Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

A phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of efavirenz in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies demonstrated that non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors used for the treatment of HIV could antagonize tumor development. This led us to assess the efficacy of efavirenz in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in a multicenter phase II study. METHODS: We used a Simon two-stage design and a 3-month prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nonprogression rate of 40% as a primary objective. Patients received 600 mg efavirenz daily with the possibility of a dose increase in case of PSA progression. Exploratory analyses included pharmacokinetics of efavirenz plasma concentrations and correlations with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 53 assessable patients, we observed 15 instances of PSA nonprogression at 3 months, corresponding to a nonprogression rate of 28.3% (95% confidence interval: 16.8%-42.3%). The exploratory analysis revealed that for the 7 patients in whom optimal plasma concentration of efavirenz was achieved, PSA progression was observed in only 28.6% compared with 81.8% of patients with suboptimal plasma concentrations of efavirenz. CONCLUSION: Although 600 mg efavirenz did not statistically improve the PSA nonprogression rate, our exploratory analysis suggests that higher plasma concentrations of this drug (i.e., use of increased dosages) may be of potential benefit for the treatment of mCRPC.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in advanced high-grade serous carcinoma: the randomized phase II NeoPembrOV clinical trial.

This open-label, non-comparative, 2:1 randomized, phase II trial (NCT03275506) in women with stage IIIC/IV high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) for whom upfront complete resection was unachievable assessed whether adding pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) to standard-of-care carboplatin plus paclitaxel yielded a complete resection rate (CRR) of at least 50%. Postoperatively patients continued assigned treatment for a maximum of 2 years. Postoperative bevacizumab was optional. The primary endpoint was independently assessed CRR at interval debulking surgery. Secondary endpoints were Completeness of Cytoreduction Index (CCI) and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores, objective and best response rates, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, postoperative morbidity, and pathological complete response. The CRR in 61 pembrolizumab-treated patients was 74% (one-sided 95% CI = 63%), exceeding the prespecified ≥50% threshold and meeting the primary objective. The CRR without pembrolizumab was 70% (one-sided 95% CI = 54%). In the remaining patients CCI scores were ≥3 in 27% of the standard-of-care group and 18% of the investigational group and CC1 in 3% of the investigational group. PCI score decreased by a mean of 9.6 in the standard-of-care group and 10.2 in the investigational group. Objective response rates were 60% and 72%, respectively, and best overall response rates were 83% and 90%, respectively. Progression-free survival was similar with the two regimens (median 20.8 versus 19.4 months in the standard-of-care versus investigational arms, respectively) but overall survival favored pembrolizumab-containing therapy (median 35.3 versus 49.8 months, respectively). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with pembrolizumab-containing therapy were anemia during neoadjuvant therapy and infection/fever postoperatively. Pembrolizumab was discontinued prematurely because of adverse events in 23% of pembrolizumab-treated patients. Combining pembrolizumab with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible for HGSC considered not completely resectable; observed activity in some subgroups justifies further evaluation to improve understanding of the role of immunotherapy in HGSC.

Geriatric Assessment Implementation before Chemotherapy in MEtastatic Prostate Cancer, Results from the Real-Life Study GAMERS.

Geriatric assessment (GA) can predict and improve treatment tolerance and estimate overall survival in older patients with cancer. Several international organizations promote GA; however, data related to its implementation in daily clinical practice are still limited. We aimed to describe GA implementation in patients over 75 years old with metastatic prostate cancer treated with docetaxel as first-line treatment, and with positive G8 screening test or frailty criteria. This retrospective real-world study included 224 patients treated from 2014 to 2021 in four French centers, including 131 patients with a theoretical indication of GA. Among the latter, 51 (38.9%) patients had GA. The main barriers to GA were the lack of systematic screening (32/80, 40.0%), unavailability of geriatric physician (20/80, 25.0%), and absence of referral despite a positive screening test (12/80, 15.0%). With GA performed in only one-third of the patients with a theoretical indication in daily clinical practice, mostly due to an absence of screening test, the use of GA is currently sub-optimal.

Safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with darolutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, darolutamide was well tolerated for 25 months, but minimal long-term safety data are available. METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for patients receiving darolutamide for a median of 38 months (n = 13) are described in this pooled analysis of individual patient data from phase 1/2 studies. RESULTS: All patients reported TEAEs (mostly grade 1/2). The most common TEAEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Serious TEAEs were reported in six patients (none related to darolutamide). All treatment-related TEAEs (n = 5) were grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated; no new safety signals observed. In patients with mCRPC, long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. These findings are consistent with previous reports, demonstrating a favorable safety and tolerability profile of darolutamide.

Adrenal Metastases Are Associated with Poor Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Glandular metastases (GMs; adrenal gland, pancreas, thyroid, ovary, breast, or prostate) are rare in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Previous studies have indicated that GM patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy experience significantly longer overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes for mccRCC with or without GMs treated with nivolumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN phase 2 trial evaluated the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with mccRCC who experienced failure of antiangiogenic therapies (NCT03013335). In this ancillary study, patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of at least one GM. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression models are used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for survival outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with pancreatic metastases and patients with adrenal metastases. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab between February 2016 and July 2017, 217 had GMs, of whom 151/217 had adrenal metastases and 86/217 had pancreatic metastasis. Patients with adrenal metastases had worse 12-mo OS (64% vs 71.1%) and 6-mo PFS (27.2% vs 36.6%) and a lower objective response rate (12.5%, 95% CI 7.6%-19.0%, vs 23.2%, 95% CI 19.8-27.0%; p = 0.005) than patients without adrenal metastases. Conversely, univariate analysis showed that patients with pancreatic metastases had significantly better 12-mo OS (82.3% vs 67.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.85) in comparison to patients with nonpancreatic GMs. On multivariable analysis, only adrenal metastasis remained associated with adverse prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenal metastasis is an independent prognostic factor for poor response and survival in the GETUG-AFU-26 NIVOREN trial. Limited activity with nivolumab was observed for patients with mccRCC with adrenal metastases. These results warrant an evaluation of the prognostic value of adrenal metastases in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations with ipilimumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study showed that metastasis in the adrenal glands could be an independent factor associated with poor response to immunotherapy and survival for patients with metastatic kidney cancer. It would be useful to evaluate the prognostic value of adrenal gland metastasis in patients treated with immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy agents combined with drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU26-NIVOREN multicentre phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases (BM) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are associated with a poor prognosis based on retrospective studies evaluating antiangiogenic agents. Few data are available regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with bone metastatic RCC. NIVOREN is a multicentre prospective study in which patients were treated with nivolumab after the failure of antiangiogenic agents. We aim to assess the impact of BM on prognosis, and the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients enrolled in the NIVOREN trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with BM at inclusion were included in our study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and skeletal-related events (SRE). RESULTS: Among 720 patients treated with nivolumab, 194 presented BM at inclusion. The median follow-up was 23.9 months. Median OS was 17.9 months in patients with BM versus 26.1 months in patients without BM (p = 0.0023). The difference was not statistically significant after adjustment (p = 0.0707). The median PFS was shorter in patients with BM even after adjustment (2.8 versus 4.6 months, p = 0.0045), as well as the ORR (14.8% versus 23.3%). SRE occurred for 36% of patients with BM. A post-hoc analysis evaluating the impact of bone-targeting agents (BTA) on SRE incidence showed a significant benefit of BTA on the incidence of SRE (OR = 0.367, CI95% [0.151-0.895]). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is associated with shorter PFS, and lower ORR in RCC patients with BM. Our study suggests that BTA in association with immunotherapy decreases the incidence of SRE.

Very Long-Term Complete Remission Can Be Achieved in Men With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and a Very High PSA Value: An Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not fully established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events. CONCLUSIONS: Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy.

Motesanib, or open-label bevacizumab, in combination with paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has a crucial role in angiogenesis, and is a valid target in metastatic breast cancer. Motesanib is an investigational oral inhibitor of VEGF receptors. We aimed to determine whether treatment with motesanib plus paclitaxel is better than placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Between Dec 1, 2006, and July 4, 2008, patients with untreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (using a randomisation list created by personnel not associated with the study) in a 1:1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks) plus either masked motesanib 125 mg orally once per day (n=91), masked placebo orally once per day (n=94), or open-label bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle (n=97), after stratification according to adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (taxane-containing regimens vs other regimens vs none), number of metastatic sites (<3 vs ≥3), and hormone receptor status (positive vs negative). Placebo was provided as a replica of motesanib 25 mg tablets. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) based on the population as assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00356681. FINDINGS: ORRs for the motesanib group and the placebo group did not differ significantly (49%vs 41%; absolute difference 8% [95% CI -6 to 22]; p=0.31). The ORR in the bevacizumab group (52%) was similar to that in the motesanib group. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events included diarrhoea (18 of 92 patients in the motesanib group, none of 89 patients in the placebo group, and four of 96 patients in the bevacizumab group), fatigue (11, eight, and six), hypertension (11, one, and seven), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (ten, seven, and 19). More patients in the motesanib group had serious adverse events than did those in the placebo or bevacizumab groups (34, 26, and 21 patients, respectively); the most common of these in the motesanib group were gastrointestinal in nature. INTERPRETATION: Data from this trial do not support the further investigation of motesanib at this dose and schedule in this population. FUNDING: Amgen.

TAXOMET: A French Prospective Multicentric Randomized Phase II Study of Docetaxel Plus Metformin Versus Docetaxel Plus Placebo in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (DOCE) is a standard of care in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Several retrospective studies suggested a decrease in Prostate Cancer incidence and mortality with metformin (MET). MET has also demonstrated anti-tumor activity in Prostate Cancer preclinical models, with increased apoptosis when added to DOCE. We aimed at exploring the role of MET in combination with DOCE in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Non-diabetic mCRPC patients were randomly assigned to receive DOCE 75 mg/m2 every 21 days + prednisone (5 mg. BID) with either MET 850 mg BID (D+M) or placebo (D+P) up to 10 cycles. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) response ≥50% from baseline was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Out of 99 patients were randomized (D+M = 50; D+P = 49) in 10 French centers. The median follow-up was 86 (IQR 73-88) months. The PSA-response rate reached 66% in the D+M arm, but was not different from that observed in the D+P arm (63%, P = 0,94). In the D+M and D+P arms, the ORR was 28% and 24%, the median PFS was 7.8 and 6.0 months and the median OS was 27 and 20 months (ns), respectively. Diarrhea grade I to II was more frequent in the MET arm (66% vs. 43%). No impairment of QoL was observed. CONCLUSION: MET addition failed to improve the standard DOCE regimen in mCRPC. Further research targeting tumor cell metabolism should be performed.

Quality of advanced ovarian cancer surgery: A French assessment of ESGO quality indicators.

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO) published indicators defining the quality of surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the study was to assess the quality of ovarian cancer patient management in regional centers authorized for gynecological cancer, based on the ESGO list of quality indicators. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1 to June 30, 2016. The following quality indicators 1 "rate of complete surgical resection", 4 "center participating in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology", 5 "treatment planned and reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting", 6 "required preoperative workup", 8 "minimum required elements in operative reports" and 9 "minimum required elements in pathology reports" were selected. RESULTS: 91 patients were evaluated in 16 centers. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 25% of cases. Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 24%. An evaluation score of peritoneal involvement was included in 40% of the operative reports and the quality of surgical resection was reported in 72%. Primary surgery was most often performed in a peripheral hospital (48%), interval surgery in a private center (37%), and closure surgery in a regional cancer center (43%). No institution respected the six quality indicators evaluated. One regional cancer center respected five items and two private centers did not respect any. CONCLUSION: Whilst the ESGO quality indicators provide objective, validated and evaluable support which centers can use to improve quality of care, we observed heterogeneous practices amongst the centers evaluated.

Cabazitaxel activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with and without DNA damage repair defects.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel was shown to improve overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after abiraterone/enzalutamine and docetaxel failure, though benefit by the presence of DNA damage repair (DDR) defects is unknown. With the advent of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in partially overlapping indications with cabazitaxel, we aimed to determine cabazitaxel activity in men with mCRPC according to their DDR status. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study that enrolled patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel who had undergone DDR tumour tissue profiling. Patients with at least one deleterious germline or somatic alterations were considered DDR positive (DDR+). Each DDR + patient has been matched with a DDR negative (DDR-) from the same institution who underwent the same test. An exploratory cohort of patients found to be DDR + by liquid biopsy was also included. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) decline≥50% (PSA50), PSA progression-free survival (PFS, PSA-PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), clinical PFS or radiographic PFS (c/rPFS) and OS were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 190 men (95 DDR+, 95 DDR-) with tissue sequencing, PSA50 was achieved with cabazitaxel in 29/92 (32%) and 33/92 (36%) in patients with DDR+ and DDR- (P = 0.64). The median rPFS was 5.33 months [95%CI 4.34-7.04] versus 5.75 months [95%CI 4.67-7.27] (P = 0.55). The median OS was 15.4 months [95%CI 12.16-26.6] and 11.5 months [95%CI 9.76-14.4] (P = 0.036), respectively. No PSA50 responses on cabazitaxel were observed in BRCA1/2 patients previously treated with PARPi (n = 10). Similar outcomes with cabazitaxel were observed in the liquid biopsy cohort (n = 63 DDR+). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that cabazitaxel is active in patients with mCRPC regardless of their DDR status, although its activity in men pretreated with a PARPi may be lower.

Association of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and ifosfamide in early recurrent ovarian cancer patients: a multicenter phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and continuous infusion ifosfamide (IFO) in ovarian cancer patients who relapse within 1 year after first-line paclitaxel-platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were stratified according to treatment-free interval (TFI) (or=6 months). PLD (40 mg/m(2), day 1), IFO (1700 mg/m(2), infusion days 1-3), and mesna were given every 28 days for 6-9 cycles. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were response duration, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. RESULTS: There were 98 evaluable patients (58%, TFI<6 months). Median number of cycles was 5 (range: 1-9). The frequency of grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia was 7%, 3%, and 48%, respectively; febrile neutropenia was 3%. A low rate of grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities was reported, including nausea/vomiting (3/4%), hand-foot syndrome (2%), and mucositis (2%). The ORR was 28% (41% and 19% in patients with TFI >or=6, or <6 months, respectively); rate of disease stabilization was 26%; response duration and median OS were 6 (2.4-26) and 14 (1-46) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of PLD and continuous IFO is a feasible and efficient treatment in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, especially with TFI between 6 and 12 months. This regimen may represent an alternative to platinum reintroduction and should be evaluated in a randomized trial.

Docetaxel reintroduction in patients with metastatic castration-resistant docetaxel-sensitive prostate cancer: a retrospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential benefit of reintroducing docetaxel chemotherapy in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had initially responded to first-line docetaxel-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records were evaluated retrospectively from French patients with mCRPC who had been included in seven controlled clinical studies of docetaxel as first-line treatment. We identified patients who were confirmed as responders to first-line treatment, discontinued for reasons other than disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and who received further docetaxel chemotherapy for disease progression. The primary objective was to assess efficacy in terms of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response after resuming a docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were overall survival and tolerance. RESULTS: Of the 148 patients who responded to first-line docetaxel, 50 received further therapy with docetaxel and were analysed. The median (range) response duration to first-line docetaxel was 10.3 (4.6-45.7) months and the median docetaxel-free interval was 18.4 (5.0-46.7) months. Docetaxel was reintroduced as second-line therapy in 52% of patients and as further lines in 48%. After docetaxel reintroduction, 24 patients (48%) had a 50% decrease in PSA level (95% confidence interval, CI, 34.1-61.8%). The median (95% CI) overall survival from docetaxel reintroduction was 16 (13-20) months. Re-treatment was well tolerated (6% of grade 3-4 haemotoxicity). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel reintroduction appears to be effective, with favourable tolerance profiles, in patients with mCRPC having responded to first-line docetaxel, and should be prospectively assessed in clinical trials against alternative therapies or investigational agents given alone or in combination, to define further management.

Clinical progression is associated with poor prognosis whatever the treatment line in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: The CATS international database.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Our goal was to evaluate the impact of progression type (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] only, radiological or clinical) at initiation of first-, second- and third life-extending therapy (LET) on treatment outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, by performing a post-hoc analysis using data from the CATS international registry. METHODS: The 669 consecutive mCRPC patients of the CATS registry were classified according to their type of progression at initiation of each LET: PSA only (PSA-p), radiological (±PSA) (Radio-p); or clinical (±PSA, ±radiological) progression (Clin-p). Overall survival (OS), the primary endpoint, was calculated from initiation of the first-, second- and third-LET to death for each sequence. RESULTS: Median OS was shorter in the Clin-p group compared with the PSA-p group (14-month difference in first line; around 7-month difference in second- and third line). Shorter progression-free survival (PFS) was also observed in Clin-p patients, whatever the treatment is. Clinical progression seemed to be associated with a shorter duration of therapy with androgen receptor-targeted therapy (ART) compared with taxanes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical progression at initiation of a LET is associated with poor outcomes including shorter PFS and OS as well as clinical and biological features of aggressive disease. Stratifying patients in clinical trials according to disease progression type may prevent selection bias and data heterogeneity. In daily practice, first signs of clinical progression may prompt physicians to consider starting a new LET, independently of PSA levels.

Phase III Trial of PROSTVAC in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: PROSTVAC, a viral vector-based immunotherapy, prolonged median overall survival (OS) by 8.5 months versus placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a phase II study. This phase III study further investigated those findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to PROSTVAC (Arm V; n = 432), PROSTVAC plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Arm VG; n = 432), or placebo (Arm P; n = 433), stratified by prostate-specific antigen (less than 50 ng/mL v 50 ng/mL or more) and lactate dehydrogenase (less than 200 v 200 U/L or more). Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were patients alive without events (AWE)-namely, radiographic progression, pain progression, chemotherapy initiation, or death-at 6 months and safety. The study design was a superiority trial of PROSTVAC (Arm V or Arm VG) versus Arm P. Three interim analyses were planned. RESULTS: At the third interim analysis, criteria for futility were met and the trial was stopped early. Neither active treatment had an effect on median OS (Arm V, 34.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20; P = .47; Arm VG, 33.2 months; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.22; P = .59; Arm P, 34.3 months). Likewise, AWE at 6 months was similar (Arm V, 29.4%; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.29; Arm VG, 28.0%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.20; placebo, 30.3%). Adverse events were similar for the treatment and placebo groups, with the most common being injection site reactions (62% to 72%) and fatigue (21% to 24%). Arrhythmias were the most common cardiac-related events (1.4% to 3.5%). There were no reports of either myocarditis or pericarditis. Serious treatment-related events occurred in less than 1% of all patients. CONCLUSION: Whereas PROSTVAC was safe and well tolerated, it had no effect on OS or AWE in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Combination therapy is currently being explored in clinical trials.

Safety and Efficacy of Nivolumab in Brain Metastases From Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of the GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN Multicenter Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab is standard of care for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) after failure of antiangiogenic therapies, but its activity on brain metastases from ccRCC remains unknown, because these patients were excluded from pivotal studies. We aimed to assess the activity of nivolumab in this population. METHODS: The GETUG-AFU 26 NIVOREN phase II trial assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with metastatic ccRCC who failed vascular endothelial growth factor-directed therapies (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013335). Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases were prospectively identified and underwent dedicated brain evaluation. Two cohorts were constituted: cohort A comprised patients with previously untreated brain metastases, and cohort B comprised patients whose brain metastases underwent prior therapy. The primary end point was intracranial response rate in cohort A. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with brain metastases were included: 39 in cohort A and 34 in cohort B. Intracranial response rate was 12% in cohort A; no objective response was reported in patients with brain lesions that were multiple or larger than 1 cm. Median intracranial progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 4.6 months) in cohort A and 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 8.0 months) in cohort B, with adjusted hazard ratio of 2.04 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.83). Overall survival rate at 12 months was 67% (95% CI, 49.6% to 79.1%) in cohort A and 59% (95% CI, 40.6% to 73.2%) in cohort B. Most patients in cohort A (72%) needed subsequent focal brain therapy. Nivolumab was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicity. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab activity is limited in patients with untreated brain metastases from ccRCC. Brain imaging and focal therapy should be considered before immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic ccRCC.

EPIGIST: An observational real-life study on patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors receiving imatinib.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare, but represent the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. EPIdemiology GIST, is an observational multicenter longitudinal follow-up cohort study reporting the prescribing patterns of imatinib in patients with GIST and the impact of the treatment in a real-world (standard clinical) setting. METHODS: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of unresectable or metastatic KIT-positive GIST and started treatment with imatinib for the first time between May 24, 2002, and June 30, 2010. During routine visits, annual collection of clinical characteristics was requested, i.e., age, GIST stage at diagnosis, history, imatinib treatment duration and dosage, adherence, and concomitant medications. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Other data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 151 patients enrolled, imatinib was initiated for 126 patients before enrollment and for 25 patients on the day of enrollment or soon after. The patient characteristics were similar to those in published prospective trials. The estimated 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year overall survival rates were 90.4% (95% confidence interval [CI; 84.8%-94.0%]), 84.7% (95% CI [78.1%-89.4%]), 73.0% (95% CI [65.0%-79.4%]), and 60.7% (95% CI [51.4%-68.8%]), respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (39%), asthenia (39%), eyelid or periorbital edema (32%), abdominal pain (23%), and anemia (21%). Eight of 126 serious AEs were possibly related to the treatment as assessed by investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Study results showed that patients in real-life populations are generally treated in accordance with national and international clinical recommendations and have outcomes comparable to those of patients in clinical trials.