Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review. RESULTS: Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.).

Enzalutamide with Standard First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, an androgen-receptor inhibitor, has been associated with improved overall survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. It is not known whether adding enzalutamide to testosterone suppression, with or without early docetaxel, will improve survival in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients to receive testosterone suppression plus either open-label enzalutamide or a standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy (standard-care group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival as determined by the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1125 men underwent randomization; the median follow-up was 34 months. There were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 80% (based on 94 events) in the enzalutamide group and 72% (based on 130 events) in the standard-care group. Better results with enzalutamide were also seen in PSA progression-free survival (174 and 333 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; P<0.001) and in clinical progression-free survival (167 and 320 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in the enzalutamide group than in the standard-care group (33 events and 14 events, respectively). Fatigue was more common in the enzalutamide group; seizures occurred in 7 patients in the enzalutamide group (1%) and in no patients in the standard-care group. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide was associated with significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression. The enzalutamide group had a higher incidence of seizures and other toxic effects, especially among those treated with early docetaxel. (Funded by Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs and others; ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304) ANZCTR number, ACTRN12614000110684; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446405; and EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2014-003190-42.).

Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel for second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single group, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: No standard treatment exists for patients with platinum-refractory urothelial cancer. Taxanes and vinflunine are commonly used, but response is less than 20% with no survival benefit. In this phase 2 study, we assessed efficacy and tolerability of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in platinum-refractory urothelial cancer. METHODS: We did an open-label, single-group, two-stage study at five centres in Canada. We enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, locally advanced, or metastatic measurable urothelial cancer, with documented progression on or within 12 months of treatment with one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at 260 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression or occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was objective tumour response, defined by a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.0) criteria. Tumour response and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one cycle of nab-paclitaxel. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00683059. FINDINGS: We enrolled 48 patients between Oct 16, 2008, and June 23, 2010. Patients received a median of six cycles (range one to 15). 47 patients were evaluable; one (2·1%) had a CR and 12 (25·5%) had PRs, resulting in an overall response of 27·7% (95% CI 17·3-44·4). The most frequently recorded adverse events of any grade were fatigue (38 of 48; 79%), pain (37 of 48; 77%), alopecia (34 of 48; 71%), and neuropathy (30 of 48; 77%). The most frequently recorded adverse events of grade 3 or higher were pain (11 of 48; 23%), fatigue (five of 48; 23%), hypertension (three of 48; 6%), neuropathy (three of 48, 6%), and joint stiffness or pain (two of 48; 4%). INTERPRETATION: Nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated in this population of patients with pretreated advanced urothelial cancer with an encouraging tumour response. These results warrant further study of nab-paclitaxel in second-line treatment of urothelial cancer. FUNDING: Abraxis Bioscience, Celgene.

Evaluating the impact of early identification of asymptomatic brain metastases in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been reported to be present in up to 25% of patients diagnosed with mRCC. There is limited published literature evaluating the role of routine intra-cranial imaging for the screening of asymptomatic BM in mRCC. AIMS: To evaluate the potential utility of routine intra-cranial imaging, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to characterize the outcomes of mRCC patients who presented with asymptomatic BM, as compared to symptomatic BM. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database was used to identify mRCC patients diagnosed with BM. This cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of BM symptoms. Details regarding patient demographics, disease characteristics, systemic treatments, BM characteristics and survival outcomes were extracted. Statistical analysis was through chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier method to characterize survival outcomes. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. A total of 267 mRCC patients with BM were identified of which 106 (40%) presented with asymptomatic disease. The majority of patients presented with multiple (i.e., >1) BM (75%) with no significant differences noted in number of BM or BM-directed therapy received in symptomatic, as compared to asymptomatic BM patients. Median [95% confidence interval (CI)] overall survival (OS) from mRCC diagnosis was 42 months (95% CI: 32-62) for patients with asymptomatic BM, and 39 months (95% CI: 29-48) with symptomatic BM (p = 0.10). OS from time of BM diagnosis was 28 months (95% CI: 18-42) for the asymptomatic BM group, as compared to 13 months (95% CI: 10-21) in the symptomatic BM group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Given a substantial proportion of patients may present with asymptomatic BM, limiting intra-cranial imaging to patients with symptomatic BM, may be associated with a missed opportunity for timely diagnosis and treatment. The utility of routine intra-cranial imaging in patients with renal cell carcinoma, warrants further prospective evaluation.

Adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma: 2023 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Several recent randomized trials evaluated the impact of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy on post-surgical outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), with disparate results. The objective of this consensus statement is to provide data-driven guidance regarding the use of ICIs after complete resection of clear-cell RCC in a Canadian context. METHODS: An expert panel of genitourinary medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, and radiation oncologists with expertise in RCC management was convened in a dedicated session during the 2022 Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum in Toronto, Canada. Topic statements on the management of patients after surgery for RCC, including counselling, risk stratification, indications for medical oncology referral, appropriate followup, eligibility and management for adjuvant ICIs, as well as treatment options for patients with recurrence who received adjuvant immunotherapy, were discussed. Participants were asked to vote if they agreed or disagreed with each statement. Consensus was achieved if greater than 75% of participants agreed with the topic statement. RESULTS: A total of 22 RCC experts voted on 14 statements. Consensus was achieved on all topic statements. The panel felt patients with clear-cell RCC at increased risk of recurrence after surgery, as per the Keynote-564 group definitions, should be counselled about recurrence risk by a urologist, should be informed about the potential role of adjuvant ICI systemic therapy, and be offered referral to discuss risks and benefits with a medical oncologist. The panel felt that one year of pembrolizumab is currently the only regimen that should be considered if adjuvant therapy is selected. Panelists emphasized current opinions are based on disease-free survival given the available results. Significant uncertainty regarding the benefit and harms of adjuvant therapy remains, primarily due to a lack of consistent benefit observed across similar trials of adjuvant ICI-based therapies and immature overall survival (OS) data. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus document provides guidance from Canadian RCC experts regarding the potential role of ICI-based adjuvant systemic therapy after surgery. This rapidly evolving field requires frequent evidence-based re-evaluation.

Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy with or Without Docetaxel for Localized High-risk Prostate Cancer: Long-term Follow-up from the Randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of therapy may improve outcomes for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term follow-up data from phase III RTOG 0521, which compared a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + docetaxel with ADT + EBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: High-risk localized prostate cancer patients (>50% of patients had Gleason 9-10 disease) were prospectively randomized to 2 yr of ADT + EBRT or ADT + EBRT + six cycles of docetaxel. A total of 612 patients were accrued, and 563 were eligible and included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed as prespecified in the protocol; however, there was evidence of nonproportional hazards. Thus, a post hoc analysis was performed using the restricted mean survival time (RMST). The secondary endpoints included biochemical failure, distant metastasis (DM) as detected by conventional imaging, and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 10.4 yr of median follow-up among survivors, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.89 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.14; one-sided log-rank p = 0.22). Survival at 10 yr was 64% for ADT + EBRT and 69% for ADT + EBRT + docetaxel. The RMST at 12 yr was 0.45 yr and not statistically significant (one-sided p = 0.053). No differences were detected in the incidence of DFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), DM (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-1.14), or prostate-specific antigen recurrence risk (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.74-1.29). Two patients had grade 5 toxicity in the chemotherapy arm and zero patients in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10.4 yr among surviving patients, no significant differences are observed in clinical outcomes between the experimental and control arms. These data suggest that docetaxel should not be used for high-risk localized prostate cancer. Additional research may be warranted using novel predictive biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: No significant differences in survival were noted after long-term follow-up for high-risk localized prostate cancer patients in a large prospective trial where patients were treated with androgen deprivation therapy + radiation to the prostate ± docetaxel.

Cancer Clinic Redesign: Opportunities for Resource Optimization.

Ambulatory cancer centers face a fluctuating patient demand and deploy specialized personnel who have variable availability. This undermines operational stability through the misalignment of resources to patient needs, resulting in overscheduled clinics, budget deficits, and wait times exceeding provincial targets. We describe the deployment of a Learning Health System framework for operational improvements within the entire ambulatory center. Known methods of value stream mapping, operations research and statistical process control were applied to achieve organizational high performance that is data-informed, agile and adaptive. We transitioned from a fixed template model by an individual physician to a caseload management by disease site model that is realigned quarterly. We adapted a block schedule model for the ambulatory oncology clinic to align the regional demand for specialized services with optimized human and physical resources. We demonstrated an improved utilization of clinical space, increased weekly consistency and improved distribution of activity across the workweek. The increased value, represented as the ratio of monthly encounters per nursing worked hours, and the increased percentage of services delivered by full-time nurses were benefits realized in our cancer system. The creation of a data-informed demand capacity model enables the application of predictive analytics and business intelligence tools that will further enhance clinical responsiveness.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an International, Randomized Phase III Trial Led by ANZUP.

PURPOSE: We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS: HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). RESULTS: HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL.

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.

Evaluation of Clear Cell, Papillary, and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasis Sites and Association With Survival.

Importance: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse. Objective: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020. Exposures: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases. Results: A total of 10 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site. Conclusions and Relevance: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged.

Adjuvant Pazopanib Versus Placebo After Nephrectomy in Patients With Localized or Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Overall Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 PROTECT Trial.

Most studies indicate no benefit of adjuvant therapy with VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PROTECT (NCT01235962) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study to evaluate adjuvant pazopanib in patients with locally advanced RCC at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy (pazopanib, n = 769; placebo, n = 769). The results of the primary analysis showed no difference in disease-free survival between pazopanib 600 mg and placebo. Here we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis (median follow-up: pazopanib, 76 mo, interquartile range [IQR] 66-84; placebo, 77 mo, IQR 69-85). There was no significant difference in OS between the pazopanib and placebo arms (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.26; nominal p > 0.9). OS was worse for patients with T4 disease compared to those with less advanced disease and was better for patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 compared to those with lower BMI. OS was significantly better for patients who remained diseasefree at 2 yr after treatment compared with those who relapsed within 2 yr. These findings are consistent with the primary outcomes from PROTECT, indicating that adjuvant pazopanib does not confer a benefit in terms of OS for patients following resection of locally advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 PROTECT study, overall survival was similar for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy who received adjuvant therapy with pazopanib or placebo. Pazopanib is not recommended as adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01235962.

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the treatment of older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) - an International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC) are underrepresented in immune-checkpoint inhibitor(ICI) registration trials. Here we compare the efficacy of ICI treatments in older vs. younger adults with mRCC. METHODS: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium(IMDC), patients treated with a PD(L)-1 based ICI were identified. Older adult was defined as ≥70-years at the time of treatment. Descriptive statistics were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), time-to-next treatment(TNT), and overall response rate(ORR). Hazards ratios were adjusted(aHR) for IMDC risk factors, histology, line of treatment and older age. RESULTS: Of 1427 included patients, 397(28%) were older adults. ICI was used as 1st line(1 L) in 40%, 2nd line(2 L) in 49% and 3rd line(3 L) in 11% of patients. In univariable analysis, older adults had inferior OS compared to younger adults(25.1 m vs. 30.8 m, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TTF (6.9 m vs. 6.9 m, p = 0.4) or TNT(9.1 m vs 10 m, p = 0.3) between groups. In multivariable analyses, older age was not independently associated with worse OS(aHR = 1.02, p = 0.8), TTF(aHR = 0.95, p = 0.6) or TNT(aHR = 0.93, p = 0.5). Older adults had a lower ORR compared to younger adults(24% vs. 31%, p = 0.01), which was mainly driven by responses in 1 L(31% vs. 44%, p = 0.02) and not observed in 2 L/3 L. CONCLUSIONS: After multivariable analyses, older adults with mRCC treated with ICI had no difference in OS, TTF or TNT when compared to younger adults. Our data support that chronological older age should not preclude patients from receiving ICI based therapies.

Overall Survival of Men with Metachronous Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting.

Efficacy and Safety of nab-Paclitaxel vs Paclitaxel on Survival in Patients With Platinum-Refractory Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group BL.12 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Treatment options for platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) are limited, and outcomes remain poor. Nab-paclitaxel is an albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel showing promising activity and tolerability in a prior single-arm trial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel in platinum-refractory mUC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this investigator-initiated, open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted across Canada and Australia from January 2014 to April 2017, eligible patients had histologically confirmed, radiologically evident mUC of the urinary tract. Mixed histologic findings, except small cell, were permitted provided UC was the predominant histologic finding. All patients had received platinum-based chemotherapy either in the metastatic setting or were within 12 months of perioperative chemotherapy. Patients with prior taxane chemotherapy were not included. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0 to 2 and adequate organ function. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to nab-paclitaxel, 260 mg/m2, or paclitaxel, 175 mg/m2, every 3 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among 199 patients, median age was 67 (range, 24-88) years; 144 (72%) were men; 167 (84%) were ECOG PS 0-1; 59 (30%) had liver metastases; and 110 (55%) were within 6 months of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 16.4 months, there was no significant difference between nab-paclitaxel vs paclitaxel for median PFS (3.4 months vs 3.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 90% CI, 0.68-1.23; 1-sided P = .31). Median overall survival was 7.5 months for nab-paclitaxel vs 8.8 months for paclitaxel (HR, 0.95; 90% CI, 0.70-1.30; 1-sided P = .40); and objective response rate (ORR) was 22% for nab-paclitaxel vs 25% for paclitaxel (P = .97). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with nab-paclitaxel (64/97 [66%]) compared with paclitaxel (45/97 [46%]), P = .009; but peripheral sensory neuropathy was similar (all grades, 72/97 [74%] vs 64/97 [66%]; grade 3/4, 7/97 [7%] vs 3/97 [3%]; P = .27). There were no apparent differences in scores for health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial of patients with platinum-refractory mUC, nab-paclitaxel had similar efficacy to paclitaxel; but worse toxic effects. The ORR with either taxane, however, was higher than previously reported and similar to those reported for the immune checkpoint inhibitors, suggesting that the taxanes remain a reasonable option in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02033993.

Benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia related to cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are used to treat anemia in patients with cancer. However, their safety and effectiveness is controversial. We did a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and harms of these agents in adults with anemia related to cancer or chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using accepted methods for literature searches, article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We included RCTs involving anemic adults with cancer. We compared the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with nonuse and assessed clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and hypertension, health-related quality of life, blood transfusions and tumour response) and harms (serious adverse events) between groups. RESULTS: We identified 52 trials (n = 12 006) that met our selection criteria. The pooled all-cause mortality during treatment was significantly higher in the group receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating therapy than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.29). Compared with no treatment, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents led to clinically detectable improvements in disease-specific measures of quality of life. It also reduced the use of blood transfusions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.73). However, it led to an increased risk of thrombotic events (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.24) and serious adverse events (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.25). INTERPRETATION: Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer-related anemia improved some disease-specific measures of quality of life and decreased the use of blood transfusions. However, it increased the risk of death and serious adverse events. Our findings suggest that such therapy not be used routinely as an alternative to blood transfusion in patients with anemia related to cancer.

The timing of docetaxel initiation in metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer and the rate of chemotherapy-induced toxicity.

Docetaxel pharmacokinetics are affected by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which is attributed to changes in liver metabolism induced by castration. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed whether initiating docetaxel treatment in close proximity to the start of ADT therapy for metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is associated with more treatment-related toxicity. We identified all patients with mCSPC treated at The Ottawa Hospital that received docetaxel chemotherapy between June 2014 and September 2017. For each patient, we calculated the time to chemotherapy (TTC) interval between the start of ADT and the first cycle of docetaxel. We checked for an association between TTC and febrile neutropenia (FN), toxicity-induced dose reduction, toxicity-induced treatment delay, and toxicity-induced treatment discontinuation. Eighty-three patients were identified. The median TTC was 67 days (range 3-189). Twenty-three patients (27.7%) experienced FN. Docetaxel toxicity resulted in 8 patients (9.6%) having their treatment delayed, 30 patients (36.1%) having their dose reduced and 18 (21.6%) having their treatment discontinued before completing the scheduled 6 cycles. No correlation was found between the TTC and FN (P = 0.99), docetaxel dose reduction (P = 0.95), treatment delay (P = 0.06), and treatment discontinuation (P = 0.88). The timing of docetaxel treatment initiation in relation to ADT initiation in patients with mCSPC did not affect the rate of treatment-related toxicity. Therefore, there is no indication for upfront chemotherapy delay from start of ADT unless clinical factors warrant a delay in starting chemotherapy. A higher than expected FN rate was identified, and primary prophylaxis should be considered.

Effect of Chemotherapy With Docetaxel With Androgen Suppression and Radiotherapy for Localized High-Risk Prostate Cancer: The Randomized Phase III NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 Trial.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) plus long-term androgen suppression (AS) are a standard treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) could improve overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The multicenter randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 study enrolled patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease between 2005 and 2009. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard long-term AS plus RT with or without adjuvant CT. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable. Median prostate-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Four-year OS rate was 89% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for AS + RT and 93% (95% CI, 90% to 96%) for AS + RT + CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034). There were 59 deaths in the AS + RT arm and 43 in the AS + RT + CT arm, with fewer deaths resulting from prostate cancer in the AS + RT + CT arm versus AS + RT (23 v 16 deaths, respectively). Six-year rate of distant metastasis was 14% for AS + RT and 9.1% for AS + RT + CT, (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .044). Six-year disease-free survival rate was 55% for AS + RT and 65% for AS + RT + CT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043). CONCLUSION: For patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CT with docetaxel improved OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years, with improved disease-free survival and reduction in the rate of distant metastasis. The trial suggests that docetaxel CT may be an option to be discussed with selected men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Selumetinib in patients receiving standard pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic KRAS wildtype or unknown non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, multicenter, phase II study. Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) IND.219.

INTRODUCTION: Activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway may confer resistance to chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY142886), a MEK1/2 inhibitor combined with chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC was evaluated in two schedules to evaluate efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: IND.219 was a three-arm study of first line pemetrexed/platinum chemotherapy with two schedules of selumetinib (Arm A: intermittent given on days 2-19; Arm B: continuous given on days 1-21) versus chemotherapy alone (Arm C). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary objectives were tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). The trial was stopped at the planned interim analysis. RESULTS: Arms A/B/C enrolled 20/21/21 patients, ORR was 35% (95% CI 15-59% median duration 3.8 months), 62% (95% CI 38-82%; median duration 6.3 months), 24% (95% CI 8-47%; median duration 11.6 months) respectively. The PFS (months Arm A, B, C) was 7.5, 6.7, 4.0 respectively (hazard ratio (HR) PFS Arm A over Arm C: 0.76 [95% CI, 0.38-1.51, 2-sided p = 0.42]; Arm B over Arm C 0.75 [95% CI 0.37-1.54, p = 0.43]. Skin and gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with the addition of selumetinib. A high incidence of venous thromboembolism was seen in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Selumetinib combined with chemotherapy was associated with a higher response rate. Continuous selumetinib appeared to be superior to an intermittent schedule. PFS was prolonged with the addition of selumetinib, however this was not statistically significant.

Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada consensus statement on the role of adjuvant therapy after nephrectomy for high-risk, non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A comprehensive analysis of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) collaborated to prepare this consensus statement about the use of target agents as adjuvant therapy in patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (nmRCC) after nephrectomy. We reviewed the published data and performed a meta-analysis of studies that focused on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). METHODS: A systematic literature search identified seven trials on adjuvant target therapy in nmRCC. Three trials, the ASSURE, S-TRAC, and PROTECT, focused on VEGFR TKIs and represented the focus of the study, including a meta-analysis combining their data on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The ASSURE trial showed no DFS or OS benefit of TKIs over placebo after one year of adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib. In contrast, the S-TRAC trial showed improved DFS after one year of adjuvant sunitinib using central review process, but not using investigator review process. No OS benefit was recorded in either study. Recently, the PROTECT trial also showed no DFS or OS benefit when one year of adjuvant pazopanib was compared to placebo. Meta-analyses of the pooled DFS and OS estimates from all three trials resulted in DFS and OS hazard ratios of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.04) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.89-1.22), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data from three available clinical trials of adjuvant VEGFR TKIs vs. placebo do not currently support the use of adjuvant TKI therapy as standard of care after nephrectomy for nmRCC. At this time, adjuvant TKI-based adjuvant therapy is not recommended for routine use after nephrectomy for high-risk nmRCC, but highly motivated patients may benefit from a discussion with their oncologist regarding the risks and benefits of adjuvant TKI.

First-line sunitinib or pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Canadian experience.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting. METHODS: Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.59-1.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.