A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat versus sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302).

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations have emerged as standard therapies for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, combined with epacadostat, an indoleamine 2,3-deoxygenase 1 selective inhibitor, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumors, including mRCC. METHODS: KEYNOTE-679/ECHO-302 was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study (NCT03260894) that compared pembrolizumab plus epacadostat with sunitinib or pazopanib as first-line treatment for mRCC. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC and had not received systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks plus epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily versus sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on treatment followed by 2 weeks off treatment) or pazopanib 800 mg orally once daily. Original dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. Enrollment was stopped when a phase 3 study in melanoma of pembrolizumab plus epacadostat compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy did not meet its primary end point. This protocol was amended, and primary end point was changed to investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (n = 64) or sunitinib/pazopanib (n = 65). Median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 10.3 months (2.2-14.3) and 10.3 months (2.7-13.8) in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (31.3% [95% CI 20.2-44.1] and sunitinib/pazopanib (29.2% [18.6-41.8]). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.4% and 42.9% of patients in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib arms, respectively. One patient in the sunitinib/pazopanib arm died of septic shock (not treatment-related). Circulating kynurenine levels decreased in the pembrolizumab plus epacadostat arm, but not to levels observed in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ORRs were similar between pembrolizumab plus epacadostat and sunitinib/pazopanib as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Safety and tolerability appeared similar between treatment arms; no new safety concerns were identified. Antitumor responses observed in patients with RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus epacadostat may be driven primarily by pembrolizumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03260894 .

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Postoperative ACTH-stimulated aldosterone predicts biochemical outcome in primary aldosteronism.

OBJECTIVE: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common surgically curable cause of hypertension. Unilateral aldosterone-producing adenoma can be treated with adrenalectomy. Clinical and biochemical outcomes are assessed 6-12 months after adrenalectomy according to primary aldosteronism surgical outcome (PASO) consensus criteria. Earlier prediction of biochemical remission would be desirable as it could reduce cumbersome follow-up visits. We hypothesized that postoperative adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulated plasma aldosterone concentrations (PAC) measured shortly after adrenalectomy can predict PASO outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed 100 patients of the German Conn's registry who underwent adrenalectomy and postoperative ACTH stimulation tests within the first week after adrenalectomy. Six to twelve months after adrenalectomy we assessed clinical and biochemical outcomes according to PASO criteria. Serum cortisol and PAC were measured by immunoassay at baseline and 30 min after the intravenous ACTH infusion. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis and matched the parameters to PASO outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of patients had complete, 13% partial, and 6% absent biochemical remission. Complete clinical remission was observed in 28%. For a cut-off of 58.5 pg/mL, stimulated PAC could predict partial/absent biochemical remission with a high sensitivity (95%) and reasonable specificity (74%). Stimulated PAC's area under the curve (AUC) (0.89; confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.96) was significantly higher than other investigated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Low postoperative ACTH stimulated PAC was predictive of biochemical remission. If confirmed, this approach could reduce follow-up visits to assess biochemical outcome.

Characterization of alkaline phosphatase cytochemistry in canine neoplastic and non-neoplastic pulmonary mass aspirates.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing primary and secondary pulmonary neoplasms can be challenging via cytology, and a rapid, inexpensive diagnostic tool to differentiate these neoplasms is unavailable. Alkaline phosphatase cytochemistry (ALP-CC) has been used to identify primary pulmonary carcinomas in human patients, and we hypothesized it could be applied to canine lung aspirates. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize ALP-CC expression in fine-needle aspirate (FNA) samples of canine pulmonary neoplastic and non-neoplastic tumors. METHODS: A retrospective case search was conducted to identify cases with contemporaneous cytology and histopathology reports from pulmonary lesions, including neoplastic and non-neoplastic etiologies. Slides prepared from pulmonary aspirates were stained for ALP-CC activity, and the percentage of ALP-CC-positive primary pulmonary epithelial tumors was determined. To characterize the ALP-CC expression in non-neoplastic cellular constituents of pulmonary FNA samples, mesothelial cells were also evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-eight canine cases met the inclusion criteria. ALP-CC-positive cells were seen in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. In non-neoplastic lesions, pulmonary epithelial cells were ALP-CC positive. Eighty-nine percent of primary pulmonary epithelial neoplasms were ALP-CC positive, and no ALP-CC positivity was noted in mesothelial cells. ALP-CC-positive neoplastic cells were seen in a metastatic amelanotic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Primary pulmonary epithelial neoplasms are frequently ALP-CC positive, but such positivity is not restricted to this tumor type. Non-neoplastic pulmonary epithelial cells can be ALP-CC positive, whereas mesothelial cells are negative.

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TALAPRO-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Differential central regulatory mineralocorticoidreceptor systems for anxiety and depression - Could KCNJ5 be an interesting target for further investigations in major depression?

The mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) is suggested to play a role in the pathophysiology of depression and anxiety. Main support comes from studies in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA) which suggested different central pathways for depression and anxiety mediated via the MR and gender differences. We investigated 118 patients with PA over 3 years using self-rating questionnaires for anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQD) at baseline and once a year under specific treatment with adrenalectomy (ADX; n = 48) or a MR antagonist (MRA; n = 70). Genotyping for KCNJ5 mutation was performed in resected tumors. At baseline, patients treated by ADX or MRA had comparable scores for anxiety and depression. Females showed a better metabolic profile but higher scores of depression and anxiety, compared to males. Initiation of specific treatment for PA resulted in a better response in depressive symptoms after ADX and of anxiety under MRA treatment. However, GAD-7 and PHQD remained high in women over the three-year follow-up. KCNJ5 mutation, linked to co-secretion of hybrid steroids as 18-oxocortisol and 18-hydroxycortisol, was detected in 10 female and 2 male patients. They tended to have higher GAD and PHQD scores at baseline compared to patients without KNCJ5 mutation, but showed a significant better reduction in symptoms of anxiety during the 3-year follow up compared to patients without this mutation (all p < 0.05). These data support a differentiated regulation of depression and anxiety by the MR. Moreover, genetic mutations such as KCNJ5 could affect the pathophysiology of these disorders by impacting in adrenal steroidogenesis.

Influence of cortisol cosecretion on non-ACTH-stimulated adrenal venous sampling in primary aldosteronism: a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Cortisol measurements are essential for the interpretation of adrenal venous samplings (AVS) in primary aldosteronism (PA). Cortisol cosecretion may influence AVS indices. We aimed to investigate whether cortisol cosecretion affects non-adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH)-stimulated AVS results. Design: Retrospective cohort study at a tertiary referral center. Methods: We analyzed 278 PA patients who underwent non-ACTH-stimulated AVS and had undergone at least a 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST). Subsets underwent additional late-night salivary cortisol (LSC) and/or 24-h urinary free cortisol (UFC) measurements. Patients were studied from 2013 to 2020 with follow-up data of 6 months following adrenalectomy or mineralocorticoid antagonist therapy initiation. We analyzed AVS parameters including adrenal vein aldosterone/cortisol ratios, selectivity, lateralization (LI) and contralateral suppression indices and post-operative ACTH-stimulation. We classified outcomes according to the primary aldosteronism surgical outcome (PASO) criteria. Results: Among the patients, 18.9% had a pathological DST result (1.9-5 µg/dL: n = 44 (15.8%); >5 µg/dL: n = 8 (2.9%)). Comparison of AVS results stratified according to the 1-mg DST (≤1.8 vs >1.8 µg/dL: P = 0.499; ≤1.8 vs 1.8 ≤ 5 vs >5 µg/dL: P = 0.811) showed no difference. Lateralized cases with post DST serum cortisol values > 5 µg/dL had lower LI (≤1.8 µg/dL: 11.11 (5.36; 26.76) vs 1.9-5 µg/dL: 11.76 (4.9; 31.88) vs >5 µg/dL: 2.58 (1.67; 3.3); P = 0.008). PASO outcome was not different according to cortisol cosecretion. Conclusions: Marked cortisol cosecretion has the potential to influence non-ACTH-stimulated AVS results. While this could result in falsely classified lateralized cases as bilateral, further analysis of substitutes for cortisol are required to unmask effects on clinical outcome.

Targeted sequencing of candidate gene regions for myelofibrosis in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis often lacks an identifiable cause in dogs. In humans, most primary myelofibrosis cases develop secondary to driver mutations in JAK2, CALR, or MPL. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of variants in JAK2, CALR, or MPL candidate regions in dogs with myelofibrosis and in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: Twenty-six dogs with myelofibrosis that underwent bone marrow biopsy between 2010 and 2018 and 25 control dogs matched for age, sex, and breed. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Amplicon sequencing of JAK2 exons 12 and 14, CALR exon 9, and MPL exon 10 was performed on formalin-fixed, decalcified, paraffin-embedded bone marrow (myelofibrosis) or peripheral blood (control) DNA. Somatic variants were categorized as likely-benign or possibly-pathogenic based on predicted impact on protein function. Within the myelofibrosis group, hematologic variables and survival were compared by variant status (none, likely-benign only, and ≥1 possibly-pathogenic). The effect of age on variant count was analyzed using linear regression. RESULTS: Eighteen of 26 (69%) myelofibrosis cases had somatic variants, including 9 classified as possibly-pathogenic. No somatic variants were detected in controls. Within the myelofibrosis group, hematologic variables and survival did not differ by variant status. The number of somatic variants per myelofibrosis case increased with age (estimate, 0.69; SE, 0.29; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Somatic variants might initiate or perpetuate myelofibrosis in dogs. Our findings suggest the occurrence of clonal hematopoiesis in dogs, with increasing incidence with age, as observed in humans.

Improving public cancer care by implementing precision medicine in Norway: IMPRESS-Norway.

BACKGROUND: Matching treatment based on tumour molecular characteristics has revolutionized the treatment of some cancers and has given hope to many patients. Although personalized cancer care is an old concept, renewed attention has arisen due to recent advancements in cancer diagnostics including access to high-throughput sequencing of tumour tissue. Targeted therapies interfering with cancer specific pathways have been developed and approved for subgroups of patients. These drugs might just as well be efficient in other diagnostic subgroups, not investigated in pharma-led clinical studies, but their potential use on new indications is never explored due to limited number of patients. METHODS: In this national, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-randomized combined basket- and umbrella-trial, patients are enrolled in multiple parallel cohorts. Each cohort is defined by the patient's tumour type, molecular profile of the tumour, and study drug. Treatment outcome in each cohort is monitored by using a Simon two-stage-like 'admissible' monitoring plan to identify evidence of clinical activity. All drugs available in IMPRESS-Norway have regulatory approval and are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Molecular diagnostics are funded by the public health care system. DISCUSSION: Precision oncology means to stratify treatment based on specific patient characteristics and the molecular profile of the tumor. Use of targeted drugs is currently restricted to specific biomarker-defined subgroups of patients according to their market authorization. However, other cancer patients might also benefit of treatment with these drugs if the same biomarker is present. The emerging technologies in molecular diagnostics are now being implemented in Norway and it is publicly reimbursed, thus more cancer patients will have a more comprehensive genomic profiling of their tumour. Patients with actionable genomic alterations in their tumour may have the possibility to try precision cancer drugs through IMPRESS-Norway, if standard treatment is no longer an option, and the drugs are available in the study. This might benefit some patients. In addition, it is a good example of a public-private collaboration to establish a national infrastructure for precision oncology. Trial registrations EudraCT: 2020-004414-35, registered 02/19/2021; ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04817956, registered 03/26/2021.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Retrospective evaluation of fluid production at the time of thoracostomy tube removal following elective and emergency surgery in dogs (2010-2017): 185 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To report the rate of fluid production at the time of removal of thoracostomy tubes placed intraoperatively and to determine the association of this rate with specific patient factors, surgical factors, or clinical diagnosis. The secondary objective was to determine whether identification of pleural effusion within 2 weeks of thoracostomy tube removal was associated with the same variables. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: University teaching hospital. ANIMALS: One hundred eighty-five client-owned dogs with thoracostomy tubes placed intraoperatively between January 2010 and March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thoracostomy tubes were removed at a median fluid production of 0.09 mL/kg/h (range, 0-7.0 m L/kg/h). Median fluid production at the time of thoracostomy tube removal was significantly higher in dogs with preoperative pleural effusion compared to dogs without preoperative pleural effusion (0.21 vs 0.05 mL/kg/h; P = 0.0001) and in dogs that had a median sternotomy compared to dogs that had a lateral thoracotomy (0.14 vs 0.09 mL/kg/h; P = 0.04). Of the 169 dogs available for follow-up, 12 (7.1%) had pleural effusion within 2 weeks of removal of the thoracostomy tube. Detection of pleural effusion during the follow-up period was significantly associated with the presence of preoperative pleural effusion (P = 0.0019) and the diagnosis (P = 0.01). A greater proportion of dogs with a lung lobe torsion (4/9, 44.4%) and idiopathic chylothorax (2/7, 28.5%) had pleural effusion within 2 weeks compared to other diagnoses. Reintervention was performed in 4.7% of dogs. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracostomy tubes were removed at pleural fluid production rates that frequently exceeded current veterinary guidelines. However, the fluid production rate at the time of thoracostomy tube removal was not associated with the detection of pleural effusion within 2 weeks of thoracostomy tube removal, and the overall need for reintervention following thoracostomy tube removal was low (4.7%).

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with either treatment-naive or previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146): a phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients. METHODS: We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02501096) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3-28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8-89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4-67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7-65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.