Cabozantinib Plus Nivolumab in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Updated Results from a Phase 2 Trial.

Treatment options are limited for patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). Patients with nccRCC experienced a favorable objective response rate (ORR) in a phase 2 trial of cabozantinib plus nivolumab. We now report updated efficacy and safety results at median follow-up of 34 mo for patients with papillary, unclassified, or translocation-associated RCC. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were administered at standard doses to patients with metastatic nccRCC that had progressed on zero or one line of systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was the ORR according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Forty patients were treated. At median follow-up of 34 mo for survivors, the ORR was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.5-63.9%). Median PFS was 13 mo (95% CI 7-16); the 12-mo and 24-mo PFS rates were 51% (95% CI 34-65%) and 23% (95% CI 11-37%), respectively. Median OS was 28 mo (95% CI 23-43); the 18-mo and 36-mo OS rates were 70% (95% CI 53-82%) and 44% (95% CI 28-60%), respectively. No new safety signals were seen with cabozantinib and nivolumab. This extended follow-up analysis demonstrates promising efficacy, and highlights the potential for sustained responses with cabozantinib plus nivolumab in patients with metastatic nccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer of the non-clear cell (NCC) type who were treated with cabozantinib + nivolumab. We found that 48% of the patients responded to the treatment, and there were no unexpected side effects. Among patients who responded to the treatment, the response lasted for a median of 17 months. We conclude that cabozantinib + nivolumab is a safe and effective treatment for NCC kidney cancer.

A Phase 1, Open-label, Dose-Ascending Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of the Therapeutic Radiopharmaceutical 131I-MIP-1095 for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: 131I-MIP-1095 is a targeted radiotherapeutic that contains 131I, a ß-particle emitter, and MIP-1095, a urea-based ligand for prostate-specific membrane antigen. We report the first phase 1, dose-escalation study of 131I-MIP-1095 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This study enrolled men with mCRPC refractory to second-generation antiandrogen(s) and taxane chemotherapy. Dosimetry/biodistribution assessments were performed. Safety and tolerability were determined in subjects who qualified for therapeutic administration of 131I-MIP-1095 with maximum tolerated activity examined in a dose-ascending manner (3 + 3 design methodology). Disease outcomes including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) change, tumor response, survival, and circulating tumor cell concentration were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 9 subjects with mCRPC were included in this study. On the basis of dosimetry results, 5 of 9 patients were treated: 3 in cohort 1 (50 mCi) and 2 in cohort 2 (75 mCi). Accrual stopped at the cohort 2 activity level in response to the US Food and Drug Administration mandate for 131I-MIP-1095 manufacturing concerns. Parotid/salivary glands (3.5 Gy/Bq), liver (2.2 Gy/Bq), kidneys (1.3 Gy/Bq), and spleen (0.7 Gy/Bq) demonstrated the greatest extent of 131I-MIP-1095 exposure. There were no deaths, serious adverse events, or drug discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events. Grade 1-2 thrombocytopenia, anemia, leukopenia, and dry mouth most commonly occurred. One subject (33.3%) exhibited maximum decline for the PSA response of 50% or greater. CONCLUSION: 131I-MIP-1095 demonstrated favorable dosimetry, biodistribution, and safety, as well as a modest PSA response supporting further investigation for treatment of men with mCRPC.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03030885, Registered January 25, 2017 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03030885).

Combination antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibition and anti-PD1 immunotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of safety, tolerance, and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Two separate antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapy (IO) combinations are FDA-approved as front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about off-protocol and post-front-line experience with combination TKI-IO approaches. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of mRCC patients who received combination TKI-IO post-first-line therapy between November 2015 and January 2019 at MD Anderson Cancer Center and Duke Cancer Institute. Chart review detailed patient characteristics, treatments, toxicity, and survival. Independent radiologists, blinded to clinical data, assessed best radiographic response using RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We identified 48 mRCC patients for inclusion: median age 65 years, 75.0% clear cell histology, 68.8% IMDC intermediate risk, and median two prior systemic therapies. TKI-IO combinations included nivolumab-cabozantinib (N +C; 24 patients), nivolumab-pazopanib (N+P; 13), nivolumab-axitinib (6), nivolumab-lenvatinib (2), and nivolumab-ipilimumab-cabozantinib (3). The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and the median overall survival was not reached. Response data were available in 45 patients: complete response (CR; n = 3, 6.7%), partial response (PR; 20, 44.4%), stable disease (SD; 19, 42.2%), and progressive disease (3, 6.7%). Overall response rate was 51% and disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) was 93%. Only one patient had a grade ≥3 adverse event. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first case series reporting off-label use of combination TKI-IO for mRCC. TKI-IO combinations, particularly N+P and N+C, are well tolerated and efficacious. Although further prospective research is essential, slow disease progression on IO or TKI monotherapy may be safely controlled with addition of either TKI or IO.

A Clinical Evaluation of Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Guiding Principles for Treatment Selection and Perspectives on Research.

Enzalutamide was the first novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in non-metastatic and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). It has emerged as one of the most commonly prescribed oral prostate cancer therapies (ARSI) by medical oncologists and urologists. Amongst a panoply of treatment options for metastatic CSPC, safe and effective utilization of enzalutamide dictates a detailed understanding of alternative therapy options and competing toxicity profiles. Ongoing research supports the potential for expanded enzalutamide use in earlier disease states, in combination with other systemic agents and as monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy). Optimal application of enzalutamide will ultimately require greater insight and attention to mitigating strategies for treatment-associated fatigue, cognitive impairment, and functional decline. This publication will comprehensively analyze the clinical evidence and guiding principles of enzalutamide use in CSPC. We will also provide a critical review of ongoing and future ARSI research focusing on pharmacologic approaches to overcome treatment resistance and strategies to improve treatment-associated functional impairment.

Immunotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer: immuno-cold or the tip of the iceberg?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is in critical need of new and innovative treatment strategies. Since the approval of sipuleucel-T, the investigatory climate of prostate cancer immunotherapy has been rapidly evolving with promising developments in vaccine and immune checkpoint therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Sipuleucel-T remains the first and only therapeutic cancer vaccine approved for its survival benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Additional cancer vaccines are currently being evaluated, with the most promising being a peptide vaccine encoding prostate-specific antigen, known as prostate-specific antigen-TRICOM. Emerging data supports combinatorial strategies for vaccine therapy and a potential role for implementation in earlier stages of advanced disease. Immune checkpoint therapies have demonstrated limited success in prostate cancer with negative late phase trials for ipilimumab monotherapy and discouraging early phase results for programmed cell death protein 1 blockade. Novel immune-modulatory targets and rational combination strategies aim to produce more favorable results. Recent progress has been made to determine biologic predictors for response and toxicity in prostate cancer immunotherapy aiming to improve patient selection and safety. SUMMARY: Steady progress is anticipated in the field of prostate cancer immunotherapy including ongoing development of novel cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint therapies, and combinatorial strategies.

Revisiting a longstanding clinical trial exclusion criterion: impact of prior cancer in early-stage lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early-stage lung cancer represents a key focus of numerous multicenter clinical trials, but common exclusion criteria such as a prior cancer diagnosis may limit enrollment. We examined the prevalence and prognostic impact of a prior cancer diagnosis among patients with early-stage lung cancer. METHODS: We identified patients>65 years of age with early-stage lung cancer diagnosed 1996-2009 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Prior cancers were characterized by type, stage, and timing with respect to the lung cancer diagnosis. All-cause and lung cancer specific-survival rates were compared between patients with and without prior cancer using Cox regression analyses and propensity scores. RESULTS: Among 42,910 patients with early-stage lung cancer, one-fifth (21%) had a prior cancer. The most common prior cancers were prostate (21%), breast (18%), gastrointestinal (17%), and other genitourinary (15%). Most prior cancers were localized, and 61% were diagnosed within 5 years of the lung cancer diagnosis. There was no difference in all-cause survival between patients with and without prior cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; P=0.52). Lung cancer specific survival was improved among patients with prior cancer (HR 0.79; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A prior cancer history may exclude a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer from enrollment in clinical trials. Without adverse effect on clinical outcomes, inclusion of patients age >65 years with prior cancer in clinical trials should be considered to improve study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.

Increase in Cancer Center Staff Effort Related to Electronic Patient Portal Use.

PURPOSE: Electronic portals provide patients with real-time access to personal health records. Use of this technology by individuals with cancer is particularly intensive. We therefore examined patterns of use of electronic portals by clinic staff at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We identified and characterized cancer center providers and clinic staff who performed electronic activities related to MyChart, the institution's personal health records portal, from 2009 to 2014. Total MyChart actions and messages received were quantified and characterized according to type, timing, and staff category. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-nine employees were included in our analysis: 85 nurses (29%), 79 ancillary staff (27%), 49 clerical/managerial staff (17%), 47 physicians (16%), and 29 advanced practice providers (10%). These individuals performed 740,613 MyChart actions and received 117,799 messages. Seventy-seven percent of actions were performed by nurses, 11% by ancillary staff, 6% by advanced practice providers, 5% by physicians, and 1% by clerical/managerial staff. From 2011 to 2014, staff MyChart activity increased approximately 10-fold. On average, 6.3 staff MyChart actions were performed per patient-initiated message. In 2014, nurses performed an average of 3,838 MyChart actions and received an average of 589 messages, compared with 591 actions and 87 messages in 2011 ( P < .001). Sixteen percent of all actions occurred outside clinic hours. CONCLUSION: Cancer center employee effort related to an electronic patient portal has increased markedly over time, particularly among nursing staff. Because further uptake of this technology is expected, it is critical to consider potential effects on clinical resources, employee and patient satisfaction, and patient safety.

Prior cancer does not adversely affect survival in locally advanced lung cancer: A national SEER-medicare analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer is among the most highly contested areas in thoracic oncology. In this population, a history of prior cancer frequently results in exclusion from clinical trials and may influence therapeutic decisions. We therefore determined prevalence and prognostic impact of prior cancer among these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients>65years of age diagnosed 1992-2009 with locally advanced lung cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. We characterized prior cancer by prevalence, type, stage, and timing. We compared all-cause and lung cancer-specific survival between patients with and without prior cancer using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: 51,542 locally advanced lung cancer patients were included; 15.8% had a history of prior cancer. Prostate (25%), gastrointestinal (17%), breast (16%), and other genitourinary (15%) were the most common types of prior cancer, and 76% percent of prior cancers were localized or in situ stage. Approximately half (54%) of prior cancers were diagnosed within 5 years of the index lung cancer date. Patients with prior cancer had similar (propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P=0.005) and improved lung cancer-specific (HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.86; P<0.001) survival compared to patients with no prior cancer. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with locally advanced lung cancer, prior cancer does not adversely impact clinical outcomes. Patients with locally advanced lung cancer and a history of prior cancer should not be excluded from clinical trials, and should be offered aggressive, potentially curative therapies if otherwise appropriate.

Effect of prior cancer on outcomes in advanced lung cancer: implications for clinical trial eligibility and accrual.

BACKGROUND: Prior cancer is a common exclusion criterion in lung cancer trials. This practice reflects concerns that prior cancer may affect trial conduct or outcomes. However, the impact of prior cancer on survival in lung cancer is not known. METHODS: We identified patients older than age 65 years with stage IV lung cancer diagnosed between 1992 and 2009 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked registry. Prior cancer was characterized by type, stage, and timing. All-cause and lung cancer-specific survival were compared between patients with and without prior cancer using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: Overall, 102 929 patients with stage IV lung cancer were identified, of whom 14.7% had a history of prior cancer. More than two-thirds (76.0%) of prior cancers were localized or regional stage; most were diagnosed five or fewer years prior to the lung cancer diagnosis. In propensity score-adjusted analysis, patients with prior cancer had better all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 0.94) and lung cancer-specific (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.82) survival. In a simulated clinical trial-eligible population (age <75 years, no comorbidity, treated with chemotherapy), similar trends were noted. In subset analyses according to stage, type, and timing of prior cancer, no group of patients with prior cancer had inferior survival compared with patients without prior cancer. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stage IV lung cancer, prior cancer does not convey an adverse effect on clinical outcomes, regardless of prior cancer stage, type, or timing. Broader inclusion in clinical trials of advanced lung cancer patients with a history of prior cancer should be considered.

Impact of prior cancer on eligibility for lung cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In oncology clinical trials, the assumption that a prior cancer diagnosis could interfere with study conduct or outcomes results in frequent exclusion of such patients. We determined the prevalence and characteristics of this practice in lung cancer clinical trials and estimated impact on trial accrual. METHODS: We reviewed lung cancer clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group for exclusion criteria related to a prior cancer diagnosis. We estimated prevalence of prior primary cancer diagnoses among lung cancer patients using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. We assessed the association between trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion using chi-square analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Fifty-one clinical trials (target enrollment 13072 patients) were included. Forty-one (80%) excluded patients with a prior cancer diagnosis as follows: any prior (14%), within five years (43%), within two or three years (7%), or active cancer (16%). In SEER-Medicare data (n = 210509), 56% of prior cancers were diagnosed within five years before the lung cancer diagnosis. Across trials, the estimated number and proportion of patients excluded because of prior cancer ranged from 0-207 and 0%-18%. Prior cancer was excluded in 94% of trials with survival primary endpoints and 73% of trials with nonsurvival primary endpoints (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of patients are reflexively excluded from lung cancer clinical trials because of prior cancer. This inclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of trials with nonsurvival endpoints. More research is needed to understand the basis and ramifications of this exclusion policy.

Predictors and intensity of online access to electronic medical records among patients with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic portals are secure Web-based servers that provide patients with real-time access to their personal health record (PHR). These applications are now widely used at cancer centers nationwide, but their impact has not been well studied. This study set out to determine predictors and patterns of use of a Web-based portal for accessing PHRs and communicating with health providers among patients with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of enrollment in and use of MyChart, a PHR portal for the Epic electronic medical record system, among patients seen at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. Predictors of MyChart use were analyzed through univariable and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: A total of 6,495 patients enrolled in MyChart from 2007 to 2012. The median number of log-ins over this period was 57 (interquartile range 17-137). The most common portal actions were viewing test results (37%), viewing and responding to clinic messages (29%), and sending medical advice requests (6.4%). Increased portal use was significantly associated with younger age, white race, and an upper aerodigestive malignancy diagnosis. Thirty-seven percent of all log-ins and 31% of all medical advice requests occurred outside clinic hours. Over the study period, the average number of patient log-ins per year more than doubled. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, PHR portal use is frequent and increasing. Younger patients, white patients, and patients with upper aerodigestive malignancies exhibit the heaviest portal use. Understanding the implications of this new technology will be central to the delivery of safe and effective care.