Impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in oligoprogressive metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in areas of oligoprogressive metastatic disease (OPD). Our main objective was to investigate the impact of SBRT on overall survival (OS) and the incidence of systemic therapy treatment switches in this population. METHODS: A retrospective institutional review of patients treated with SBRT for OPD was performed. Patients were included if they received SBRT for 1-3 discrete progressing metastases, using a dose of at least 5 Gy per fraction. The study aimed to calculate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and incidence of treatment switch (TS). PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, while LC and TS were determined using cumulative incidence. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a total of 118 lesions were treated with SBRT from July 2014 to November 2020. The Median SBRT dose was 40 (18-60) Gy in 5 (2-8) fractions. Patients had primarily kidney, lung, or breast cancer. Most patients were treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (30.9%) or chemotherapy (29.6%) before OPD. The median follow-up post-SBRT was 14 months. Median OS and PFS were 25.1 (95% CI 11.2-39.1) months and 7.8 (95% CI 4.6-10.9) months, respectively. The cumulative incidence of local progression of treated lesions was 5% at 1 year and 7.3% at 2 years. Sixty patients progressed after SBRT and 17 underwent additional SBRT. Thirty-eight patients (47%) changed systemic therapy following SBRT; the cumulative incidence of TS was 28.5% at 6 months, 37.4% at 1 year, and 43.9% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT effectively controls locally progressing lesions but distant progression still occurs frequently. A sizeable number of patients can be salvaged by further SBRT or have minimally progressing diseases that may not warrant an immediate initiation/switch in systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this benefit.

A Practical Approach to the Management of Cancer Patients During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An International Collaborative Group.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by rapid human-to-human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID-19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high-risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 virology and epidemiology.

Management of Germ Cell Tumors During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic: A Survey of International Expertise Centers.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. RESULTS: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity.

A randomized phase 2 study of a HSP27 targeting antisense, apatorsen with prednisone versus prednisone alone, in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Purpose Heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) is implicated in prostate cancer progression. Apatorsen is a second generation phosphorothioate antisense inhibitor of Hsp27 expression. We evaluated apatorsen in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Experimental design Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous apatorsen (3 loading doses of 600 mg within 5-9 days followed by weekly doses of 1000 mg) with oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily or prednisone alone. The primary endpoint was disease progression at 12 weeks. Crossover from prednisone alone was allowed after radiographic progression. Results 74 patients received apatorsen + prednisone (n = 36) or prednisone alone (n = 38). Twenty-five patients crossed-over to receive apatorsen + prednisone. Apatorsen treated patients received a median of 19 infusions. 50% of apatorsen + prednisone patients (95% CI: 32.9%, 67.1%) compared with 42% of prednisone patients (95% CI: 26.3%, 59.2%) did not have disease progression at week 12 (P = 0.33). A PSA decline of ≥50% was observed in 47% of apatorsen + prednisone and 24% of prednisone patients (P = 0.04), with a median duration of response of 24.1 weeks (95% CI: 12.0, 52) and 14.0 weeks (95% CI: 4.0, 44.4), respectively. A PSA decline of ≥50% was observed in 5 patients (20%) that received cross-over apatorsen. Infusion reactions were the most commonly reported adverse event occurring in 77% of apatorsen-treated patients. Conclusions Apatorsen + prednisone did not change the proportion of CRPC patients without disease progression at 12 weeks compared to prednisone but was associated with significant PSA declines. Further evaluation of Hsp27 targeting in prostate cancer is warranted.

Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bone health is a significant concern in men with prostate cancer. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of drug, supplement, and lifestyle interventions aimed at preventing fracture, improving bone mineral density (BMD), or preventing or delaying osteoporosis in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 19 January 2017), EMBASE (1980 to 18 January 2017), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (19 January 2017). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and systematic reviews of trials that were published in English; involved men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer; and compared bone-targeted therapies with placebo, usual care, or other active treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed study risk of bias for each outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews and 28 reports of 27 trials met inclusion criteria. All trials focused on men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who were initiating or continuing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Bisphosphonates were effective in increasing BMD, but no trial was sufficiently powered to detect reduction in fractures. Denosumab improved BMD and reduced the incidence of new radiographic vertebral fractures in 1 high-quality trial. No trials compared calcium or vitamin D versus placebo. Three lifestyle intervention trials did not show a statistically significant difference in change in BMD between exercise and usual care. LIMITATIONS: Most trials were of moderate quality. Only 2 randomized controlled trials were designed to examine fracture outcomes. Potential harms of treatments were not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Both bisphosphonates and denosumab improve BMD in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who are receiving ADT. Denosumab also reduces risk for radiographic vertebral fractures, based on 1 trial. More trials studying fracture outcomes are needed in this population. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Program in Evidence-Based Care.

Custirsen (OGX-011) combined with cabazitaxel and prednisone versus cabazitaxel and prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (AFFINITY): a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel and cabazitaxel improve overall survival compared with mitoxantrone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Custirsen (OGX011) is a second generation highly specific antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits the production of clusterin, an antiapoptotic protein that is upregulated in response to chemotherapy and that confers treatment resistance. We aimed to assess whether custirsen in combination with cabazitaxel and prednisone increases overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial, men with radiographically documented metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment with a Karnofsky performance status of more than 70% and who were fit for chemotherapy, were recruited from 95 cancer treatment centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally using permuted blocks (block size 8) to receive cabazitaxel plus prednisone (cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 intravenously every 21 days plus oral prednisone 10 mg daily) with or without custirsen (640 mg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15, plus three previous loading doses) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or the completion of ten treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by use of opioids for prostate cancer-related pain at screening, disease progression following first-line docetaxel treatment established by radiographic evidence, and previous treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival in all randomly assigned patients and in a poor-prognosis subgroup. All analyses were intention to treat with the exception of safety, which was reported for patients who received any assigned treatment. The trial has been completed and the results presented here are the final analysis. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01578655. FINDINGS: Between Sept 9, 2012, and Sept 29, 2014, 795 patients were screened for enrolment. 635 men were eligible for inclusion and were randomly assigned (n=317 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone plus custirsen group and n=318 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone group). Median follow up was 28·3 months (IQR 24·4-34·5) for the custirsen group and 29·8 months (IQR 25·3-35·2) for the control group. Median overall survival in all randomly assigned patients did not differ between the two groups (14·1 months [95% CI 12·7-15·9] in the curtisen group vs 13·4 months [12·1-14·9] in the control group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·95 [95% CI 0·80-1·12]; log-rank p=0·53). In the poor prognosis subgroup, median overall survival also did not differ between the two treatment groups (11·0 months [95% CI 9·3-13·3] in the custursin group vs 10·9 months [8·2-12·4] in the control group; HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·80-1·21]; two-sided p=0·80). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events in the custirsen versus control groups were neutropenia (70 [22%] of 315 vs 61 [20%] of 312), anaemia (68 [22%] vs 49 [16%]), fatigue (23 [7%] vs 18 [6%]), asthenia (16 [5%] vs 8 [3%]), bone pain (16 [5%] vs 5 [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (16 [5%] vs 9 [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 155 (49%) versus 132 (42%). 27 patients died within 30 days of treatment in the cabazitaxel and prednisone plus custirsen group, seven of which were deemed to be treatment related, versus 17 in the cabazitaxel and prednisone group, eight of which were deemed to be treatment related. Of the 21 deaths reported, 15 were reported as complications related to study treatment, either chemotherapy (eight and three, respectively) or study drug (none and four, respectively). INTERPRETATION: We noted no survival benefit in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with the addition of custirsen to cabazitaxel and prednisone treatment. Cabazitaxel and prednisone remains the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel chemotherapy. FUNDING: OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals.

Addressing taxane resistance in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a focus on chaperone proteins.

Despite the significant survival benefit of taxane therapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), all patients inevitably develop treatment resistance. An understanding of resistance mechanisms has led to new therapies for prostate cancer (cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide), all of which have improved survival following first-line docetaxel. Another treatment, currently in development, targets the prosurvival molecule clusterin. Custirsen, an antisense molecule that inhibits clusterin production, has shown promise in combination with docetaxel in mCRPC patients at risk for poor outcomes. Although optimal sequence and combination of available therapies is unclear, the heterogeneity of mCRPC suggests a continuing need for personalized treatment regimens and improved abilities to predict which patients will respond to the available treatment options.

A phase I trial of ANG1/2-Tie2 inhibitor trebaninib (AMG386) and temsirolimus in advanced solid tumors (PJC008/NCI♯9041).

BACKGROUND: There is crosstalk between the ANG-Tie2 and the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Combined ANG1/2 and mTOR blockade may have additive anti-cancer activity. The combination of trebananib, an inhibitor of ANG1/2-Tie2 interaction, with temsirolimus was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: Patients were enrolled using 3 + 3 design, and were given intravenous trebananib and temsirolimus on Day 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during cycle 1. Peripheral blood was collected for evaluation of Tie2-expressing monocytes (TEMs) and thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Sparse pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling for trebananib drug levels was performed on Day 1 and 8 of cycle 2. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, 6 at dose level (DL) 1, 7 at DL -1, and 8 at DL -2. No effect of temsirolimus on trebananib PK was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were: fatigue (81 %), edema (62 %), anorexia (57 %), nausea (52 %), rash (43 %) and mucositis (43 %). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs included lymphopenia (28 %) and fatigue (28 %). The MTD was exceeded at DL-2. Of 18 response evaluable patients, 1 partial response was observed (ER+/HER2-/PIK3CA mutant breast cancer) and 4 patients had prolonged SD ≥ 24 weeks. No correlation with clinical benefit was observed with change in number TEMs or TP expression in TEMs with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was exceeded at trebananib 10 mg/kg weekly and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly, with frequent overlapping toxicities including fatigue, edema, and anorexia.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-1): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets EGFR. We aimed to compare chemoradiotherapy plus panitumumab with chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck from 41 sites in nine countries worldwide. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage III, IVa, or IVb, previously untreated, measurable (≥ 10 mm for at least one dimension), locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (non-nasopharygeal) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)) or panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of intravenous panitumumab 9.0 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2)) using stratified randomisation with a block size of five. All patients received 70 Gy to gross tumour and 50 Gy to areas at risk for subclinical disease with standard fractionation. The primary endpoint was local-regional control at 2 years, analysed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of their assigned protocol-specific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab). The trial is closed and this is the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00500760. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2007, and March 26, 2009, 153 patients were enrolled and 150 received treatment (63 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group). Local-regional control at 2 years was 68% (95% CI 54-78) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 61% (50-71) in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (17 [27%] of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 35 [40%] of 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group), mucosal inflammation (15 [24%] vs 48 [55%]), and radiation skin injury (eight [13%] vs 27 [31%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (32%) of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 37 (43%) of 87 patients in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, the addition of panitumumab to standard fractionation radiotherapy and cisplatin did not confer any benefit, and the role of EGFR inhibition in these patients needs to be reassessed. FUNDING: Amgen.

Abiraterone acetate for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy: final analysis of a multicentre, open-label, early-access protocol trial.

BACKGROUND: In the final analysis of the phase 3 COU-AA-301 study, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy. Here, we present the final analysis of an early-access protocol trial that was initiated after completion of COU-AA-301 to enable worldwide preapproval access to abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, early-access protocol trial in 23 countries. We enrolled patients who had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after taxane chemotherapy. Participants received oral doses of abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg twice a day) in 28-day cycles until disease progression, development of sustained side-effects, or abiraterone acetate becoming available in the respective country. The primary outcome was the number of adverse events arising during study treatment and within 30 days of discontinuation. Efficacy measures (time to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] progression and time to clinical progression) were gathered to guide treatment decisions. We included in our analysis all patients who received at least one dose of abiraterone acetate. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01217697. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, 2314 patients were enrolled into the early-access protocol trial. Median follow-up was 5·7 months (IQR 3·5-10·6). 952 (41%) patients had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event, and grade 3 or 4 serious adverse events were recorded in 585 (25%) people. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hepatotoxicity (188 [8%]), hypertension (99 [4%]), cardiac disorders (52 [2%]), osteoporosis (31 [1%]), hypokalaemia (28 [1%]), and fluid retention or oedema (23 [1%]). 172 (7%) patients discontinued the study because of adverse events (64 [3%] were drug-related), as assessed by the investigator, and 171 (7%) people died. The funder assessed causes of death, which were due to disease progression (85 [4%]), an unrelated adverse experience (72 [3%]), and unknown reasons (14 [1%]). Of the 86 deaths not attributable to disease progression, 18 (<1%) were caused by a drug-related adverse event, as assessed by the investigator. Median time to PSA progression was 8·5 months (95% CI 8·3-9·7) and median time to clinical progression was 12·7 months (11·8-13·8). INTERPRETATION: No new safety signals or unexpected adverse events were found in this early-access protocol trial to assess abiraterone acetate for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progressed after chemotherapy. Future work is needed to ascertain the most effective regimen of abiraterone acetate to optimise patients' outcomes. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

A phase I, dose-escalation trial of continuous- and pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, demonstrated synergistic inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant cell growth with pemetrexed. This phase I study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of afatinib plus pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: In a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, patients were given intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle (maximum 6 cycles), combined with continuous daily oral afatinib (schedule A [SA]; starting dose 30 mg, escalation to 50 mg) or pulsed-dose daily oral afatinib (schedule B [SB]; starting dose 50 mg, escalation to 70 mg) on days 1-6 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was determination of MTD based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were treated (SA: n = 23; SB: n = 30). Eight patients had DLTs in SA, 11 patients in SB; diarrhea and fatigue were the most common. MTD of afatinib was 30 mg in SA and 50 mg in SB. Six patients in SA and eight in SB completed 6 treatment cycles. One patient in each schedule had confirmed objective response; 18/53 patients had disease control (SA: n = 7; SB: n = 11). Most frequent drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and stomatitis. No relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous- or pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed exhibited a manageable safety profile. Pulsed dosing conferred no apparent safety or dose advantage. Continuous-dose afatinib 30 mg/day with pemetrexed is recommended for phase II studies.

A phase I study of the oral gamma secretase inhibitor R04929097 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors (PHL-078/CTEP 8575).

PURPOSE: To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). CONCLUSIONS: RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC(0-24)) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified.

A randomized phase II study of cediranib alone versus cediranib in combination with dasatinib in docetaxel resistant, castration resistant prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the oncogenic Src pathway has been implicated in the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in preclinical models. Cediranib and dasatinib are multi-kinase inhibitors targeting VEGFR and Src respectively. Phase II studies of cediranib and dasatinib in CRPC have shown single agent activity. METHODS: Docetaxel-pretreated CRPC patients were randomized to arm A: cediranib alone (20 mg/day) versus arm B: cediranib (20 mg/day) plus dasatinib (100 mg/day) given orally on 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was 12-week progression-free survival (PFS) as per the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2). Patient reported outcomes were evaluated using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Present Pain Intensity (PPI) scales. Correlative studies of bone turnover markers (BTM), including bone alkaline phosphate (BAP) and serum beta-C telopeptide (B-CTx) were serially assayed. Results A total of 22 patients, 11 per arm, were enrolled. Baseline demographics were similar in both arms. Median number of cycles =4 in arm A (range 1-12) and 2 in arm B (range 1-9). Twelve-week PFS was 73 % in arm A versus 18 % in arm B (p = 0.03). Median PFS in months (arm A versus B) was: 5.2 versus 2.6 (95 % CI: 1.9-6.5 versus 1.4-not reached). Most common grade 3 toxicities were hypertension, anemia and thrombocytopenia in arm A and hypertension, diarrhea and fatigue in arm B. One treatment-related death (retroperitoneal hemorrhage) was seen in arm A. FACT-P and PPI scores did not significantly change in either arm. No correlation between BTM and PFS was seen in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by small numbers, this randomized study showed that the combination of VEGFR and Src targeted therapy did not result in improved efficacy and may be associated with a worse outcome than VEGFR targeted therapy alone in patients with CRPC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01260688.

Nivolumab in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Head and Neck (SCCHN): A Real-world Outcome Study in Ontario, Canada.

The CheckMate-141 trial led to the approval of nivolumab in platinum-resistant metastatic/advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (SCCHN). We evaluated the outcomes of SCCHN patients in Ontario, Canada, treated with nivolumab through retrospective review of the provincial treatment registry. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and Cox regression to evaluate the prognostic effect of selected factors. Nivolumab was used as second-line therapy after disease relapse for curative-intent platinum chemotherapy (PC) (indication 1-I1), as second-line therapy post-PC in noncurative intent (indication 2-I2), and as first-line therapy in noncurative intent due to contraindication for PC (indication 3-I3). The median OS for patients treated with nivolumab was 5.8 months (95% CI: 4.5-7.3), and the 1-year OS was 28.4% (CI: 2.10-36.1). When patients with I3 were excluded to match inclusion criteria for CheckMate-141, median OS was 4.8 months (CI: 3.6-6.7) with 1-year OS of 21.8% (14.4-30.1). Patients with lower body surface area (BSA) (<1.81) had a median OS of 3.9 months (CI: 3.1-6.7) versus 9.0 months (CI: 6.5-14.8) in those with higher BSA, hazard ratio (HR)=0.12 (CI: 0.04-0.39, P <0.001). Patients receiving nivolumab for I1 had a median OS of 7.2 months (CI 3.8-9.8) versus 11.9 months (CI: 6.2-not reached) for I3, HR=1.73 (CI: 0.94-3.16). Patients receiving nivolumab for I2 had a median OS of 3.9 months (CI: 2.9-5.4) as compared with I3, HR=3.27 (CI: 1.80-5.94). Real-world analysis of patients with advanced/metastatic SCCHN in Ontario, Canada, treated with nivolumab demonstrates poorer median OS compared with CheckMate-141 trial. Lower BSA was a predictor of poorer median OS.

177Lu-PSMA-617 in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Evidence and Implications for Canadian Clinical Practice.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is highly expressed in prostate cancer and a therapeutic target. Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-PSMA-617 is the first radioligand therapy to be approved in Canada for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). As this treatment represents a new therapeutic class, guidance regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice is needed. This article aims to review the evidence from prospective phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and meta-analyses of observational studies on the use of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in prostate cancer and discuss how Canadian clinicians might best apply these data in practice. The selection of appropriate patients, the practicalities of treatment administration, including necessary facilities for treatment procedures, the assessment of treatment response, and the management of adverse events are considered. Survival benefits were observed in clinical trials of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with progressive, PSMA-positive mCRPC who were pretreated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxanes, as well as in taxane-naïve patients. However, the results of ongoing trials are awaited to clarify questions regarding the optimal sequencing of 177Lu-PSMA-617 with other therapies, as well as the implications of predictive biomarkers, personalized dosimetry, and combinations with other therapies.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of AGS15E Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) remains an unmet need. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) providing targeted drug delivery have shown antitumor activity in this setting. AGS15E is an investigational ADC that delivers the cytotoxic drug monomethyl auristatin E to cells expressing SLITRK6, a UC-associated antigen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase I dose-escalation and expansion trial of AGS15E in patients with mUC (NCT01963052). During dose escalation, AGS15E was administered intravenously at six levels (0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 mg/kg), employing a continual reassessment method to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the dose-expansion cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of AGS15E in patients with and without prior chemotherapy and with prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Best overall response was also examined. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were recruited, including 33 patients previously treated with CPI. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (54.8%), nausea (37.6%), and decreased appetite (35.5%). Peripheral neuropathy and ocular toxicities occurred at doses of ≥0.75 mg/kg. AGS15E increased in a dose-proportional manner after single- and multiple-dose administration; accumulation was low. Five DLT occurred from 0.50 to 1.25 mg/kg. The RP2D was assessed at 1.00 mg/kg; the objective response rate (ORR) was 35.7% at this dose level. The ORR in the total population and CPI-exposed subgroup were 18.3% and 27.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DLT with AGS15E were observed at 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 mg/kg, with an RP2D of 1.00 mg/kg being determined.

Addressing controversial areas in the management of advanced prostate cancer in Canada Areas of consensus and controversy from the third Canadian consensus forum.

INTRODUCTION: The management of prostate cancer (PCa) is rapidly evolving. Treatment and diagnostic options grow annually, however, high-level evidence for the use of new therapeutics and diagnostics is lacking. In November 2022, the Genitourinary Research Consortium held its 3rd Canadian Consensus Forum (CCF3) to provide guidance on key controversial areas for management of PCa. METHODS: A steering committee of eight multidisciplinary physicians identified topics for discussion and adapted questions from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022 for CCF3. Questions focused on management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); use of novel imaging, germline testing, and genomic profiling; and areas of non-consensus from CCF2. Fifty-eight questions were voted on during a live forum, with threshold for "consensus agreement" set at 75%. RESULTS: The voting panel consisted of 26 physicians: 13 urologists/uro-oncologists, nine medical oncologists, and four radiation oncologists. Consensus was reached for 32 of 58 questions (one ad-hoc). Consensus was seen in the use of local treatment, to not use metastasis-directed therapy for low-volume mCSPC, and to use triplet therapy for synchronous high-volume mCSPC (low prostate-specific antigen). Consensus was also reached on sufficiency of conventional imaging to manage disease, use of germline testing and genomic profiling for metastatic disease, and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for BRCA-positive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CCF3 identified consensus agreement and provides guidance on >30 practice scenarios related to management of PCa and nine areas of controversy, which represent opportunities for research and education to improve patient care. Consensus initiatives provide valuable guidance on areas of controversy as clinicians await high-level evidence.