Improved Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The GOG240 trial established bevacizumab with chemotherapy as standard first-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. In the BEATcc trial (ENGOT-Cx10-GEICO 68-C-JGOG1084-GOG-3030), we aimed to evaluate the addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to this standard backbone. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients from 92 sites in Europe, Japan, and the USA with metastatic (stage IVB), persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer that was measurable, previously untreated, and not amenable to curative surgery or radiation were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard therapy (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, all on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) with or without atezolizumab 1200 mg. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or death. Stratification factors were previous concomitant chemoradiation (yes vs no), histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma including adenosquamous carcinoma), and platinum backbone (cisplatin vs carboplatin). Dual primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03556839, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2018, and Aug 20, 2021, 410 of 519 patients assessed for eligibility were enrolled. Median progression-free survival was 13·7 months (95% CI 12·3-16·6) with atezolizumab and 10·4 months (9·7-11·7) with standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR]=0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·78]; p<0·0001); at the interim overall survival analysis, median overall survival was 32·1 months (95% CI 25·3-36·8) versus 22·8 months (20·3-28·0), respectively (HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·52-0·88]; p=0·0046). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 79% of patients in the experimental group and in 75% of patients in the standard group. Grade 1-2 diarrhoea, arthralgia, pyrexia, and rash were increased with atezolizumab. INTERPRETATION: Adding atezolizumab to a standard bevacizumab plus platinum regimen for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer significantly improves progression-free and overall survival and should be considered as a new first-line therapy option. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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.

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

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

Development of a Prognostic Model for Early Breast Cancer Integrating Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Clinical-Pathological Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related inflammation is critical in tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and patient prognosis. Several inflammatory markers derived from peripheral blood cells count, such as the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) are considered as prognostic markers in several types of malignancy. METHODS: We investigate and validate a prognostic model in early patients with breast cancer to predict disease-free survival (DFS) based on readily available baseline clinicopathological prognostic factors and preoperative peripheral blood-derived indexes. RESULTS: We analyzed a training cohort of 710 patients and 2 external validation cohorts of 980 and 157 patients with breast cancer, respectively, with different demographic origins. An elevated preoperative NLR is a better DFS predictor than others scores. The prognostic model generated in this study was able to classify patients into 3 groups with different risks of relapse based on ECOG-PS, presence of comorbidities, T and N stage, PgR status, and NLR. CONCLUSION: Prognostic models derived from the combination of clinicopathological features and peripheral blood indices, such as NLR, represent attractive markers mainly because they are easily detectable and applicable in daily clinical practice. More comprehensive prospective studies are needed to unveil their actual effectiveness.

CDK4/6-Inhibitors Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced HR+/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Results and Correlative Biomarker Analyses of the KENDO Randomized Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment approach for hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2-negative MBC) with aggressive characteristics remains controversial, with lack of randomized trials comparing cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) with chemotherapy + ET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized phase II trial (NCT03227328) to investigate whether chemotherapy + ET is superior to CDK4/6i + ET for HR+/HER2-negative MBC with aggressive features. PAM50 intrinsic subtypes (IS), immunological features, and gene expression were assessed on baseline samples. RESULTS: Among 49 randomized patients (median follow-up: 35.2 months), median progression-free survival (mPFS) with chemotherapy + ET (11.2 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-15.4) was numerically shorter than mPFS (19.9 months, 95% CI: 9.0-30.6) with CDK4/6i + ET (hazard ratio: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.75-2.64). Basal-like tumors under CDK4/6i + ET exhibited worse PFS (mPFS: 11.4 months, 95% CI: 3.00-not reached [NR]) and overall survival (OS; mOS: 18.8 months, 95% CI: 18.8-NR) compared to other subtypes (mPFS: 20.7 months, 95% CI: 9.00-33.4; mOS: NR, 95% CI: 24.4-NR). In the chemotherapy arm, luminal A tumors showed poorer PFS (mPFS: 5.1 months, 95% CI: 2.7-NR) than other IS (mPFS: 13.2 months, 95% CI: 10.6-28.1). Genes/pathways involved in BC cell survival and proliferation were associated with worse outcomes, as opposite to most immune-related genes/signatures, especially in the CDK4/6i arm. CD24 was the only gene significantly associated with worse PFS in both arms. Tertiary lymphoid structures and higher tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes also showed favorable survival trends in the CDK4/6i arm. CONCLUSIONS: The KENDO trial, although closed prematurely, adds further evidence supporting CDK4/6i + ET use in aggressive HR+/HER2-negative MBC instead of chemotherapy. PAM50 IS, genomic, and immunological features are promising biomarkers to personalize therapeutic choices.

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Long-term responders to nivolumab in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a sub-analysis of meet-URO15 study.

BACKGROUND: Although nivolumab prolongs overall survival (OS) in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), underlining clinical and biological features of long-term responses are still to be determined. This study aims to investigate clinical and pathological characteristics of mRCC patients who achieved long-term responses during nivolumab treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients receiving nivolumab as second or further therapy line between May 2016 and January 2019 in 34 Italian Oncology Centres. Outcome assessments and logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors influencing long-term responses. RESULTS: A total of 571 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 17-85) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up of 22.1 (1.0-89.0) months, 23.1% of patients were 2-year progression-free on treatment with nivolumab, hence they were categorized as long-term responders. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, and histology, were similar between long- and short-term responders. Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80% was significantly associated with long-term response (p = 0.02), while bone metastases (p = 0.03), International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate-poor risk (p < 0.01) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio ≥ 3.2 (p = 0.02) were associate with short-term responses. Long-term responders exhibited a median progression-free survival of 55.0 months versus 4.0 months of the short-term responders. The median OS was not reached in long-term responders while it was 17.0 months for short*term responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis sheds light on factors associated with long-term response to nivolumab in mRCC. Understanding these clinical features will be essential for selecting patients who may mostly benefit from immunotherapy.

Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors. RESULTS: In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

International multicenter real-world REGistry for patients with metastatic renAL cell carcinoma - Meet-URO 33 study (REGAL study).

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. METHODS: The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile. DISCUSSION: Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CESC IOV 2023-78.

Safety and efficacy analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab, trastuzumab and standard chemotherapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer: real-world data from NeoPowER study.

BACKGROUND: The addition of pertuzumab (P) to trastuzumab (H) and standard chemotherapy (CT) as neoadjuvant treatment (NaT) for patients with HER2 + breast cancer (BC), has shown to increase the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, without main safety concerns. The aim of NeoPowER trial is to evaluate safety and efficacy of P + H + CT in a real-world population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of stage II-III, HER2 + BC patients treated with NaT: who received P + H + CT (neopower group) in 5 Emilia Romagna institutions were compared with an historical group who received H + CT (control group). The primary endpoint was the safety, secondary endpoints were pCR rate, DRFS and OS and their correlation to NaT and other potential variables. RESULTS: 260 patients were included, 48% received P + H + CT, of whom 44% was given anthraciclynes as part of CT, compared to 83% in the control group. The toxicity profile was similar, excluding diarrhea more frequent in the neopower group (20% vs. 9%). Three patients experienced significant reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), all receiving anthracyclines. The pCR rate was 46% (P + H + CT) and 40% (H + CT) (p = 0.39). The addition of P had statistically correlation with pCR only in the patients receiving anthra-free regimens (OR = 3.05,p = 0.047). Preoperative use of anthracyclines (OR = 1.81,p = 0.03) and duration of NaT (OR = 1.18,p = 0.02) were statistically related to pCR. 12/21 distant-relapse events and 14/17 deaths occurred in the control group. Patients who achieve pCR had a significant increase in DRFS (HR = 0.23,p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Adding neoadjuvant P to H and CT is safe. With the exception of diarrhea, rate of adverse events of grade > 2 did not differ between the two groups. P did not increase the cardiotoxicity when added to H + CT, nevertheless in our population all cardiac events occurred in patients who received anthracycline-containing regimens. Not statistically significant, higher pCR rate is achievable in patients receiving neoadjuvant P + H + CT. The study did not show a statistically significant correlation between the addition of P and long-term outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy. METHODS: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects.

PURPOSE: Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). METHODS: Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated. RESULTS: Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered. CONCLUSION: Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.

Pregnancy After Breast Cancer in Young BRCA Carriers: An International Hospital-Based Cohort Study.

Importance: Young women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face unique challenges regarding fertility. Previous studies demonstrating the feasibility and safety of pregnancy in breast cancer survivors included limited data regarding BRCA carriers. Objective: To investigate cumulative incidence of pregnancy and disease-free survival in young women who are BRCA carriers. Design, Setting, and Participants: International, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study conducted at 78 participating centers worldwide. The study included female participants diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger between January 2000 and December 2020 carrying germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2. Last delivery was October 7, 2022; last follow-up was February 20, 2023. Exposure: Pregnancy after breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were cumulative incidence of pregnancy after breast cancer and disease-free survival. Secondary end points were breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, pregnancy, and fetal and obstetric outcomes. Results: Of 4732 BRCA carriers included, 659 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer and 4073 did not. Median age at diagnosis in the overall cohort was 35 years (IQR, 31-38 years). Cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 10 years was 22% (95% CI, 21%-24%), with a median time from breast cancer diagnosis to conception of 3.5 years (IQR, 2.2-5.3 years). Among the 659 patients who had a pregnancy, 45 (6.9%) and 63 (9.7%) had an induced abortion or a miscarriage, respectively. Of the 517 patients (79.7%) with a completed pregnancy, 406 (91.0%) delivered at term (≥37 weeks) and 54 (10.4%) had twins. Among the 470 infants born with known information on pregnancy complications, 4 (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies. Median follow-up was 7.8 years (IQR, 4.5-12.6 years). No significant difference in disease-free survival was observed between patients with or without a pregnancy after breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). Patients who had a pregnancy had significantly better breast cancer-specific survival and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In this global study, 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers conceived within 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. Pregnancy following breast cancer in BRCA carriers was not associated with decreased disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03673306.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Carboplatin and paclitaxel plus avelumab compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (MITO END-3): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy might improve outcomes for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. We aimed to compare carboplatin and paclitaxel versus avelumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment with avelumab given concurrent to chemotherapy and as maintenance after the end of chemotherapy. METHODS: MITO END-3 is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 31 cancer institutes, hospitals, and universities in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed advanced (FIGO stage III-IV) or recurrent endometrial cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no previous systemic anticancer therapy as primary treatment for advanced or metastatic disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised minimisation procedure stratified by centre, histology, and stage at study entry, to either receive carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 5 mg/mL × min) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2; standard group) intravenously every 3 weeks for six to eight cycles or avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously) added to carboplatin and paclitaxel (experimental group) every 3 weeks and then every 2 weeks as a single maintenance treatment after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients, treating clinicians, and those assessing radiological examinations were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, measured in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis. Experimental group superiority was tested with 80% power and one-tailed α 0·20. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03503786) and EudraCT (2016-004403-31). FINDINGS: From April 9, 2018, to May 13, 2021, 166 women were assessed for eligibility and 39 were excluded. 125 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel (n=62) or avelumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (n=63) and included in the ITT population. The median follow-up was 23·3 months (IQR 13·2-29·6) and was similar between the two groups. 91 progression-free survival events were reported, with 49 events in 62 patients in the standard group and 42 events in 63 patients in the experimental group. The median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 6·7-12·1) in the standard group and 9·6 months (7·2-17·7) in the experimental group (HR of progression or death 0·78 [60% CI 0·65-0·93]; one-tailed p=0·085). Serious adverse events were reported more frequently in the experimental group (24 vs seven events in the standard group); neutrophil count decrease was the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event (19 [31%] of 61 patients in the experimental group vs 26 [43%] of 61 patients in the standard group). Two deaths occurred in the experimental group during treatment (one respiratory failure following severe myositis [possibly related to treatment] and one cardiac arrest [not related to treatment]). INTERPRETATION: Adding avelumab to first-line chemotherapy deserves further testing in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, although consideration of mismatch repair status is warranted. FUNDING: Pfizer.

AMEERA-4: a randomized, preoperative window-of-opportunity study of amcenestrant versus letrozole in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Window-of-opportunity (WOO) studies provide insights into the clinical activity of new drugs in breast cancer. METHODS: AMEERA-4 (NCT04191382) was a WOO study undertaken to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of amcenestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader, with those of letrozole in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed, operable estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) breast cancer. Women were randomized (1:1:1) to receive amcenestrant 400 mg, amcenestrant 200 mg, or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily for 14 days before breast surgery. The primary endpoint was change in Ki67 between baseline and Day 15 (i.e., day of surgery). RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early because of slow recruitment, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 95 study participants with baseline and post-treatment Ki67 values, whereas the safety population included 104 participants who had received at least one dose of study medication. Relative change from baseline in Ki67 was - 75.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 81.9 to - 67.9) for amcenestrant 400 mg, - 68.2% (- 75.7 to - 58.4) for amcenestrant 200 mg, and - 77.7% (- 83.4 to - 70.0) for letrozole (geometric least-squares mean [LSM] estimates). Absolute change in ER H-score from baseline (LSM estimate) was - 176.7 in the amcenestrant 400 mg arm, - 202.9 in the amcenestrant 200 mg arm, and - 32.5 in the letrozole arm. There were no Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Both amcenestrant and letrozole demonstrated antiproliferative activity in postmenopausal women with previously untreated, operable ER+/HER2- breast cancer and had good overall tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04191382 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191382 . Registered 9 December 2019.

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.

Immunogenomic profiles associated with response to life-prolonging agents in prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer but the management of advanced prostate cancer remains a therapeutic challenge, despite the survival benefits imparted by several therapeutic discoveries targeting different molecular pathways. The mechanisms of resistance to androgen deprivation and tumour progression to lethal metastatic variants are often regulated by androgen receptor (AR) bypass mechanisms and/or neuroendocrine differentiation. Moreover, recent data also suggested the involvement of adaptive and innate infiltrated immune cells in prostate tumour progression. Improvements in cancer genome analyses contributed to a better understanding of antitumour immunity and provided solutions for targeting highly cancer-specific neoantigens generated from somatic mutations in individual patients. In this review, we investigated the current knowledge on the interplay between cancer development and the complex mechanisms of immune regulation. Particularly, we focused on the role of tumour immune microenvironment, generally characterised by strong barriers for immunotherapy, and we discuss the rationale for the potential application of single agent and combination immune-targeting strategies that could lead to improved outcomes. Careful selection based on clinical and genomic factors may allow identification of patients who could benefit from this treatment approach in multiple settings (from localised to advanced prostate tumour) and in different histological subtypes (from adenocarcinoma to neuroendocrine prostate cancer).