Overall Survival with Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy after surgery for renal-cell carcinoma was approved on the basis of a significant improvement in disease-free survival in the KEYNOTE-564 trial. Whether the results regarding overall survival from the third prespecified interim analysis of the trial would also favor pembrolizumab was uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had an increased risk of recurrence after surgery to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year) or until recurrence, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. A significant improvement in disease-free survival according to investigator assessment (the primary end point) was shown previously. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab and 498 to receive placebo. As of September 15, 2023, the median follow-up was 57.2 months. The disease-free survival benefit was consistent with that in previous analyses (hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.87). A significant improvement in overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab as compared with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87; P = 0.005). The estimated overall survival at 48 months was 91.2% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 86.0% in the placebo group; the benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Pembrolizumab was associated with a higher incidence of serious adverse events of any cause (20.7%, vs. 11.5% with placebo) and of grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to pembrolizumab or placebo (18.6% vs. 1.2%). No deaths were attributed to pembrolizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab was associated with a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, as compared with placebo, among participants with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at increased risk for recurrence after surgery. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

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.).

Real-World Experience With Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is the second most common nonmelanoma skin cancer in Canada. However, few real-world reports exist on the treatment of refractory locally advanced (LA) and metastatic cSCC with cemiplimab to date. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to characterize the demographic and clinical outcomes of advanced cSCC patients on cemiplimab in a real-world setting. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of adult patients with refractory LA and metastatic cSCC treated with cemiplimab at the London Regional Cancer Program in Canada. Patient demographics and treatment characteristics were reported, as well as Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty patients were included in this study. Sixteen (40%) had LA disease and 24 (60%) had metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was 3.5 months (range: 0.6-29.4 months). Kaplan-Meier analyses of the entire study population revealed that the median OS was not reached [NR; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1 months-NR], but median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI 7.0 months-NR). A total of 25% of patients experienced at least one adverse event from cemiplimab. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were death from any cause (25%), disease progression (15%), cemiplimab adverse events (5%), and other causes (15%). DISCUSSION: The 12 month estimates of OS and PFS were lower than pivotal phase I and II clinical trials. However, toxicity was tolerable. Cemiplimab remains a safe and effective therapy in patients with refractory LA and metastatic cSCC disease.

Outcomes of relapsed clinical stage I versus de novo metastatic testicular cancer patients: an analysis of the IGCCCG Update database.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after orchiectomy is the preferred management in clinical stage I (CSI) germ-cell tumours (GCT) associated with a 15 to 30% relapse rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the IGCCCG Update database, we compared the outcomes of gonadal disseminated GCT relapsing from initial CSI to outcomes of patients with de novo metastatic GCT. RESULTS: A total of 1014 seminoma (Sem) [298 (29.4%) relapsed from CSI, 716 (70.6%) de novo] and 3103 non-seminoma (NSem) [626 (20.2%) relapsed from CSI, 2477 (79.8%) de novo] were identified. Among Sem, no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found between patients relapsing from CSI and de novo metastatic disease [5-year progression-free survival (5y-PFS) 87.6% versus 88.5%; 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) 93.2% versus 96.1%). Among NSem, PFS and OS were higher overall in relapsing CSI patients (5y-PFS 84.6% versus 80.0%; 5y-OS 93.3% versus 88.7%), but there were no differences within the same IGCCCG prognostic groups (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12). Relapses in the intermediate or poor prognostic groups occurred in 11/298 (4%) Sem and 112/626 (18%) NSem. CONCLUSION: Relapsing CSI GCT patients expect similar survival compared to de novo metastatic patients of the same ICCCCG prognostic group. Intermediate and poor prognosis relapses from initial CSI expose patients to unnecessary toxicity from more intensive treatments.

Metabolomic identification of predictive and early biomarkers of cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury in adult head and neck cancer patients.

AIM: Cisplatin causes acute kidney injury (AKI) in approximately one third of patients. Serum creatinine and urinary output are poor markers of cisplatin-induced AKI. Metabolomics was utilized to identify predictive or early diagnostic biomarkers of cisplatin-induced AKI. METHODS: Thirty-one adult head and neck cancer patients receiving cisplatin (dose ≥70 mg/m2 ) were recruited for metabolomics analysis. Urine and serum samples were collected prior to cisplatin (pre), 24-48 h after cisplatin (24-48 h) and 5-14 days (post) after cisplatin. Based on serum creatinine concentrations measured at the post timepoint, 11/31 patients were classified with clinical AKI. Untargeted metabolomics was performed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). RESULTS: Metabolic discrimination was observed between "AKI" patients and "no AKI" patients at all timepoints. Urinary glycine, hippuric acid sulfate, 3-hydroxydecanedioc acid and suberate were significantly different between AKI patients and no AKI patients prior to cisplatin infusion. Urinary glycine and hippuric acid sulfate were lower (-2.22-fold and -8.85-fold), whereas 3-hydroxydecanedioc acid and suberate were higher (3.62-fold and 1.91-fold) in AKI patients relative to no AKI patients. Several urine and serum metabolites were found to be altered 24-48 h following cisplatin infusion, particularly metabolites involved with mitochondrial energetics. CONCLUSIONS: We propose glycine, hippuric acid sulfate, 3-hydroxydecanedioc acid and suberate as predictive biomarkers of predisposition to cisplatin-induced AKI. Metabolites indicative of mitochondrial dysfunction may serve as early markers of subclinical AKI.

Lenvatinib for the Treatment of Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Treatment Optimization for Maximum Clinical Benefit.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treating patients with locally recurrent or metastatic progressive radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). In this review, we discuss recent developments in the optimization of RR-DTC treatment with lenvatinib. SUMMARY: Initiation of lenvatinib treatment before a worsening of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio could benefit patients with progressive RR-DTC. The median duration of response with lenvatinib was inversely correlated with a smaller tumor burden, and prognosis was significantly worse in patients with a high tumor burden. An 18 mg/day starting dose of lenvatinib was not noninferior to 24 mg/day and had a comparable safety profile. Timely management of adverse events is crucial, as patients with shorter dose interruptions benefitted more from lenvatinib treatment. Caution should be exercised when initiating lenvatinib in patients who have tumor infiltration into the trachea or other organs, or certain histological subtypes of DTC, as these are risk factors for fistula formation or organ perforation. The Study of (E7080) LEnvatinib in Differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid (SELECT) eligibility criteria should be considered prior to initiating lenvatinib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that patients benefit most from lenvatinib treatment that is initiated earlier in advanced disease when the disease burden is low. A starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day, with dose modifications as required, yields better outcomes as compared to 18 mg/day. Appropriate supportive care, including timely identification of adverse events, is essential to manage toxicities associated with lenvatinib, avoid longer dose interruptions, and maximize efficacy.

Treatment de-escalation for HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with radiotherapy vs. trans-oral surgery (ORATOR2): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches. METHODS: This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1-2 N0-2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50-60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Radiotherapy versus transoral robotic surgery and neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (ORATOR): an open-label, phase 2, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with concurrent neck dissection has supplanted radiotherapy in the USA as the most common treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to evaluate differences in quality of life (QOL) 1 year after treatment. METHODS: The ORATOR trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised study. Patients were enrolled at six hospitals in Canada and Australia. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores of 0-2, and with T1-T2, N0-2 (≤4 cm) OPSCC tumour types to radiotherapy (70 Gy, with chemotherapy if N1-2) or TORS plus neck dissection (with or without adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, based on pathology). Following stratification by p16 status, patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of four. The primary endpoint was swallowing-related QOL at 1 year as established using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) score, powered to detect a 10-point improvement (a clinically meaningful change) in the TORS plus neck dissection group. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01590355) and is active, but not currently recruiting. FINDINGS: 68 patients were randomly assigned (34 per group) between Aug 10, 2012, and June 9, 2017. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 20-33) for the radiotherapy group and 29 months (23-43) for the TORS plus neck dissection group. MDADI total scores at 1 year were mean 86·9 (SD 11·4) in the radiotherapy group versus 80·1 (13·0) in the TORS plus neck dissection group (p=0·042). There were more cases of neutropenia (six [18%] of 34 patients vs none of 34), hearing loss (13 [38%] vs five [15%]), and tinnitus (12 [35%] vs two [6%]) reported in the radiotherapy group than in the TORS plus neck dissection group, and more cases of trismus in the TORS plus neck dissection group (nine [26%] vs one [3%]). The most common adverse events in the radiotherapy group were dysphagia (n=6), hearing loss (n=6), and mucositis (n=4), all grade 3, and in the TORS plus neck dissection group, dysphagia (n=9, all grade 3) and there was one death caused by bleeding after TORS. INTERPRETATION: Patients treated with radiotherapy showed superior swallowing-related QOL scores 1 year after treatment, although the difference did not represent a clinically meaningful change. Toxicity patterns differed between the groups. Patients with OPSCC should be informed about both treatment options. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Grant (#701842), Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Clinician-Scientist research grant, and the Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers grant.

Emerging cell cycle inhibitors for treating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Disease progression despite androgen suppression defines lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Most of these cancers remain androgen receptor (AR)-signaling dependent. Therapy for metastatic CRPC includes abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, and radium-223. However, survival remains modest for men with progressive disease despite AR-targeted therapy and docetaxel, and therefore novel treatments are needed. Areas covered: Recent evidence of genomic heterogeneity and sensitivity to PARP inhibitors supports investigation of targeted agents in CRPC. Cell cycle inhibitors are therefore logical molecules to investigate. Review of the current literature identified cell cycle inhibitors under study in early phase clinical trials targeting the G1 (palbociclib, ribociclib, AZD-5363, ipatasertib), S (M-6620, prexasertib), G2 (adavosertib), and M (alisertib) phases of the cell cycle. Expert opinion: Strategies combining cell cycle inhibitors with active agents in CRPC are most likely to have clinical impact with CDK4/6 and Wee1 inhibitors appearing most promising. Identification of predictive biomarkers may be essential and currently trials are testing circulating cell-free DNA as an approach. Incremental toxicities such as neutropenia are important in this population. Results from most current clinical trials of cell cycle inhibitors in CRPC are still pending but it is anticipated they will provide important insights into the heterogeneous biology of CRPC.

Late Relapse of Ovarian Germ Cell Tumour.

BACKGROUND: Malignant ovarian germ cell tumours typically require multimodal therapy including surgery and systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Most patients are cured, with survival rates exceeding 95%. CASE: This report describes an unusual case of ovarian germ cell tumour (GCT) recurring 15 years after surgery and manifesting as metastatic disease to the liver, lung, and retroperitoneal lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: Thymic hyperplasia was a confounding finding in this case, and it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a mediastinal mass in heavily treated patients with GCT.

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.

Dose dense MVAC prior to radical cystectomy: a real-world experience.

PURPOSE: Our primary endpoint was to assess pathological response rate (pT0N0 and ≤pT1N0) for patients with BCa treated with the accelerated or dose dense MVAC (ddMVAC) chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) in this real-word multi-institutional cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of patients with urothelial cancer who underwent ddMVAC and RC at seven contributing institutions from 2000 to 2015. Patients with cT2-4a, M0 BCa were included. Presence of cT3-4 disease, hydronephrosis, lymphovascular invasion and/or existence of sarcomatoid, or micropapillary features on the initial transurethral resection of bladder tumor specimen was defined as high-risk disease. Logistic regression models for prediction of pT0N0 and ≤pT1N0 were generated for the entire cohort as well as for the cN0 subgroup. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model for survival using post RC data was used to assess hazard ratios (HRs) for the variables of interest. RESULTS: A total of 345 patients received ddMVAC chemotherapy during the study period; 85% had high-risk features. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (IQR 4-4); >90% of patients completed all scheduled cycles. The observed rates of pT0N0 and ≤pT1N0 were 30.4 and 49.3%, respectively, among cN0 patients. On the multivariable regression model, the presence of more than one clinical high-risk element was associated with 70% [OR 0.30 95% CI (0.10-0.86); p = 0.02] reduction in the odds of achieving partial pathological response. CONCLUSIONS: A complete response (pT0N0) was observed in one-third of patients after neoadjuvant ddMVAC therapy, and a partial response (≤pT1N0) was observed in nearly half of the cases in this real-world experience with this regimen. To our knowledge, this represents the largest experience outside clinical trial settings.

Abiraterone in metastatic prostate cancer without previous chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.).

Sunitinib maintenance therapy after response to docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Background Docetaxel is a standard first-line treatment option for men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Sunitinib is attractive as a maintenance therapy due to its mechanism of action, oral route of administration, and acceptable toxicity profile. We designed a phase II study of sunitinib in patients with mCRPC who responded to docetaxel. Methods Patients with responding or stable disease at the completion of docetaxel treatment received 50 mg of sunitinib on 4 week on 2 week off cycles. Treatment continued until disease progression (either by RECIST 1.1 criteria or by cancer related symptomatic progression), intolerable toxicity, start of new cancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was progression free survival. Secondary endpoints included PSA response rate and safety. Results Twenty-three patients were enrolled and treated. The mean number of prior cycles of docetaxel given was 8.6 (range 4-12). The median number of cycles of sunitinib administered was 4 (range 1-11). Adverse events were generally grade 1-2 with 12 % grade ≥ 3 which were of a type and severity expected for sunitinib. Median PFS was 4.4 months (95 % CI: 1.6-5.1). Most patients had immediate PSA increases without other evidence of disease progression, with the mean increases in PSA over baseline being 197 %, 342 %, and 1437 % in Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Conclusion Sunitinib was tolerable as maintenance therapy but median PFS was significantly lower than the predefined threshold of 6 months.

Safety of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel: expanded access in North America.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, single-arm enzalutamide expanded access program (EAP) in the United States and Canada evaluated the safety of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel. METHODS: Patients (n = 507) received enzalutamide 160 mg/day until disease progression, intolerable adverse events (AEs), or commercial availability occurred. AEs and other safety variables were assessed on day 1, weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Data following transition to commercial drug were not collected. RESULTS: Median age was 71 years (range 43-97); 426 patients (83.9%) had a baseline ECOG score of ≤1. In addition to docetaxel, the majority of patients had received prior prostate cancer treatments such as abiraterone (76.1%) or cabazitaxel (28.6%). Median study treatment duration was 2.6 months (range 0.03-9.07). The most frequently reported reasons for discontinuation were commercial availability of enzalutamide (46.7%) and progressive disease (33.7%). A total of 88.2% of patients experienced AEs; 45.4% experienced AEs with a maximum grade of 1 or 2. Fatigue (39.1%), nausea (22.7%), and anorexia (14.8%) were the most commonly reported AEs. Seizure was reported in four patients (0.8%). The most commonly reported event leading to death was progression of metastatic prostate cancer (7.7%). CONCLUSION: In this heavily pretreated EAP population with progressive mCRPC, enzalutamide was well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with that of the AFFIRM trial.

Temsirolimus Maintenance Therapy After Docetaxel Induction in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Temsirolimus maintenance therapy after docetaxel induction chemotherapyis safe in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, although biochemical or tumor responses are rare;does not diminish quality of life; anddelays radiological and/or symptomatic progression by approximately 6 months. BACKGROUND: No standard therapy is available for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who have responded to docetaxel and do not yet have disease progression. Hence, we designed a single-arm phase II trial to explore whether the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus can maintain the response to docetaxel without compromising quality of life. METHODS: After successful docetaxel induction (75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks; 6-10 cycles), 21 CRPC patients underwent temsirolimus maintenance treatment (25 mg weekly; 4 weeks per cycle). The primary endpoint was the time to treatment failure (TTTF) (i.e., radiological and/or symptomatic progression). The secondary endpoints included the tumor response rate (RECIST 1.0), safety (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P]), pain (Present Pain Intensity [PPI] scale), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) parameters, including time to PSA progression (TTPP) according to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group criteria, and serial enumeration of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and endothelial progenitor cells (CEPs). RESULTS: Patients received a median of 7 cycles of temsirolimus (range, 1-28), resulting in a median TTTF of 24.3 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.1-33.0), 1 partial tumor response (4.8%), 1 PSA response (4.8%), and a median TTPP of 12.2 weeks (95% CI, 7.8-23.9). Grade 3-4 adverse events were infrequent, and FACT-P and PPI scores remained stable during treatment. CECs did not predict clinical benefit, and CEPs were not consistently detectable. CONCLUSION: Temsirolimus maintenance therapy after successful docetaxel induction is feasible, does not adversely affect quality of life, and, in this exploratory single-arm phase II study, resulted in a median TTTF of 24.3 weeks.

Identification and survival outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer of unknown primary in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) is defined by the presence of pathologically identified metastatic disease without clinical or radiological evidence of a primary tumour. Our objective was to identify incident cases of CUP in Ontario, Canada, and determine the influence of histology and sites of metastases on overall survival (OS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract Database (SDS/DAD) to identify patients diagnosed with CUP in Ontario between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2005. Patient diagnostic information, including histology and survival data, was obtained from the OCR. We cross-validated CUP diagnosis and obtained additional information about metastasis through data linkage with the SDS/DAD database. OS was assessed using Cox regression models adjusting for histology and sites of metastases. RESULTS: We identified 3564 patients diagnosed with CUP. Patients without histologically confirmed disease (n = 1821) had a one-year OS of 10.9%, whereas patients with confirmed histology (n = 1743) had a one-year OS of 15.6%. The most common metastatic sites were in the respiratory or digestive systems (n = 1603), and the most common histology was adenocarcinoma (n = 939). Three-year survival rates were 3.5%, 5.3%, 41.6% and 3.6% among adenocarcinoma, unspecified carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and undifferentiated histology, respectively. Three-year survival rates were 40%, 2.4%, 8.0% and 4.6% among patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes, the respiratory or digestive systems, other specified sites, and unspecified sites, respectively. CONCLUSION: CUP patients in Ontario have a poor prognosis. Some subgroups may have better survival rates, such as patients with metastases localised to lymph nodes and patients with squamous cell histology.

Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and raloxifene have limited patient acceptance for primary prevention of breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors prevent more contralateral breast cancers and cause fewer side effects than tamoxifen in patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of exemestane designed to detect a 65% relative reduction in invasive breast cancer, eligible postmenopausal women 35 years of age or older had at least one of the following risk factors: 60 years of age or older; Gail 5-year risk score greater than 1.66% (chances in 100 of invasive breast cancer developing within 5 years); prior atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ; or ductal carcinoma in situ with mastectomy. Toxic effects and health-related and menopause-specific qualities of life were measured. RESULTS: A total of 4560 women for whom the median age was 62.5 years and the median Gail risk score was 2.3% were randomly assigned to either exemestane or placebo. At a median follow-up of 35 months, 11 invasive breast cancers were detected in those given exemestane and in 32 of those given placebo, with a 65% relative reduction in the annual incidence of invasive breast cancer (0.19% vs. 0.55%; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.70; P=0.002). The annual incidence of invasive plus noninvasive (ductal carcinoma in situ) breast cancers was 0.35% on exemestane and 0.77% on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.79; P=0.004). Adverse events occurred in 88% of the exemestane group and 85% of the placebo group (P=0.003), with no significant differences between the two groups in terms of skeletal fractures, cardiovascular events, other cancers, or treatment-related deaths. Minimal quality-of-life differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane significantly reduced invasive breast cancers in postmenopausal women who were at moderately increased risk for breast cancer. During a median follow-up period of 3 years, exemestane was associated with no serious toxic effects and only minimal changes in health-related quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and others; NCIC CTG MAP.3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00083174.).

Tamoxifen-associated hot flash severity is inversely correlated with endoxifen concentration and CYP3A4*22.

Tamoxifen use is often limited in some patients due to adverse effects including severe hot flash symptoms. Tamoxifen undergoes hepatic bioactivation by CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 to form the active metabolite endoxifen. It remains unclear whether the extent of attained endoxifen level or genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolizing enzymes is associated with the frequency and severity of hot flashes. We conducted a prospective study using self-reported surveys to assess tamoxifen side effects experienced during the week prior to clinic visits of 132 female breast cancer patients on tamoxifen therapy, and hot flash severity scores were tabulated. At the time of clinic visit, blood samples were obtained to determine tamoxifen and its metabolite levels and to determine CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 genotypes. The majority of participants (77 %) experienced hot flashes, with 11 % experiencing severe or very severe symptoms. We observed an inverse correlation between endoxifen concentration and hot flash severity score following adjustment for age, BMI, and menopausal status in patients with non-zero scores (p < 0.001). Interestingly, CYP2D6 genotype was not significantly associated with hot flash scores in patients on no known inhibitory medications. However, CYP3A4*22 carriers were less likely to have hot flashes with an odds ratio of 8.87 (p < 0.01) even when compared to a cohort with similar endoxifen levels. Our data demonstrate that patients with higher endoxifen levels tended to predict lower hot flash severity scores. Importantly, this is the first study to show CYP3A4*22 genotype as an independent predictor of hot flash severity during tamoxifen therapy.

Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, decisions about the public funding of drugs are preferentially based on the results of randomized trials. For truly rare diseases, such trials are not typically available, and approaches by public payers are highly variable. In view of this, a policy framework intended to fairly evaluate these drugs was developed by the Drugs for Rare Diseases Working Group (DRDWG) at the request of the Ontario Public Drug Programs. OBJECTIVE: To report the initial experience of applying a novel evaluation framework to funding applications for drugs for rare diseases. METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study. MEASURES: Clinical effectiveness, costs, funding recommendations, funding approval. KEY RESULTS: Between March 2008 and February 2013, eight drugs were evaluated using the DRDWG framework. The estimated average annual drug cost per patient ranged from 28,000 to 1,200,000 Canadian dollars (CAD). For five drugs, full evaluations were completed, specific funding recommendations were made by the DRDWG, and funding was approved after risk-sharing agreements with the manufacturers were negotiated. For two drugs, the disease indications were determined to be ineligible for consideration. For one drug, there was insufficient natural history data for the disease to provide a basis for recommendation. For the five drugs fully evaluated, 32 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria for funding, and five were denied based on predefined exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The framework improved transparency and consistency for evaluation and public funding of drugs for rare diseases in Ontario. The evaluation process will continue to be iteratively refined as feedback on actual versus expected clinical and economic outcomes is incorporated.