[Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and PARP inhibitors: From tumor genomics to new therapeutic combinations]. / Cancer de prostate métastatique résistant à la castration et inhibiteurs de PARP : de la génomique tumorale aux nouvelles associations thérapeutiques.

Castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer remains lethal and a therapeutic challenge. Current strategies are geared towards the personalization of treatments based on the identification of relevant molecular targets, including genomic alterations involved in tumoral processes. Among these novel targeted therapies, poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), by blocking the action of enzymes involved in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) repair, induce the destruction of cells carrying defects in homologous recombination repair, often associated with alterations in genes involved in this mechanism. Thus, determining the presence of a molecular anomaly, particularly alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes, is a prerequisite for initiating PARPi monotherapy. In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer , around 20-30 % carry this type of mutation. In this population, single-agent studies have demonstrated PARPi ability to prolong overall survival, and to improve symptom control, including pain. Other studies are underway to assess their effectiveness in combination with other therapies, and it already appears that association with new-generation hormone therapy can further prolong radiological progression-free survival, regardless of the mutation status of the genes involved in DNA repair, indicating a synergistic action between PARPi and new-generation hormone therapy.

Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in immune checkpoint inhibitor-related encephalitis: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related encephalitis (ICI-encephalitis) is not well characterised and diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are lacking. We aimed to comprehensively characterise ICI-encephalitis and identify diagnostic biomarkers and outcome predictors. Methods: This retrospective observational study included all patients with ICI-encephalitis studied in the French Reference Centre on Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes (PNS) and Autoimmune Encephalitis (2015-2023). ICI encephalitis was considered definite in case of inflammatory findings at paraclinical tests and/or well-characterised neural antibodies. Predictors of immune-related adverse event (irAE) treatment response, defined as a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 grade < 3 at any time after therapeutic intervention, were assessed by logistic regression analysis, and predictors of mortality by Cox regression analysis. Neurofilament light chain (NfL) was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Findings: Sixty-seven patients with definite encephalitis were identified (median age, 69 years; 66% male). A focal syndrome was observed in 43/67 patients (64%; limbic encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia, and/or brainstem encephalitis), while 24/67 (36%) had meningoencephalitis, a non-focal syndrome with altered mental status (22/24 patients, 92%) and pleocytosis (24/24 patients, 100%). Patients with focal encephalitis more frequently had abnormal brain MRI (26/42, 62% versus 8/24, 33%, p = 0.025), PNS-related antibodies (36/43, 84% versus 1/24, 4%, p < 0.001), and neuroendocrine cancers (22/43, 51% versus 1/24, 4%; p < 0.001) than patients with meningoencephalitis. Focal encephalitis patients had a lower rate of irAE treatment response (7/39, 18%) and higher mortality (27/43, 63%) compared to meningoencephalitis patients (12/22, 77% and 5/24, 21%, respectively, p < 0.001 each). PNS-related antibodies were associated with less irAE treatment response, independently of age, sex, and baseline severity (adjusted OR 0.05; 95%CI [0.01; 0.19]; p < 0.001) as well as higher mortality, independently of age and cancer type (adjusted HR 5.07; 95% CI [2.12; 12.12]; p < 0.001). Serum NfL discriminated patients with definite ICI-encephalitis (n = 27) from cancer-matched controls (n = 16; optimal cut-off >273.5 pg/mL, sensitivity 81%, specificity 88%, AUC 0.87, 95% CI [0.76; 0.98]) and irAE treatment responders (n = 10) from non-responders (n = 17, optimal cut-off >645 pg/mL, sensitivity 90%, specificity 65%; AUC 0.75, 95% CI [0.55; 0.94]). Interpretation: ICI-encephalitis corresponds to a set of clinically-recognisable syndromes. Patients with focal encephalitis, PNS-related antibodies, and/or higher serum NfL have low irAE treatment response rates. Research is needed on the underlying immunopathogenesis to foster therapeutic innovations. Funding: Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Evolving Practices in Immune-Related Adverse Event Management: Insights From the IMMUCARE Multidisciplinary Board.

PURPOSE: The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated. RESULTS: Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges. CONCLUSION: Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.

Intra-individual Dose Escalation of Abiraterone According to Its Plasma Exposure in Patients with Progressive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results of the OPTIMABI Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Trough abiraterone concentration (ABI Cmin) of 8.4 ng/mL has been identified as an appropriate efficacy threshold in patients treated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of the phase II OPTIMABI study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacokinetics (PK)-guided dose escalation of abiraterone acetate (AA) in underexposed patients with mCRPC with early tumour progression. METHODS: This multicentre, non-randomised study consisted of two sequential steps. In step 1, all patients started treatment with 1000 mg of AA once daily. Abiraterone Cmin was measured 22-26 h after the last dose intake each month during the first 12 weeks of treatment. In step 2, underexposed patients (Cmin < 8.4 ng/mL) with tumour progression within the first 6 months of treatment were enrolled and received AA 1000 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the rate of non-progression at 12 weeks after the dose doubling. During step 1, adherence to ABI treatment was assessed using the Girerd self-reported questionnaire. A post-hoc analysis of pharmacokinetic (PK) data was conducted using Bayesian estimation of Cmin from samples collected outside the sampling guidelines (22-26 h). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT), 81 patients were included in step 1. In all, 21 (26%) patients were underexposed in step 1, and 8 of them (38%) experienced tumour progression within the first 6 months. A total of 71 patients (88%) completed the Girerd self-reported questionnaire. Of the patients, 62% had a score of 0, and 38% had a score of 1 or 2 (minimal compliance failure), without a significant difference in mean ABI Cmin in the two groups. Four patients were enrolled in step 2, and all reached the exposure target (Cmin > 8.4 ng/mL) after doubling the dose, but none met the primary endpoint. In the post-hoc analysis of PK data, 32 patients (39%) were underexposed, and ABI Cmin was independently associated with worse progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-5.81; p = 0.03], in contrast to the ITT analysis. CONCLUSION: The ITT and per-protocol analyses showed no statistical association between ABI underexposure and an increased risk of early tumour progression in patients with mCRPC, while the Bayesian estimator showed an association. However, other strategies than dose escalation at the time of progression need to be evaluated. Treatment adherence appeared to be uniformly good in the present study. Finally, the use of a Bayesian approach to recover samples collected outside the predefined blood collection time window could benefit the conduct of clinical trials based on drug monitoring. OPTIMABI trial is registered as National Clinical Trial number NCT03458247, with the EudraCT number 2017-000560-15).

Multidisciplinary real-world management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A French national study (PROFILE study).

While androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), recent strategies like intensification of systemic treatment (Rozet et al., 2020) (i.e. adding another treatment to ADT) and radiotherapy have improved overall survival. PROFILE, a national retrospective multicentric real-world study, involved patients with mCSPC recruited by medical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists, and who started treatment between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients by sites were included consecutively. Data were collected from medical records. Primary objectives were to: (1) describe retrospectively the characteristics of whole population of patients with mCSPC as well as subgroups defined by prognostic factors in France at diagnosis; (2) identify current practices for managing mCSPC in a real-life clinical setting. Among the 416 patients with mCSPC included in the PROFILE study, 315 (76%) were synchronous (metastasis at the initial diagnosis) and 101 (24%) were metachronous patients (metastasis diagnosed post-progression). A majority (83% of synchronous and 73% of metachronous patients) received an intensified systemic treatment (ADT plus ARSI [androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors]±chemotherapy±primary tumour radiotherapy±metastasis-directed therapy [MDT]), while only 40% of low-volume patients received prostate radiotherapy. This study depicts the standardization of new therapeutic strategies for patients with mCSPC in France with most of them receiving an intensified treatment, mainly with ADT+ARSI (64% of synchronous intensified patients and 76% of metachronous intensified patients). Most of patients were assessed using conventional imaging (CT scan and/or bone scan). Overall, PROFILE results are in line with French and European guidelines for diagnosis, management, and follow-up of such patients (Rozet et al., 2020; Cornford et al., 2021).

Immunogenicity of radiotherapy on bone metastases from prostate adenocarcinoma: What is the future for the combination with radiotherapy/immunotherapy?

Bone metastatic prostate cancers (PCa) are resistant to usual immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors. The main hypothesis related to this immunoresistance is the lack of antigens to stimulate anti-tumor immunity. External radiation is a potential inducer antigens presentation and thus to immunotherapy proprieties. The aim of this review is to describe the tumor microenvironment specificities, especially in bone metastasis and the immune modifications after radiation therapy on a metastatic castration-resistant PCa population. PCa microenvironment is immunosuppressive because of many tumor factors. The complex interplay between PCa cells and bone microenvironment leads to a 'vicious circle' promoting bone metastasis. Furthermore, the immune and bone systems, are connected through an osteoclastogenic cytokine: the Receptor Activator Nuclear Factor Kappa B ligand. Adapted doses of ionizing radiation play a dual role on the tumor. Indeed, radiotherapy leads to immunogenicity by inducing damage associated with molecular patterns. However, it also induces an immunosuppressive effect by increasing the number of immunosuppressive cells. Interestingly, the abscopal effect could be used to optimize immunotherapy potential, especially on bone metastasis. Radiotherapy and immunotherapy combination is a promising strategy, however further studies are necessary to determine the more efficient types of radiation and to control the abscopal effect.

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Prognostic Value of the Modeled Prostate-Specific Antigen KELIM Confirmation in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Taxanes in FIRSTANA.

PURPOSE: In a previous exploratory study, modeled early longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics observed within the 100-first treatment days with androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with prostate cancer with rising PSA levels after primary local therapy. This prognostic value had to be confirmed in different settings. The objectives were to assess PSA kinetics modeling in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with chemotherapy in FIRSTANA trial and to investigate modeled PSA kinetic parameters prognostic/predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIRSTANA phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel is superior to docetaxel in terms of PFS/OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. PSA longitudinal kinetics was assessed using the previous kinetic-pharmacodynamics model. Patient modeled ELIMination rate constant K (PSA.KELIM) was used to categorize favorable/unfavorable PSA declines (standardized PSA.KELIM < or ≥ 1.0 days-1) and further correlated with PFS/OS. RESULTS: In total, 1,050 of 1,168 enrolled patients were assessable for PSA.KELIM estimation. The median PSA.KELIM was 0.02 days-1. In univariate analyses, PSA.KELIM exhibited a significant prognostic value regarding survival: unfavorable versus favorable PSA.KELIM; median PFS, 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.2) versus 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.2), P = .002; median OS, 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 19.3) versus 28.4 months (95% CI, 26.7 to 31.6), P < .001. In multivariate analyses, PSA.KELIM was significant for PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93], P = .005) and OS (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60], P < .001), together with baseline radiological tumor progression and PSA doubling time. PSA.KELIM predictive value was not significant across treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This external validation study confirmed previous results about modeled PSA longitudinal kinetics prognostic value regarding PFS/OS in patients with mCRPC treated with taxanes. PSA.KELIM could be used to identify a subpopulation with poor prognosis, who may benefit from treatment intensification.

Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge. RESULTS: We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2-22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients.

Biological Biomarkers of Response and Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents around 2% of cancer-related deaths worldwide per year. RCC is an immunogenic malignancy, and treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC) has greatly improved since the advent of the new immunotherapy agents, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, it should be stressed that a large proportion of patients does not respond to these therapies. There is thus an urgent need to identify predictive biomarkers of efficacy or resistance associated with ICIs or ICI/Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) combinations; this is a major challenge to achieve precision medicine for mRCC in routine practice. To identify potential biomarkers, it is necessary to improve our knowledge on the biology of immune checkpoints. A lot of efforts have been made over the last decade in the field of immuno-oncology. We summarize here the main data obtained in this field when considering mRCC. As for clinical biomarkers, clinician and scientific experts of the domain are facing difficulties in identifying such molecular entities, probably due to the complexity of immuno-oncology and the constant adaptation of tumor cells to their changing environment.

A PK-PD model linking biomarker dynamics to progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy, EVESOR phase I trial.

PURPOSE: The objective was to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model linking everolimus and sorafenib exposure with biomarker dynamics and progression-free survival (PFS) based on data from EVESOR trial in patients with solid tumors treated with everolimus and sorafenib combination therapy and to simulate alternative dosing schedules for sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Everolimus (5-10 mg once daily, qd) and sorafenib (200-400 mg twice daily, bid) were administered according to four different dosing schedules in 43 solid tumor patients. Rich PK and PD sampling for serum angiogenesis biomarkers was performed. Baseline activation of RAS/RAF/ERK (MAPK) pathway was assessed by quantification of mRNA specific gene panel in tumor biopsies. The PK-PD modeling was performed using NONMEM® software. RESULTS: An indirect response PK-PD model linking sorafenib plasma exposure with soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (sVEGFR2) dynamics was developed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was described by a parametric time-to-event model. Higher decreases in sVEGFR2 at day 21 and higher baseline activation of MAPK pathway were associated with longer PFS (p = 0.002 and p = 0.007, respectively). The simulated schedule sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + continuous everolimus 5 mg qd was associated with median PFS of 4.3 months (95% CI 1.6-14.4), whereas the median PFS in the EVESOR trial was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.2, n = 43). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off + everolimus 5 mg qd continuous was selected for an additional arm of EVESOR trial to evaluate whether this simulated schedule is associated with higher clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Clinical results of the EVESOR trial, a multiparameter phase I trial of everolimus and sorafenib combination in solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Everolimus (EVE) and sorafenib (SOR) combination was associated with synergistic activity in preclinical models. However, previous clinical studies were hampered by cumulative toxicities when both were given continuously. The academic EVESOR trial (NCT01932177) was designed to assess alternative doses and intermittent dosing schedules of EVE and SOR combination therapy to improve the benefit-risk ratio for patients with solid tumors. METHODS: EVESOR is a multiparameter dose-escalation phase I trial investigating different doses and dosing schedules, with the final objective of generating data for modeling and simulation. Patients were allocated into continuous (A and B) or intermittent (C and D) schedules to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The clinical outcomes are presented here. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included from 2013 to 2019. Most of them had gynecological (25.6%), cholangiocarcinomas (23.2%), colorectal (14.0%), and breast cancers (11.6%). Dose-escalation up to EVE 10 mg QD and SOR 400 mg BID was possible on intermittent schedules. Five dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and dose reductions were required in 39.5% patients, stabilizing at EVE 5 mg and SOR 200 mg BID for 58.1% of them. The overall response rate was 6.3%, and disease control rate was 75.0%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.6 months. The longest median PFS were observed in cholangiocarcinomas (9.9 months), and gynecological adenocarcinomas (9.2 months). CONCLUSION: Intermittent arms were associated with improved efficacy/toxicity profiles; and EVE 5 mg QD and SOR 200 mg BID was defined a clinically feasible dose. Strong signs of efficacy were found in cholangiocarcinomas and gynecologic carcinomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01932177.

Complete Response in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors: Remission or Healing? How to Improve Patients' Outcomes?

Renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2% of cancer diagnoses and deaths worldwide. Clear-cell RCCs represent the vast majority (85%) of kidney cancers and are considered morphologically and genetically as immunogenic tumors. Indeed, the RCC tumoral microenvironment comprises T cells and myeloid cells in an immunosuppressive state, providing an opportunity to restore their activity through immunotherapy. Standard first-line systemic treatment for metastatic patients includes immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD1, in combination with either another ICI or with antiangiogenic targeted therapy. During the past few years, several combinations have been approved with an overall survival benefit and overall response rate that depend on the combination. Interestingly, some patients achieve prolonged complete responses, raising the question of whether these metastatic RCC patients can be cured. This review will focus on recent therapeutic advances in RCC and the clinical and biological aspects underpinning the potential for healing.

Impact of Bone Metastases on Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma or Melanoma Treated with Combotherapy Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab.

(1) Background: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab (combo-ICI) improves overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or melanoma. The impact of bone metastases (BM) on survival outcomes of combo-ICI-treated patients is unknown. (2) Methods: This single-center retrospective observational study involved 36 combo-ICI-treated patients with advanced RCC and 35 with melanoma. Clinical and laboratory data preceding the initiation of combo-ICI were collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of BM on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). (3) Results: zNine RCC and 11 melanoma patients had baseline BM. In unadjusted analysis, baseline BM was associated with a poorer OS in the RCC cohort. Baseline BM did not have any impact on survival outcomes in melanoma patients. After adjustment on baseline performance status and on neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the impact of BM was no longer significant, but a NLR ≥ 3 was significantly associated with a poorer OS in the RCC cohort. (4) Conclusions: The presence of baseline BM seems to be associated with worse outcomes in RCC combo-ICI-treated patients, while its effect might not be independent from the inflammatory state (approximated by the NLR). BM seems to have no impact on the outcomes of melanoma combo-ICI-treated patients.

Embryonated Chicken Tumor Xenografts Derived from Circulating Tumor Cells as a Relevant Model to Study Metastatic Dissemination: A Proof of Concept.

Patient-Derived Xenografts (PDXs) in the Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) are a representative model for studying human tumors. Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) are involved in cancer dissemination and treatment resistance mechanisms. To facilitate research and deep analysis of these few cells, significant efforts were made to expand them. We evaluated here whether the isolation of fresh CTCs from patients with metastatic cancers could provide a reliable tumor model after a CAM xenograft. We enrolled 35 patients, with breast, prostate, or lung metastatic cancers. We performed microfluidic-based CTC enrichment. After 48-72 h of culture, the CTCs were engrafted onto the CAM of embryonated chicken eggs at day 9 of embryonic development (EDD9). The tumors were resected 9 days after engraftment and histopathological, immunochemical, and genomic analyses were performed. We obtained in ovo tumors for 61% of the patients. Dedifferentiated small tumors with spindle-shaped cells were observed. The epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition of CTCs could explain this phenotype. Beyond the feasibility of NGS in this model, we have highlighted a genomic concordance between the in ovo tumor and the original patient's tumor for constitutional polymorphism and somatic alteration in one patient. Alu DNA sequences were detected in the chicken embryo's distant organs, supporting the idea of dedifferentiated cells with aggressive behavior. To our knowledge, we performed the first chicken CAM CTC-derived xenografts with NGS analysis and evidence of CTC dissemination in the chicken embryo.

Chemotherapy following immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest improvements in response to salvage chemotherapy (CT) after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in several types of cancer. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI, compared with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, we included all patients with la/mUC initiating second or third-line chemotherapy from January 2015 to June 2020. We compared patients treated with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI (CT2) and patients treated with third-line chemotherapy after ICI (CT3). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) in CT3 compared with CT2. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities. RESULTS: Overall, 553 patients were included. ORRs were 31.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 35.5) and 29.2% (95% CI, 21.9 to 36.6), respectively, in CT2 and CT3, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.62). In subgroup analyses, no differences in ORR were observed by Bellmunt risk group, type of chemotherapy (platinum or taxanes), duration of response to first-platinum-based chemotherapy (< or ≥ 12 months) or FGFR-status. Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.1) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.5) in CT2 and CT3, respectively, and grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 35.0% and 22.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: This large multicentre retrospective study provides clinically relevant real-world data. Chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI in la/mUC achieves ORR and PFS comparable with those obtained in CT2 with an acceptable safety profile. These updated results offer more promising outcomes than historically reported with second-line chemotherapy data.

Clinical activity of immunotherapy-based combination first-line therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the right treatment for the right patient.

Immunotherapy (IO) with checkpoint inhibitors with or without anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-based combinations have demonstrated superior efficacy over sunitinib for treatment-naive patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Four of these combinations (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib) represent new front-line standard-of-care options for mRCC patients, according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) subgroups. Questions over the optimal treatment between IO-IO or IO-TKI combinations for mRCC patients in intermediate/poor IMDC risk groups and the optimal IO-TKI regimen for all IMDC risk groups remain unanswered. This review will focus on the biological pathways that have driven the hypothesis of a synergistic combination of such agents and their efficacy results, with consideration of response and survival outcomes in the overall population of phase three pivotal trials as well as in specific subgroups of interest.

[Metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Management of toxicities of combinations]. / Cancer du rein métastatique : gestion des toxicités des combinaisons.

New combinations of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or dual ICI have been shown to be effective in phase III trials compared to sunitinib in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer. While ICI doublet is already used in other indications, TKI/ICI combinations are more recent and the management of their adverse effects (AEs) are less well known, particularly with regard to the accountability of each therapeutic class. The objective of this article is to analyze the safety data from the main phase III studies to provide clinicians with practical advice for managing the AEs from these combinations. Their management depends largely on the type of combination and their grade. In the case of a TKI/ICI combination, discontinuation of the 2 molecules is considered from grade 2. Rapid improvement in symptoms suggests that the AE is related to the TKI. It is then possible, after resolution, to reintroduce the TKI, if needed by reducing the dose, and to continue the ICI. Otherwise, the blame falls on the ICI and treatment usually involves corticosteroids. Management also depends on the type of AE and its severity. In some cases (dysthyroidism), treatment with TKI/ICI may be continued. In other situations (cardiac or neurological toxicity), it should be discontinued from grade 1 and hospitalization and corticosteroid therapy should be considered immediately. In all cases, information and education are integral parts of the prevention and proper management of potential AEs.