Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).

Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

Treatment of Low-grade Intermediate-risk Nonmuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer With UGN-102 ± Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Compared to Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor Monotherapy: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial (ATLAS).

PURPOSE: Low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer is a chronic illness commonly treated by repetitive transurethral resection of bladder tumor. We compared the efficacy and safety of intravesical chemoablation with UGN-102 (a reverse thermal gel containing mitomycin), with or without subsequent transurethral resection of bladder tumor, to transurethral resection of bladder tumor alone in patients with low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial recruited patients with new or recurrent low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer to receive initial treatment with either UGN-102 once weekly for 6 weeks or transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Patients were followed quarterly by endoscopy, cytology, and for-cause biopsy. The primary end point was disease-free survival. All patients were followed for adverse events. RESULTS: Trial enrollment was halted by the sponsor to pursue an alternative development strategy after 282 of a planned 632 patients were randomized to UGN-102 ± subsequent transurethral resection of bladder tumor (n=142) or transurethral resection of bladder tumor monotherapy (n=140), rendering the trial underpowered to perform hypothesis testing. Patients were predominantly male and ≥65 years of age. Tumor-free complete response 3 months after initial treatment was achieved by 92 patients (65%) who received UGN-102 and 89 patients (64%) treated by transurethral resection of bladder tumor. The estimated probability of disease-free survival 15 months after randomization was 72% for UGN-102 ± transurethral resection of bladder tumor and 50% for transurethral resection of bladder tumor (hazard ratio 0.45). The most common adverse events (incidence ≥10%) in the UGN-102 group were dysuria, micturition urgency, nocturia, and pollakiuria. CONCLUSIONS: Primary, nonsurgical chemoablation with UGN-102 for the management of low-grade intermediate-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer offers a potential therapeutic alternative to immediate transurethral resection of bladder tumor monotherapy and warrants further investigation.

Plain language summary of results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study: avelumab maintenance treatment for advanced urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JAVELIN BLADDER 100 STUDY?: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Docetaxel and prednisone with or without lenalidomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MAINSAIL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options. We investigated the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent with anti-angiogenic properties, in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned chemotherapy-naive patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and prednisone (5 mg twice daily) on days 1-21 and either lenalidomide (25 mg) or placebo once daily on days 1-14 of each 21 day treatment cycle. Permuted block randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, geographic region, and type of disease progression. Clinicians, patients, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988208. FINDINGS: 1059 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned between Nov 11, 2009, and Nov 23, 2011 (533 to the lenalidomide group and 526 to the control group), and 1046 patients received study treatment (525 in the lenalidomide group and 521 in the placebo group). At data cutoff (Jan 13, 2012) after a median follow-up of 8 months (IQR 5-12), 221 patients had died: 129 in the lenalidomide group and 92 in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·8-18·8) in the lenalidomide group and not reached in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·53, 95% CI 1·17-2·00, p=0·0017). The trial was subsequently closed early due to futility. The number of deaths that occurred during treatment or less than 28 days since the last dose were similar in both groups (18 [3%] of 525 patients in the lenalidomide group vs 13 [2%] of 521 patients). 109 (21%) patients in the lenalidomide group and 78 (15%) in the placebo group died more than 28 days from last dose, mainly due to disease progression. At least one grade 3 or higher adverse event was reported in 381 (73%) of 525 patients receiving lenalidomide and 303 (58%) of 521 patients receiving placebo. Grade 3-4 neutropenia (114 [22%] for lenalidomide vs 85 [16%] for placebo), febrile neutropenia (62 [12%] vs 23 [4%]), diarrhoea (37 [7%] vs 12 [2%]), pneumonia (24 [5%] vs five [1%]), dyspnoea (22 [4%] vs nine [2%]), asthenia (27 [5%] vs 17 [3%]), and pulmonary embolism (32 [6%] vs seven [1%]) occurred more frequently in the lenalidomide group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival with the combination of lenalidomide, docetaxel, and prednisone was significantly worse than with docetaxel and prednisone for chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Further research with this treatment combination is not warranted. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

PRIORITI: Phase 4 study of triptorelin or active surveillance in high-risk prostate cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of triptorelin after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with negative lymph nodes. METHODS: PRIORITI (NCT01753297) was a prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 4 study conducted in China and Russia. Patients with high-risk (Gleason score ≥ 8 and/or pre-RP prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥ 20 ng/mL and/or primary tumor stage 3a) prostate adenocarcinoma without evidence of lymph node or distant metastases were randomized to receive triptorelin 11.25 mg at baseline (≤ 8 weeks after RP) and at 3 and 6 months, or active surveillance. The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BRFS), defined as the time from randomization to biochemical relapse (BR; increased PSA > 0.2 ng/mL). Patients were monitored every 3 months for at least 36 months; the study ended when 61 BRs were observed. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 226 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 65.3 [6.4] years), of whom 109 and 117 were randomized to triptorelin or surveillance, respectively. The median BRFS was not reached. The 25th percentile time to BRFS (95% confidence interval) was 39.1 (29.9-not estimated) months with triptorelin and 30.0 (18.6-42.1) months with surveillance (p = 0.16). There was evidence of a lower risk of BR with triptorelin versus surveillance but this was not statistically significant at the 5% level (p = 0.10). Chemical castration was maintained at month 9 in 93.9% of patients who had received triptorelin. Overall, triptorelin was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSION: BRFS was observed to be longer with triptorelin than surveillance, but the difference was not statistically significant.

A global phase II randomized trial comparing oral taxane ModraDoc006/r to intravenous docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

STUDY AIM: ModraDoc006, an oral formulation of docetaxel, is co-administered with the cytochrome P450-3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor, ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. The preliminary efficacy and safety of oral ModraDoc006/r was evaluated in a global randomized phase II trial and compared to the current standard chemotherapy regimen of intravenous (i.v.) docetaxel and prednisone. METHODS: 103 mCRPC patients, chemotherapy-naïve with/without abiraterone and/or enzalutamide pretreated, with adequate organ function and evaluable disease per RECIST v1.1 and PCWG3 guidelines were randomized 1:1 into two cohorts. In Cohort 1, 49 patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (Q3W). In Cohort 2, 52 patients received ModraDoc006/r; 21 patients with a starting dose of ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 200 mg in the morning and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/200-100 mg) bi-daily-once-weekly (BIDW) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle. To alleviate tolerability, the starting dose was amended to ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg in another 31 patients. All patients received prednisone 10 mg daily. Primary endpoint was rPFS. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in rPFS between the 2 arms (p = 0.1465). Median rPFS was 9.5 months and 11.1 months (95% CI) for ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. Partial response was noted in 44.1% and 38.7% measurable disease patients, and 50% decline of PSA was seen in 23 (50%) and 26 (56.5%) evaluable cases treated with ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. The safety profile of ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg dose was significantly better than i.v. docetaxel, with mild (mostly Grade 1) gastrointestinal toxicities, no hematologic adverse events, and neuropathy and alopecia incidence of 11.5% and 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ModraDoc006/r potentially represents a widely applicable, convenient, effective, and better tolerated oral taxane therapy option for mCRPC. Further investigation of ModraDoc006/r in a large randomized trial is warranted.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Patient-reported Outcomes from JAVELIN Bladder 100: Avelumab First-line Maintenance Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In JAVELIN Bladder 100, avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without disease progression with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized phase 3 trial (NCT02603432) was conducted in 700 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin. PROs were a secondary endpoint. INTERVENTION: Avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Symptom Index-18 (FBlSI-18) and EuroQol five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effect models. Time to deterioration (TTD; prespecified definition: a ≥3-point decrease from baseline in the FBlSI-18 disease-related symptoms-physical subscale for two consecutive assessments) was evaluated via Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Completion rates for scheduled on-treatment PRO assessments were >90% (overall and average per assessment). Results from descriptive analyses and mixed-effect or repeated-measures models of FBlSI-18 and EQ-5D-5L were similar between arms. TTD was also similar, both in the prespecified analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.77]) and in the post hoc analyses including off-treatment assessments and different event definitions. Limitations included the open-label design and limited numbers of evaluable patients at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of avelumab first-line maintenance to BSC in patients with aUC that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy prolonged OS, with a relatively minimal effect on quality of life. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial of people with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had benefited from first-line chemotherapy (ie, had stable disease or reduced tumor size), treatment with avelumab maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone improved survival significantly, without compromising quality of life, as reported by the patients themselves.

Darolutamide Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Disease Volume and Risk Subgroups in the Phase III ARASENS Trial.

PURPOSE: For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups by disease volume and risk. METHODS: Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned to darolutamide or placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. High-volume disease was defined as visceral metastases and/or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 beyond the vertebral column/pelvis. High-risk disease was defined as ≥ 2 risk factors: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions, and presence of measurable visceral metastases. RESULTS: Of 1,305 patients, 1,005 (77%) had high-volume disease and 912 (70%) had high-risk disease. Darolutamide increased overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with high-volume (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82), high-risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86), and low-risk disease (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90), and in the smaller low-volume subgroup, the results were also suggestive of survival benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.13). Darolutamide improved clinically relevant secondary end points of time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy versus placebo in all disease volume and risk subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 64.9% of darolutamide patients versus 64.2% of placebo patients in the high-volume subgroup and 70.1% versus 61.1% in the low-volume subgroup. Among the most common AEs, many were known toxicities related to docetaxel. CONCLUSION: In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, treatment intensification with darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel increased OS with a similar AE profile in the subgroups, consistent with the overall population.[Media: see text].

Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival. OBJECTIVE: To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a "complete response" or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

Adjuvant Pazopanib Versus Placebo After Nephrectomy in Patients With Localized or Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Overall Survival Analysis of the Phase 3 PROTECT Trial.

Most studies indicate no benefit of adjuvant therapy with VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PROTECT (NCT01235962) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study to evaluate adjuvant pazopanib in patients with locally advanced RCC at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy (pazopanib, n = 769; placebo, n = 769). The results of the primary analysis showed no difference in disease-free survival between pazopanib 600 mg and placebo. Here we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis (median follow-up: pazopanib, 76 mo, interquartile range [IQR] 66-84; placebo, 77 mo, IQR 69-85). There was no significant difference in OS between the pazopanib and placebo arms (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.26; nominal p > 0.9). OS was worse for patients with T4 disease compared to those with less advanced disease and was better for patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 compared to those with lower BMI. OS was significantly better for patients who remained diseasefree at 2 yr after treatment compared with those who relapsed within 2 yr. These findings are consistent with the primary outcomes from PROTECT, indicating that adjuvant pazopanib does not confer a benefit in terms of OS for patients following resection of locally advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 PROTECT study, overall survival was similar for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy who received adjuvant therapy with pazopanib or placebo. Pazopanib is not recommended as adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01235962.

Adjuvant Weekly Girentuximab Following Nephrectomy for High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma: The ARISER Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein ubiquitously expressed in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Its safety and activity in phase 2 studies prompted investigation into its use as adjuvant monotherapy in participants with high-risk ccRCC. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant girentuximab on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with localized completely resected high-risk ccRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial that took place between June 10, 2004, and April 2, 2013, at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe. Eligible adult patients had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for histologically confirmed ccRCC and fell into 1 of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater. Patients were assigned via central computerized double-blind 1:1 randomization to receive either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2012, to April 2, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Co-primary end points were DFS and OS, based on imaging studies assessed by independent radiological review committee. Secondary end points included safety, assessed as the rate and grade of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 864 patients (66% male; median [interquartile range] age, 58 [51-65] years) were randomized to girentuximab (n = 433) or placebo (n = 431). Compared with placebo, participants treated with girentuximab had no statistically significant DFS (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.18) or OS advantage (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.74-1.32). Median DFS was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for girentuximab and never reached for placebo group. Median OS was never reached regardless of treatment. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 185 patients (21.6%), reported comparably between arms. Serious adverse events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), reported comparably between arms. One drug-related serious adverse event occurred in a patient receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Girentuximab had no clinical benefit as adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk ccRCC. The surprisingly long DFS and OS in these patients represent a challenge to adjuvant ccRCC drug development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00087022.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Pazopanib Versus Placebo After Nephrectomy in Patients With Localized or Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT600mg), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT800mg) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

Association of Survival Benefit With Docetaxel in Prostate Cancer and Total Number of Cycles Administered: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Mainsail Study.

IMPORTANCE: The optimal total number of docetaxel cycles in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) has not been investigated yet. It is unknown whether it is beneficial for patients to continue treatment upon 6 cycles. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the number of docetaxel cycles administered to patients deriving clinical benefit was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in a post hoc analysis of the Mainsail trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Mainsail trial was a multinational randomized phase 3 study of 1059 patients with mCRPC receiving docetaxel, prednisone, and lenalidomide (DPL) or docetaxel, prednisone, and a placebo (DP). Study patients were treated until progressive disease or unacceptable adverse effects occurred. Median OS was found to be inferior in the DPL arm compared with the DP arm. As a result of increased toxic effects with the DPL combination, patients on DPL received fewer docetaxel cycles (median, 6) vs 8 cycles in the control group. As the dose intensity was comparable in both treatment arms, we investigated whether the number of docetaxel cycles administered to patients deriving clinical benefit on Mainsail was an independent prognostic factor for OS. We conducted primary univariate and multivariate analyses for the intention-to-treat population. Additional sensitivity analyses were done, excluding patients who stopped treatment for reasons of disease progression and those who received 4 or fewer cycles of docetaxel for other reasons, minimizing the effect of confounding factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total number of docetaxel cycles delivered as an independent factor for OS. RESULTS: Overall, all 1059 patients from the Mainsail trial were included (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [7.89] years). Treatment with 8 or more cycles of docetaxel was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.909; 95% CI, 1.660-2.194; P < .001), irrespective of lenalidomide treatment (HR, 1.060; 95% CI, 0.924-1.215; P = .41). Likewise, in the sensitivity analysis, patients who received a greater number of docetaxel cycles had superior OS; patients who received more than 10 cycles had a median OS of 33.0 months compared with 26.9 months in patients treated with 8 to 10 cycles; and patients who received 5 to 7 cycles had a median OS of 22.8 months (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that continuation of docetaxel chemotherapy contributes to the survival benefit. Prospective validation is warranted.