Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

PROMISE Registry: A prostate cancer registry of outcomes and germline mutations for improved survival and treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer have created a need for correlated analyses of patient outcomes data via germline genetic mutation status. Genetic registries address these gaps by identifying candidates for recently approved targeted treatments, expanding clinical trial data examining specific gene mutations, and understanding effects of targeted treatments in the real-world setting. METHODS: The PROMISE Registry is a 20-year (5-year recruitment, 15-year follow-up), US-wide, prospective genetic registry for prostate cancer patients. Five thousand patients will be screened through an online at-home germline testing to identify and enroll 500 patients with germline mutations, including: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in genes of interest. Patients will be followed for 15 years and clinical data with real time patient reported outcomes will be collected. Eligible patients will enter long-term follow-up (6-month PRO surveys and medical record retrieval). As a virtual study with patient self-enrollment, the PROMISE Registry may fill gaps in genetics services in underserved areas and for patients within sufficient insurance coverage. RESULTS: The PROMISE Registry opened in May 2021. 2114 patients have enrolled to date across 48 US states and 23 recruiting sites. 202 patients have met criteria for long-term follow-up. PROMISE is on target with the study's goal of 5000 patients screened and 500 patients eligible for long-term follow-up by 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMISE Registry is a novel, prospective, germline registry that will collect long-term patient outcomes data to address current gaps in understanding resulting from recently FDA-approved treatments and updates to genetic testing recommendations for prostate cancer. Through inclusion of a broad nationwide sample, including underserved patients and those unaffiliated with major academic centers, the PROMISE Registry aims to provide access to germline genetic testing and to collect data to understand disease characteristics and treatment responses across the disease spectrum for prostate cancer with rare germline genetic variants.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2. METHODS: For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL). RESULTS: Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Comparison of outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on the impact of Hispanic ethnicity on outcomes for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is mixed. The authors investigated outcomes of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with advanced RCC receiving systemic therapy at large academic cancer centers using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC). METHODS: Eligible patients included non-Black Hispanic and NHW patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC initiating systemic therapy. Overall survival (OS) and time to first-line treatment failure (TTF) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of ethnicity on OS and TTF were estimated by Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (181 Hispanic and 1382 NHW) (mostly males [73.8%] with clear cell RCC [81.5%] treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI] monotherapy [69.9%]) were included. IMDC risk groups were similar between groups. Hispanic patients were younger at initial diagnosis (median 57 vs. 59 years, p = .015) and less likely to have greater than one metastatic site (60.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001) or bone metastases (23.8% vs. 33.4%, p = .009). Median OS and TTF was 38.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.1-59.2) versus 35.7 months (95% CI, 31.9-39.2) and 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.0) versus 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-8.1), respectively, in Hispanic versus NHW patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.31, p = .56) or TTF (adjusted HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.89-1.26, p = .50). CONCLUSIONS: The authors did not observe statistically significant differences in OS or TTF between Hispanic and NHW patients with advanced RCC. Receiving treatment at tertiary cancer centers may mitigate observed disparities in cancer outcomes.

The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2, hospitalized and received supplemental O2, admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

A Pooled Analysis of 3 Phase II Trials of Salvage Nivolumab/Ipilimumab After Nivolumab in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated improved survival for treatment-naïve advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A series of clinical trials evaluated the effect of salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients without an objective response to nivolumab. Given the size and heterogeneity of these studies, we performed a pooled analysis to better inform the activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab after nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients included those with advanced clear cell RCC having received no prior immunotherapy. The primary objective was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator-assessment. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The analysis included 410 patients with clear cell RCC, of whom 340 (82.9%) had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, and 137 (33.4%) had prior treatment. The 16-18-week ORR to nivolumab prior to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 22.7% (n = 93), and best ORR to nivolumab was 25.1% (n = 103). Two hundred and thirty (56.1%) patients treated with nivolumab received nivolumab plus ipilimumab at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 9-19) after initiation of nivolumab [27.0% (n = 62) with stable disease and 73.0% (n = 168) with progressive disease to nivolumab]. The ORR to nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 12.6% (n = 29). Six-month PFS on nivolumab plus ipilimumab was 37% (95% CI, 27-47). Median follow-up was 34.3 months and 3-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 53-64) from nivolumab start. CONCLUSION: A small subset of patients lacking a response to nivolumab derive benefit from salvage nivolumab plus ipilimumab. When possible, both drugs should be given in concomitantly, rather in an adaptive fashion.

Molecular Characterization of TFE3-Rearranged Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Study With Papillary and Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas.

TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (rRCC) is a rare subtype of renal cell carcinomas belonging to the MiT family translocation RCC. To further elucidate the co-alterations that occur along with TFE3 fusions in rRCC, we characterized the genomic, transcriptional, and immune landscapes in comparison to clear cell (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). Next-generation sequencing of RNA (whole transcriptome) and DNA (592-gene panel or whole exome) for rRCC (N = 20), pRCC (N = 20), and ccRCC samples (N = 392) was performed. Patients with rRCC were significantly younger and more frequently female (median 44.5 years, 75.0% female) as compared with patients with pRCC (68.5 years, 25.0% female; P < .05) and ccRCC (62.0 years, 27.8% female; P < .05). A total of 8 unique fusion partners were observed, including a novel fusion with SRRM2::TFE3 in 2 patients. ccRCC exhibited significantly higher mutation rates of VHL (0% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 78.7% ccRCC; P < .05) and PBMR1 (0% rRCC, 5.0% pRCC, 49.4% ccRCC; P < .05). The genomic landscapes of rRCC were sparse with no mutations occurring with a prevalence higher than 10% other than pTERT (18.2% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 9.2% ccRCC). rRCC were associated with significantly less M1 macrophages (0.8%) as compared with pRCC (1.4%) and ccRCC (2.7%) (P < .05), suggesting a cold tumor-immune microenvironment. However, rRCC were more commonly PD-L1+ (rRCC 50%, pRCC 19.0%, ccRCC 12.2%; P < .05). Gene set enrichment analysis showed that rRCC are enriched in genes related to oxidative phosphorylation when compared with both ccRCC and pRCC. Despite having a colder tumor-immune microenvironment than pRCC and ccRCC, increased PDL1+ rates in rRCC suggest a potential benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

PADRES: a phase 2 clinical trial of neoadjuvant axitinib for complex partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of PADRES (Prior Axitinib as a Determinant of Outcome of Renal Surgery, NCT03438708), a study investigating neoadjuvant axitinib for tumours of high complexity with imperative indication for partial nephrectomy (PN). METHODS: We conducted a single-arm phase II clinical trial of localized (cT1b-cT3M0) clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with imperative indications for nephron preservation, where PN is a high-risk procedure due to complexity (RENAL score 10-12). Axitinib 5 mg was administered twice daily for 8 weeks with repeat imaging at completion, followed by surgery. The primary outcome was successful completion of planned PN following axitinib treatment. Secondary objectives included changes in tumour diameter, RENAL nephrometry score, renal function and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, and surgical complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (median age 69 years). Prior to therapy, twenty patients (74.0%) had ≥ clinical T3a staged tumours. Axitinib resulted in reductions in tumour diameter (7.5 vs 6.2 cm; P < 0.001) and RENAL score (11 vs 10; P < 0.001). Nine patients (33.3%) had partial response based on RECIST and nine (33.3%) were clinically downstaged. PN was performed in twenty patients (74.0%); twenty-five patients (96.2%) had negative margins. Six patients (22.2%) had Clavien III-IV complications. The median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (preoperative to last follow-up) was 8.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 . CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant axitnib resulted in reductions in tumour size and complexity, enabling safe and feasible PN and functional preservation in patients with complex renal masses and imperative indication.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

Evaluating relugolix for the treatment of prostate cancer in real-world settings of care: the OPTYX study protocol.

OPTYX is a multi-center, prospective, observational study designed to further understand the actual experience of patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with relugolix (ORGOVYX®), an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), by collecting clinical and patient-reported outcomes from routine care settings. The study aims to enroll 1000 consented patients with advanced prostate cancer from community, academic and government operated clinical practices across the USA. At planned timepoints, real-world data analysis on treatment patterns, adherence and safety as well as health outcomes and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) after treatment discontinuation will be published in scientific peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. This study will provide real-world data for practitioners and researchers in their understanding of the safety and effectiveness of relugolix. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05467176 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What is this summary about? This is a protocol summary for a research study named OPTYX. Who can participate in this research? Men 18 or older with advanced prostate cancer initiating treatment with relugolix, an oral androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), at the time of enrollment or within the 1 month before enrollment (remaining on treatment at enrollment) and are willing and able to complete patient assessments during the study. What institutions are performing this research? Community practices, academic institutions and Veterans Health Administration facilities across the USA. What are the research assessments to obtain the results? Data will be collected from the routine medical visits twice yearly including patient demographics, medical history (co-morbidities and cardiac risk factors), prostate cancer history and treatments and test results (routine lab testosterone, PSA levels and imaging). Relugolix response and all serious adverse events (SAEs) and any nonserious adverse events (AE) leading to relugolix treatment discontinuation will be assessed. Patients will be asked to respond to evaluations about their health-related quality of life and adherence to relugolix treatment. How long would the study last? Up to 5 years from enrollment date and/or up to 2 years after relugolix discontinuation. Follow-up will end with consent withdrawal, loss to follow-up, death, or study termination, whichever comes first. What do the results of the study mean? Real-world understanding of the experience and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer in routine clinical care and their clinical trajectory following cessation of relugolix therapy.

A plain language summary exploring a new treatment combination for untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary provides the results of a study of two treatments for cancer, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, that were studied together against locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC), a cancer that occurs most commonly in the bladder. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In the 45 patients studied, around 16% did have serious side effects, but most side effects were manageable. Twenty-four percent of patients, however, stopped the study treatment because of their side effects. Within about 2 months of starting treatment, most patients' (73%) tumors were smaller and stayed smaller, on average, for more than 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer when they cannot receive the typical treatment, cisplatin. Advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer is a type of cancer where the cancer has already spread outside of the bladder or urinary tract.

Optimizing outcomes in men with prostate cancer: the cardiovascular event lowering (CaELo) pathways.

INTRODUCTION: Risk of cardiovascular disease is higher among men with prostate cancer than men without, and prostate cancer treatments (especially those that are hormonally based) are associated with increased cardiovascular risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 11-member panel of urologic, medical, and radiation oncologists (along with a men's health specialist and an endocrinologist/preventive cardiologist) met to discuss current practices and challenges in the management of cardiovascular risk in prostate cancer patients who are taking androgen deprivation therapies (ADT) including LHRH analogues, alone and in combination with androgen-targeted therapies (ATTs). RESULTS: The panel developed an assessment algorithm to categorize patients by risk and deploy a risk-adapted management strategy, in collaboration with other healthcare providers (the patient's healthcare "village"), with the goal of preventing as well as reducing cardiovascular events. The panel also developed a patient questionnaire for cardiovascular risk as well as a checklist to ensure that all aspects of cardiovascular disease risk reduction are completed and monitored. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients receiving ADT with or without ATT need to be more zealously assessed for prevention and aggressively managed to reduce cardiovascular events. This can and should include participation from the entire multidisciplinary healthcare team.

Differential responses to taxanes and PARP inhibitors in ATM- versus BRCA2-mutated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: PARP (poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM- and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions. METHODS: mCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression-free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty-four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20-1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54-1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41-1.37]; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

Comprehensive genomic profiling of penile squamous cell carcinoma and the impact of human papillomavirus status on immune-checkpoint inhibitor-related biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited success of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Approximately half of pSCC cases are associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. METHODS: Evaluation was done retrospectively of the landscape of somatic alterations and ICI-related biomarkers in pSCC by using the Caris Life Sciences data set with the aim to establish signatures for HPV-dependent oncogenesis. The pSCC tumors were analyzed by using next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA and RNA. Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested by fragment analysis, IHC (SP142; ≥1%), and NGS. Tumor mutational burden (TMB)-high was defined as ≥10 mutations/Mb. HPV16/18 status was determined by using whole-exome sequencing (WES) when available. Significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons (q value < .05). RESULTS: NGS of the overall cohort (N = 108) revealed TP53 (46%), CDKN2A (26%), and PIK3CA (25%) to be the most common mutations. Overall, 51% of tumors were PD-L1+, 10.7% had high TMB, and 1.1% had mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/MSI-high status. Twenty-nine patients had their HPV status made available by WES (HPV16/18+, n = 13; HPV16/18-, n = 16). KMT2C mutations (33% vs. 0%) and FGF3 amplifications (30.8% vs. 0%) were specific to HPV16/18+ tumors, whereas CDKN2A mutations (0% vs. 37.5%) were exclusive to HPV16/18- tumors. TMB-high was exclusively found in the HPV16/18+ group (30.8%). The two groups had comparable PD-L1 and dMMR/MSI-H status. CONCLUSIONS: In a large and comprehensive NGS-based evaluation of somatic alterations in pSCC, HPV16/18+ versus HPV16/18- pSCCs were molecularly distinct tumors. Our finding that TMB-high is exclusive to HPV16/18+ tumors requires confirmation in larger data sets. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC) is a rare and aggressive malignancy in the advanced setting, with poor prognosis and little success with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in an unselected patient approach. Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a known risk factor for pSCC; its impact on genomic tumor profiling is less defined. Using next-generation sequencing, we explored the genetic landscape and ICI-related biomarkers of pSCC and HPV-driven oncogenic molecular signatures. Our results indicate that HPV-positive and HPV-negative pSCCs are molecularly distinct tumors. Increased tumor mutational burden is associated with HPV-positive tumors, and could serve as a biomarker for predicting therapeutic response to ICI-based therapies. Our results support the growing literature indicating that HPV status in pSCC can be used to guide patient stratification in ICI-based clinical trials.

Visceral Metastasis Predicts Response to New Hormonal Agents in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

Visceral metastasis (VM) and a higher number of bone metastasis generally define high volume/risk in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Subgroup analysis of pivotal trials did not show a clear benefit of second-generation non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAAs) in patients with VM. However, subgroup analysis of the trial assessing abiraterone acetate, a CYP 17 inhibitor, plus prednisone (AAP) showed an improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mCSPC with VM. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and congress abstracts for the phase III randomized controlled trials of second-generation NSAAs and AAP in patients with mCSPC. In this pooled analysis, we included 6485 patients from the 6 phase III trials. The rate of patients with VM was 15.2%. Interestingly, in contrast to NSAAs, AAP seems to be effective in improving OS among patients with VM (hazard ratio, HR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.72-1.11, P = .30 for second-generation NSAAs; HR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40-0.84, P = .004 for AAP). In contrast, both second-generation NSAAs (HR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.57-0.70, P < .001) and AAP (HR: 0.68, 95% CI, 0.57-0.81, P < .001) improved OS in patients without VM. In this pooled analysis, we demonstrate that while AAP provided an OS improvement in patients with VM, second-generation NSAAs did not demonstrate a similar OS benefit in this population.

Pathological Outcomes of Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Who Receive Nephrectomy Following Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Even though cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) was once the standard of care for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), its role in treatment has not been well analyzed or defined in the era of immunotherapy (IO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed pathological outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC who received IO prior to CN. This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced or metastatic RCC. Patients were required to receive IO monotherapy or combination therapy prior to radical or partial CN. The primary endpoint assessed surgical pathologic outcomes, including American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging and frequency of downstaging, at the time of surgery. Pathologic outcomes were correlated to clinical variables using a Wald-chi squared test from Cox regression in a multi-variable analysis. Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) defined by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and progression-free survival (PFS), which were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with reported 95% CIs. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients from 9 sites were included. Most patients were male (65%), 81% had clear cell histology, 11% had sarcomatoid differentiation. Overall, 44% of patients experienced pathologic downstaging, and 13% had a complete pathologic response. The ORR immediately prior to nephrectomy was stable disease in 29% of patients, partial response in 63%, progressive disease in 4%, and 4% unknown. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 25.3 months and median PFS was 3.5 years (95% CI, 2.1-4.9). CONCLUSIONS: IO-based interventions prior to CN in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC demonstrates efficacy, with a small fraction of patients showing a complete response. Additional prospective studies are warranted to investigate the role of CN in the modern IO-era.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Treatment Landscape of Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Active surveillance and tumor ablation are alternatives to extirpative therapy in appropriately selected patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging noninvasive alternative to treat primary RCC tumors. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has greatly improved the overall survival of advanced RCC, and now the ICI-based doublet (dual ICI-ICI doublet; or ICI in combination with a vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, ICI-TKI doublet) has become the standard frontline therapy. Based on unprecedented outcomes in the metastatic with ICIs, they are also being explored in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting for patients with high-risk disease. Adjuvant pembrolizumab has proven efficacy to reduce the risk of RCC recurrence after nephrectomy. Historically considered a radioresistant tumor, SBRT occupies an expanding role to treat RCC with oligometastasis or oligoprogression in combination with systemic therapy. Furthermore, SBRT is being investigated in combination with ICI-doublet in the advanced disease setting. Lastly, given the treatment paradigm is shifting to adopt ICIs at earlier disease course, the prospective studies guiding treatment sequencing in the post-ICI setting is maturing. The effort is ongoing in search of predictive biomarkers to guide optimal treatment option in RCC.

Quality of life in the year after new diagnosis with advanced prostate cancer for Black and White individuals living in the US.

PURPOSE: To assess differences in baseline and longitudinal quality of life among Black and White individuals in the US with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) including US participants newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and identifying their race as Black or White from 2017 to 2023. Participants completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 Quality of Life (QoL) Survey at study enrollment and every 3 months thereafter for up to 1 year of follow-up reporting 15 scale scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher functioning and lower symptom scores represent better quality of life). Linear mixed effects models with race and month of questionnaire completion were fit for each scale, and model coefficients were used to assess differences in baseline and longitudinal QoL by race. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy-nine participants were included (20% identifying as Black) at 38 US sites. Compared to White participants at baseline, Black participants had worse constipation (mean 6.3 percentage points higher; 95% CI 2.9-9.8), financial insecurity (5.7 (1.4-10.0)), and pain (5.1 (0.9-9.3)). QoL decreased over time similarly by race; most notably, role functioning decreased by 0.7 percentage points (95% CI -0.8, -0.5) per month. CONCLUSION: There are notable differences in quality of life at new diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer for Black and White individuals, and quality of life declines similarly in the first year for both groups. Interventions that address specific aspects of quality of life in these patients could meaningfully improve the overall survivorship experience.

New drug approvals in prostate cancer and their effect on the treatment landscape.

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed non-skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in men in the United States. Over the past decade, the treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer has rapidly shifted. For decades, androgen deprivation therapy has been the cornerstone of systemic treatment for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, more recently, we have seen the emergence of doublet and triplet combinations in the mHSPC setting. At the same time, there is an expanding list of treatments for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), including hormonal treatments, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, bone-targeted agents, radioligand therapy, and targeted therapy. The shifting of the treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer has raised many questions regarding patient selection, therapy choice, and sequencing of different approved agents, particularly in the mCRPC setting with the earlier use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. Since then, multiple trials have been conducted to improve the management of mHSPC and delay its progression to mCRPC. This review article discusses various clinical trials that focus on novel therapeutic targets for prostate cancer and how the initiation of newer clinical trials has affected older therapies and trials.