Personalized [177Lu]Lutetium-PSMA Therapy for Patients with Pre-Treated Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Single Institution Experience from a Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

Castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is characterized by an aggressive biological behavior with a relatively short survival time, especially in progressive tumors pretreated with new hormonal agents and taxane chemotherapy. [177Lu]-Lutetium-PSMA (Lu-PSMA) treatment has proven efficacy in these patients. However, around 30% of the CRPC patients do not benefit from Lu-PSMA treatment, and little is known about predictive factors for treatment success if Lu-PSMA is offered in an individualized approach based on clinical and laboratory features. In this monocentric retrospective study, 86 CRPC patients receiving Lu-PSMA treatment were evaluated. The focus of the study was to describe clinical factors at baseline and during early treatment that are related to overall survival (OS). In addition, PSMA PET/CT-, PSA-response, and safety and tolerability (CTCAE adverse event reporting) were assessed. Efficacy endpoints were calculated using stratified Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models. Mean applied dose was 17.7 GBq (mean 5.3 ± 1.1 GBq per cycle) with an average of 3.6 (range 1-8) therapy cycles. Patients were followed up for a mean of 12.4 months (range 1-39). The median OS was 15 months (95% CI 12.8-17.2). The best overall response rate in patients assessed with PSMA PET/CT and PSA response was 27.9%, and 50.0% had at least stable disease. Nine patients had a ≥grade 3 adverse event with anemia being the most frequent adverse event. Positive predictors for prolonged OS from baseline parameters were pre-treatment hemoglobin level of ≥10 g/dL and a lower PSA values at treatment start, while the presence of visceral or liver metastases were not significantly associated with worse prognoses in this cohort. With careful patient selection, an individualized Lu-PSMA treatment approach is feasible and patients with dose-limiting factors or visceral metastases should be included in prospective trials.

Adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Criteria for Inguinal and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Penile Cancer Patients-A Survey Assessment in German-speaking Countries on Behalf of the European Prospective Penile Cancer Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Urologists' adherence to European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations to perform inguinal (ILND) and pelvic (PLND) lymph node dissection in penile cancer (PC) patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess a German-speaking European cohort of urologists based on their criteria to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 14-item survey addressing general issues of PC treatment was developed and sent to 45 clinical centers in Germany (n = 34), Austria (n = 8), Switzerland (n = 2), and Italy (n = 1). INTERVENTION: Two of the 14 questions assessed the criteria to perform ILND and ipsilateral PLND. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Correct responses for ILND and PLND criteria were assessed. Based on a multivariate logistic-regression-model, criteria independently predicting guideline adherence were identified. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 557 urologists participated in the survey, of whom 43.5%, 19.3%, and 37.2% were residents in training, certified, and in leading positions, respectively. ILND and PLND criteria were correctly identified by 35.2% and 23.9%, respectively. Of the participants, 23.3% used external sources for survey completion. The use of auxiliary tools (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; p[bootstrapped] = 0.028) and participants outside of Germany (OR 0.56; p[bootstrapped] = 0.006) were predictors of ILND guideline adherence. The number of PC patients treated yearly (p = 0.012; OR 1.06) and the use of auxiliary tools (p < 0.001; OR 5.88) were predictors of PLND adherence. Department size, healthcare status, professional status, and responsibility for PC surgery did not predict endpoints. Limitations include sample size and results in comparison with retrospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate overall suboptimal knowledge of the correct indications to perform ILND and PLND in PC patients among the surveyed urologists. We propose that governments and healthcare providers should be encouraged to centralize PC management. PATIENT SUMMARY: The management of inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes is crucial for the survival of penile cancer patients. Disease rarity mandates referral to clinical practice guidelines for appropriate treatment selection.

Cytotoxic T-cell-related gene expression signature predicts improved survival in muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer patients after radical cystectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the immune status of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has previously shown to be prognostically relevant after treatment with curative intent. We conducted this study to develop a clinically applicable immune gene expression assay to predict prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapy benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gene expression of CD3Z, CD8A and CXCL9, immune cell (IC) populations including stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), T-cells, natural killer cells (NK-cells), macrophages, Programmed cell death protein 1 positive (PD-1) IC and tumor subtypes (MD Anderson Cancer Center/MDACC-approach) were assessed in 187 MIBC patients (Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN/CCC-EMN-cohort). A gene expression signature was derived by hierarchical-clustering and validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-cohort. IC populations in the TCGA cohort were assessed via CIBERSORT. Benefit of platinum-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was assessed in a pooled cohort of 125 patients. Outcome measurements were disease specific survival, disease-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The gene expression signature of CXCL9, CD3Z and CD8A correlates with quantitative amounts of specific IC populations and sTILs (CCC-EMN: ρ-range: 0.44-0.74; TCGA: ρ-range: 0.56-0.82) and allows stratification of three different inflammation levels (inflamed high, inflamed low, uninflamed). Highly inflamed tumors are preferentially basal subtype and show favorable 5-year survival rates of 67.3% (HR=0.27; CCC-EMN) and 55% (HR=0.41; TCGA). Uninflamed tumors are predominantly luminal subtypes and show low 5-year survival rates of 28% (CCC-EMN) and 36% (TCGA). Inflamed tumors exhibit higher levels of PD-1 and Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1). Patients undergoing adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy with 'inflamed high' tumors showed a favorable 5-year survival rate of 64% (HR=0.27; merged CCC-EMN and TCGA cohort). CONCLUSION: The gene expression signature of CD3Z, CD8A and CXCL9 can assess the immune status of MIBC and stratify the survival of MIBC patients undergoing surgery and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, the assay can identify patients with immunological hot tumors with particular high expression of PD-L1 potentially suitable for immunotherapy.

SWITCH II: Phase III randomized, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-pazopanib versus pazopanib-sorafenib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AUO AN 33/11).

PURPOSE: This trial compared the sequential therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (So) followed by pazopanib (Pa) or vice versa in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized phase 3 study assessed the sequential use of So-Pa versus Pa-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized to So 2 × 400 mg/day followed by Pa 1 × 800 mg/day in case of progression or intolerable toxicity or vice versa. Primary endpoint was total PFS (tPFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, or death during second-line therapy. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), first-line PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 377 pts were randomized (So-Pa, n = 189; Pa-So, n = 188). Recruitment of a total 544 pts was calculated, but actual accrual rate turned out to be lower than expected. The primary endpoint median tPFS was 8.6 mo (95% CI 7.7-10.2) for So-Pa and 12.9 mo (95% CI 10.8-15.2) for Pa-So with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.68), which exceeded a predefined HR <1.225 as a one-sided 95% confidence interval. Non-inferiority of So-Pa regarding tPFS was not met. Secondary endpoints displayed marked statistical differences in favor of Pa-So in first-line PFS and DCR but not for OS and 2nd-line PFS. Side effect profiles were consistent with known toxicities of the respective multikinase-inhibitor including diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint tPFS could not be demonstrated for So-Pa. The results for first-line PFS and DCR favored the Pa-So sequence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01613846, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Pre-treatment global quality of health predicts progression free survival in metastatic kidney cancer patients treated with sorafenib or sunitinib.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to prospectively evaluate self-reported quality-of-life (QoL) during second-line therapy in 51 consecutive patients with cytokine-refractory kidney cancer treated with sorafenib or sunitinib. METHODS: QoL was assessed by the EORTC QoL questionnaire QLQ-C30 at baseline and at weeks 4, 6, 10, 12 and 16. RESULTS: Global QoL deteriorated significantly during the first 4 weeks of treatment (P < 0.0001). Patients experienced a reduction of their role, cognitive, and social function (all P < 0.0001). In addition, fatigue (P < 0.0001), nausea/vomiting (P = 0.003), and pain (P < 0.0001) as well as dyspnoea (P < 0.0001), insomnia (P = 0.026), appetite loss (P = 0.013), and diarrhoea (P < 0.0001) increased significantly. After 16 weeks, fatigue (P < 0.0001), pain (P = 0.015), appetite loss (P = 0.002) and diarrhoea (P = 0.038) were still influenced by the therapy, while all functional scales recovered. Global QoL at baseline was predictive of overall response (P = 0.006) and progression free survival (PFS) (P < 0.0001). A better physical function at baseline, a better ECOG performance status, and a low risk profile according to MSKCC risk groups correlated with a longer PFS (all P < 0.0001). No significant differences regarding QoL were found between sorafenib and sunitinib during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Second-line therapy with sorafenib or sunitinib does not adversely affect patients global QoL after 16 weeks of treatment. Evaluation of baseline QoL can help to further stratify patients into risk groups predicting overall response and PFS.