Management of advanced prostate cancer in the Asia-Pacific region: Summary of the Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2023.

AIM: The aim of the third Asia-Pacific Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APAC APCCC 2023) was to discuss the application in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region of consensus statements from the 4th Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022). METHODS: The one-day meeting in July 2023 brought together 27 experts from 14 APAC countries. The meeting covered five topics: (1) Intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer; (2) Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; (3) Management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; (4) Homologous recombination repair mutation testing; (5) Management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Pre- and post-symposium polling gathered APAC-specific responses to APCCC consensus questions and insights on current practices and challenges in the APAC region. RESULTS: APAC APCCC highlights APAC-specific considerations in an evolving landscape of diagnostic technologies and treatment innovations for advanced prostate cancer. While new technologies are available in the region, cost and reimbursement continue to influence practice significantly. Individual patient considerations, including the impact of chemophobia on Asian patients, also influence decision-making. CONCLUSION: The use of next-generation imaging, genetic testing, and new treatment combinations is increasing the complexity and duration of prostate cancer management. Familiarity with new diagnostic and treatment options is growing in the APAC region. Insights highlight the continued importance of a multidisciplinary approach that includes nuclear medicine, genetic counseling, and quality-of-life expertise. The APAC APCCC meeting provides an important opportunity to share practice and identify APAC-specific issues and considerations in areas of low evidence where clinical experience is growing.

Validation of Prognostic and Predictive Models for Therapeutic Response in Patients Treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 Versus Cabazitaxel for Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer (TheraP): A Post Hoc Analysis from a Randomised, Open-label, Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models have been developed using data from a multicentre noncomparative study to forecast the likelihood of a 50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA50), longer prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS), and longer overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving [177Lu]Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy. The predictive utility of the models to identify patients likely to benefit most from [177Lu]Lu-PSMA compared with standard chemotherapy has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the models using data from the randomised, open-label, phase 2, TheraP trial (primary objective) and to evaluate the clinical net benefit of the PSA50 model (secondary objective). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All 200 patients were randomised in the TheraP trial to receive [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n = 99) or cabazitaxel (n = 101) between February 2018 and September 2019. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Predictive performance was investigated by testing whether the association between the modelled outcome classifications (favourable vs unfavourable outcome) was different for patients randomised to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA versus cabazitaxel. The clinical benefit of the PSA50 model was evaluated using a decision curve analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The probability of PSA50 in patients classified as having a favourable outcome was greater in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group than in the cabazitaxel group (odds ratio 6.36 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.69-30.80] vs 0.96 [95% CI 0.32-3.05]; p = 0.038 for treatment-by-model interaction). The PSA50 rate in patients with a favourable outcome for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel was 62/88 (70%) versus 31/85 (36%). The decision curve analysis indicated that the use of the PSA50 model had a clinical net benefit when the probability of a PSA response was ≥30%. The predictive performance of the models for PSA PFS and OS was not established (treatment-by-model interaction: p = 0.36 and p = 0.41, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A previously developed outcome classification model for PSA50 was demonstrated to be both predictive and prognostic for the outcome after [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel, while the PSA PFS and OS models had purely prognostic value. The models may aid clinicians in defining strategies for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who failed first-line chemotherapy and are eligible for [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 and cabazitaxel. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we validated previously developed statistical models that can predict a response to Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer. We found that the statistical models can predict patient survival, and aid in determining whether Lu-PSMA therapy or cabazitaxel yields a higher probability to achieve a serum prostate-specific antigen response.

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ENZA-p): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent's Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

A phase 2 pilot study of water irrigation after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (WATIP) demonstrating safety, feasibility and activity.

PURPOSE: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) can recur, partly due to seeding of free tumour cells after transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intravesical chemotherapy post-TURBT can reduce the risk but is used infrequently and inconsistently due to cost, complexity and side effects. The objective of this study was to prospectively assess continuous bladder irrigation using water, which may be a safer and easier alternative with comparable effectiveness. METHODS: WATIP was a prospective, single-arm phase 2 study of water irrigation during and for at least 3 h after TURBT for bladder tumours noted on imaging or flexible cystoscopy. Participants were assessed clinically for adverse effects and with blood tests within 24 h for sodium, haemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase. The primary endpoints were safety (defined as < 10% adverse events of CTCAE grade ≥ 3), and feasibility (defined as the intervention being delivered as planned in > 90% of cases) and secondary endpoint was recurrence-free rates (RFR). RESULTS: Water irrigation was delivered as planned in 29 (97%) of 30 participants (median age 67 years, 25 (83%) males). The only adverse event (grade 2) was clot retention in one (3.3%) participant. Water irrigation significantly reduced urothelial cell counts in catheter effluent over time, unlike saline irrigation which did not. RFR was 56.2% (9/16 participants with low-risk NMIBC) at first cystoscopy (median interval 108 days) and 62.5% (5/8 evaluable low-risk NMIBC) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Water irrigation during and after TURBT is feasible and safe. Prospective assessment of its effect on NMIBC recurrence compared to post-TURBT intravesical chemotherapy is needed before recommending its use in routine clinical practice. Trial registration ANZCTR registration ID ACTRN12619000517178 on 1 April 2019.

The SUB-urothelial DUrvalumab InjEction-1 (SUBDUE-1) trial: first-in-human trial in patients with bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab and examine the impact on tissue and circulating immune cell populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were chemotherapy and immunotherapy naïve (bacille Calmette-Guérin allowed) with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer or non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer planned for radical cystectomy (RC). The study was a Phase Ib 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab at three pre-determined doses (25, 75, 150 mg) diluted in 25 mL normal saline, injected at 25 locations (25 × 1 mL injections), at least 2 weeks before RC. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients were recruited (10 male, one female). No significant changes were reported on American Urological Association Symptom Score or O'Leary Interstitial Cystitis Scale. In all, 14 adverse events (AEs) were reported (10 Grade 1, three Grade 2, one Grade 3), none considered immune-related. No Grade 4 or 5 AEs were recorded. All the patients underwent RC. Tissue immune populations changed following durvalumab injection (P = 0.012), with a statistically significant increase in M2-macrophage (CD163) when comparing the 25-150 mg dose (P = 0.021). Basal/mixed cancers showed a larger CD163 increase than luminal cancers (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Sub-urothelial injection of durvalumab is feasible and safe without immune-related AEs and shows local immunological effects.

Immunomodulatory effects and improved outcomes with cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy plus atezolizumab in urothelial cancer.

In metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), cisplatin versus carboplatin leads to durable disease control in a subset of patients. The IMvigor130 trial reveals more favorable effects with atezolizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) versus gemcitabine and carboplatin (GemCarbo). This study investigates the immunomodulatory effects of cisplatin as a potential explanation for these observations. Our findings indicate that improved outcomes with GemCis versus GemCarbo are primarily observed in patients with pretreatment tumors exhibiting features of restrained adaptive immunity. In addition, GemCis versus GemCarbo ± atezolizumab induces transcriptional changes in circulating immune cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation and T cell activation programs. In vitro experiments demonstrate that cisplatin, compared with carboplatin, exerts direct immunomodulatory effects on cancer cells, promoting dendritic cell activation and antigen-specific T cell killing. These results underscore the key role of immune modulation in cisplatin's efficacy in mUC and highlight the importance of specific chemotherapy backbones in immunotherapy combination regimens.

Marital Status, Living Arrangement, and Survival among Individuals with Advanced Prostate Cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). METHODS: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other). RESULTS: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94). CONCLUSIONS: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants. IMPACT: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population.

Outcomes of Patients with Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Therapies: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Patients with brain metastases (BrM) from renal cell carcinoma and their outcomes are not well characterized owing to frequent exclusion of this population from clinical trials. We analyzed data for patients with or without BrM using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC). A total of 389/4799 patients (8.1%) had BrM on initiation of systemic therapy. First-line immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (OS; 32.7 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-not reached) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy (20.6 mo, 95% CI 15.7-24.5; p = 0.019), as were intensive focal therapies with stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (31.4 mo, 95% CI 22.3-37.5) versus whole-brain radiotherapy alone or no focal therapy (16.5 mo, 95% CI 10.2-21.1; p = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, IO-based regimens (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.97; p = 0.040) and stereotactic radiotherapy or neurosurgery (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003) were independently associated with longer OS, as was IMDC favorable or intermediate risk (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). Intensive systemic and focal therapies were associated with better prognosis in this population. Further studies should explore the clinical effectiveness of multimodal strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a large group of patients with advanced kidney cancer, we found that 8.1% had brain metastases when starting systemic therapy. Patients with brain metastases had significantly poorer prognosis than those without brain metastases. Receipt of combination immunotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, or neurosurgery was associated with longer overall survival.

The impact of multidisciplinary cancer meetings in guiding treatment intent in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Patient presentation at multidisciplinary cancer meetings (MDMs) is a key quality indicator in cancer care and may have particular utility in rare malignancies, such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This study aims to investigate what proportion of patients diagnosed with UTUC had treatment intent changed at MDM, the nature of these changes, and what patient factors may correlate with a suggested change. METHODS: This study analyzed patients diagnosed with UTUC between 2015 and 2020 at an Australian tertiary referral center. MDM discussion rate and suggested treatment intent changes were analyzed. Patient factors that may prompt change, including age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and Eastern Cooperation Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were diagnosed with UTUC of whom 71 (94.6%) were discussed at an MDM upon diagnosis. Change to palliative intent was suggested in 8/71 (11%) patients. Patients for whom change to palliative treatment was suggested had a higher age (median 85 vs. 78 years, p<.01), CCI (median 7 vs. 4, p<.005), ECOG PS (median 2 vs. 0, p<.002), and lower eGFR (mean 31 vs. 66 mL/min/1.73 m2, p< .0001), compared to those who underwent radical treatment. No patient had an MDM recommendation to change from palliative to curative treatment. CONCLUSION: MDM discussion resulted in clinically important changes of treatment intent in a substantial proportion of patients with UTUC, potentially sparing futile treatments. Several patient factors were associated with suggested changes, highlighting the requirement for accurate, in-depth patient information at MDM discussion.

The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised trial of salvage radiotherapy versus surveillance for low-risk biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and surveillance for low-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence have competing risks and benefits. The efficacy of early SRT to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes compared to surveillance in patients with PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy and no identifiable recurrent disease evident on prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised Phase II trial. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is 3-year event-free survival, with events comprising one of PSA recurrence (PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL higher than baseline), radiological evidence of metastatic disease, or initiation of systemic or other salvage treatments. Secondary endpoints include patient-reported outcomes, treatment patterns, participant perceptions, and cost-effectiveness. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible participants have PSA recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, defined by serum PSA level of 0.2-0.5 ng/mL, deemed low risk according to modified European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk criteria (International Society for Urological Pathology Grade Group ≤2, PSA doubling time >12 months), with no definite/probable recurrent prostate cancer on PSMA-PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 participants will be recruited from five Australian centres and randomised 1:1 to SRT or surveillance. Participants will undergo 6-monthly clinical evaluation for up to 36 months. Androgen-deprivation therapy is not permissible. Enrolment commenced May 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN: ACTRN12622001478707).

Overall survival with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): secondary outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[18F]FDG) PET-CT. METHODS: TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[18F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete. FINDINGS: 291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[18F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1). INTERPRETATION: These results support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[18F]FDG-discordant disease. FUNDING: Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.

A phase II trial of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab and nivolumab in advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events). RESULTS: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy.

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Overall Survival by Response to First-line Induction Treatment with Atezolizumab plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy or Placebo plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours. Patient summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.

Pembrolizumab with Chemoradiation as Treatment for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of the PCR-MIB Phase 2 Clinical Trial (ANZUP 1502).

BACKGROUND: Radiation may improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibition. This study investigates the combination of pembrolizumab and chemoradiation (CRT) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of pembrolizumab combined with CRT for MIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-arm phase 2 trial was performed with 28 participants having cT2-T4aN0M0 MIBC (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1; estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥40 ml/min; no contraindications to pembrolizumab) suitable for CRT. INTERVENTION: Whole bladder radiation therapy (RT; 64 Gy in 32 daily fractions, over 6.5 wk, combined with cisplatin (35 mg/m2 intravenously [IV] weekly, six doses) and pembrolizumab (200 mg IV q3 weeks, seven doses), both starting with RT. Surveillance cystoscopy/biopsy and computerised tomography scans performed 12 and 24 wk after CRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was feasibility, determined by a prespecified satisfactory low rate of grade 3 or worse nonurinary toxicity or completion of planned CRT according to defined parameters. Secondary endpoints were complete cystoscopic response, locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled with a 31-mo median follow-up. Six had Grade >3 nonurinary adverse events during/within 12 wk after treatment; three had more than one cisplatin dose reduction. The 24-wk post-CRT complete response (CR) rate was 88%. Eight patients developed metastatic disease, and three had nonmetastatic progression. The DMFS at 2 yr is 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54-90%), with LRPFS at 2 yr of 87% (95% CI 64-96%) and median OS of 39 mo (95% CI 17.1-not evaluable). Limitations are the single-arm design and sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Combining pembrolizumab with CRT for MIBC was feasible, with manageable toxicity and promising CR rates. PATIENT SUMMARY: Immunotherapy treats nonmetastatic/metastatic bladder cancer effectively. We combined pembrolizumab with chemotherapy and radiation to assess its safety and impact on treatment delivery. The combination was feasible with encouraging early activity. Further larger trials are warranted.

Influence of molecular imaging on patient selection for treatment intensification prior to salvage radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a post hoc analysis of the PROPS trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of molecular imaging (MI) on patient management after biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy has been described in many studies. However, it is not known if MI-induced management changes are appropriate. This study aimed to determine if androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) management plan is improved by MI in patients who are candidates for salvage radiation therapy. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the multicenter prospective PROPS trial evaluating PSMA/Choline PET in patients being considered for salvage radiotherapy (sRT) with BCR after prostatectomy. We compared the pre- and post-MI ADT management plans for each patient and cancer outcomes as predicted by the MSKCC nomogram. A higher percentage of predicted BCR associated with ADT treatment intensification after MI was considered as an improvement in a patient's management. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with a median PSA of 0.38 ng/mL were included. In bivariate analysis, a positive finding on MI (local or metastatic) was associated with decision to use ADT with an odds ratio of 3.67 (95% CI, 1.25 to 10.71; p = 0.02). No factor included in the nomogram was associated with decision to use ADT. Also, MI improved selection of patients to receive ADT based on predicted BCR after sRT : the predicted nomogram 5-year biochemical-free survivals were 52.5% and 43.3%, (mean difference, 9.2%; 95% CI 0.8 to 17.6; p = 0.03) for sRT alone and ADT±sRT subgroups, while there was no statistically significant difference between subgroups before MI. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA and/or Choline PET/CT before sRT can potentially improve patient ADT management by directing clinicians towards more appropriate intensification.

Patterns of Relapse in Australian Patients With Clinical Stage 1 Testicular Cancer: Utility of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Surveillance Recommendations.

PURPOSE: International guidelines advocate for active surveillance as the preferred treatment strategy for patients with stage 1 testicular cancer after orchidectomy although a personalized discussion is required. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an analysis of individuals registered in iTestis, Australia's testicular cancer registry, to describe the patterns of relapse and outcomes of patients treated in Australia where the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Surveillance Recommendations are widely adopted. RESULTS: A total of 650 individuals diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were included, 63% (411 of 650) seminoma and 37% (239 of 650) nonseminoma. The median age was 34 years (range 14-74). 26% (106 of 411) with seminoma and 15% (36 of 239) nonseminoma received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 43 months (range 0-267) postorchidectomy, relapse occurred in 10% (43 of 411) of seminoma and 18% (43 of 239) of nonseminoma. The two-year relapse-free survival was 92% (95% CI, 89 to 95) and 82% (95% CI, 78 to 87) in seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. All relapses (86 of 86) were detected at a routine surveillance visit; 98% (85 of 86) were asymptomatic and detected solely through imaging (62 of 86, 72%), tumor markers (6 of 86, 7%), or a combination (17 of 86, 20%). The most common relapse site was isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (53 of 86, 62%). No nonpulmonary visceral metastases occurred. At relapse, 98% (84 of 86) had International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) good prognosis; 2 of 86 intermediate prognosis (both nonseminoma). No deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of stage 1 testicular cancer, where national surveillance recommendations have been widely adopted, recurrences were detected at routine surveillance visits and, almost exclusively, asymptomatic with IGCCCG good-prognosis disease. This provides reassurance that active surveillance is safe.