TROP-2, NECTIN-4 and predictive biomarkers in sarcomatoid and rhabdoid bladder urothelial carcinoma.

Introduction: The surface protein TROP-2/TACSTD2 and the cell adhesion protein NECTIN-4/NECTIN4 are responsible for the efficacy of anticancer therapies based on antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) targeting intracellular microtubules. In contrast with common histologic subtypes of bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC), little is known of TROP-2 and NECTIN-4 expression in sarcomatoid and rhabdoid BUC. Aims: In this study, we aimed to analyze TROP-2 and NECTIN-4 expression and additional predictive biomarkers by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on 35 undifferentiated BUC (28 sarcomatoid and 7 rhabdoid). Wide genomic investigation was also performed on 411 BUC cases of the PanCancer Atlas, focusing on genes related to the microtubule pathways. Results: Seven of 35 (20%) undifferentiated BUC showed expression of TROP-2. NECTIN-4 was expressed in 10 cases (29%). Seven cases (20%) co-expressed TROP-2 and NECTIN-4. HER-2 FISH was amplified in 5 cases (14%) while HER-2 immunoexpression was observed in 14 cases (40%). PD-L1 scored positive for combined proportion score (CPS) in 66% of cases and for tumor proportion score (TPS) in 51% of cases. Pan-NTRK1-2/3 was elevated in 9 cases (26%) and FGFR-2/3 was broken in 7 of 35 cases (20%). Of 28 sarcomatoid BUC, 9 (32%) were negative for all (TROP-2, NECTIN-4, PD-L1, HER-2, FGFR and pan-NTRK) biomarkers and 3 (11%) expressed all five biomarkers. Among cases with rhabdoid dedifferentiation, 1 of 7 (14%) showed activation of all biomarkers, whereas 2 of 7 (28%) showed none. The mRNA analysis identified microtubule-related genes and pathways suitable for combined ADC treatments in BUC. Conclusion: Sarcomatoid and rhabdoid BUC do harbor positive expression of the ADC targets TROP-2 or NECTIN-4 in a relatively modest subset of cases, whereas the majority do not. Different combinations of other positive biomarkers may help the choice of medical therapies. Overall, these findings have important clinical implications for targeted therapy for BUC.

Perspectives in Immunotherapy: meeting report from Immunotherapy Bridge (Naples, November 30th-December 1st, 2022).

The discovery and development of novel treatments that harness the patient's immune system and prevent immune escape has dramatically improved outcomes for patients across cancer types. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy, acquired resistance remains a challenge, and responses are poor in certain tumors which are considered to be immunologically cold. This has led to the need for new immunotherapy-based approaches, including adoptive cell transfer (ACT), therapeutic vaccines, and novel immune checkpoint inhibitors. These new approaches are focused on patients with an inadequate response to current treatments, with emerging evidence of improved responses in various cancers with new immunotherapy agents, often in combinations with existing agents. The use of cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy were the focus of the Immunotherapy Bridge (November 30th-December 1st, 2022), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy, in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

Continuous enzalutamide after progression of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel (PRESIDE): an international, randomised, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: Although androgen deprivation therapy is typically given long-term for men with metastatic prostate cancer, second-generation hormone therapies are generally discontinued before the subsequent line of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of continuing enzalutamide after progression in controlling metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel and prednisolone. METHODS: PRESIDE was a two-period, multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study done at 123 sites in Europe (in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK). Patients were eligible for period 1 (P1) of the study if they had histologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation or small-cell features, serum testosterone concentrations of 1·73 nmol/L or less, and had progressed during androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist or after bilateral orchiectomy. In P1, patients received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg per day orally. At week 13, patients were assessed for either radiographic or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (25% or more increase and 2 ng/mL or more above nadir). Patients who showed any decline in PSA at week 13 and subsequently progressed (radiographic progression, PSA progression, or both) were screened and enrolled in period 2 (P2), during which eligible patients were treated with up to ten cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and oral prednisolone 10 mg/day, and randomly assigned (1:1) to oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or oral placebo. Patients were stratified by type of disease progression. The block size was four and the overall number of blocks was 400. Patients, investigators, and study organisers were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients in P2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02288247, and is no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Feb 15, 2016, 816 patients were screened for P1 of the study. 688 patients were enrolled in P1 and 687 received open-label enzalutamide. In P2, 271 patients were randomly assigned at 73 sites to receive enzalutamide (n=136) or placebo (n=135). The data cutoff for analysis was April 30, 2020. Median progression-free survival with enzalutamide was 9·5 months (95% CI 8·3-10·9) versus 8·3 months (6·3-8·7) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·53-0·96]; p=0·027). The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (17 [13%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 12 [9%] of 135 patients in the placebo group) and asthenia (ten [7%] vs six [4%]). The most common grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in P2 was neutropenia (23 [17%] of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 28 [21%] of 135 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 67 (49%) of 136 patients in the enzalutamide group and 52 (39%) of 135 patients in the placebo group. Two (15%) of 13 deaths in the enzalutamide group (caused by septic shock and haematuria) and one (14%) of seven deaths in the placebo group (caused by actue kidney injury) were associated with docetaxel. INTERPRETATION: PRESIDE met its primary endpoint and showed that continuing enzalutamide with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy delayed time to progression compared with docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy alone, supporting the hypothesis that enzalutamide maintenance could control persistent androgen-dependent clones in men with mCRPC who progress after treatment with enzalutamide alone. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma and Pfizer.

Ipatasertib plus abiraterone and prednisolone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (IPATential150): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Clinical outcomes of NSCLC patients experiencing early immune-related adverse events to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors leading to treatment discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of early immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) upon immunotherapy is not fully understood. METHODS: The Leading to Treatment Discontinuation cohort included 24 patients experiencing severe irAEs after one of two administrations of single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting for metastatic NSCLC between November 2015 and June 2019. The control cohort was composed of 526 patients treated with single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting with no severe irAE reported. The primary end points were median progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, risk of progression of disease and risk of death. The correlation of clinic pathological features with early severe irAEs represented the secondary end point. RESULTS: Median PFS was 9.3 and 8.4 months, median OS was 12.0 months and 14.2 months at a median follow-up of 18.1 and 22.6 months in the LTD cohort and in the control cohort, respectively. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 17.2-78.8) in the LTD cohort and 32.7% (95% CI 27.8-38.2) in the control cohort. The risk of disease progression was higher in the LTD cohort (HR 2.52 [95% 1.10-5.78], P = .0288). CONCLUSIONS: We found no survival benefit in LTD cohort compared to the control cohort. However, early and severe irAEs might underly an immune anti-tumor activation. We identified a significant association with first-line immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment and good PS. Further studies on risk prediction and management of serious and early irAEs in NSCLC patients are needed.

The amount of DNA combined with TP53 mutations in liquid biopsy is associated with clinical outcome of renal cancer patients treated with immunotherapy and VEGFR-TKIs.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of treatment options, reliable prognostic/predictive biomarkers are still missing for patients affected by metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). METHODS: Patients with mccRCC undergoing standard first line treatment were enrolled. Blood (12 ml) was drawn at treatment baseline and circulating free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from plasma. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on cfDNA using the Oncomine Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay and clinical outcomes were correlated with liquid biopsy findings. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were enrolled, 12 received immunotherapy and 36 received a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A cfDNA cut-off of 0.883 ng/µl stratified patients based on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). cfDNA amount was also correlated with best response (p = 0.006). Additional cfDNA cut-points divided patients into short, intermediate and long responders, with PFS of 4.87 vs 9.13 vs 23.1 months, respectively (p < 0.001). PFS resulted to be significantly shorter in carriers of mutant TP53 compared to not carriers (p = 0.04). Patients with high cfDNA levels and mutant TP53 have the worst PFS, while patients with low cfDNA amounts and no mutations in TP53 displayed the longest PFS (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that cfDNA and TP53 are potential predictive biomarkers of response in mccRCC to be further explored in larger and/or prospective studies.

Perspectives in Immunotherapy: meeting report from the Immunotherapy Bridge, December 1st-2nd, 2021.

Over the past decade, immunotherapy has become an increasingly fundamental modality in the treatment of cancer. The positive impact of immune checkpoint inhibition, especially anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 blockade, in patients with different cancers has focused attention on the potential for other immunotherapeutic approaches. These include inhibitors of additional immune checkpoints, adoptive cell transfer (ACT), and therapeutic vaccines. Patients with advanced cancers who previously had limited treatment options available may now benefit from immunotherapies that can offer durable responses and improved survival outcomes. However, despite this, a significant proportion of patients fail to respond to immunotherapy, especially those with less immunoresponsive cancer types, and there remains a need for new treatment strategies.The virtual Immunotherapy Bridge (December 1st-2nd, 2021), organized by the Fondazione Melanoma Onlus, Naples, Italy in collaboration with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer addressed several areas of current research in immunotherapy, including lessons learned from cell therapies, drivers of immune response, and trends in immunotherapy across different cancers, and these are summarised here.

Nectin-4 and DNA mismatch repair proteins expression in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) as a model for tumor targeting approaches: an ImGO pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for only about 5-10% of all urothelial cancers and is characterized by an aggressive and frequently rapidly fatal behavior. However, detailed knowledge of its molecular profile is still lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified, by chart analysis, patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy or diagnostic biopsy for UTUC between January 2015 and August 2020 at the Santa Maria Hospital of Terni, in Italy. Eligible patients were required to have also adequate clinical informations and follow-up details. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and Nectin-4 immunohistochemical expression in UTUC, looking also for an eventual correlation between these molecular features. The secondary objective was to investigate genomic instability in the case of a MMR protein loss. Expression of proteins was assessed by using immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability (MSI) performed by next generation sequencing. Nectin-4 expression was reported using an intensity scoring system (score, 0-3+), instead the expression of DNA MMR proteins was indicated as present (no loss) or not present (loss). RESULTS: Thirty four cases have been evaluated and 27 considered eligible for the study with their tumor samples analyzed. Nectin-4 was found to be expressed in 44% of cases and 18.5% of patients showed defective-MMR phenotype. We found a significant correlation between Nectin-4 expression and MSH2/MSH6 protein loss. Out of 7 patients with DNA MMR proteins loss or equivocal phenotype, 3 showed MSI. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study suggest a possible relationship between Nectin-4 and DNA MMR protein expression in UTUC and a clinically significant correlation between defective MMR phenotype and genomic instability. Because of the possible implications of these data for innovative treatment approaches, the need for further studies in this area is warranted.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors during late stages of life: an ad-hoc analysis from a large multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: The favourable safety profile and the increasing confidence with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might have boosted their prescription in frail patients with short life expectancies, who usually are not treated with standard chemotherapy. METHODS: The present analysis aims to describe clinicians' attitudes towards ICIs administration during late stages of life within a multicenter cohort of advanced cancer patients treated with single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors in Italy. RESULTS: Overall, 1149 patients with advanced cancer who received single agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors were screened. The final study population consisted of 567 deceased patients. 166 patients (29.3%) had received ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a significantly higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (28.3% vs 11.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (69.3% vs 59.4%, p = 0.0266). In total, 35 patients (6.2%) started ICIs within 30 days of death; among them there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (45.7% vs 14.5%, p < 0.0001) and with a higher burden of disease (82.9% vs 60.9%, p = 0.0266). Primary tumors were significantly different across subgroups (p = 0.0172), with a higher prevalence of NSCLC patients (80% vs 60.9%) among those who started ICIs within 30 days of death. Lastly, 123 patients (21.7%) started ICIs within 3 months of death. Similarly, within this subgroup there was a higher proportion of patients with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (29.3% vs 12.8%, p < 0.0001), with a higher burden of disease (74.0% vs 59.0%, p = 0.0025) and with NSCLC (74.0% vs 58.8%, p = 0.0236). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed a trend toward an increasing ICIs prescription in frail patients, during the late stages of life. Caution should be exercised when evaluating an ICI treatment for patients with a poor PS and a high burden of disease.

How radical prostatectomy procedures have changed over the last 10 years in Italy: a comparative analysis based on more than 1500 patients participating in the MIRROR-SIU/LUNA and the Pros-IT CNR study.

PURPOSE: Therapeutic strategies for prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolving dramatically worldwide. The current article reports on the evolution of surgical management strategies for PCa in Italy. METHODS: The data from two independent Italian multicenter projects, the MIRROR-SIU/LUNA (started in 2007, holding data of 890 patients) and the Pros-IT-CNR project (started in 2014, with data of 692 patients), were compared. Differences in patients' characteristics were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify characteristics associated with robot-assisted (RA) procedure, nerve sparing (NS) approach, and lymph node dissection (LND). RESULTS: The two cohorts did not differ in terms of age and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at biopsy. Patients enrolled in the Pros-IT-CNR project more frequently were submitted to RA (58.8% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001) and NS prostatectomy (58.4% vs. 52.9%, p = 0.04), but received LND less frequently (47.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.001), as compared to the MIRROR-SIU/LUNA patients. At multivariate logistic models, Lower Gleason Scores (GS) and PSA levels were significantly associated with RA prostatectomy in both cohorts. As for the MIRROR-SIU/LUNA data, clinical T-stage was a predictor for NS (OR = 0.07 for T3, T4) and LND (OR = 2.41 for T2) procedures. As for Pros-IT CNR data, GS ≥ (4 + 3) and positive cancer cores ≥ 50% were decisive factors both for NS (OR 0.29 and 0.30) and LND (OR 7.53 and 2.31) strategies. CONCLUSIONS: PCa management has changed over the last decade in Italian centers: RA and NS procedures without LND have become the methods of choice to treat newly medium-high risk diagnosed PCa.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

Patient-reported outcomes in a phase 2 study comparing atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab vs sunitinib in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the IMmotion150 study. The phase 2 IMmotion150 study showed improved progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)+ tumours and suggested activity of atezolizumab monotherapy in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomised to atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (i.v.) every 3 weeks (n = 103), the atezolizumab regimen plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks (n = 101), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; n = 101). The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) were administered on days 1 and 22 of each 6-week cycle. Time to deterioration (TTD), change from baseline in MDASI core and RCC symptom severity, interference with daily life, and BFI fatigue severity and interference scores were reported for all comers. The TTD was the first ≥2-point score increase over baseline. Absolute effect size ≥0.2 suggested a clinically important difference with checkpoint inhibitor therapy vs sunitinib. RESULTS: Completion rates were >90% at baseline and ≥80% at most visits. Delayed TTD in core and RCC symptoms, symptom interference, fatigue, and fatigue-related interference was observed with atezolizumab (both alone and in combination) vs sunitinib. Improved TTD (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) was more pronounced with atezolizumab monotherapy: core symptoms, 0.39 (0.22-0.71); RCC symptoms, 0.22 (0.12-0.41); and symptom interference, 0.36 (0.22-0.58). Change from baseline by visit, evaluated by the MDASI, also showed a trend favouring atezolizumab monotherapy vs sunitinib. Small sample sizes may have limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. CONCLUSION: PROs suggested that atezolizumab alone or with bevacizumab maintained daily function compared with sunitinib. Notably, symptoms were least severe with atezolizumab alone vs sunitinib (IMmotion150; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984242).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer and Pre-Existing Autoimmune Diseases Treated with Anti-Programmed Death-1 Immunotherapy: A Real-World Transverse Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with advanced cancer, treated with anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) agents, were evaluated according to the presence of pre-existing AIDs. The incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and clinical outcomes were compared among subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 751 patients were enrolled; median age was 69 years. Primary tumors were as follows: non-small cell lung cancer, 492 (65.5%); melanoma, 159 (21.2%); kidney cancer, 94 (12.5%); and others, 6 (0.8%). Male/female ratio was 499/252. Eighty-five patients (11.3%) had pre-existing AIDs, further differentiated in clinically active (17.6%) and inactive (82.4%). Among patients with pre-existing AIDs, incidence of irAEs of any grade was significantly higher when compared with patients without AIDs (65.9% vs. 39.9%). At multivariate analysis, both inactive (p = .0005) and active pre-existing AIDs (p = .0162), female sex (p = .0004), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status <2 (p = .0030) were significantly related to a higher incidence of irAEs of any grade. No significant differences were observed regarding grade 3/4 irAEs and objective response rate among subgroups. Pre-existing AIDs were not significantly related with progression-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study quantifies the increased risk of developing irAEs in patients with pre-existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher when compared with control population. The finding of a greater incidence of irAEs among female patients ranks among the "hot topics" in gender-related differences in immuno-oncology. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with a history of autoimmune diseases (AIDs) have not usually been included in clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors but are frequent in clinical practice. This study quantifies the increased risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with pre-existing AIDs who had to be treated with anti-programmed death-1 immunotherapy. Nevertheless, their toxicities are mild and the incidence of grade 3/4 irAEs is not significantly higher compared with those of controls. These results will help clinicians in everyday practice, improving their ability to offer a proper counselling to patients, in order to offer an immunotherapy treatment even to patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease.

Assessment of Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as switch maintenance versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced HER-2 negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers: the ARMANI phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However response rates to first line chemotherapy range from 30 to 50% and disease progression occurs after 4-6 cycles. The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only about 40% of AGC pts. are eligible for second-line treatment. METHODS: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial. It aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after 3 months of a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen (either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX). The primary endpoint is to compare Progression-Free Survival (PFS) of patients in ARM A (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel) versus ARM B (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of patients that will receive a second line therapy according to arm treatment, safety, quality of life. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues are planned in order to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis. DISCUSSION: The ARMANI study estimates if patients treated with early swich with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel received benefit when compared to those treated with continuation of first line therapy. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant second-line regimen such as ramucirumab plus paclitaxel may prolong the time in which patients are progression-free, and consequently have a better quality of life. Moreover, this strategy may rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for second-line therapy due to the rapid deterioration of health status after the first disease progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARMANI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934464 , October 17, 2016) and EudraCT(2016-001783-12, April 202,016).

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: real-world results from an expanded access programme.

OBJECTIVE: To report the safety and efficacy results of patients enrolled in the Italian Nivolumab Renal Cell Cancer Expanded Access Programme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Patients included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for adverse events (AEs) using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016, of whom 18% were aged ≥75 years, 6.7% had non-clear cell RCC, 49.6% had bone and 8.2% brain metastases, and 79% had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were fatigue (13%) and rash (9%). Twenty-two patients (5.7%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. The objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Similar survival rates were reported among patients with non-clear-cell histology, elderly patients, those with bone and/or brain metastases, and those who had received prior first-line sunitinib or pazopanib, or prior everolimus. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy observed were consistent with those reported in the pivotal Checkmate 025 trial. Results in patients with non-clear-cell mRCC who were elderly, pretreated with everolimus, and had bone and/or brain metastases encourage the use of nivolumab in these categories of patients.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Patient-Reported Outcomes after Radical Prostatectomy: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis from a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (The Pros-IT CNR Study).

BACKGROUND: To report health-related quality of life outcomes as assessed by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). -Methods: This study analyzed patients treated with RP within The PROState cancer monitoring in Italy, from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR). Italian versions of Short-Form Heath Survey and university of California los Angeles-prostate cancer index questionnaires were administered. PROMs were physical composite scores, mental composite scores and urinary, bowel, sexual functions and bothers (UF/B, BF/B, SF/B). Baseline unbalances were controlled with propensity scores and stabilized inverse weights; differences in PROMs between different RP approaches were estimated by mixed models. RESULTS: Of 541 patients treated with RP, 115 (21%) received open RP (ORP), 90 (17%) laparoscopic RP (LRP) and 336 (61%) robot-assisted RP (RARP). At head-to-head -comparisons, RARP showed higher 12-month UF vs. LRP (interaction treatment * time p = 0.03) and 6-month SF vs. ORP (p < 0.001). At 12-month from surgery, 67, 73 and 79% of patients used no pad for urinary loss in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (no differences for each comparison). Conversely, 16, 27 and 40% of patients declared erections firm enough for sexual intercourse in ORP, LRP and RARP respectively (only significant difference for ORP vs. RARP, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Different RP approaches lead to significant variations in urinary and sexual PROMs, with a general trend in favour of RARP. However, their clinical significance seems limited.

Disease-specific and general health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: the Pros-IT CNR study.

BACKGROUND: The National Research Council (CNR) prostate cancer monitoring project in Italy (Pros-IT CNR) is an observational, prospective, ongoing, multicentre study aiming to monitor a sample of Italian males diagnosed as new cases of prostate cancer. The present study aims to present data on the quality of life at time prostate cancer is diagnosed. METHODS: One thousand seven hundred five patients were enrolled. Quality of life is evaluated at the time cancer was diagnosed and at subsequent assessments via the Italian version of the University of California Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). RESULTS: At diagnosis, lower scores on the physical component of the SF-12 were associated to older ages, obesity and the presence of 3+ moderate/severe comorbidities. Lower scores on the mental component were associated to younger ages, the presence of 3+ moderate/severe comorbidities and a T-score higher than one. Urinary and bowel functions according to UCLA-PCI were generally good. Almost 5% of the sample reported using at least one safety pad daily to control urinary loss; less than 3% reported moderate/severe problems attributable to bowel functions, and sexual function was a moderate/severe problem for 26.7%. Diabetes, 3+ moderate/severe comorbidities, T2 or T3-T4 categories and a Gleason score of eight or more were significantly associated with lower sexual function scores at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected by the Pros-IT CNR study have clarified the baseline status of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. A comprehensive assessment of quality of life will allow to objectively evaluate outcomes of different profile of care.

Negative prognostic factors and resulting clinical outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma included in the Italian nivolumab-expanded access program.

AIM: We report the outcomes observed with nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with poor prognostic features enrolled in the Italian expanded access program. PATIENTS & METHODS: Nivolumab was available for patients who relapsed after at least one prior systemic treatment in the advanced or metastatic setting. RESULTS: Of 389 patients, 32 (8%) had brain metastasis, 129 (33%) had liver and 193 (50%) had bone metastasis. These subpopulations achieved a disease control rate of 53, 45 and 47%, respectively. Fifty-one patients had G4 tumor, and they showed 23% objective response rate. The safety profile of the subgroups was in line with the expanded access program population. No new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: Patients with poor prognostic features may derive relevant benefits from nivolumab.