new treatment options are now approved, the decision-making process should take into account their expected benefit/risk ratio based on the patient status.

Early objective response may not be a prognostic factor of survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: from a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 113 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to better define prognostic factors for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), and to identify patients who will benefit from first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. We test the hypothesis that early objective response (EOR), defined as the occurrence of an objective response following 2 or 3 courses of chemotherapy, could be a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) and thus be used to guide treatment decisions. Data from 113 patients with evaluable mUC receiving first-line cisplatin-based treatment between January 2004 and December 2006 was collected retrospectively from prospectively-maintained databases across seven French cancer centers. Clinical factors potentially associated with survival and EOR were analyzed in univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: One hundred three patient records were complete and available for inclusion in the multivariate model. Four factors were independently associated with OS: Performance status 1 and 2 (HR 2.3 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.002; HR 3.4 [95 % CI 1.6-7.2], p = 0.001 respectively); presence of visceral metastases (HR 2.2 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.004); abnormal hemoglobin levels (HR 1.7 [95 % CI 1.01-2.8], p = 0.045); disease progression (HR 10.1 [95 % CI 4.2-24.1], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the prognostic factors previously reported in first-line chemotherapy for mUC. However, we failed to demonstrate that EOR was an independent predictive factor of OS. Nevertheless, an early response evaluation is recommended since early progression is an important parameter that can be used to decide whether treatment should be interrupted and changed for alternative strategies integrating the concept of personalized medicine or new immune therapies.

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.