Incidence and predictors of post-surgery atrial fibrillation occurrence: A cohort study in 53,387 patients.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common arrhythmia in the postoperative setting. We aimed to investigate the incidence of postoperative AF (POAF) and determine its predictors, with a specific focus on inflammation markers. Methods: We performed a retrospective single tertiary center cohort study including consecutive adult patients who underwent a major surgical procedure between January 2016 and January 2020. Patients were divided into four subgroups according to the type of surgery. Results: Among 53,387 included patients (79.4% male, age 64.5 ± 9.5 years), POAF occurred in 570 (1.1%) with a mean latency after surgery of 3.4 ± 2.6 days. Ninety patients died (0.17%) after a mean of 13.7 ± 8.4 days. The 28-day arrhythmia-free survival was lower in patients undergoing lung and cardiovascular surgery (p < .001). Patients who developed POAF had higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) (0.70 ± 0.03 vs. 0.40 ± 0.01 log10 mg/dl; p < .001). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, adjusting for confounding factors, CRP was an independent predictor of POAF [HR per 1 mg/dL increase in log-scale = 1.81 (95% CI 1.18-2.79); p = .007]. Moreover, independent predictors of POAF were also age (HR/1 year increase = 1.06 (95% CI 1.04-1.08); I < .001), lung and cardiovascular surgery (HR 23.62; (95% CI 5.65-98.73); p < .001), and abdominal and esophageal surgery (HR 6.26; 95% CI 1.48-26.49; p = .013). Conclusions: Lung and cardiovascular surgery had the highest risk of POAF in the presented cohort. CRP was an independent predictor of POAF and postsurgery inflammation may represent a major driver in the pathophysiology of the arrhythmia.

Pembrolizumab plus either epacadostat or placebo for cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma: results from the ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 study.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC. METHODS: ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46-55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33-43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

Feasibility of Indirect Treatment Comparisons Between Niraparib Plus Abiraterone Acetate and Other First-Line Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor Treatment Regimens for Patients with BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a novel option to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) is indicated for BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC. Niraparib plus AAP demonstrated safety and efficacy in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE trial (NCT03748641). In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing PARPi regimens, the feasibility of conducting indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) to inform decisions for patients with first-line BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC has been explored. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials on relevant comparators to inform the feasibility of conducting ITCs via network meta-analysis (NMA) or population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAIC). Feasibility was assessed based on network connectivity, data availability in the BRCA1/2 mutation-positive population, and degree of within- and between-study heterogeneity or bias. RESULTS: NMAs between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens (olaparib monotherapy, olaparib plus AAP, and talazoparib plus enzalutamide) were inappropriate due to the disconnected network, differences in trial populations related to effect modifiers, or imbalances within BRCA1/2 mutation-positive subgroups. The latter issue, coupled with the lack of a common comparator (except for olaparib plus AAP), also rendered anchored PAICs infeasible. Unanchored PAICs were either inappropriate due to lack of population overlap (vs. olaparib monotherapy) or were restricted by unmeasured confounders and small sample size (vs. olaparib plus AAP). PAIC versus talazoparib plus enzalutamide was not possible due to lack of published arm-level baseline characteristics and sufficient efficacy outcome data in the relevant population. CONCLUSION: The current randomized controlled trial evidence network does not permit robust comparisons between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens for patients with 1L BRCA-positive mCRPC. Decision-makers should scrutinize any ITC results in light of their limitations. Real-world evidence combined with clinical experience should inform treatment recommendations in this indication.

Cisplatin eligibility in the neoadjuvant setting of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: To examine the agreement of different calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formulas and measured creatinine clearance (CrCI) at the primary diagnosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter analysis of patients with MIBC, treated with cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC), or with RC alone, between 2011 and 2021. Baseline eGFR was computed using 4 calculated serum equations including Cockcroft-Gault (CG), MDRD, CKD-EPI 2009, and race-free CKD-EPI 2021. To examine the association between calculated eGFR and measured CrCI, subgroup analyses were performed among patients in whom measured 24-hour urine CrCl was determined. Cisplatin-ineligibility was defined as CrCI and/or eGFR < 60 mL/minute per 1.73 m2. RESULTS: Of 956 patients, 30.0%, 33.3%, 31.9%, and 27.7% were found to be cisplatin-ineligible by the CG, MDRD, CKD-EPI, and race-free CKD-EPI equations (P = .052). The concordance between calculated eGFR formulas was rated substantial (Cohen's kappa (k): 0.66-0.95). Among the subgroup (n = 245) with measured CrCl, 37 (15.1%) patients had a CrCI less than 60 mL/minute. Concordance between measured CrCl and calculated eGFR was poor (ĸ: 0.29-0.40). All calculated eGFR formulas markedly underestimated the measured CrCI. Specifically, 78%-87.5% of patients with a calculated eGFR between 40 and 59 mL/minute exhibited a measured CrCI ≥ 60 mL/minute. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing calculated eGFR formulas, similar percentages of patients with MIBC were deemed cisplatin-ineligible. However, a significant number of patients could be upgraded by being cisplatin-fit based on measured CrCI, particularly when the calculated eGFR was falling within the gray range of 40-59 mL/minute.

Front-line Platinum Continues To Have a Role in Advanced Bladder Cancer.

Cisplatin remains a valid option in muscle-invasive or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and is even more efficient when nivolumab is added. The well-known side-effect profile and the limited number of treatment cycles represent great advantages over modern drug combinations such as enfortumab-vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b/2 study assessed the efficacy in terms of objective response rate (ORR) of the FGFR1/2/3 kinase inhibitor derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) and FGFR1-3 genetic aberrations (FGFR1-3GA). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label study comprised 5 substudies. In Substudies 1 and 5, patients with mUC with FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib monotherapy (300 mg QD in Substudy 1, 200 mg BID in Substudy 5). In Substudy 2, patients with any solid tumor received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks plus derazantinib 200 or 300 mg QD. In Substudy 3, patients with mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 200 mg BID plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. In Substudy 4, patients with FGFR inhibitor-resistant mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 300 mg QD monotherapy or derazantinib 300 mg QD plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The ORR for Substudies 1 and 5 combined was 4/49 (8.2%, 95% confidence interval = 2.3% to 19.6%), which was based on 4 partial responses. The ORR in Substudy 4 was 1/7 (14.3%, 95% confidence interval = 0.4% to 57.9%; 1 partial response for derazantinib 300 mg monotherapy, zero for derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg). In Substudy 2, derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg was identified as a recommended dose for Phase 2. Only 2 patients entered Substudy 3. CONCLUSIONS: Derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab was well-tolerated but did not show sufficient efficacy to warrant further development in mUC. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04045613, EudraCT 2019-000359-15.

Exploiting pancreatic cancer metabolism: challenges and opportunities.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive form of pancreatic cancer, known for its challenging diagnosis and limited treatment options. The focus on metabolic reprogramming as a key factor in tumor initiation, progression, and therapy resistance has gained prominence. In this review we focus on the impact of metabolic changes on the interplay among stromal, immune, and tumor cells, as glutamine and branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) emerge as pivotal players in modulating immune cell functions and tumor growth. We also discuss ongoing clinical trials that explore metabolic modulation for PDAC, targeting mitochondrial metabolism, asparagine and glutamine addiction, and autophagy inhibition. Overcoming challenges in understanding nutrient effects on immune-stromal-tumor interactions holds promise for innovative therapeutic strategies.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2024 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines. METHODS: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year.

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.

A gene expression-based classifier for HER2-low breast cancer.

In clinical trials evaluating antibody-conjugated drugs (ADCs), HER2-low breast cancer is defined through protein immunohistochemistry scoring (IHC) 1+ or 2+ without gene amplification. However, in daily practice, the accuracy of IHC is compromised by inter-observer variability. Herein, we aimed to identify HER2-low breast cancer primary tumors by leveraging gene expression profiling. A discovery approach was applied to gene expression profile of institutional INT1 (n = 125) and INT2 (n = 84) datasets. We identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in each specific HER2 IHC category 0, 1+, 2+ and 3+. Principal Component Analysis was used to generate a HER2-low signature whose performance was evaluated in the independent INT3 (n = 95), and in the publicly available TCGA and GSE81538 datasets. The association between the HER2-low signature and HER2 IHC categories was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc pair-wise comparisons. The HER2-low signature discriminatory capability was assessed by estimating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Gene Ontology and KEGG analyses were performed to evaluate the HER2-low signature genes functional enrichment. A HER2-low signature was computed based on HER2 IHC category-specific DEGs. The twenty genes included in the signature were significantly enriched with lipid and steroid metabolism pathways, peptidase regulation, and humoral immune response. The HER2-low signature values showed a bell-shaped distribution across IHC categories (low values in 0 and 3+; high values in 1+ and 2+), effectively distinguishing HER2-low from 0 (p < 0.001) to 3+ (p < 0.001). Notably, the signature values were higher in tumors scored with 1+ as compared to 0. The HER2-low signature association with IHC categories and its bell-shaped distribution was confirmed in the independent INT3, TCGA and GSE81538 datasets. In the combined INT1 and INT3 datasets, the HER2-low signature achieved an AUC value of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.67-0.81) in distinguishing HER2-low vs. the other categories, outperforming the individual ERBB2 mRNA AUC value of 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.60). These results represent a proof-of-concept for an observer-independent gene-expression-based classifier of HER2-low status. The herein identified 20-gene signature shows promise in distinguishing between HER2 0 and HER2-low expressing tumors, including those scored as 1+ at IHC, and in developing a selection approach for ADCs candidates.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: Consensus on Molecular Imaging and Theranostics in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (PCa), questions remain on indications for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and PSMA radioligand therapy, integration of advanced imaging in nomogram-based decision-making, dosimetry, and development of new theranostic applications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically review developments in molecular hybrid imaging and systemic radioligand therapy, to reach a multidisciplinary consensus on the current state of the art in PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The results of a systematic literature search informed a two-round Delphi process with a panel of 28 PCa experts in medical or radiation oncology, urology, radiology, medical physics, and nuclear medicine. The results were discussed and ratified in a consensus meeting. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Forty-eight statements were scored on a Likert agreement scale and six as ranking options. Agreement statements were analysed using the RAND appropriateness method. Ranking statements were analysed using weighted summed scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on 42/48 (87.5%) of the statements. The expert panel recommends PSMA PET to be used for staging the majority of patients with unfavourable intermediate and high risk, and for restaging of suspected recurrent PCa. There was consensus that oligometastatic disease should be defined as up to five metastases, even using advanced imaging modalities. The group agreed that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA should not be administered only after progression to cabazitaxel and that [223Ra]RaCl2 remains a valid therapeutic option in bone-only metastatic castration-resistant PCa. Uncertainty remains on various topics, including the need for concordant findings on both [18F]FDG and PSMA PET prior to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high proportion of agreement among a panel of experts on the use of molecular imaging and theranostics in PCa. Although consensus statements cannot replace high-certainty evidence, these can aid in the interpretation and dissemination of best practice from centres of excellence to the wider clinical community. PATIENT SUMMARY: There are situations when dealing with prostate cancer (PCa) where both the doctors who diagnose and track the disease development and response to treatment, and those who give treatments are unsure about what the best course of action is. Examples include what methods they should use to obtain images of the cancer and what to do when the cancer has returned or spread. We reviewed published research studies and provided a summary to a panel of experts in imaging and treating PCa. We also used the research summary to develop a questionnaire whereby we asked the experts to state whether or not they agreed with a list of statements. We used these results to provide guidance to other health care professionals on how best to image men with PCa and what treatments to give, when, and in what order, based on the information the images provide.

Pattern of practice of re-irradiation for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in Italy: a survey by the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO).

PURPOSE: The Re-irradiation and the Breast Cancer Working Groups of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) conducted a survey to provide an overview of the policies for breast cancer (BC) re-irradiation (re-RT) among the Italian radiotherapy (RT) centers. METHODS: In October 2021, 183 RT centers were invited to answer a survey: after an initial section about general aspects, the questionnaire focused on radiation oncologists' (ROs) attitude toward re-RT in three different scenarios: ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) treated with second conservative surgery, IBTR treated with mastectomy and inoperable IBTR. Surveyed ROs were also asked to express their interest in being involved in a prospective trials. RESULTS: Seventy-seven/183 (42.0%) centers answered the Survey, only one RO per center was requested to answer. In particular, 86.5% ROs declared to have performed "curative" re-RT for IBTR during the previous two years (2019-2020): 76.7% respondents administered re-RT after second BCS, 50.9% after mastectomy, and 48.1% for inoperable IBTR. Re-RT practice varied widely among centers in terms of treatment volumes, dose and fractionation schedules, techniques and dose-volume constraints for organs at risks (OARs). Forty-six participants (59.7%) expressed their interest in participating in a prospective study investigating BC re-RT. CONCLUSIONS: About one out of three RT centers in Italy delivered re-RT for IBTR. Nevertheless, practice of re-RT varied widely among centers highlighting the needs for prospective studies to improve knowledge in this field.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Toxicity of Brachytherapy Boost Combined with External Beam Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear.

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.