Capmatinib plus nivolumab in pretreated patients with EGFR wild-type advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Dysregulated MET is an established oncogenic driver in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MET signaling may also suppress anticancer immune responses. Concomitant MET inhibition with capmatinib (a MET inhibitor) synergistically enhanced the efficacy of immunotherapies in murine cancer models, regardless of tumor dependency to MET signaling. Here, we report results of a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of capmatinib plus nivolumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) in patients with EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were allocated into high-MET or low-MET groups according to MET expression determined by immunohistochemistry, MET gene copy number as assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization, and presence of MET exon 14 skipping mutation, then received capmatinib 400 mg, oral, twice daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met in both the high-MET (N = 16) and low-MET (N = 30) groups. In the high-MET and low-MET groups, respectively, the estimated mean 6-month PFS rate (95 % credible interval) by Bayesian analysis was 68.9 % (48.5-85.7) and 50.9 % (35.6-66.4). The Kaplan-Meier median PFS (95 % CI) was 6.2 months (3.5-19.2) and 4.2 months (1.8-7.4). The overall response rate (95 % CI) was 25.0 % (7.3-52.4) and 16.7 % (5.6-34.7). Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (≥30 % any grade, N = 46) were nausea (52.2 %), peripheral edema (34.8 %), and increased blood creatinine (30.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Capmatinib plus nivolumab showed clinical activity and manageable safety in pretreated patients with advanced EGFR wild-type NSCLC, independent of MET status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02323126.

Characterization of Responses to Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma at the Final Prespecified Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 CLEAR Study.

In the phase 3 CLEAR trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (L + P) showed superior efficacy versus sunitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The combination treatment was associated with a robust objective response rate of 71%. Here we report tumor responses for patients in the L + P arm in CLEAR, with median follow-up of ∼4 yr at the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis. Tumor responses were assessed by independent review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Patients with a complete response (CR; n = 65), partial response (PR) with maximum tumor shrinkage ≥75% (near-CR; n = 59), or PR with maximum tumor shrinkage <75% (other PR; n = 129), were characterized in terms of their baseline characteristics. The median duration of response was 43.7 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.2-not estimable) for the CR group, 30.5 mo (95% CI 22.4-not estimable) for the near-CR group, and 17.2 mo (95% CI 12.5-21.4) for the other PR group. The 36-mo OS rates were consistently high in the CR (97%), near-CR (86%), and other PR (62%) groups. Robust objective response rates were observed across International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable-risk (69%, 95% CI 60-78%), intermediate-risk (73%, 95% CI 67-79%), and poor-risk (70%, 95% CI 54-85%) subgroups. The robust response to L + P supports this combination as a standard-of-care first-line treatment for patients with aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: The CLEAR trial enrolled patients with advanced kidney cancer who had not previously received any treatment for their cancer. Here we report results for tumor shrinkage observed in the group that received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab combination treatment during the trial. Shrinkage of target tumors with this combination was long-lasting and was observed in patients irrespective of their disease severity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02811861.

CRISPR/Cas9 screenings unearth protein arginine methyltransferase 7 as a novel essential gene in prostate cancer metastasis.

Due to the limited effectiveness of current treatments, the survival rate of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is significantly reduced. Consequently, it is imperative to identify novel therapeutic targets for managing these patients. Since the invasive ability of cells is crucial for establishing and maintaining metastasis, the aim of this study was to identify the essential regulators of invasive abilities of mCRPC cells by conducting two independent high-throughput CRISPR/Cas9 screenings. Furthermore, some of the top hits were validated using siRNA technology, with protein arginine methyltransferase 7 (PRMT7) emerging as the most promising candidate. We demonstrated that its inhibition or depletion via genetic or pharmacological approaches significantly reduces invasive, migratory and proliferative abilities of mCRPC cells in vitro. Moreover, we confirmed that PRMT7 ablation reduces cell dissemination in chicken chorioallantoic membrane and mouse xenograft assays. Molecularly, PRMT7 reprograms the expression of several adhesion molecules by methylating various transcription factors, such as FoxK1, resulting in the loss of adhesion from the primary tumor and increased motility of mCRPC cells. Furthermore, PRMT7 higher expression correlates with tumor aggressivity and poor overall survival in prostate cancer patients. Thus, this study demonstrates that PRMT7 is a potential therapeutic target and potential biomarker for mPCa.

Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards.

PURPOSE: Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee-comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines-proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group. RESULTS: Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.

Management of Adverse Reactions Related to Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Treatment Among Patients With Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma is the predominant histological type of kidney cancer with historically poor patient outcomes. Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab is an approved first-line regimen for people with advanced renal cell carcinoma that showed clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy over sunitinib in the CLEAR trial; however, reduced patient exposure to treatment (often stemming from adverse reactions) is a potential therapeutic barrier that must be addressed. Here, we present management strategies for adverse reactions associated with this treatment combination: fatigue, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypertension, stomatitis, decreased appetite, rash, nausea, and proteinuria. Dosing modification of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab should be made according to the prescribing information for each medication. Clinicians should consider that some adverse reactions, such as diarrhea, may be attributable to lenvatinib, or may be a symptom of immune-related adverse reactions to pembrolizumab (such as colitis). Adverse reactions can generally be managed by: (1) advising the patient on precautionary measures (eg, for stomatitis, practice dental hygiene, avoid irritating foods, and maintain adequate hydration), (2) monitoring for changes in symptoms from baseline (eg, changes in bowel movements, blood pressure or level of fatigue), (3) interrupting/dose reducing lenvatinib or interrupting pembrolizumab, if warranted, and advising the patient to manage their current symptoms via self-care (managing diarrhea with antidiarrheal agents and hydration), and (4) implementing medical interventions (eg, thyroid replacement or antihypertensive therapy) when needed. Through successful management of adverse reactions, oncology clinicians can improve the well-being of their patients and likely enhance adherence rates to treatment with lenvatinib and pembrolizumab.

Exploratory analyses of treatment subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status and according to PD-L1 expression in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay). RESULTS: No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

Phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with genetic alterations in ERBB1-3 (LUX-Bladder 1).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib may be effective in urothelial cancers harbouring ERBB mutations. METHODS: This open-label, phase II, single-arm trial (LUX-Bladder 1, NCT02780687) assessed the efficacy and safety of second-line afatinib 40 mg/d in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with ERBB1-3 alterations. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6) (cohort A); other endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, DCR and safety (cohorts A and B). Cohort A was planned to have two stages: stage 2 enrolment was based on observed antitumour activity. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enroled into cohort A and eight into cohort B. In cohorts A/B, PFS6 was 11.8%/12.5%, ORR was 5.9%/12.5%, DCR was 50.0%/25.0%, median PFS was 9.8/7.8 weeks and median OS was 30.1/29.6 weeks. Three patients (two ERBB2-amplified [cohort A]; one EGFR-amplified [cohort B]) achieved partial responses. Stage 2 for cohort A did not proceed. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), most commonly (any/grade 3) diarrhoea (76.2%/9.5%). Two patients (4.8%) discontinued due to AEs and one fatal AE was observed (acute coronary syndrome; not considered treatment-related). CONCLUSIONS: An exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that basal-squamous tumours and ERBB2 amplification were associated with superior response to afatinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02780687.

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.

Prospective Assessment of Bone Metabolism Biomarkers and Survival in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radium-223: The PRORADIUM Study.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 is an active therapy option for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The lack of adequate biomarkers for patient selection and response assessment are major drawbacks for its use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic value of bone metabolism biomarkers (BMBs) in ra-223-treated mCRPC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of mCRPC patients treated with Ra-223 (PRORADIUM study: NCT02925702) was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The main objective of the study was to evaluate the association between high (≥median) baseline values in at least three bone formation (bone alkaline phosphatase [BAP] and C-terminal type-I collagen propeptide) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide and pyridinoline) biomarkers, and survival. The independent prognostic value of each BMB was also assessed. The association with time to radiographic, clinical, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; time to skeletal-related events; and PSA response were secondary objectives. Multivariable (MV) Cox-regression models were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 169 patients were included. Of the patients, 70.4% received Ra-223 in second/third line; 144 (85.2%) were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1, 126 (74.6%) were in pain, and 80 (47.5%) had more than ten bone metastases. Sixty-seven (39.6%) patients had elevation in at least three BMBs. The median overall survival was 12.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-14.7). No association was observed with other treatment-related secondary outcome parameters. Patients with high values in three or more BMBs had significantly worse survival (9.9 vs 15.2 mo; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.3-2.5]; p < 0.001) in the univariate analysis, but not independent in the MV analysis (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.89-2; p = 0.181). High baseline BAP was the only biomarker associated with survival in the MV model (HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.28-2.79; p = 0.001). Addition of BAP to the MV clinical model increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 2-yr value from 0.667 to 0.755 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers of bone formation, especially BAP, have prognostic value in mCRPC patients treated with radium-223. Its predictive value remains to be assessed, ideally in prospective, adequately powered, randomised clinical trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we evaluate the role of bone metabolism biomarkers to help improve the use of radium-223 as therapy for advanced prostate cancer. We found that bone alkaline phosphatase may be a suitable tool.

PBRM1 and KDM5C cooperate to define high-angiogenesis tumors and increased antiangiogenic response in renal cancer.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are key antiangiogenic drugs for renal cancer treatment. While Von Hippel-Lindau dysfunction constitutes the base for VEGFR-TKIs sensitivity, the role for individual and concurrent mutations in the genes encoding for the chromatin remodelers Polybromo-1 (PBRM1) and Lysine Demethylase 5C (KDM5C) is poorly understood. Here, we analyzed the tumor mutational and expression profiles of 155 unselected clear cell RCC (ccRCC) cases treated with first-line VEGFR-TKIs and the ccRCC cases of IMmotion151 trial were used for validation. We found that concurrent PBRM1 and KDM5C (PBRM1&KDM5C) mutations occurred in 4-9% of cases and were enriched in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center favorable-risk patients. In our cohort, tumors only mutated in PBRM1 or concurrently mutated in PBRM1 and KDM5C had increased angiogenesis (P=0.0068 and 0.039; respectively), and tumors only mutated in KDM5C showed a similar trend. Best response to VEGFR-TKIs corresponded to PBRM1&KDM5C mutated cases, followed by those mutated only in KDM5C or only in PBRM1 (P=0.050, 0.040 and 0.027 versus non-mutated cases, respectively), with a trend for longer progression free survival (PFS) in the group with only PBRM1 mutated (HR=0.64; P=0.059). Validation in the IMmotion151 trial revealed a similar correlation with increased angiogenesis and the PFS of patients in the VEGFR-TKI-arm was the longest in PBRM1&KDM5C mutated cases, intermediate for only PBRM1 or only KDM5C mutated patients and the shortest in non-mutated cases (P=0.009 and 0.025, for PBRM1&KDM5C and PBRM1 versus non-mutated cases). In conclusion, somatic PBRM1 and KDM5C mutations are common in patients with metastatic ccRCC and likely cooperate increasing tumor angiogenesis and VEGFR-TKI-based antiangiogenic therapy benefit.

Darolutamide in Spanish patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: ARAMIS subgroup analysis.

Aim: Darolutamide significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival (MFS) versus placebo in the Phase III ARAMIS study. We analyzed outcomes in Spanish participants in ARAMIS. Patients & methods: Patients with high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, plus androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was MFS. Descriptive statistics are reported for this post hoc analysis. Results: In Spanish participants, darolutamide (n = 75) prolonged MFS versus placebo (n = 42): hazard ratio 0.345, 95% confidence interval 0.175-0.681. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment arms. Conclusion: For Spanish participants in ARAMIS, efficacy outcomes favored darolutamide versus placebo, with a similar safety profile, consistent with the overall ARAMIS population. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02200614 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Darolutamide is an oral treatment for a type of prostate cancer that has stopped responding to other treatments and is at risk of spreading to other parts of the body (termed "nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer" or "nmCRPC"). In the international ARAMIS study, patients treated with darolutamide lived longer without their cancer spreading than patients who were given placebo (sugar) pills. We wanted to know whether Spanish patients in ARAMIS had similar characteristics and treatment outcomes to other patients in the study. We found that the 75 Spanish patients who were treated with darolutamide had a significantly lower risk of their cancer spreading than the 42 Spanish patients who received placebo. The two groups of Spanish patients had similar side effects.

Prevalence of immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy in advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following immune-checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the prevalence of immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy in advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma following immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with ICIs in four Spanish institutions. irAEs were classified using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event (CTCAE) v.5.0 guidelines. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Other endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). irAEs were evaluated as a time-dependent covariate to avoid immortal time bias. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were treated with ICIs between May 2013 and May 2019, 105 (92%) of whom received ICIs as monotherapy. irAEs of any grade were experienced in 56 (49%) patients and 21 (18%) patients had grade ≥ 3 toxicity. The most frequent irAEs were gastrointestinal and dermatological toxicities, reported in 25 (22%) and 20 (17%) patients, respectively. Patients with grade 1-2 irAEs had significantly longer OS compared to those without grade 1-2 irAEs (median 18.2 vs. 8.7 months, HR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.39-0.95], p = 0.03). No association with efficacy was observed for patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs. No difference in PFS was observed after adjusting for the immortal time bias. ORR was higher in patients who developed irAEs (48% vs 17%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that development of irAEs was associated with higher ORR, and patients who developed grade 1-2 irAEs had longer OS. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm our findings.

Characterization and Management of Adverse Reactions From the CLEAR Study in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed significantly improved progression-free and overall survival outcomes compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the CLEAR study (NCT02811861). Here, we used CLEAR data to characterize common adverse reactions (ARs; adverse-event preferred terms grouped in accordance with regulatory authority review) associated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and review management strategies for select ARs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safety data from the 352 patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the CLEAR study were analyzed. Key ARs were chosen based on frequency of occurrence (≥30%). Time to first onset and management strategies for key ARs were detailed. RESULTS: The most frequent ARs were fatigue (63.1%), diarrhea (61.9%), musculoskeletal pain (58.0%), hypothyroidism (56.8%), and hypertension (56.3%); grade ≥3 severity ARs that occurred in ≥5% of patients were hypertension (28.7%), diarrhea (9.9%), fatigue (9.4%), weight decreased (8.0%), and proteinuria (7.7%). Median times to first onset of all key ARs were within approximately 5 months (approximately 20 weeks) of starting treatment. Strategies for effectively managing ARs included baseline monitoring, drug-dose modifications, and/or concomitant medications. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was consistent with the known profile of each monotherapy; ARs were considered manageable with strategies including monitoring, dose modifications, and supportive medications. Proactive and prompt identification and management of ARs are important for patient safety and to support continued treatment. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02811861.

A correlative biomarker study and integrative prognostic model in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable need to incorporate biomarkers of resistance to new antiandrogen agents in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide in first-line chemo-naïve asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and analyzed the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG and other biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V7) in CTCs and plasma Androgen Receptor copy number gain (AR-gain). These biomarkers were correlated with treatment response and survival outcomes and developed a clinical-molecular prognostic model using penalized cox-proportional hazard model. This model was validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in 32 patients with no differences observed in efficacy outcomes. CTC detection was associated with worse outcome and AR-V7 in CTCs was associated with increased rate of progression as best response. Plasma AR gain was strongly associated with an adverse outcome, with worse median prostate specific antigen (PSA)-PFS (4.2 vs. 14.7 m; p < 0.0001), rad-PFS (4.5 vs. 27.6 m; p < 0.0001), and OS (12.7 vs. 38.1 m; p < 0.0001). The clinical prognostic model developed in PREVAIL was validated (C-Index 0.70) and the addition of plasma AR (C-Index 0.79; p < 0.001) increased its prognostic ability. We generated a parsimonious model including alkaline phosphatase (ALP); PSA and AR gain (C-index 0.78) that was validated in an independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: TMPRSS2-ERG detection did not correlate with differential activity of enzalutamide in first-line mCRPC. However, we observed that CTCs and plasma AR gain were the most relevant biomarkers.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes With Two Different Starting Doses of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus for Previously Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

A phase II randomised trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in combination with docetaxel or docetaxel plus prednisone after disease progression to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: The ABIDO-SOGUG trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of maintaining or withdrawing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had experienced cancer progression to this treatment and were beginning a docetaxel-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase II, randomised, open-label study conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. After open-label treatment with AAP, patients who had experienced cancer progression to AAP were randomised to 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus AAP or to receive 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus 10 mg of prednisone orally daily. The primary outcome was the radiographic progression-free survival rate at 12 months as evaluated by the investigators in all randomised patients. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were included in open-label treatment with AAP, and of them, 94 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel plus AAP (intervention group; n = 47) or docetaxel plus prednisone (control group; n = 47). The 12-month radiographic progression-free survival rates did not differ between the intervention group (34.9%; 95% CI 20.7-49.2) and the control group (33.9%; 95% CI 19.5-48.3). There were no significant differences in the time to radiographic progression and the overall survival between the intervention and control groups. Grade 3-5 neutropenia with the combination of docetaxel plus prednisone and AA was more frequent than with docetaxel plus prednisone (59.6% versus 27.7%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the therapeutic strategy of maintaining AAP added to docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients who have experienced cancer progression to AAP treatment should not be further evaluated and should be avoided in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT02036060 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036060.

Recent therapeutic advances in urothelial carcinoma: A paradigm shift in disease management.

Management of first-line advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) has consisted during the past three decades in the administration of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by observation. Despite moderate to high response rates to first-line treatment, most patients will relapse shortly after and the outcomes with subsequent therapies are poor with 5-year overall survival rates of 5% in the pre-immunotherapy era. Nonetheless, recent therapeutic developments including the paradigm shift of first-line maintenance therapy with avelumab after response or stabilization on platinum-based chemotherapy, along with the incorporation of new drug classes in further lines of treatment such as antibody drug-conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors have reshaped the field leading to better outcomes in this patient population. This article reviews the current state of the art with an overview on UC management, recent advances, and the upcoming strategies currently in development in advanced UC with an insight into the biology of this disease.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORRwk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORRwk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.