Perioperative nivolumab versus observation in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy (PROSPER ECOG-ACRIN EA8143): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for patients with intermediate-to-high risk renal cell carcinoma is partial or radical nephrectomy followed by surveillance. We aimed to investigate use of nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma to determine recurrence-free survival compared with surgery only. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (PROSPER EA8143), patients were recruited from 183 community and academic sites across the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, with previously untreated clinical stage T2 or greater or Tany N+ renal cell carcinoma of clear cell or non-clear cell histology planned for partial or radical nephrectomy. Selected patients with oligometastatic disease, who were disease free at other disease sites within 12 weeks of surgery, were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients using permuted blocks (block size of 4) within stratum (clinical TNM stage) to either nivolumab plus surgery, or surgery only followed by surveillance. In the nivolumab group, nivolumab 480 mg was administered before surgery, followed by nine adjuvant doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-reviewed recurrence-free survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma assessed in all randomly assigned patients regardless of histology. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who started the assigned protocol treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03055013, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2017, and June 2, 2021, 819 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus surgery (404 [49%]) or surgery only (415 [51%]). 366 (91%) of 404 patients assigned to nivolumab plus surgery and 387 (93%) of 415 patients assigned to surgery only group started treatment. Median age was 61 years (IQR 53-69), 248 (30%) of 819 patients were female, 571 (70%) were male, 672 (88%) were White, and 77 (10%) were Hispanic or Latino. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee stopped the trial at a planned interim analysis (March 25, 2022) because of futility. Median follow-up was 30·4 months (IQR 21·5-42·4) in the nivolumab group and 30·1 months (21·9-41·8) in the surgery only group. 381 (94%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 399 (96%) of 415 in the surgery only group had renal cell carcinoma and were included in the recurrence-free survival analysis. As of data cutoff (May 24, 2023), recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between nivolumab (125 [33%] of 381 had recurrence-free survival events) versus surgery only (133 [33%] of 399; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·21]; one-sided p=0·32). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were elevated lipase (17 [5%] of 366 patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group vs none in the surgery only group), anaemia (seven [2%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [3%] vs one [<1%]), abdominal pain (four [1%] vs six [2%]), and increased serum amylase (nine [2%] vs none). 177 (48%) patients in the nivolumab plus surgery group and 93 (24%) in the surgery only group had grade 3-5 adverse events due to any cause, the most common of which were anaemia (23 [6%] vs 19 [5%]), hypertension (27 [7%] vs nine [2%]), and elevated lipase (18 [5%] vs six [2%]). 48 (12%) of 404 patients in the nivolumab group and 40 (10%) of 415 in the surgery only group died, of which eight (2%) and three (1%), respectively, were determined to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Perioperative nivolumab before nephrectomy followed by adjuvant nivolumab did not improve recurrence-free survival versus surgery only followed by surveillance in patients with high-risk renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Characterization of structural, biochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of the LSD1 inhibitor bomedemstat in preclinical models.

INTRODUCTION: Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is emerging as a critical mediator of tumor progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is increasingly recognized as an adaptive mechanism of resistance in mCRPC patients failing androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies. Safe and effective LSD1 inhibitors are necessary to determine antitumor response in prostate cancer models. For this reason, we characterize the LSD1 inhibitor bomedemstat to assess its clinical potential in NEPC as well as other mCRPC pathological subtypes. METHODS: Bomedemstat was characterized via crystallization, flavine adenine dinucleotide spectrophotometry, and enzyme kinetics. On-target effects were assessed in relevant prostate cancer cell models by measuring proliferation and H3K4 methylation using western blot analysis. In vivo, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of bomedemstat are also described. RESULTS: Structural, biochemical, and PK/PD properties of bomedemstat, an irreversible, orally-bioavailable inhibitor of LSD1 are reported. Our data demonstrate bomedemstat has >2500-fold greater specificity for LSD1 over monoamine oxidase (MAO)-A and -B. Bomedemstat also demonstrates activity against several models of advanced CRPC, including NEPC patient-derived xenografts. Significant intra-tumoral accumulation of orally-administered bomedemstat is measured with micromolar levels achieved in vivo (1.2 ± 0.45 µM at the 7.5 mg/kg dose and 3.76 ± 0.43 µM at the 15 mg/kg dose). Daily oral dosing of bomedemstat at 40 mg/kg/day is well-tolerated, with on-target thrombocytopenia observed that is rapidly reversible following treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Bomedemstat provides enhanced specificity against LSD1, as revealed by structural and biochemical data. PK/PD data display an overall safety profile with manageable side effects resulting from LSD1 inhibition using bomedemstat in preclinical models. Altogether, our results support clinical testing of bomedemstat in the setting of mCRPC.

Pharmacogenetic and clinical risk factors for bevacizumab-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in prostate cancer patients treated on CALGB 90401 (Alliance).

The objective of this study was to discover clinical and pharmacogenetic factors associated with bevacizumab-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) 90401. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer received docetaxel and prednisone ± bevacizumab. Patients were genotyped using Illumina HumanHap610-Quad and assessed using cause-specific risk for association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. In 1008 patients, grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 9.5% and 3.8% of bevacizumab (n = 503) and placebo (n = 505) treated patients, respectively. Bevacizumab (P < 0.001) and age (P = 0.002) were associated with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. In 616 genetically estimated Europeans (n = 314 bevacizumab and n = 302 placebo treated patients), grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 9.6% and 2.0% of patients, respectively. One SNP (rs1478947; HR 6.26; 95% CI 3.19-12.28; P = 9.40 × 10-8) surpassed Bonferroni-corrected significance. Grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal hemorrhage rate was 33.3% and 6.2% in bevacizumab-treated patients with the AA/AG and GG genotypes, versus 2.9% and 1.9% in the placebo arm, respectively. Prospective validation of these findings and functional analyses are needed to better understand the genetic contribution to treatment-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Phase I Study of Entinostat, Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide in Previously Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, ETCTN 10399.

BACKGROUND: CREBBP and EP300 mutations occur at a frequency of 15% and 13%, respectively, in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and preclinical models demonstrated susceptibility to targeting with HDAC inhibitors. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naïve extensive-stage SCLC, ECOG ≤2 were enrolled and treated with entinostat orally weekly (4 dose levels, DL) in combination with standard dose carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab. Cohort allocation was determined by Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design targeting an MTD with a DLT rate of 20%. RESULTS: Three patients were enrolled and treated at DL1 with entinostat 2 mg. Patients were aged 69-83; 2 male, 1 female; 2 were ECOG 1, and 1 was ECOG 0. The most common adverse events (AEs) were anemia (3), neutropenia (3), thrombocytopenia (2), leukopenia (2), and hypocalcemia (2). Two experienced DLTs during cycle 1: (1) grade (Gr) 4 febrile neutropenia, and (1) Gr 5 sepsis. BOIN design required stopping accrual to DL1, and the trial was closed to further accrual. Entinostat and atezolizumab pharmacokinetics were both comparable to historical controls. CONCLUSION: Addition of entinostat to atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide is unsafe and resulted in early onset and severe neutropenia, thrombocytopenia. Further exploration of entinostat with carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab should not be explored. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04631029).

Predictors and characteristics of Rib fracture following SBRT for lung tumors.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasing for primary and secondary lung neoplasms. Despite encouraging results, SBRT is associated with an increased risk of osteoradionecrosis-induced rib fracture. We aimed to (1) evaluate potential clinical, demographic, and procedure-related risk factors for rib fractures and (2) describe the radiographic features of post-SBRT rib fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 106 patients who received SBRT between 2015 and 2018 for a primary or metastatic lung tumor with at least 12 months of follow up. Exclusion criteria were incomplete records, previous ipsilateral thoracic radiation, or relevant prior trauma. Computed tomography (CT) images were reviewed to identify and characterize rib fractures. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was employed to determine clinical, demographic, and procedural risk factors (e.g., age, sex, race, medical comorbidities, dosage, and tumor location). RESULTS: A total of 106 patients with 111 treated tumors met the inclusion criteria, 35 (32%) of whom developed at least one fractured rib (60 total fractured ribs). The highest number of fractured ribs per patient was five. Multivariate regression identified posterolateral tumor location as the only independent risk factor for rib fracture. On CT, fractures showed discontinuity between healing edges in 77% of affected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one third of patients receiving SBRT for lung tumors experienced rib fractures, 34% of whom experienced pain. Many patients developed multiple fractures. Post-SBRT fractures demonstrated a unique discontinuity between the healing edges of the rib, a distinct feature of post-SBRT rib fractures. The only independent predictor of rib fracture was tumor location along the posterolateral chest wall. Given its increasing frequency of use, describing the risk profile of SBRT is vital to ensure patient safety and adequately inform patient expectations.

Association between baseline body mass index and survival in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ECOG-ACRIN CHAARTED E3805.

BACKGROUND: E3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study. METHODS: We performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival. RESULTS: In 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.63, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: There was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

A PRO-cision medicine intervention to personalize cancer care using patient-reported outcomes: intervention development and feasibility-testing.

PURPOSE: PRO-cision medicine refers to personalizing care using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We developed and feasibility-tested a PRO-cision Medicine remote PRO monitoring intervention designed to identify symptoms and reduce the frequency of routine in-person visits. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with metastatic breast (n = 15) and prostate (n = 15) cancer patients and clinicians (n = 10) to elicit their perspectives on a PRO-cision Medicine intervention's design, value, and concerns. We then feasibility-tested the intervention in 24 patients with metastatic breast cancer over 6-months. We obtained feedback via end-of-study surveys (patients) and interviews (clinicians). RESULTS: Focus group and interview participants reported that remote PRO symptom reporting could alert clinicians to issues and avoid unneeded/unwanted visits. However, some patients did not perceive avoiding visits as beneficial. Clinicians were concerned about workflow. In the feasibility-test, 24/236 screened patients (10%) enrolled. Many patients were already being seen less frequently than monthly (n = 97) or clinicians did not feel comfortable seeing them less frequently than monthly (n = 31). Over the 6-month study, there were 75 total alerts from 392 PRO symptom assessments (average 0.19 alert/assessment). Patients had an average of 4 in-person visits (vs. expected 6.5 without the intervention). Patients (n = 19/24) reported high support on the end-of-study survey, with more than 80% agreeing with positive statements about the intervention. Clinician end-of-study interviews (n = 11/14) suggested that PRO symptom monitoring be added to clinic visits, rather than replacing them, and noted the increasing role of telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore combining remote PRO symptom monitoring with telemedicine and in-person visits.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without enzalutamide, in AR-V7-expressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A phase-2 nonrandomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: AR-V7-positive metastatic prostate cancer is a lethal phenotype with few treatment options and poor survival. METHODS: The two-cohort nonrandomized Phase 2 study of combined immune checkpoint blockade for AR-V7-expressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (STARVE-PC) evaluated nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg), without (Cohort 1) or with (Cohort 2) the anti-androgen enzalutamide. Co-primary endpoints were safety and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Secondary endpoints included time-to-PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), time-to-clinical/radiographic-PFS, objective response rate (ORR), PFS lasting greater than 24 weeks, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab (N = 15, Cohort 1, previously reported), or ipilimumab plus nivolumab and enzalutamide (N = 15, Cohort 2) in patients previously progressing on enzalutamide monotherapy. PSA response rate was 2/15 (13%) in cohort 1 and 0/15 in cohort 2, ORR was 2/8 (25%) in Cohort 1 and 0/9 in Cohort 2 in those with measureable disease, median PSA-PFS was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1-NR) in cohort 1 and 2.7 (95% CI: 2.1-5.9) months in cohort 2, and median PFS was 3.7 (95% CI: 2.8-7.5) in cohort 1 and 2.9 (95% CI: 1.3-5.8) months in cohort 2. Three of 15 patients in cohort 1 (20%, 95% CI: 7.1%-45.2%) and 4/15 patients (26.7%, 95% CI: 10.5%-52.4%) in cohort 2 achieved a durable PFS lasting greater than 24 weeks. Median OS was 8.2 (95% CI: 5.5-10.4) in cohort 1 and 14.2 (95% CI: 8.5-NA) months in cohort 2. Efficacy results were not statistically different between cohorts. Grade-3/4 adverse events occurred in 7/15 cohort 1 patients (46%) and 8/15 cohort 2 patients (53%). Combined cohort (N = 30) baseline alkaline phosphatase and cytokine analysis suggested improved OS for patients with lower alkaline phosphatase (hazards ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), lower circulating interleukin-7 (IL-7) (HR, 0.24; 95% Cl: 0.06-0.93) and IL-6 (HR, 0.13; 95% Cl: 0.03-0.52) levels, and higher circulating IL-17 (HR, 4.53; 95% CI: 1.47-13.93) levels. There was a trend towards improved outcomes in men with low sPD-L1 serum levels. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated only modest activity in patients with AR-V7-expressing prostate cancer, and was not sufficient to justify further exploration in unselected patients. Stratification by baseline alkaline phosphatase and cytokines (IL-6, -7, and -17) may be prognostic for outcomes to immunotherapy.

End-of-Life Characteristics Associated With Short Hospice Length of Stay for Patients With Solid Tumors Enrolled in Phase I Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients participating in phase I trials represent a population with advanced cancer and symptoms, with quality-of-life implications arising from both disease and treatment. Transitions to end-of-life care for these patients have received little attention. Good empirical data are needed to better understand the role of advance care planning and palliative care during phase I trial transitions. We investigated how physician-patient communication at the time of disease progression, patient characteristics, and patterns of care were associated with end-of-life care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with solid tumors enrolled in phase I trials at a comprehensive cancer center from January 2015 to December 2017. We captured physician-patient communication during disease progression. Among patients who died, we assessed palliative care referral, advance care planning, place of death, healthcare use in the final month of life, hospice enrollment, and hospice length of stay (LOS). Factors independently associated with a short hospice LOS (defined as ≤3 days) were estimated from a multivariable model building approach. RESULTS: Among 207 participants enrolled in phase I intervention studies at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the median age was 61 years (range, 31-91 years), 48% were women, 21% were members of racial minority groups, and 41.5% were referred from an outside institution. At the time of disease progression, 53% had goals of care documented, 47% were previously referred to palliative care, and 41% discussed hospice with their oncologist. A total of 82% of decedents died within 1 year of study enrollment, and 85% enrolled in hospice. Among the 147 participants who enrolled in hospice, 22 (15%) had a short LOS (≤3 days). Factors independently associated with an increased risk of short hospice LOS in the multivariable model included age >65 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P=.04), whereas remaining at the same institution (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80; P<.001) and referral to palliative care before progression (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P<.001) were associated with a decreased risk of short hospice LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Reported data support the benefit of palliative care for patients in phase I trials and the risks associated with healthcare transitions for all patients, particularly older adults, regardless of care received. Leaving a clinical trial is a time when clear communication is paramount. Phase I studies will continue to be vital in advancing cancer treatment. It is equally important to advance the support provided to patients who transition off these trials.

Identifying surgeon and institutional drivers of cost in total shoulder arthroplasty: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite rapid increases in the demand for total shoulder arthroplasty, data describing cost trends are scarce. We aim to (1) describe variation in the cost of shoulder arthroplasty performed by different surgeons at multiple hospitals and (2) determine the driving factors of such variation. METHODS: A standardized, highly accurate cost accounting method, time-driven activity-based costing, was used to determine the cost of 1571 shoulder arthroplasties performed by 12 surgeons at 4 high-volume institutions between 2016 and 2018. Costs were broken down into supply costs (including implant price and consumables) and personnel costs, including physician fees. Cost parameters were compared with total cost for surgical episodes and case volume. RESULTS: Across 4 institutions and 12 surgeons, surgeon volume and hospital volume did not correlate with episode-of-care cost. Average cost per case of each institution varied by factors of 1.6 (P = .47) and 1.7 (P = .06) for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), respectively. Implant (56% and 62%, respectively) and personnel costs from check-in through the operating room (21% and 17%, respectively) represented the highest percentages of cost and highly correlated with the cost of the episode of care for TSA and RSA. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in episode-of-care total costs for both TSA and RSA had no association with hospital or surgeon case volume at 4 high-volume institutions but was driven primarily by variation in implant and personnel costs through the operating room. This analysis does not address medium- or long-term costs.

Impact of baseline serum IL-8 on metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer outcomes in the Phase 3 CHAARTED trial (E3805).

BACKGROUND: The immunosuppressive cytokine interleukin- 8 (IL-8), produced by tumor cells and some myeloid cells, promotes inflammation, angiogenesis, and metastasis. In our discovery work, elevated serum IL-8 at androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation portended worse overall survival (OS). Leveraging serum samples from the phase 3 CHAARTED trial of patients treated with ADT +/- docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), we validated these findings. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-three patients had serum samples drawn within 28 days of ADT initiation. The samples were assayed using the same Mesoscale Multiplex ELISA platform employed in the discovery cohort. After adjusting for performance status, disease volume, and de novo/metachronous metastases, multivariable Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations between IL-8 as continuous and binary variables on OS and time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The median IL-8 level (9.3 pg/ml) was the a priori binary cutpoint. Fixed-effects meta-analyses of the discovery and validation sets were performed. RESULTS: Higher IL-8 levels were prognostic for shorter OS (continuous: hazard ratio [HR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-3.6, p = .001; binary >9.3: HR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.4, p = .007) and time to CRPC (continuous: HR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.6-3.3, p < .001; binary: HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.5, p < .001) and independent of docetaxel use, disease burden, and time of metastases. Meta-analysis including the discovery cohort, also showed that binary IL-8 levels >9.3 pg/ml from patients treated with ADT alone was prognostic for poorer OS (HR 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7, p = .007) and shorter time to CRPC (HR 1.4, 95% CI: 0.99-1.9, p = .057). CONCLUSIONS: In the phase 3 CHAARTED study of men with mHSPC at ADT initiation, elevated IL-8 portended worse survival and shorter time to castration-resistant prostate cancer independent of docetaxel administration, metastatic burden, and metachronous versus de novo metastatic presentation. These findings support targeting IL-8 as a strategy to improve mHSPC outcomes.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy Followed by Extirpative Surgery in Patients with High Grade Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Data supporting neoadjuvant chemotherapy of high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma are scant. In this multi-institution, prospective, phase II trial we investigated pathological complete responses after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma in whom nephroureterectomy was planned were assigned to 4 neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles of accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin in those with baseline creatinine clearance greater than 50 ml per minute or gemcitabine and carboplatin in those with creatinine clearance 30 to 50 ml per minute or less. The study primary end point was a pathological complete response (ypT0N0). The accrual goal was 30 patients per arm. An 18% pathological complete response was considered worth further study while a 4% pathological complete response would not have justified pursuing this regimen. With 28 eligible patients per arm success was defined as 3 or more pathological complete responses (10.7%) in a given arm. Secondary end points included safety, renal function and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients enrolled in the accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin arm from 2015 to 2017. Six patients enrolled in the gemcitabine and carboplatin arm, which closed due to poor accrual. Of the 29 patients eligible for accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin, including 23 men and 6 women with a median age of 65 years (range 40 to 84), 80% completed all planned treatments, 3 (10.3%) achieved ypT0N0 and 1 achieved ypT0Nx for a pathological complete response in 13.8% (90% CI 4.9-28.8). In 1 patient receiving accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin nephroureterectomy was deferred due to grade 4 sepsis. The grade 3-4 toxicity rate was 23% in the accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin arm with no grade 5 event. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma and creatinine clearance greater than 50 ml per minute was safe and demonstrated predefined activity with a 14% pathological complete response rate. Final pathological stage ypT1 or less in more than 60% of patients is encouraging. Together the results of this prospective trial support the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in eligible patients with high grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

A phase II randomized trial of RAdium-223 dichloride and SABR Versus SABR for oligomEtastatic prostate caNcerS (RAVENS).

BACKGROUND: Metastasis directed therapy (MDT) for patients with oligometastatic disease is associated with improvements in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to systemic therapy alone. Additionally, within a prostate-cancer-specific cohort, MDT is able to forestall initiation of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with hormone-sensitive, oligometastatic prostate cancer (HSOPCa) compared to observation. While MDT appears to be safe and effective in HSOPCa, a large percentage of men will eventually have disease recurrence. Patterns of failure in HSOPCa demonstrate patients tend to have recurrence in the bone following MDT, raising the question of sub-clinically-apparent osseous disease. Radium-223 dichloride is a radiopharmaceutical with structural similarity to calcium, allowing it to be taken up by bone where it emits alpha particles, and therefore might have utility in the treatment of micrometastatic osseous disease. Therefore, the primary goal of the phase II RAVENS trial is to evaluate the efficacy of MDT + radium-223 dichloride in prolonging progression free survival in men with HSOPCa. METHODS: Patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least 1 bone metastasis will be randomized 1:1 to stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR, also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)) alone vs SABR + radium-223 dichloride with a minimization algorithm to balance assignment by institution, primary intervention, prior hormonal therapy, and PSA doubling time. SABR is delivered in one to five fractions and patients in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm will receive six infusions of radium-223 dichloride at four-week intervals. The primary end point is progression free survival. The secondary clinical endpoints include toxicity and quality of life assessments, local control at 12 months, locoregional progression, time to distant progression, time to new metastasis, and duration of response. DISCUSSION: The RAVENS trial will be the first described phase II, non-blinded, randomized study to compare SABR +/- radium-223 dichloride in patients with HSOPCa and 3 or less metastases with at least one bone metastasis. The primary hypothesis is that SABR + radium-223 dichloride will increase median progression-free survival from 10 months in the SABR arm to 20 months in the SABR + radium-223 dichloride arm. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04037358. Date of Registration: July 30, 2019. Date of First Participant Enrolled: August 9, 2019. Date of Last Approved Amendment: October 16, 2019. Protocol Version: Version 5.

Problem Solving to Enhance Clinical Trial Participation Utilizing a Framework-Driven Approach.

Health professionals agree that increasing diversity in clinical trial participants is an important way to improve cancer care and address disparities in outcomes. However, trial participation among minority populations has been low historically and continues to be low. Underrepresentation has resulted in majority groups reaping greater benefit from research findings, thus widening cancer health disparities. Addressing these disparities effectively has proven to be challenging. To maximize diversity among participants, it is necessary to understand the steps patients take to enroll in trials; the barriers patients face at each step; and the needs and preferences of the patient population overall and subgroups specified by age, race, ethnicity, or sex, in order to develop interventions to address barriers to participation. To improve clinical trial participation, and most importantly to eliminate disparities, cancer centers should examine reasons patients fail to enroll in trials and develop interventions designed to meet their patients' needs and preferences.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Risk of development of visceral metastases subsequent to abiraterone vs placebo: An analysis of mode of radiographic progression in COU-AA-302.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone increases survival in prostate cancer, but tumors resistant to abiraterone can exhibit a hormonally resistant, aggressive phenotype. We hypothesized that the therapeutic pressure of abiraterone is resulting in more clinically aggressive disease at progression, characterized by increased visceral metastases. Our objective was to determine whether abiraterone increased the risk of development of visceral metastases at the time of progression compared with placebo in a randomized phase III trial. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the COU-AA-302 trial of abiraterone plus prednisone vs placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The primary outcome was the development of visceral metastases. The cumulative incidences of visceral metastases were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank testing. Multivariable Cox regression analysis assessed for the independent association of abiraterone with the development of visceral metastases. RESULTS: Eighty-four of 1088 patients developed visceral metastases during study. Log-rank testing and Cox regression showed no difference in time to visceral metastases between groups (HR 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-1.56]; P = .97). Abiraterone treatment was not associated with the development of visceral metastases in multivariable analysis (HR 0.89 [95% CI, 0.57-1.40]; P = .62). The study was limited by censoring of radiographic outcomes at the time of completion of primary study therapy; longer term risks were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Abiraterone was not associated with increased risk of visceral metastatic disease at the time of progression compared with placebo.

Genomic and clinical characterization of pulmonary-only metastatic prostate cancer: A unique molecular subtype.

BACKGROUND: Isolated pulmonary involvement is uncommon in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). To characterize outcomes and molecular alterations of this unique patient subset, we conducted a retrospective review of patients with hormone-naïve prostate cancer presenting with lung-only metastases. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-institution study. Medical records of 25 patients presenting with pulmonary-only metastases before receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were analyzed. Germline and/or somatic genomic results, where available (n = 16), were documented. Tumor tissue was analyzed using clinical-grade next-generation DNA sequencing assays. Clinical endpoints included complete prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to ADT (<0.1 ng/mL), median overall survival (OS) from time of ADT initiation, median PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), and failure-free survival (FFS) at 4 years. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were notable for 48% of men (12 of 25) having first or second-degree relatives with prostate cancer, compared with 20% expected. Complete PSA responses to ADT were noted in 52% of men, with a median PSA-PFS of 66 months, a 4-year FFS rate of 72%, and a median OS that was not reached after 190 months. In evaluable patients, molecular drivers were enriched for mismatch repair mutations (4 of 16, 25%) and homologous-recombination deficiency mutations (4 of 16, 25%). These results are limited by the small sample size and retrospective nature of this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study represents one of the largest cohorts of lung-only mHSPC patients to-date. The prevalence of actionable DNA-repair gene alterations was higher than anticipated (any DNA-repair mutation: 8 of 16, 50%). Compared to historical data, these patients appear to have exceptional and durable responses to first-line ADT. This study suggests that pulmonary-tropic mHSPC biology may be fundamentally different from nonpulmonary mHSPC.