A Phase II Study of Rucaparib Monotherapy in Nonmetastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Demonstrating "BRCAness" Genotype (ROAR).

BACKGROUND: Both germline and somatic BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) mutations are poor prognostic markers in men with localized or metastatic prostate cancer. For instance, men with these mutations often are diagnosed with prostate cancer earlier and develop metastatic disease earlier compared with those who do not harbor similar mutations. Patients with germline alterations typically have more advanced disease and shorter overall survival (Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(14):1748-1757. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.43.1882). The risk of disease progression to metastatic disease is significant in patients with this genotype of prostate cancer. The percentage of patients free from metastatic disease was 90%, 72%, and 50%, respectively, compared with 97%, 94%, and 84% at 3, 5, and 10 years for patients with intact DNA repair (P < .001) (Castro E, Goh C, Leongamornlert D, et al. Effect of BRCA mutations on metastatic relapse and cause-specific survival after radical treatment for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.022). DNA damage repair non-BRCA mutations include alterations in genes such as ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, and RAD51. While less common than BRCA mutations, they have emerged as significant prognostic markers in prostate cancer. These BRCAness mutations are associated with a higher risk of aggressive disease and poorer survival outcomes. Given the debilitating physical and psychological side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in relatively younger men with prostate cancer, delaying ADT in these men may be an attractive strategy. Given the proven efficacy of polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the castration-resistant prostate cancersetting, PARP inhibitor monotherapy in a nonmetastatic castration-sensitive (nmCSPC) setting has the potential to delay metastasis and delay the onset of ADT related symptoms. METHODS: This is a single-arm, single-center, open-label, phase II trial to assess the efficacy of rucaparib in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent (BCR) nmHSPC, which was defined as PSA doubling time of <9 months, demonstrating a "BRCAness" genotype (BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair mutations). A total of 15 patients were intended to be enrolled, with an expected enrollment duration of 12 months. Patients were given rucaparib 600 mg orally twice daily and were allowed to remain on study treatment until PSA progression defined by Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, with 2 years of follow-up after study treatment. We anticipated a total of 2-3 years until completion of the clinical trial. The primary endpoint was to assess the PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). The secondary endpoints of the study were safety, the proportion of patients with a PSA 50% response (PSA 50), and an undetectable PSA. A 4-week treatment duration comprised one cycle. RESULTS: The study started enrolling in June 2019 and was prematurely terminated in June 2022 after the accrual of 7 patients because of changing standard of care treatments with the introduction of next-generation scans, eg, prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). Seven patients were enrolled in the study with the following pathogenic alterations: ATM (n = 3), BRCA2 (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 1), BRIP1 (n = 1), and RAD51 (n = 1). The median duration of follow-up was 18 months. A median of 20 cycles (range 4-42) was completed, median PSA-PFS was 35.37 months (95% CI, 0-85.11 months). In total, 2 patients achieved PSA50; both also achieved nadir PSA as undetectable. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were anemia and rash (in 1 patient each). No dose-limiting toxicities or severe AEs were seen. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib demonstrated acceptable toxicity and efficacy signal as an ADT-sparing approach in patients with biochemically recurrent nonmetastatic prostate cancer. It is currently challenging to understand the optimal value of systemic therapy in this disease setting due to the rapidly changing standard of care. Additionally, there are relatively few patients with BRCAness who present with nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03533946).

Creatine supplementation and resistance training to preserve muscle mass and attenuate cancer progression (CREATINE-52): a protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Muscle mass is important for metastatic prostate cancer survival and quality of life (QoL). The backbone of treatment for men with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with an androgen signaling inhibitor. ADT is an effective cancer treatment, but it facilitates significant declines in muscle mass and adverse health outcomes important to mCSPC survivors, such as fatigue, and reductions in physical function, independence, insulin sensitivity, and QoL. In non-metastatic CSPC survivors, resistance training (RT) preserves muscle mass and improves these related health outcomes, but the biggest barrier to RT in CSPC survivors of all stages is fatigue. Creatine monohydrate supplementation coupled with RT (Cr + RT) may address this barrier since creatine plays a critical role in energy metabolism. Cr + RT in cancer-free older adults and other clinical populations improves muscle mass and related health outcomes. Evidence also suggests that creatine supplementation can complement cancer treatment. Thus, Cr + RT is a strategy that addresses gaps in survivorship needs of people with mCSPC. The purpose of this parallel, double-blind randomized controlled trial is to test the effects of 52-weeks of Cr + RT compared with placebo (PLA) and RT (PLA + RT) on muscle mass, other related health outcomes, and markers of cancer progression. METHODS: We will carry out this trial with our team's established, effective, home-based, telehealth RT program in 200 mCSPC survivors receiving ADT, and evaluate outcomes at baseline, 24-, and 52-weeks. RT will occur twice weekly with elastic resistance bands, and an established creatine supplementation protocol will be used for supplementation delivery. Our approach addresses a major facilitator to RT in mCSPC survivors, a home-based RT program, while utilizing a supervised model for safety. DISCUSSION: Findings will improve delivery of comprehensive survivorship care by providing a multicomponent, patient-centered lifestyle strategy to preserve muscle mass, improve health outcomes, and complement cancer treatment (NCT06112990).

A plain language summary of the TROPHY-U-01 study: sacituzumab govitecan use in people with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment being studied for people with a type of bladder cancer, called urothelial cancer, that has progressed to a locally advanced or metastatic stage. Locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer are usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Metastatic urothelial cancer is also treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are few treatment options for people whose cancer gets worse after receiving these treatments. Sacituzumab govitecan is a suitable treatment option for most people with urothelial cancer because it aims to deliver an anti-cancer drug directly to the cancer in an attempt to limit the potential harmful side effects on healthy cells. This is a summary of a clinical study called TROPHY-U-01, focusing on the first group of participants, referred to as Cohort 1. All participants in Cohort 1 received sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: All participants received previous treatments for their metastatic urothelial cancer, including a platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. The tumor in 31 of 113 participants became significantly smaller or could not be seen on scans after sacituzumab govitecan treatment; an effect that lasted for a median of 7.2 months. Half of the participants were still alive 5.4 months after starting treatment, without their tumor getting bigger or spreading further. Half of them were still alive 10.9 months after starting treatment regardless of tumor size changes. Most participants experienced side effects. These side effects included lower levels of certain types of blood cells, sometimes with a fever, and loose or watery stools (diarrhea). Side effects led 7 of 113 participants to stop taking sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study showed that sacituzumab govitecan had significant anti-cancer activity. Though most participants who received sacituzumab govitecan experienced side effects, these did not usually stop participants from continuing sacituzumab govitecan. Doctors can help control these side effects using treatment guidelines, but these side effects can be serious.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03547973 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (TROPHY-U-1).

Phase I Trial of Combination Therapy With Avelumab and Cabozantinib in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Combination immunotherapy is now considered the standard first-line therapy for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) after multiple clinical trials demonstrated improved overall survival compared with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cabozantinib modulates critical components of the immune system, such as decreasing regulatory T cells and increasing T-effector cell populations, and is approved for the treatment of mRCC. Avelumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to programmed death-ligand 1 protein and inhibits the interaction with PD-1. This phase I trial assessed the safety and clinical activity of avelumab and cabozantinib combination therapy in mccRCC. METHODS: This study was a phase I, 3+3 dose escalation clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the safety and identification of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). There were 3 dose cohorts: cabozantinib 20, 40, and 60 mg/day, each combined with avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks). An additional 3 patients were included in the final dose cohort as a confirmation of the RP2D. No dose modifications were allowed for avelumab, but dose delays were permitted. Both dose reductions and holds were allowed for cabozantinib. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was used to determine ORR, and treatment beyond progression was allowed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with newly diagnosed mccRCC were enrolled from July 2018 until March 2020. Three patients were enrolled in the 20 and 40 mg cohorts each, and 6 were enrolled in the 60 mg cohort. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk categories for these patients were: 4 patients (favorable risk), 6 patients (intermediate risk), and 2 patients (poor risk). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in any cohort. Six patients developed serious adverse events related to study treatment after the DLT window period. Immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) were reported in 11 patients; fatigue and diarrhea were the most common (each with n = 4, 33.3%), followed by maculopapular rash and hand-foot syndrome (each with n = 3, 25%). Dose reductions were required in 5 of 6 patients in the cabozantinib 60 mg cohort after the DLT period. One patient discontinued avelumab due to irAE (nephritis), while none discontinued cabozantinib due to toxicity. The ORR was 50%, with one complete response (CR) and 5 partial responses (PR). The disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease) was noted in 92% of the patients. Radiological PFS survival rate at 6 and 12 months was reported in 67.7% and 33.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with avelumab and cabozantinib is safe and showed preliminary clinical activity in mccRCC. Even though the DLT was not met in any of the 3 cohorts, the recommended RP2D dose for the combination is cabozantinib 40 mg/day due to a high incidence of grade 2 toxicity for cabozantinib 60 mg/day after the DLT period. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03200587).

Avelumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Results from the JAVELIN Renal 100 Phase Ib Trial.

BACKGROUND: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients who received avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in a randomized phase III trial. We report long-term safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC from the JAVELIN Renal 100 phase Ib trial (NCT02493751). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study, patients with untreated aRCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily or with axitinib for 7 days followed by avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and efficacy were assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. RESULTS: Overall, 55 patients were enrolled and treated. Median follow-up was 55.7 months (95% CI, 54.5-58.7). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade or grade ≥3 occurred in 54 (98.2%) and 34 (61.8%) patients, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 60.0% (95% CI, 45.9-73.0), including complete response in 10.9% of patients. Median duration of response was 35.9 months (95% CI, 12.7-52.9); the probability of response was 65.8% (95% CI, 46.7-79.4) at 2 years. Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.3-32.0). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 40.8-not estimable); the 5-year overall survival rate was 57.3% (95% CI, 41.2-70.5). CONCLUSION: Five-year follow-up for combination treatment with avelumab plus axitinib in previously untreated patients with aRCC showed long-term clinical activity with no new safety signals, supporting use of this regimen within its approved indication in clinical practice (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02493751).

Optimal pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: results from a global, multicentre collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of patients achieving a post-treatment pathological stage of

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Older Adult Oncology, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

Infigratinib in upper tract urothelial carcinoma versus urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and its association with comprehensive genomic profiling and/or cell-free DNA results.

BACKGROUND: Infigratinib (BGJ398) is a potent and selective fibroblast grown factor receptor 1 to 3 (FGFR1-3) inhibitor with significant activity in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma bearing FGFR3 alterations. Given the distinct biologic characteristics of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB), the authors examined whether infigratinib had varying activity in these settings. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR3 mutations and/or fusions. Comprehensive genomic profiling was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. Blood was collected for cell-free DNA analysis using a 600-gene panel. Patients received infigratinib at a dose of 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. The overall response rate (ORR; partial response [PR] plus complete response [CR]) and disease control rate (DCR; CR plus PR plus stable disease [SD]) were characterized. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were enrolled; the majority (70.1%) had received ≥2 prior antineoplastic therapies. In 8 patients with UTUC, 1 CR and 3 PRs were observed (ORR, 50%); the remaining patients achieved a best response of SD (DCR, 100%). In patients with UCB, 13 PRs were observed (ORR, 22%), and 22 patients had a best response of SD (DCR, 59.3%). Notable differences in genomic alterations between patients with UTUC and those with UCB included higher frequencies of FGFR3-TACC3 fusions (12.5% vs 6.8%) and FGFR3 R248C mutations (50% vs 11.9%), and a lower frequency of FGFR3 S249C mutations (37.5% vs 59.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the cumulative genomic profile were observed between patients with UTUC and those with UCB in the current FGFR3-restricted experience, underscoring the distinct biology of these diseases. These results support a planned phase 3 adjuvant study predominantly performed in this population.

Urothelial cancer harbours EGFR and HER2 amplifications and exon 20 insertions.

OBJECTIVE: To review the genomic landscape of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) to assess the frequencies of EGFR and ERBB2 (HER2) alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tumour specimens from 3753 patients with advanced UC were assayed with hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling of 180-395 genes. Tumour mutational burden (TMB) was assessed on 0.8 or 1.1 Mb of DNA, and is reported as mutations per megabase. RESULTS: In 3753 cases of UC, EGFR alterations were detected in 4.1% (154) and were most commonly amplifications (64%; 99/154), while exon 20 insertions (EGFRexon20ins ) were the second most common alteration (18%; 27/154). Alterations in ERBB2 were observed in 15% (552/3753) of cases and, similarly, ERBB2 amplification was the most commonly observed alteration (278/552; 50%); ERBB2exon20ins occurred in 3.6% (20/552) of cases. EGFRexon20ins and ERBB2exon20ins occurred in younger patients (median age 62 vs 69 years, P = 2.6E-2 and 60 vs 68 years, P = 7.8E-4), and these cases had significantly lower TMB (median 3.6 vs 7.2, P = 2.7E-4 and 2.5 vs 10, P = 1.2E-7) and less frequent TP53 alterations (3.7% vs 83%, P = 4.3E-14 and 20% vs 68%, P = 9.8E-4) compared to cases with other EGFR or ERBB2 alterations. CONCLUSION: EGFR and ERBB2 alterations occur in 4% and 15% of UC, respectively. EGFRexon20ins and ERBB2exon20ins were present in 0.7% and 0.5% of UC overall and collectively define a small, but distinct, subset of UC with infrequent co-occurrence of other drivers and low TMB. Given recent promising clinical studies of inhibitors with activity against exon 20 insertions in non-small cell lung cancer, consideration should be given to developing a trial inclusive of patients with UC harbouring these alterations.

Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated mocetinostat (a class I/IV histone deacetylase inhibitor) in patients with urothelial carcinoma harboring inactivating mutations or deletions in CREB binding protein [CREBBP] and/or E1A binding protein p300 [EP300] histone acetyltransferase genes in a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study. METHODS: Eligible patients with platinum-treated, advanced/metastatic disease received oral mocetinostat (at a dose of 70 mg 3 times per week [TIW] escalating to 90 mg TIW) in 28-day cycles in a 3-stage study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236195). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: Genomic testing was feasible in 155 of 175 patients (89%). Qualifying tumor mutations were CREBBP (15%), EP300 (8%), and both CREBBP and EP300 (1%). A total of 17 patients were enrolled into stage 1 (the intent-to-treat population); no patients were enrolled in subsequent stages. One partial response was observed (11% [1 of 9 patients; the population that was evaluable for efficacy comprised 9 of the 15 planned patients]); activity was deemed insufficient to progress to stage 2 (null hypothesis: objective response rate of ≤15%). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, most commonly nausea (13 of 17 patients; 77%) and fatigue (12 of 17 patients; 71%). The median duration of treatment was 46 days; treatment interruptions (14 of 17 patients; 82%) and dose reductions (5 of 17 patients; 29%) were common. Mocetinostat exposure was lower than anticipated (dose-normalized maximum serum concentration [Cmax ] after TIW dosing of 0.2 ng/mL/mg). CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the current study represents the first clinical trial using genomic-based selection to identify patients with urothelial cancer who are likely to benefit from selective histone deacetylase inhibition. Mocetinostat was associated with significant toxicities that impacted drug exposure and may have contributed to modest clinical activity in these pretreated patients. The efficacy observed was considered insufficient to warrant further investigation of mocetinostat as a single agent in this setting.

Preliminary results for avelumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (JAVELIN Renal 100): an open-label, dose-finding and dose-expansion, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF pathway inhibitor to treat patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma might increase the clinical benefit of these drugs compared with their use alone. Here, we report preliminary results for the combination of avelumab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody against the programmed cell death protein ligand PD-L1, and axitinib, a VEGF receptor inhibitor approved for second-line treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: The JAVELIN Renal 100 study is an ongoing open-label, multicentre, dose-finding, and dose-expansion, phase 1b study, done in 14 centres in the USA, UK, and Japan. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) and had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced renal-cell carcinoma with clear-cell component, life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, received no previous systemic treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma, and had a resected primary tumour. Patients enrolled into the dose-finding phase received 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by combination therapy with 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks and 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily. Based on the pharmacokinetic data from the dose-finding phase, ten additional patients were enrolled into the dose-expansion phase and assigned to this regimen. The other patients in the dose-expansion phase started taking combination therapy directly. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities in the first 4 weeks (two cycles) of treatment with avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and antitumour activity analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02493751. FINDINGS: Between Oct 30, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, we enrolled six patients into the dose-finding phase and 49 into the dose-expansion phase of the study. One dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 proteinuria due to axitinib was reported among the six patients treated during the dose-finding phase. At the cutoff date (April 13, 2017), six (100%, 95% CI 54-100) of six patients in the dose-finding phase and 26 (53%, 38-68) of 49 patients in the dose-expansion phase had confirmed objective responses (32 [58%, 44-71] of all 55 patients). 32 (58%) of 55 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, the most frequent being hypertension in 16 (29%) patients and increased concentrations of alanine aminotransferase, amylase, and lipase, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome in four (7%) patients each. Six (11%) of 55 patients died before data cutoff, five (9%) due to disease progression and one (2%) due to treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. At the end of the dose-finding phase, the maximum tolerated dose established for the combination was avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and axitinib 5 mg twice daily. INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of the combination avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma seemed to be manageable and consistent with that of each drug alone, and the preliminary data on antitumour activity are encouraging. A phase 3 trial is assessing avelumab and axitinib compared with sunitinib monotherapy. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck.

Characterization of metastatic urothelial carcinoma via comprehensive genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker-guided clinical trials are increasingly common in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), yet patients for whom contemporary tumor tissue is not available are not eligible. Technological advancements in sequencing have made cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) readily available in the clinic. The objective of the current study was to determine whether the genomic profile of mUC detected by NGS of cfDNA is similar to historical tumor tissue NGS studies. A secondary objective was to determine whether the frequency of genomic alterations (GAs) differed between lower tract mUC (mLTUC) and upper tract mUC (mUTUC). METHODS: Patients from 13 academic medical centers in the United States who had a diagnosis of mUC between 2014 and 2017 and for whom cfDNA NGS results were available were included. cfDNA profiling was performed using a commercially available platform (Guardant360) targeting 73 genes. RESULTS: Of 369 patients with mUC, 294 were diagnosed with mLTUC and 75 with mUTUC. A total of 2130 GAs were identified in the overall mUC cohort: 1610 and 520, respectively, in the mLTUC and mUTUC cohorts. In the mLTUC cohort, frequently observed GAs were similar between cfDNA NGS and historical tumor tissue studies, including tumor protein p53 (TP53) (P = 1.000 and .115, respectively), AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) (P = .058 and .058, respectively), phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) (P = .058 and .067, respectively), erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) (P = .565 and .074, respectively), and fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) (P = .164 and .014, respectively). No significant difference was observed with regard to the frequency of GAs between patients with mLTUC and mUTUC. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with mUC for whom no tumor tissue was available, cfDNA NGS was able to identify a similar profile of GAs for biomarker-driven clinical trials compared with tumor tissue. Despite the more aggressive clinical course, cases of mUTUC demonstrated a circulating tumor DNA genomic landscape that was similar to that of mLTUC. Cancer 2018;124:2115-24. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Phase II study of amrubicin (SM-5887), a synthetic 9-aminoanthracycline, as first line treatment in patients with metastatic or unresectable soft tissue sarcoma: durable response in myxoid liposarcoma with TLS-CHOP translocation.

PURPOSE: Amrubicin is a third generation synthetic 9-aminoanthracycline that specifically inhibits topoisomerase II. Amrubicin preferentially concentrates in tumor cells leading to tumor cell death without causing cardiac toxicity. This phase II multicenter study was done to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amrubicin in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 24 eligible patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic or unresectable STS were treated with amrubicin 40 mg/m(2) intravenously daily for three consecutive days in 21 days cycles with growth factor support. Patients continued to receive treatment, as long as it was tolerated, in the absence of significant disease progression. The disease was followed on imaging scans every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was the best overall response rate. RESULTS: The best overall response rate was 13% in 23 evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months, and median overall survival was 26 months. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities of febrile neutropenia and anemia occurred in 21% of treated patients. One patient with metastatic myxoid liposarcoma with TLS-CHOP translocation had a durable response and received 40 cycles of amrubicin. There was no significant cardiac toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Amrubicin has efficacy comparable to doxorubicin in adult STS, is well tolerated and has no significant cardiac toxicity up to a cumulative dose of 4800 mg /m(2). Topoisomerase II inhibition with amrubicin warrants further study as a potential 'targeted therapy' for TLS-CHOP-translocated myxoid liposarcoma. Results from this trial favor the use of amrubicin for the treatment of STS.

Superstition predicts favorable weight change in an open-placebo trial: a prospective study.

Given the difficulty of losing weight via adhering to healthy lifestyle choices, this study sought to understand how a placebo may elicit favorable weight change. Specifically, we examined if superstition may be related to increased responsiveness to an open-placebo. In this pilot study of 25 undergraduate participants, it was hypothesized that individuals with higher levels of superstition may be more responsive to a 3-week open-placebo weight change trial. Participants were given once-daily saltine crackers to use as open-placebos for weight change in their preferred direction (gain or loss). The weight of each participant was measured before and after the 3-week open-placebo period. A Pearson's r correlation showed a significant positive relationship between superstition and placebo responsiveness, determined by weight gain or loss in the preferred direction, r (25) = 0.493, p < 0.05. We hope these preliminary results engender future research on open-placebo uses for weight management.

Pathology focused review of morphologic subtypes and molecular variants of urothelial carcinoma with an emphasis on clinical/treatment relevance.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) has significant morbidity, mortality, and remains the most financially costly carcinoma to manage and treat. This review will cover special morphologic features of UC that may be noted by the pathologist and any subsequent significance in terms of clinical management or treatment considerations as mentioned or recommended in the latest WHO 2022 classification of GU tumors. Many important potentially therapy altering morphologic findings can be consistently identified and reported on routine microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides. Furthermore, there has been a rapid advancement of molecular diagnostics and tailored therapies throughout oncology, and we will briefly highlight some of these as they relate to the management of UC. We will actively attempt to limit the discussion of histologic descriptions or pathologic diagnostic criteria of these entities and focus rather on the recognition of their importance/implication for clinicians who must make clinical management decisions based upon these findings. Finally, the importance of open lines of communication with the pathologists who review clinical specimens as well as their practice and reporting methods cannot be overstated.

Predictors of response to neoadjuvant therapy in urothelial cancer.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NACC) followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Patients who achieve a complete pathological response following NACC have better overall survival than those with residual disease. However, a subset of patients does not derive benefit from NACC while experiencing chemotherapy-related side effects that may delay cystectomy, which can be detrimental. There is a need for predictive and prognostic biomarkers to better stratify patients who will derive benefits from NACC. This review summarizes the currently available literature on various predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Covered predictors include clinical factors, treatment regimens (including chemotherapy and immunotherapy), histological predictors, and molecular predictors such as DNA repair genes, p53, FGFR3, ERBB2, Bcl-2, EMMPRIN, survivin, choline-phosphate cytidylyltransferase-α, epigenetic markers, immunological markers, other molecular predictors and gene expression profiling. Further, we elaborate on the potential role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the correlative biomarkers of response.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes by Age in Metastatic Urinary Tract Cancer: A Retrospective Tertiary Cancer Center Analysis.

Metastatic urinary tract cancer (mUTC) is challenging to treat in older adults due to comorbidities. We compared the clinical courses of younger and older (≥70 years) adults with mUTC receiving first-line (1L) systemic therapy in a tertiary cancer center. Baseline clinical characteristics, treatments received, tolerability, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Among 212 patients (103 older vs. 109 younger), the older patients had lower hemoglobin at baseline (84% vs. 71%, p = 0.03), the majority were cisplatin-ineligible (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.001), received more immunotherapy-based treatments in the 1L (52% vs. 36%, p = 0.01), received fewer subsequent lines of treatment (median 0 vs. 1, p = 0.003), and had lower clinical trial participation (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) compared to the younger patients. When treated with 1L chemotherapy, older patients required more dose adjustments (53.4% vs. 23%, p = 0.001) and received fewer cycles of chemotherapy (median 4 vs. 5, p= 0.01). Older patients had similar OS (11.2 months vs. 14 months, p = 0.06) and similar rates of treatment-related severe toxicity and healthcare visits, independent of the type of systemic treatment received, compared to younger patients. We conclude that select older adults with mUTC can be safely treated with immunotherapy and risk-adjusted regimens of chemotherapy with tangible survival benefits.

Treatment Patterns and Attrition With Lines of Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: The treatment paradigm for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) has undergone substantial transformation due to the introduction of effective, novel therapeutic agents. However, outcomes remain poor, and little is known about current treatment approaches and attrition rates for patients with aUC. Objectives: To delineate evolving treatment patterns and attrition rates in patients with aUC using a US-based patient-level sample. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used patient-level data from the nationwide deidentified electronic health record database Flatiron Health, originating from approximately 280 oncology clinics across the US. Patients included in the analysis received treatment for metastatic or local aUC at a participating site from January 1, 2011, to January 31, 2023. Patients receiving treatment for 2 or more different types of cancer or participating in clinical trials were excluded from the analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequencies and percentages were used to summarize the (1) treatment received in each line (cisplatin-based regimens, carboplatin-based regimens, programmed cell death 1 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-1/PD-L1] inhibitors, single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin, erdafitinib, sacituzumab govitecan, or others) and (2) attrition of patients with each line of therapy, defined as the percentage of patients not progressing to the next line. Results: Of the 12 157 patients within the dataset, 7260 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis (5364 [73.9%] men; median age at the start of first-line treatment, 73 [IQR, 66-80] years). All patients commenced first-line treatment; of these, only 2714 (37.4%) progressed to receive second-line treatment, and 857 (11.8%) advanced to third-line treatment. The primary regimens used as first-line treatment contained carboplatin (2241 [30.9%]), followed by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (2174 [29.9%]). The PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors emerged as the predominant choice in the second- and third-line (1412 of 2714 [52.0%] and 258 of 857 [30.1%], respectively) treatments. From 2019 onward, novel therapeutic agents were increasingly used in second- and third-line treatments, including enfortumab vedotin (219 of 2714 [8.1%] and 159 of 857 [18.6%], respectively), erdafitinib (39 of 2714 [1.4%] and 28 of 857 [3.3%], respectively), and sacituzumab govitecan (14 of 2714 [0.5%] and 34 of 857 [4.0%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that approximately two-thirds of patients with aUC did not receive second-line treatment. Most first-line treatments do not include cisplatin-based regimens and instead incorporate carboplatin- or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based therapies. These data warrant the provision of more effective and tolerable first-line treatments for patients with aUC.

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Combination With Pembrolizumab for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Cancer That Progressed After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: TROPHY-U-01 Cohort 3.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab is standard therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) who progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy; however, only approximately 21% of patients respond. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a trophoblast cell surface antigen-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with US Food and Drug Administration-accelerated approval to treat patients with locally advanced or mUC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). Here, we report the primary analysis of TROPHY-U-01 cohort 3. METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label phase II study. Patients were CPI-naïve and had mUC progression after platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or ≤12 months in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Patients received 10 mg/kg of SG once on days 1 and 8 and 200 mg of pembrolizumab once on day 1 of 21-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per central review. Secondary end points included clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) per central review, and safety. RESULTS: Cohort 3 included 41 patients (median age 67 years; 83% male; 78% visceral metastases [29% liver]). With a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the ORR was 41% (95% CI, 26.3 to 57.9; 20% complete response rate), CBR was 46% (95% CI, 30.7 to 62.6), median DOR was 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to not estimable [NE]), and median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 10.2). The median overall survival was 12.7 months (range, 10.7-NE). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 61% of patients; most common were neutropenia (37%), leukopenia (20%), and diarrhea (20%). CONCLUSION: SG plus pembrolizumab demonstrated a high response rate with an overall manageable toxicity profile in patients with mUC who progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. No new safety signals were detected. These data support further evaluation of SG plus CPI in mUC.

A phase I open-label study of the safety and efficacy of apatinib (rivoceranib) administered to patients with advanced malignancies to improve sensitivity to pembrolizumab in the second- or later-line setting (APPEASE).

OBJECTIVE: APPEASE is a phase I study to assess the safety, dosing, and efficacy of rivoceranib (a selective, small-molecule inhibitor of VEGFR2) in combination with pembrolizumab. We aimed to treat patients with metastatic malignancies who have progressed through at least first-line therapy, with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks, as well as escalating doses of rivoceranib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Five patients were enrolled on the starting dose of rivoceranib 300 mg once daily. There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed in combination with pembrolizumab. The dose of rivoceranib was not escalated due to study closure. We note a treatment related grade 3 adverse event (AE) rate of 40%, predominantly in urothelial cancer patients, with no deaths related to treatment related AEs. The disease control rate was 75% (3 of 4) and the median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. Tumor shrinkage was noted in patients who were previously progressing on pembrolizumab alone. Apatinib 300 mg is safe and demonstrates anti-tumor activity in advanced solid tumors in combination with pembrolizumab. Further dose escalation and efficacy need to be investigated in larger disease-specific patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registration number: NCT03407976. Date of registration: January 17, 2018.