Differential Treatment Effects of Subgroup Analyses in Phase 3 Oncology Trials From 2004 to 2020.

Importance: Subgroup analyses are often performed in oncology to investigate differential treatment effects and may even constitute the basis for regulatory approvals. Current understanding of the features, results, and quality of subgroup analyses is limited. Objective: To evaluate forest plot interpretability and credibility of differential treatment effect claims among oncology trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included randomized phase 3 clinical oncology trials published prior to 2021. Trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Main Outcomes and Measures: Missing visual elements in forest plots were defined as a missing point estimate or use of a linear x-axis scale for hazard and odds ratios. Multiplicity of testing control was recorded. Differential treatment effect claims were rated using the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. Linear and logistic regressions evaluated associations with outcomes. Results: Among 785 trials, 379 studies (48%) enrolling 331 653 patients reported a subgroup analysis. The forest plots of 43% of trials (156 of 363) were missing visual elements impeding interpretability. While 4148 subgroup effects were evaluated, only 1 trial (0.3%) controlled for multiple testing. On average, trials that did not meet the primary end point conducted 2 more subgroup effect tests compared with trials meeting the primary end point (95% CI, 0.59-3.43 tests; P = .006). A total of 101 differential treatment effects were claimed across 15% of trials (55 of 379). Interaction testing was missing in 53% of trials (29 of 55) claiming differential treatment effects. Trials not meeting the primary end point were associated with greater odds of no interaction testing (odds ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.42-15.55, P = .01). The credibility of differential treatment effect claims was rated as low or very low in 93% of cases (94 of 101). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of phase 3 oncology trials, nearly half of trials presented a subgroup analysis in their primary publication. However, forest plots of these subgroup analyses largely lacked essential features for interpretation, and most differential treatment effect claims were not supported. Oncology subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and improvements to the quality of subgroup analyses are needed.

Charting the Path to Systemic Therapy De-escalation-Oligometastatic Kidney Cancer as a Paradigm.

This Viewpoint discusses whether select patient populations may benefit from de-escalation rather than escalation of systemic therapy for kidney cancer.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Tivozanib in Heavily Pretreated Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib has been approved as a third-line or later therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the TIVO-3 trial, which was conducted before immune checkpoint therapies (ICT), cabozantinib, and lenvatinib/everolimus became incorporated in the current sequential treatment paradigm for advanced clear cell RCC (ccRCC). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients with advanced ccRCC treated with tivozanib at MD Anderson Cancer Center during 6/2021-7/2023. A blinded radiologist assessed tumor response by RECIST v1.1. We assessed overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) [percentage of all treated patients who achieved radiologic response or stable disease (SD) for ≥ 6 months], progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 30 analyzed patients, 23% had performance status ≥ 2; 47% had International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) poor-risk disease. Median number of prior therapies was 4 (range 1-8). All patients received prior ICT, 87% cabozantinib and 60% lenvatinib ± everolimus. Of 26 evaluable patients, 2 patients had confirmed partial response (ORR 7.7%); 5 patients had SD for ≥ 6 months (CBR 23.3%). Median PFS was 3.8 months (range 0.7-13.9); median OS was 14.1 months (range 0.3-28.5). Fifteen patients (50%) had ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). There were 6 grade ≥ 3 TRAEs [hypertension, congestive heart failure (3), mucositis, and GI perforation (grade 5)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of heavily pretreated patients with advanced ccRCC, tivozanib yielded a modest clinical benefit in a minority of patients who received prior ICT, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib ± everolimus. TRAEs were consistent with previously published reports.

The IL6/JAK/STAT3 signaling axis is a therapeutic vulnerability in SMARCB1-deficient bladder cancer.

SMARCB1 loss has long been observed in many solid tumors. However, there is a need to elucidate targetable pathways driving growth and metastasis in SMARCB1-deficient tumors. Here, we demonstrate that SMARCB1 deficiency, defined as genomic SMARCB1 copy number loss associated with reduced mRNA, drives disease progression in patients with bladder cancer by engaging STAT3. SMARCB1 loss increases the chromatin accessibility of the STAT3 locus in vitro. Orthotopically implanted SMARCB1 knockout (KO) cell lines exhibit increased tumor growth and metastasis. SMARCB1-deficient tumors show an increased IL6/JAK/STAT3 signaling axis in in vivo models and patients. Furthermore, a pSTAT3 selective inhibitor, TTI-101, reduces tumor growth in SMARCB1 KO orthotopic cell line-derived xenografts and a SMARCB1-deficient patient derived xenograft model. We have identified a gene signature generated from SMARCB1 KO tumors that predicts SMARCB1 deficiency in patients. Overall, these findings support the clinical evaluation of STAT3 inhibitors for the treatment of SMARCB1-deficient bladder cancer.

Association of differential censoring with survival and suboptimal control arms among oncology clinical trials.

Differential censoring (DC), referring to censoring imbalance between treatment arms, may bias the interpretation of survival outcomes in clinical trials. In 146 phase 3 oncology trials with statistically significant time-to-event surrogate primary endpoints (PEPs), we evaluated the association between DC in the surrogate PEP, control arm adequacy, and the subsequent statistical significance of OS results. Twenty-four (16%) trials exhibited DC favoring the control arm (ConDC), while 15 (10%) exhibited experimental arm DC (ExpDC). Positive OS was more common in ConDC trials (63%) than trials without DC (37%) or with ExpDC (47%; odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% CI 1.10-7.20; P=.04). ConDC trials more frequently used suboptimal control arms (46%) compared to 20% without DC and 13% with ExpDC (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.29-10.0; P=.007). The presence of ConDC in trials with surrogate PEPs, especially in those with OS conversion, may indicate an inadequate control arm and should be examined and explained.

Locoregional Therapies in Immunologically "Cold" Tumors: Opportunities and Clinical Trial Design Considerations.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer management, but many tumors, particularly immunologically "cold" tumors, remain resistant to the therapy. The combination of conventional systemic immunotherapies and locoregional interventional radiology approaches is being explored to transform these cold tumors into immunologically active "hot" ones. The present article uses the example of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC), a renal cell carcinoma subtype resistant to current systemic immunotherapies, to address practical and conceptual challenges that have prevented the activation of clinical trials specifically designed for this malignancy to date. The practical framework discussed herein can help overcome logistic and funding limitations and facilitate the development of biology-informed clinical trials tailored to specific rare diseases such as ChRCC.

The immune-related adverse events paradox in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after atezolizumab immunotherapy: analysis of individual patient data from IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and oncological outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and whether the administration of systemic corticosteroids diminishes therapeutic impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The association between irAEs occurrence and clinical progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was tested by means of multivariable Cox or competing-risks regression, when appropriate. Patients experiencing irAEs were further stratified based on systemic corticosteroids administration. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by repeating all the analyses with median time to irAE as landmark point. RESULTS: We relied on individual participant data from two prospective trials for advanced urothelial cancer: IMvigor210 and IMvigor211. A total of 896 patients who received atezolizumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer were considered. Overall, irAEs were recorded in 195 patients and the median time to irAEs was 64 days. On multivariable analysis, irAEs were inversely associated with the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.61; P < 0.001), overall mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41-0.64; P < 0.001), and cancer-specific mortality (subdistributional HR [sHR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Moreover, our results did not refute the supposition that the administration of systemic corticosteroids does not impact oncological outcomes (PFS: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.34, P = 0.629; OS: HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.51-1.64, P = 0.613; CSS: sHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.36, P = 0.630). The sensitivity analysis confirmed our findings. CONCLUSIONS: The development of irAEs while receiving atezolizumab treatment was associated with improved oncological outcomes, namely overall and cancer-specific mortality, and PFS. These findings seem to not be substantially affected by administration of systemic corticosteroids.

A Phase 2 Study of Sitravatinib in Combination with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) has demonstrated survival benefits in urothelial carcinoma (UC); however, not all patients benefit from CPI due to resistance. Combining sitravatinib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of TYRO3, AXL, and MERTK (TAM) receptors and VEGFR2, with CPI may improve antitumor responses. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC. METHODS: The 516-003 trial (NCT03606174) is an open-label, multicohort phase 2 study evaluating sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC enrolled in eight cohorts depending on prior treatment with CPI, platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), or antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). Overall, 244 patients were enrolled and treated with sitravatinib plus nivolumab (median follow-up 14.1-38.2 mo). Sitravatinib (free-base capsules 120 mg once daily [QD] or malate capsule 100 mg QD) plus nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk/480 mg every 4 wk intravenously). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. The Predictive probability design and confidence interval methods were used. Among patients previously treated with PBC, ORR, and median PFS were 32.1% and 3.9 mo in CPI-naïve patients (n = 53), 14.9% and 3.9 mo in CPI-refractory patients (n = 67), and 5.4% and 3.7 mo in CPI- and ADC-refractory patients (n = 56), respectively. Across all cohorts, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 51.2% patients and grade 4 in 3.3%, with one treatment-related death (cardiac failure). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 50.4% patients. TRAEs led to sitravatinib/nivolumab discontinuation in 6.1% patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Sitravatinib plus nivolumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile but did not result in clinically meaningful ORRs in patients with advanced/metastatic UC in the eight cohorts studied. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, the combination of two anticancer drugs, sitravatinib and nivolumab, resulted in manageable side effects but no meaningful responses in patients with bladder cancer.

Risk-benefit trade-offs and precision utilities in phase I-II clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Identifying optimal doses in early-phase clinical trials is critically important. Therapies administered at doses that are either unsafe or biologically ineffective are unlikely to be successful in subsequent clinical trials or to obtain regulatory approval. Identifying appropriate doses for new agents is a complex process that involves balancing the risks and benefits of outcomes such as biological efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life. PURPOSE: While conventional phase I trials rely solely on toxicity to determine doses, phase I-II trials explicitly account for both efficacy and toxicity, which enables them to identify doses that provide the most favorable risk-benefit trade-offs. It is also important to account for patient covariates, since one-size-fits-all treatment decisions are likely to be suboptimal within subgroups determined by prognostic variables or biomarkers. Notably, the selection of estimands can influence our conclusions based on the prognostic subgroup studied. For example, assuming monotonicity of the probability of response, higher treatment doses may yield more pronounced efficacy in favorable prognosis compared to poor prognosis subgroups when the estimand is mean or median survival. Conversely, when the estimand is the 3-month survival probability, higher treatment doses produce more pronounced efficacy in poor prognosis compared to favorable prognosis subgroups. METHODS AND CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we first describe why it is essential to consider clinical practice when designing a clinical trial and outline a stepwise process for doing this. We then review a precision phase I-II design based on utilities tailored to prognostic subgroups that characterize efficacy-toxicity risk-benefit trade-offs. The design chooses each patient's dose to optimize their expected utility and allows patients in different prognostic subgroups to have different optimal doses. We illustrate the design with a dose-finding trial of a new therapeutic agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

The Influence of Obesity on Outcomes with Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Clinical Evidence and Potential Biological Mechanisms.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a mainstay of treatment for advanced cancer, yet tumor response and host toxicity are heterogenous in those patients who receive ICB. There is growing interest in understanding how host factors interact with tumor intrinsic properties and the tumor microenvironment to influence the therapeutic index with ICB. Obesity, defined by body mass index, is a host factor associated with improved outcomes in select cancers when treated with ICB. While the biological mechanism for this obesity paradox is not fully understood, pre-clinical and translational studies suggest obesity may potentially impact tumor metabolism, inflammation, and angiogenesis. Herein, we summarize clinical studies that support an obesity paradox with ICB, explore potential biological mechanisms that may account for the obesity paradox, and address methodological challenges to consider when studying obesity and treatment outcomes.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma With Sarcomatoid and/or Rhabdoid Dedifferentiation After Progression on Immune Checkpoint Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic RCC with sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid (S/R) dedifferentiation is an aggressive disease associated with improved response to immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). The outcomes of patients treated with VEGFR-targeted therapies (TT) following ICT progression have not been investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 57 patients with sarcomatoid (S), rhabdoid (R), or sarcomatoid plus rhabdoid (S + R) dedifferentiation who received any TT after progression on ICT at an academic cancer center. Clinical endpoints of interest included time on TT, overall survival (OS) from initiation of TT, and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1. Multivariable models adjusted for epithelial histology, IMDC risk, prior VEGFR TT, and inclusion of cabozantinib in the post-ICT TT regimen. RESULTS: 29/57 patients had S dedifferentiation and 19 had R dedifferentiation. The most frequently used TT was cabozantinib (43.9%) followed by selective VEGFR TT (22.8%). The median time on TT was 6.4 months for all, 6.1 months for those with S dedifferentiation, 15.6 months for R dedifferentiation, and 6.1 months for S + R dedifferentiation. Median OS from initiation of TT was 24.9 months for the entire cohort, and the ORR was 20.0%. Patients with R dedifferentiation had significantly longer time on TT than those with S dedifferentiation (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.21-0.94). IMDC risk was associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with S/R dedifferentiation derive clinical benefit from TT after they have progressive disease on ICT. Patients with R dedifferentiation appeared to derive more benefit from TT than those with S dedifferentiation.

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment Strategies for Surgically Resectable Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Urinary Tract.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCTX) has been recommended as the optimal strategy in surgically resectable neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of the urinary tract (NEC-URO). OBJECTIVE: To determine the systemic therapy regimen and timing, which are most active against NEC-URO. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used our institutional historical clinical and pathological database to study 203 patients (cT2, 74%; cT3/4a, 22%; and cTx, 4%) with surgically resectable NEC-URO between November 1985 and May 2020. A total of 141 patients received neoCTX and 62 underwent initial radical surgery, 24 of whom received adjuvant CTX (adjCTX). INTERVENTION: Neoadjuvant CTX with etoposide/cisplatin (EP), an alternating doublet of ifosfamide/doxorubicin (IA) and EP, dose-dense methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin (MVAC), gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC), or others. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS), downstaging rate, and pathological complete response using a multivariable model adjusting for tumor- and patient-related factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Downstaging rate was significantly improved with neoCTX versus initial surgery (49.6% vs 14.5%, p < 0.0001), stage cT2N0 versus cT3/4N0 (44% vs 25%, p = 0.01), or presence of carcinoma in situ (47% vs 28%, p = 0.01). Downstaging was greatest with IA/EP (65%) versus EP (39%), MVAC/GC (27%), or others (36%, p = 0.04). After adjusting for age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, IA/EP was still associated with improved downstaging (odds ratio = 3.7 [1.3-10.2], p = 0.01). At a median follow-up of 59.7 mo, 5-yr OS rates for neoCTX followed by surgery, surgery alone, and surgery followed by adjCTX were 57%, 22%, and 30%, respectively. An NEC regimen (IA/EP or EP) versus a urothelial regimen (MVAC/GC or others) was associated with improved survival (145.4 vs 42.5 mo, hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant CTX remains the standard-of-care treatment for NEC-URO with an advantage for NEC regimens over traditional urothelial regimens. IA/EP improves pathological downstaging at the time of surgery compared with EP, but is reserved for younger and higher function patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the outcomes from invasive neuroendocrine carcinoma of the urinary tract in a large US population. We found that the outcomes varied with treatment strategy. We conclude that the best outcomes are seen in patients treated with chemotherapy prior to surgery and regimens tailored to histology and tolerance.

Müllerian-Type Clear Cell Carcinoma of Donor Origin in a Male Patient with a Kidney Transplant: Ascertained by Molecular Testing.

Clear cell carcinomas of Müllerian origin have a strong female predominance and only extremely rarely will arise within the kidney, presumably due to ectopic Müllerian embryogenesis. Herein, we report a unique case of metastatic Müllerian type clear cell carcinoma in a 37-year-old patient who had previously received a transplanted kidney from his father at age 11 (due to severe bilateral vesicoureteral reflux) and remained on chronic immunosuppression. The tumor was highly aggressive and demonstrated somatic mutations in NF2 and SETD2. Imaging of the transplanted kidney did not reveal any clear evidence of malignancy. However, targeted multigene sequencing and short tandem repeat testing revealed that the cancer was of donor origin, presumably from ectopic Müllerian tissue transplanted to the patient along with the kidney graft. The tumor was resistant to first-line therapy with a triple combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, as well as to second-line immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab after tapering down the patient's immunosuppression. Despite the tumor being genetically distinct from the host, the use of immune checkpoint therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not yield a response. This unique case showcases the value of molecular testing in determining the tumor origin in patients with solid organ transplants who present with cancers of unknown primary. This can prompt the potential investigation of other recipients from the same donor.

Prevalence and implications of significance testing for baseline covariate imbalance in randomised cancer clinical trials: The Table 1 Fallacy.

BACKGROUND: The 'Table 1 Fallacy' refers to the unsound use of significance testing for comparing the distributions of baseline variables between randomised groups to draw erroneous conclusions about balance or imbalance. We performed a cross-sectional study of the Table 1 Fallacy in phase III oncology trials. METHODS: From ClinicalTrials.gov, 1877 randomised trials were screened. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated predictors of the Table 1 Fallacy. RESULTS: A total of 765 randomised controlled trials involving 553,405 patients were analysed. The Table 1 Fallacy was observed in 25% of trials (188 of 765), with 3% of comparisons deemed significant (59 of 2353), approximating the typical 5% type I error assertion probability. Application of trial-level multiplicity corrections reduced the rate of significant findings to 0.3% (six of 2345 tests). Factors associated with lower odds of the Table 1 Fallacy included industry sponsorship (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.47; multiplicity-corrected P < 0.0001), larger trial size (≥795 versus <280 patients; aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.53; multiplicity-corrected P = 0.0008), and publication in a European versus American journal (aOR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03-0.13; multiplicity-corrected P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the persistence of the Table 1 Fallacy in contemporary oncology randomised controlled trials, with one of every four trials testing for baseline differences after randomisation. Significance testing is a suboptimal method for identifying unsound randomisation procedures and may encourage misleading inferences. Journal-level enforcement is a possible strategy to help mitigate this fallacy.

Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.

This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.

Novel Clinical Trial Designs with Dose Optimization to Improve Long-term Outcomes.

Conventional designs for choosing a dose for a new therapy may select doses that are unsafe or ineffective and fail to optimize progression-free survival time, overall survival time, or response/remission duration. We explain and illustrate limitations of conventional dose-finding designs and make four recommendations to address these problems. When feasible, a dose-finding design should account for long-term outcomes, include screening rules that drop unsafe or ineffective doses, enroll an adequate sample size, and randomize patients among doses. As illustrations, we review three designs that include one or more of these features. The first illustration is a trial that randomized patients among two cell therapy doses and standard of care in a setting where it was assumed on biological grounds that dose toxicity and dose-response curves did not necessarily increase with cell dose. The second design generalizes phase I-II by first identifying a set of candidate doses, rather than one dose, randomizing additional patients among the candidates, and selecting an optimal dose to maximize progression-free survival over a longer follow-up period. The third design combines a phase I-II trial and a group sequential randomized phase III trial by using survival time data available after the first stage of phase III to reoptimize the dose selected in phase I-II. By incorporating one or more of the recommended features, these designs improve the likelihood that a selected dose or schedule will be optimal, and thus will benefit future patients and obtain regulatory approval.

Gender disparity trends in genitourinary oncology academic publishing over the past 3 decades: A bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine gender disparities in genitourinary (GU) oncology academic publishing over the past three decades. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of eight academic journals featuring GU oncology research articles: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, European Urology, Journal of Urology, BJU International, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, and Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. After selecting four time points (1990, 2000, 2010, 2020), we recorded the gender of the first and senior authors and investigated their association with independent variables including publication year, research field, and geographic continent. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 14,786 articles were included in our analyses. Females comprised 25.7% of first and 18.1% of senior authors. Compared to 1990, there was a trend of progressively higher female first author (OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.27-1.69] in 2000; 2.28 [95% CI 2.00-2.59] in 2010; 3.10 [95% CI 2.71-3.55] in 2020) and senior author positions (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.05-1.45] in 2000; 1.67 [95% CI 1.45-1.93] in 2010; 2.55 [95% CI 2.20-2.96] in 2020). Compared to GU oncology, non-GU oncology articles were more likely to have female first (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.38-2.86) or senior authors (OR 2.61, 95% CI 2.35-2.91). Articles from Asia (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38-0.51), Africa (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.91), and international collaborations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76) had a lower proportion of female first authors compared to North America. First authors were significantly more likely to be female when senior authors were also female (OR 2.45, 95% CI 2.23-2.69). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the bridging trend demonstrated, GU oncology remains a male-predominant discipline. Female leadership and mentorship are pivotal in achieving gender parity in the academic medicine community.

A Phase II Clinical Trial of Pembrolizumab Efficacy and Safety in Advanced Renal Medullary Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is one of most aggressive renal cell carcinomas and novel therapeutic strategies are therefore needed. Recent comprehensive molecular and immune profiling of RMC tissues revealed a highly inflamed phenotype, suggesting the potential therapeutic role for immune checkpoint therapies. We present the first prospective evaluation of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in a cohort of patients with RMC. METHODS: A cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic RMC was treated with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 21 days in a phase II basket trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02721732). Responses were assessed by irRECIST. Tumor tissues were evaluated for PD-L1 expression and for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) levels. Somatic mutations were assessed by targeted next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: A total of five patients were treated. All patients had advanced disease, with the majority of patients (60%) having metastatic disease at diagnosis. All patients had rapid disease progression despite pembrolizumab treatment, with a median time to progression of 8.7 weeks. One patient (patient 5) experienced sudden clinical progression immediately after treatment initiation and was thus taken off trial less than one week after receiving pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective evaluation showed no evidence of clinical activity for pembrolizumab in patients with RMC, irrespective of PD-L1 or TIL levels.

Bladder-sparing Treatment in Patients with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-unresponsive Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Analysis of Long-term Survival Outcomes.

Background: Data for bladder-sparing treatment (BST) in bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients report short-term outcomes limited to 1-2 yr. Objective: To assess long-term survival outcomes of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients treated with BST. Design setting and participants: BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients diagnosed between January 2000 and September 2021 from an institutional NMIBC registry were evaluated. Intervention: Long-term survival outcomes for patients receiving BST, early radical cystectomy (RC), and delayed RC were compared. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results and limitations: In total, 114 patients with a median follow-up of 71.2 mo (interquartile range: 32.6-132.2) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-2.89, p = 0.4) or CSS (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.22-3.55, p = 0.9) between patients undergoing early RC (n = 38) and BST (n = 76). At 60 mo, BST patients had a high-grade recurrence-free rate, muscle-invasive disease/metastasis progression-free rate, and avoidance of RC rate of 37%, 83%, and 58%, respectively. Current smoker status (HR: 4.44, 95% CI: 1.41-13.97, p = 0.011) was the only variable predictive of high-grade recurrence following a multivariable analysis. The median time to RC from BCG-unresponsive date was 2.1 and 11.7 mo for those undergoing early RC and delayed RC (after BST), respectively. Patients treated with early RC had a higher incidence of cT1 disease (53% vs 36%, p = 0.049) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI; 11% vs 0%, p = 0.011) compared to patients treated with BST. Survival outcomes were similar between groups: 10-yr OS-58% versus 50% (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 0.68-2.89, p = 0.4), and 10-yr CSS-81% versus 85% (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.22-3.55, p = 0.9). Conclusions: An analysis of long-term survival of BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients receiving BST suggests that it may be safe in patients without LVI and/or variant histology and nonsmokers. Survival outcomes for patients treated with BST may not be inferior to those receiving early RC. Patient summary: Bladder-sparing treatment can be offered to appropriately selected patients who have bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Long-term outcomes may not be inferior to those for patients who opt for early radical cystectomy.