Carboplatin and Etoposide for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer with or without Neuroendocrine Features: A French Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy using carboplatin and etoposide (CE) is frequently pragmatically proposed to treat metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), both primary small-cell neuroendocrine (PSC-NE) carcinoma and adenocarcinoma with or without neuroendocrine (NE) marker elevation. However, the real benefit of CE is poorly reported in the recent therapeutic context. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerance of CE chemotherapy in these three different groups of mPC patients. Efficacy endpoints included radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), as well as PSA response and PFS2/PFS1 ratio in patients with adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included in this single-center study (N = 18 with PSC-NE carcinoma and 51 with adenocarcinoma with (N = 18) or without (N = 33) NE marker elevation). Patients with adenocarcinoma were highly pretreated with next-generation hormonal agents (NHAs) and taxanes. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a PSA response ≥50% was observed in six patients (15.8%), four of whom had NE marker elevation. The radiological response was higher in PSC-NE and tended to be higher in adenocarcinoma when NE marker elevation was present. Comparing patients with adenocarcinoma with vs. without NE marker elevation, the median PFS was 3.7 and 2.1 months and the median OS was 7.7 and 4.7 months, respectively. Overall, 62.3% of patients experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (mainly hematological), and three treatment-related deaths were recorded. CONCLUSION: Reports of the clinical results of CE suggest that we should not mix PSC-NE and castration-resistant adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In patients with heavily pretreated adenocarcinoma, the benefit/risk ratio of CE chemotherapy seems unfavorable due to poor response and high toxicity.

Safety and efficacy of nintedanib as second-line therapy for patients with differentiated or medullary thyroid cancer progressing after first-line therapy. A randomized phase II study of the EORTC Endocrine Task Force (protocol 1209-EnTF).

Background: Nintedanib is a triple-angiokinase inhibitor with potential activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancers, as radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Design: EORTC-1209 (NCT01788982) was a double-blind randomized (2:1 ratio) placebo-controlled phase II, multi-cohort study exploring the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with progressive, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RAIR DTC and MTC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the per-protocol (PP) population for both cohorts. Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: RAIR DTC cohort: Seventy out of the 75 planned patients with RAIR DTC (median age, 66 years; 39 women) who had progressed after one (76%) or two lines (24%) of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 45) or placebo (N = 25). Of these, 69 patients started treatment and 56 met all inclusion criteria (PP). At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 26.3 months in the nintedanib arm and 19.8 months in the placebo arm. In the PP population, the median PFS was 3.7 months [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-6.5] in the nintedanib arm and 2.9 months (80% CI, 2.0-5.6) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.65; 80% CI, 0.42-0.99; one-sided log-rank test P = 0.0947). No objective response was observed. The median OS was 29.6 months [80% CI, 15.2-not reached (NR)] in the nintedanib arm and not reached in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution occurred in 50% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 36% of patients receiving placebo. MTC cohort: Thirty-one out of the 67 planned patients with MTC (median age, 57 years; eight women) who had progressed after one (68%) or two (32%) lines of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 22) or placebo (N = 9). Of these, 20 patients (15 in the nintedanib arm and five in the placebo arm) started treatment and met all inclusion criteria (PP). The median PFS was 7.0 months (80% CI, 1.9-8.7) in the nintedanib arm and 3.9 months (80% CI, 3.0-5.5) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.16-1.53). No objective response was reported. The median OS was 16.4 months (80% CI, 12.1-24.9) in the nintedanib arm and 12.3 months (80% CI, 7.1-NR) in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution during the blinded period occurred in 59.1% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 33.3% of patients receiving placebo. Conclusion: This study did not suggest a clinically significant improvement of PFS with nintedanib over placebo in patients with pretreated RAIR DTC and MTC.

Standard versus fractionated high-dose cisplatin plus radiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: Results of the CisFRad (GORTEC 2015-02) randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy with high-dose cisplatin (HD-Cis: 100 mg/m2 q3w for three cycles) is the standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). Cumulative delivered dose of cisplatin is prognostic of survival, even beyond 200 mg/m2 but high toxicity compromises its delivery. AIM: Cisplatin fractionation may allow, by decreasing the peak serum concentration, to decrease toxicity. To date, no direct comparison was done of HD-Cis versus fractionated high dose cisplatin (FHD-Cis). METHODS: This is a multi-institutional randomized phase II trial, stratified on postoperative or definitive chemoradiotherapy, comparing HD-Cis to FHD-Cis (25 mg/m2/d d1-4 q3w for 3 cycles) in patients with LA-HNSCC. The primary endpoint was the cumulative delivered cisplatin dose. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and April 2018, 124 patients were randomized. Median cisplatin cumulative delivered dose was 291 mg/m2 (IQR: 251;298) in the FHD-Cis arm and 274 mg/m2 (IQR: 198;295) in the HD-Cis arm (P = 0.054). The proportion of patients receiving a third cycle of cisplatin was higher, with a lower proportion of grade 3-4 acute AEs in the FHD-Cis arm compared to the HD-Cis arm: 81 % vs. 64 % (P = 0.04) and 10 % vs. 17 % (P = 0.002), respectively. With a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR: 41;55), locoregional failure rate, PFS and OS were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Although the primary endpoint was not met, FHD-Cis allowed more cycles of cisplatin to be delivered with lower toxicity, when compared to SOC. FHD-Cis concurrently with RT is a treatment option which deserves further consideration.

PD-L1 expression and its prognostic value in metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma: Results from a GETUG multicenter retrospective cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is a rare and aggressive cancer with no specifically established therapeutic strategy in the metastatic setting. Combinations of tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a promising option. We aimed to study the immune landscape of metastatic pRCC, and its interactions with angiogenesis pathways, to search for potential therapeutic targets. METHODS: The expression of immune markers (PD-L1, PD-1, PD-L2, LAG-3) and angiogenic pathways (CAIX, c-MET), was analyzed by immunohistochemistry on 68 metastatic pRCC retrieved from a retrospective multicenter GETUG cohort. Our primary endpoint was to estimate the prevalence of PD-L1 expression and its prognostic impact in metastatic pRCC. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of other immune markers (PD-1, PD-L2, and LAG-3) and their association with PD-L1. We also assessed angiogenic markers and their association with PD-L1. RESULTS: Overall, 27.9 % of tumors were PD-L1 positive. PD-L2 was more frequently expressed (45.6 %), PD-1 and LAG-3 were positive in 17.6 % and 19.1 % respectively. None of these markers was correlated with PD-L1 expression. 66 % (45/68) expressed at least one immune marker, and 43 % (29/68) were "double-positive", as they expressed both immune and angiogenic markers. OS was significantly shorter for patients with PD-L1 positive pRCC. A multivariate analysis confirmed a significant association between PD-L1 expression and shorter overall survival (HR = 4.0, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results reinforce clinical data on the expected benefit of ICI in metastatic pRCC treatment, as PD-L1 expression is a factor of poor prognosis in this multicenter cohort.