The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare booking and cancellation patterns: time series analysis of private healthcare service utilisation in Finland.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had wide-reaching effects on healthcare services beyond the direct treatment of the pandemic. Most current studies have reported changes in realised service usage, but the dynamics of how patients engage with healthcare services are less well understood. We analysed the effects of COVID-19 on healthcare bookings and cancellations for various service channels between January 2020 and July 2021. METHODS: Our data includes 7.3 million bookings, 11.0 million available appointments, and 405.1 thousand cancellations by 900.6 thousand individual patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years. The data were collected from electronic health record data, including laboratory and imaging services as well as inpatient stays, between January 2017 and July 2021. The patients were Finnish private and occupational healthcare customers in the capital region of Finland. We fitted an autoregressive moving average (ARIMA) model on data between 2017 and 2019 to predict the expected numbers of bookings, available appointments, and cancellations, which were compared to observed time series data between 2020 and 2021. RESULTS: Utilisation of physical, in-person primary care physician appointments decreased by up to 50% during the first 18 months of the pandemic. At the same time, digital care channels experienced a rapid, multi-fold increase in service usage. Simultaneously, the number of bookings for laboratory and imaging services decreased by 50% below the pre-pandemic projections. The number of specialist and hospital service bookings remained at the predicted level during the study period. Cancellations for most health services increased sharply by up to three times the pre-COVID levels during the first weeks of the pandemic but returned to the pre-pandemic levels for the rest of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in in-person appointments and the increase in the utilisation of digital services was likely a contributing factor in the decrease of the utilisation of diagnostic and imaging services throughout the study period. Utilisation of specialist care and hospital services were not affected. Cancellations contributed to the changes in service utilisation only during the first weeks of the pandemic.

C-reactive protein and immune-related adverse events as prognostic biomarkers in immune checkpoint inhibitor treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing need to identify biomarkers for correct patient selection for immune-oncology treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic role of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) values and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) to indicate immune checkpoint inhibitors' (ICIs) efficacy in nivolumab-treated mRCC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 96 mRCC patients treated with nivolumab at Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Hospital in a real-life setting were collected between 2006 and 2020 retrospectively. Patients' baseline CRP, on-treatment (<12 weeks) CRP, and reported irAE association to median survival and outcome were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients with elevated baseline CRP were associated with worse overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with normal baseline CRP. This significant correlation was also observed with patients with elevated on-treatment CRP. In multivariate survival analyses both elevated baseline and on-treatment CRP had shorter OS and PFS than patients with normal CRP: hazard ratio (HR) 2.84 (95% CI 1.48-5.42), HR 3.68 (95% CI 1.92-7.03) and PFS: HR 1.77 (95% CI 1.06-2.97), HR 2.88 (95% CI 1.75-4.73), respectively. A significant difference in OS was also seen between patients without irAE and with irAE during treatment. In multivariate survival analyses, patients without irAE had shorter OS HR 1.93 (95% CI 1.03-3.62) compared with patients with reported irAE. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated baseline CRP, on-treatment CRP, and absence of irAE correlate with poor outcome in nivolumb-treated mRCC patients. These results suggest that monitoring CRP values as well as potential irAEs during treatment may be of use in clinical decision making.

Spatial immunoprofiling of the intratumoral and peritumoral tissue of renal cell carcinoma patients.

While the abundance and phenotype of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are linked with clinical survival, their spatial coordination and its clinical significance remain unclear. Here, we investigated the immune profile of intratumoral and peritumoral tissue of clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients (n = 64). We trained a cell classifier to detect lymphocytes from hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue slides. Using unsupervised classification, patients were further classified into immune cold, hot and excluded topographies reflecting lymphocyte abundance and localization. The immune topography distribution was further validated with The Cancer Genome Atlas digital image dataset. We showed association between PBRM1 mutation and immune cold topography, STAG1 mutation and immune hot topography and BAP1 mutation and immune excluded topography. With quantitative multiplex immunohistochemistry we analyzed the expression of 23 lymphocyte markers in intratumoral and peritumoral tissue regions. To study spatial interactions, we developed an algorithm quantifying the proportion of adjacent immune cell pairs and their immunophenotypes. Immune excluded tumors were associated with superior overall survival (HR 0.19, p = 0.02) and less extensive metastasis. Intratumoral T cells were characterized with pronounced expression of immunological activation and exhaustion markers such as granzyme B, PD1, and LAG3. Immune cell interaction occurred most frequently in the intratumoral region and correlated with CD45RO expression. Moreover, high proportion of peritumoral CD45RO+ T cells predicted poor overall survival. In summary, intratumoral and peritumoral tissue regions represent distinct immunospatial profiles and are associated with clinicopathologic characteristics.

First-in-human Phase 1 open label study of the BET inhibitor ODM-207 in patients with selected solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Bromodomain and extra-terminal domain (BET) proteins are reported to be epigenetic anti-cancer drug targets. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary anti-tumour activity of the BET inhibitor ODM-207 in patients with selected solid tumours. METHODS: This was an open-label Phase 1 study comprised of a dose escalation part, and evaluation of the effect of food on pharmacokinetics. ODM-207 was administered orally once daily. The dose escalation part was initiated with a dose titration in the initial cohort, followed by a 3 + 3 design. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated with ODM-207, of whom 12 (34%) had castrate-resistant prostate cancer. One dose-limiting toxicity of intolerable fatigue was observed. The highest studied dose achieved was 2 mg/kg due to cumulative toxicity observed beyond the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) treatment window. Common AEs included thrombocytopenia, asthenia, nausea, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, and vomiting. Platelet count decreased proportionally to exposure with rapid recovery upon treatment discontinuation. No partial or complete responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ODM-207 shows increasing exposure in dose escalation and was safe at doses up to 2 mg/kg but had a narrow therapeutic window. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration number is NCT03035591.

Prospective Observational Study of Pazopanib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (PRINCIPAL Study).

BACKGROUND: Real-world data are essential to accurately assessing efficacy and toxicity of approved agents in everyday practice. PRINCIPAL, a prospective, observational study, was designed to confirm the real-world safety and efficacy of pazopanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Patients with clear cell advanced/metastatic RCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib treatment within 30 days of enrollment were eligible. Primary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), relative dose intensity (RDI) and its effect on treatment outcomes, change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety. We also compared characteristics and outcomes of clinical-trial-eligible (CTE) patients, defined using COMPARZ trial eligibility criteria, with those of non-clinical-trial-eligible (NCTE) patients. Secondary study objectives were to evaluate clinical efficacy, safety, and RDI in patient subgroups. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-seven patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of pazopanib. Median PFS and OS were 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-12.0) and 29.9 months (95% CI, 24.7 to not reached), respectively, and the ORR was 30.3%. HRQoL showed no or little deterioration over time. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) and AEs of special interest occurred in 64 (9.7%), and 399 (60.7%) patients, respectively. More patients were classified NCTE than CTE (85.2% vs. 14.8%). Efficacy of pazopanib was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PRINCIPAL confirms the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in a real-world clinical setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: PRINCIPAL is the largest (n = 657) prospective, observational study of pazopanib in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma, to the authors' knowledge. Consistent with clinical trial results that often contain specific patient types, the PRINCIPAL study demonstrated that the effectiveness and safety of pazopanib is similarly safe and effective in patients with advanced kidney cancer in a real-world clinical setting. The PRINCIPAL study showed that patients with advanced kidney cancer who are treated with first-line pazopanib generally do not show disease progression for approximately 10 months and generally survive for nearly 30 months.

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS: A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

Cancer costs and outcomes for common cancer sites in the Finnish population between 2009-2014.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer and outcomes of cancer care have been discussed a lot since cancer represents 3-6% of total healthcare costs and cost estimations have indicated growing costs. There are studies considering the cost of all cancers, but studies focusing on the cost of disease and outcomes in most common cancer sites are limited. The objective of this study was to analyze the development of the costs and outcomes in Finland between 2009 and 2014 per cancer site. METHODS: The National cost, episode and outcomes data were obtained from the National register databases based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes. Cost data included both the direct and indirect costs. Two hospitals were used to validate the costs of care. The outcome measures included relative survival rate, mortality, sick leave days per patient and number of new disability pensions. FINDINGS: The outcomes of cancer care in most common cancer sites have improved in Finland between 2009-2014. The real costs per new cancer patient decreased in seven out of ten most common cancer sites. The significance of different cost components differ significantly between the different cancer sites. The share of medication costs of the total cost of all cancers increased, but decreased for the five most common cancer sites. INTERPRETATION: The changes in the cost components indicate that the length of stay has shortened in special care and treatment methods have developed towards outpatient care. This partially explains the decrease of costs. Also, at the same time outcomes improved, which indicates that decrease in costs did not come at the expense of treatment quality. As the survival rates increase, the relevance of mortality measures decreases and the relevance of other, patient-relevant outcome measures increases. In the future, the outcomes and costs of health care systems should be assessed routinely for the most common patient groups.

Cancer costs and outcomes in the Finnish population 2004-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The cost of cancer and outcomes of cancer care has been much debated, since cancer represents 3-6% of total healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to analyse the development of the costs and outcomes in Finland between 2004 and 2014. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The national cost, episodes and outcomes data were obtained from the national register databases. Two hospitals were used to validate the costs of care. The outcome measures included relative survival rate, mortality, sick leave days per patient and number of new disability pensions. RESULTS: The total cost of cancer in 2014 was 927 million €. The real costs increased by 1.7% per year over the period studied, while the cost per new cancer patient decreased. The relative survival rate was enhanced by 7%, and the number of sick leave days and new disability pensions per cancer patient was reduced. The share occupied by cancer treatment in total healthcare costs decreased slightly from 3.7% to 3.6%, indicating that cancer care has not become more expensive compared to the treatment of other diseases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey to analyse the change in actual cancer costs and outcomes in the population-level within a 10-year period. Since cancer care outcomes in Finland have been among the best in Europe, the progress in terms of the costs and the conversions in the cost distributions across categories are significant and valuable sources for international comparisons.

Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few effective treatments exist for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the activity and safety of nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label study, we enrolled patients (age ≥18 years) with urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, ureter, bladder, or urethra at 16 sites in Finland, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Patients were not selected by PD-L1 expression, but tumour PD-L1 membrane expression was assessed retrospectively. Patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons, whichever occurred later. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were included in the analyses. We report an interim analysis of this ongoing trial. CheckMate 032 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01928394. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2014, and April 24, 2015, 86 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma were enrolled in the nivolumab monotherapy group and 78 received at least one dose of treatment. At data cutoff (March 24, 2016), the minimum follow-up was 9 months (median 15·2 months, IQR 12·9-16·8). A confirmed investigator-assessed objective response was achieved in 19 (24·4%, 95% CI 15·3-35·4) of 78 patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (22%) of 78 patients; the most common were elevated lipase (four [5%]), elevated amylase (three [4%]), and fatigue, maculopapular rash, dyspnoea, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased neutrophil count (two [3%] each). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (46%) of 78 patients and eight (10%) had a serious adverse event judged to be treatment related. Two (3%) of 78 patients discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 4 pneumonitis and grade 4 thrombocytopenia) and subsequently died. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy was associated with a substantial and durable clinical response and a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. These data support further investigation of nivolumab monotherapy in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. We assessed safety and activity of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with SCLC who progressed after one or more previous regimens. METHODS: The SCLC cohort of this phase 1/2 multicentre, multi-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 23 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in six countries. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older, had limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, and had disease progression after at least one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) every 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg, or 3 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were either assigned to nivolumab monotherapy or assessed in a dose-escalating safety phase for the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination beginning at nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Depending on tolerability, patients were then assigned to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All analyses included patients who were enrolled at least 90 days before database lock. This trial is ongoing; here, we report an interim analysis of the SCLC cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01928394. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2013, and July 28, 2015, 216 patients were enrolled and treated (98 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, three with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 61 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 54 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg). At database lock on Nov 6, 2015, median follow-up for patients continuing in the study (including those who had died or discontinued treatment) was 198·5 days (IQR 163·0-464·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 302 days (IQR not calculable) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 361·0 days (273·0-470·0) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 260·5 days (248·0-288·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg, one (33%) of three patients receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 14 (23%) of 61 receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and ten (19%) of 54 receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg cohort, 18 (30%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg cohort, and ten (19%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (none vs 5 [8%] vs none) and diarrhoea (none vs 3 [5%] vs 1 [2%]). No patients in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event. Six (6%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, seven (11%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group, and four (7%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. Two patients who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg died from treatment-related adverse events (myasthenia gravis and worsening of renal failure), and one patient who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg died from treatment-related pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed antitumour activity with durable responses and manageable safety profiles in previously treated patients with SCLC. These data suggest a potential new treatment approach for a population of patients with limited treatment options and support the evaluation of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in phase 3 randomised controlled trials in SCLC. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Sunitinib-induced hypertension, neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia as predictors of good prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical significance of hypertension (HTN), neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia as possible new biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy in non-trial patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 181 consecutive patients with mRCC were treated with sunitinib; 39 (22%) received sunitinib 50 mg/day 4 weeks on/2 weeks off, 80 (44%) received 37.5 mg/day continuously and 62 (34%) received 25 mg/day continuously as their starting dose. Treatment-induced adverse events (AEs) and their impact on outcome were analysed on multiple sunitinib doses. RESULTS: During sunitinib treatment 60 patients (33%) developed ≥grade 2 HTN, 88 (49%) ≥grade 2 neutropaenia and 135 (75%) ≥grade 1 thrombocytopaenia. These AEs were associated significantly with longer progression-free survival (PFS; 15.7 vs 6.7; 14.6 vs 6.9; 10.4 vs 4.2 months, respectively; P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS; 37.5 vs 16.2; 33.7 vs 13.2; 22.3 vs 13.2 months, respectively, P ≤ 0.008). Although only neutropaenia was associated with a significantly improved PFS and OS in all sunitinib doses, a similar trend was also seen with HTN and thrombocytopaenia in all sunitinib doses. In multivariate analysis, HTN and neutropaenia were significantly associated with PFS and OS and thrombocytopaenia was significantly associated with PFS. In a 12-week landmark analysis, HTN and thrombocytopaenia were significantly associated with PFS and OS. Patients who developed all three AEs (a favourable biomarker profile) had significantly better outcome than patients without these AEs (a poor biomarker profile); response rate 47% vs 4%, median PFS 27.1 vs 3.5 months and OS not reached vs 5.3 months (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: HTN, neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia were all biomarkers of sunitinib efficacy in patients with mRCC. Our results may help to individualise sunitinib dosing during therapy based on these common sunitinib-related AEs.

Afatinib alone or afatinib plus vinorelbine versus investigator's choice of treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer with progressive brain metastases after trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both (LUX-Breast 3): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer frequently develop CNS metastases. The metastases that progress after brain radiotherapy and HER2-targeted systemic therapy are a difficult therapeutic challenge. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib, an irreversible blocker of the ErbB protein family, alone or combined with vinorelbine, compared with treatment of the investigator's choice in women with HER2-positive breast cancer with progressive brain metastases during or after treatment with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial in 40 hospitals in Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea, and the USA. Women older than 18 years with histologically confirmed HER2-overexpressing breast cancer and CNS recurrence or progression as determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1) during or after treatment with trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both, were eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) centrally to afatinib 40 mg orally once per day, afatinib 40 mg per day plus intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) once per week, or investigator's choice of treatment in cycles of 3 weeks until disease progression, patient withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity. Treatment assignment was not masked for clinicians or patients, but the trial team was masked until database lock to reduce bias. The primary endpoint, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was patient benefit at 12 weeks, defined by an absence of CNS or extra-CNS disease progression, no tumour-related worsening of neurological signs or symptoms, and no increase in corticosteroid dose. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01441596. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2011, and Feb 12, 2013, we screened 132 patients, of whom 121 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment: 40 to afatinib alone, 38 to afatinib plus vinorelbine, and 43 to investigator's choice. All patients discontinued study treatment before the data collection cutoff on Oct 16, 2014. Patient benefit was achieved in 12 (30·0%; 95% CI 16·6-46·5) patients given afatinib alone (difference vs investigator's choice: -11·9% [95% CI -32·9 to 9·7], p=0·37), 13 (34·2%; 19·6-51·4) given afatinib plus vinorelbine (difference vs investigator's choice: -7·6% [-28·9 to 14·2], p=0·63), and 18 (41·9%; 27·0-57·9) given investigator's choice. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (seven [18%] of 40 patients in the afatinib only group vs nine [24%] of 37 patients in the afatinib plus vinorelbine group vs two [5%] of 42 patients in the investigator's choice group) and neutropenia (none vs 14 [38%] vs four [10%]). INTERPRETATION: Patient benefit with afatinib-containing treatments was not different from that in patients given investigator's choice of treatments; however, adverse events were frequent and afatinib-containing treatments seemed to be less well tolerated. No further development of afatinib for HER2-positive breast cancer is currently planned. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Activity and safety of ODM-201 in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ARADES): an open-label phase 1 dose-escalation and randomised phase 2 dose expansion trial.

BACKGROUND: ODM-201 is a novel androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor designed to block the growth of prostate cancer cells through high-affinity binding to the AR and inhibition of AR nuclear translocation. This trial assessed ODM-201's safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: The ARADES trial is an open-label phase 1-2 trial undertaken in 23 hospitals across Europe and USA with ongoing long-term follow-up. Men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had castrate concentrations of testosterone and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 were enrolled. In the phase 1 part of the trial, patients were given oral ODM-201 at a starting daily dose of 200 mg, which was increased to 400 mg, 600 mg, 1000 mg, 1400 mg, and 1800 mg. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned centrally and stratified by previous chemotherapy and treatment with CPY17 inhibitors, to receive one of three daily doses of ODM-201 (200 mg, 400 mg, and 1400 mg). The primary endpoint in phase 1 was safety and tolerability, whereas in phase 2 it was the proportion of patients with a PSA response (50% or greater decrease in serum PSA) at week 12. All analyses included patients who had received at least one dose of ODM-201. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317641, and NCT01429064 for the follow-up after 12 weeks. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between April 5, 2011, and March 12, 2013. In phase 1, 24 patients were enrolled to six sequential cohorts of three to six patients and received a daily dose of ODM-201, 200-1800 mg. No dose-limiting toxic effects were reported and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In phase 1, three patients reported eight adverse events of grade 3 (fracture, muscle injury, laceration, paralytic ileus, pain, presyncope, urinary retention, and vomiting) and one patient had a grade 4 adverse event (lymphoedema). None of the grade 3-4 adverse events were deemed to be related to ODM-201. Of the phase 1 patients, the four who received 200 mg, seven who received 400 mg, and three who received 1400 mg entered the phase 2 part of the trial. In addition to these patients, 110 were randomly assigned to three groups: 200 mg (n=38), 400 mg (n=37), and 1400 mg (n=35). For these patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue or asthenia (15 [12%] of 124 patients), hot flush (six [5%]), and decreased appetite (five [4%]). One patient (<1%) had a grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (fatigue); no patients had a treatment-emergent grade 4 adverse event. 38 patients who received 200 mg, 39 who received 400 mg, and 33 who received 1400 mg were assessable for PSA response at 12 weeks. 11 (29%) patients in the 200 mg group, 13 (33%) in the 400 mg group, and 11 (33%) in the 1400 mg group had a PSA response at 12 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that ODM-201 monotherapy in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer provides disease suppression and that ODM-201 has a favourable safety profile. These findings support further investigation of clinical responses with ODM-201 in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Pazopanib after sunitinib failure in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a standard agent for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of the study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of pazopanib in the treatment of patients whose mRCC either progressed on sunitinib or who discontinued sunitinib due to adverse effects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive mRCC patients who received pazopanib after sunitinib failure were included in this retrospective single center study. Pazopanib was continued until disease progression or intolerance. Treatment response was evaluated every 8-12 weeks according to the RECIST criteria. Adverse events were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: Six patients (19%, 95% CI 12-26%) achieved partial response with pazopanib, 18 (58%) had stable disease, and seven (23%) progressive disease as their best response. Of the 14 patients who received pazopanib as their second-line therapy, six (43%) responded as compared with no responses among 17 patients treated in a later line (p = 0.004). The median progression-free survival time was 7.4 months after starting pazopanib (range, 0.9-15.6 months). Patients who received pazopanib as second-line treatment had median progression-free survival of 11.0 months as compared with 3.8 months among those who received pazopanib in a later line (p = 0.031). Only one (3%) patient discontinued pazopanib due to an adverse event. The most commonly recorded adverse events were anemia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and elevation of serum creatinine concentration. Six (19%) patients had one or more grade 3 or 4 adverse events recorded. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib has clinical activity in mRCC as second-line agent after sunitinib failure suggesting lack of complete cross-resistance. Pazopanib was associated with acceptable toxicity, and may be considered as an option after sunitinib failure.

Outcome of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with or without adjuvant trastuzumab in the Finland Capecitabine Trial (FinXX).

BACKGROUND: Little information is available about survival outcomes of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant capecitabine-containing chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand and five hundred patients with early breast cancer were entered to the Finland Capecitabine trial (FinXX) between January 2004 and May 2007, and were randomly assigned to receive either three cycles of adjuvant TX (docetaxel, capecitabine) followed by three cycles of CEX (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, capecitabine; TX-CEX) or three cycles of docetaxel followed by three cycles of CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fluorouracil; T-CEF). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The study protocol was amended in May 2005 while study accrual was ongoing to allow adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive cancer. Of the 284 patients with HER2-positive cancer accrued to FinXX, 176 (62.0%) received trastuzumab after amending the study protocol, 131 for 12 months and 45 for nine weeks. The median follow-up time was 6.7 years. RESULTS: Patients with HER2-positive cancer who received trastuzumab had better RFS than those who did not (five-year RFS 89.2% vs. 75.9%; HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.72; p = 0.001). Patients treated with trastuzumab for 12 months or nine weeks had similar RFS. There was no significant interaction between trastuzumab administration and the type of chemotherapy. Four (2.3%) patients treated with trastuzumab had heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction, three of these received capecitabine. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant trastuzumab improves RFS of patients treated with TX-CEX or T-CEF. Few patients had cardiac failure.

Bexmarilimab Activates Human Tumor-Associated Macrophages to Support Adaptive Immune Responses in Interferon-Poor Immune Microenvironments.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) show substantially greater efficacy in inflamed tumors characterized by preexisting T-cell infiltration and IFN signaling than in noninflamed "cold" tumors, which often remain immunotherapy resistant. The cancer immunotherapy bexmarilimab, which inhibits the scavenger receptor Clever-1 to release macrophage immunosuppression and activate adaptive immunity, has shown treatment benefit in subsets of patients with advanced solid malignancies. However, the mechanisms that determine bexmarilimab therapy outcome in individual patients are unknown. Here we characterized bexmarilimab response in ovarian cancer ascites macrophages ex vivo using single-cell RNA sequencing and demonstrated increased IFN signaling and CXCL10 secretion following bexmarilimab treatment. We further showed that bexmarilimab was most efficacious in macrophages with low baseline IFN signaling, as chronic IFNγ priming abolished bexmarilimab-induced TNFα release. These results highlight an approach to target immunologically cold tumors and to increase the likelihood of their subsequent response to ICIs.

[Targeted therapy of a cancer patient is multiprofessional collaboration]. / Syöpäpotilaan täsmähoito on moniammatillista yhteistyötä.

Cancer diseases are treated with targeted drugs utilizing several distinct mechanisms of action. The decision about targeted therapy will result from multiprofessional collaboration based on a representative biopsy, precise morphological diagnosis, elucidation of the extent of the disease and reliable methods of molecular analysis. Changes at the molecular level are determined by immunohistochemical stainings indicating the expression of proteins and by cytogenetic and molecular genetic tests. When successful, the clinical decision provides the cancer patient with maximally effective therapy and guarantees that the patient will not be needlessly exposed to ineffective treatment involving side effects.

Regorafenib for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma: a single-group phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib inhibits VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 and PDGF receptors like other anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors approved for treatment of advanced renal-cell cancer. Regorafenib also inhibits other potentially important angiogenic kinases like TIE2, activation of which is thought to be important in tumour escape mechanisms. This phase 2, open-label, non-randomised study assessed the safety and efficacy of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib for treatment of renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 18 academic oncology centres across Europe and USA. Patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma received oral regorafenib (160 mg per day) in repeating cycles of 3 weeks on, 1 week off until disease progression or until patients met the criteria for removal from study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective overall response, assessed in all patients who were evaluable for response. The trial has finished. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00664326. FINDINGS: The study was done between April 30, 2008, and June 1, 2011. We screened 64 patients, of whom 49 received regorafenib. Median duration of treatment was 7·1 months (range 0·7-34·4, IQR 2·5-18·0) and at the time of data cutoff, six patients (12%) were still receiving treatment. 48 patients were assessable for tumour response. 19 patients (39·6%, 90% CI 27·7-52·5) had an objective response, all of which were partial responses. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 48 patients (98%) and drug-related serious adverse events in 17 (35%). Grade 3 drug-related adverse events were common, most frequently hand and foot skin reaction (16 patients, 33%), diarrhoea (five patients, 10%), renal failure (five patients, 10%), fatigue (four patients, 8%), and hypertension (three patients, 6%). Two patients had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events: two cardiac ischaemia or infarction, one hypomagnesaemia, and one pain in the chest or thorax. Four patients died during study treatment or within 30 days of last dose, of which two were deemed likely to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib has antitumour activity as first-line treatment for metastatic or unresectable renal-cell carcinoma. The drug's safety profile requires close monitoring.

Single-cell characterization of anti-LAG-3 and anti-PD-1 combination treatment in patients with melanoma.

BackgroundRelatlimab plus nivolumab (anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 plus anti-programmed death 1 [anti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1]) has been approved by the FDA as a first-line therapy for stage III/IV melanoma, but its detailed effect on the immune system is unknown.MethodsWe evaluated blood samples from 40 immunotherapy-naive or prior immunotherapy-refractory patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1 in a phase I trial using single-cell RNA and T cell receptor sequencing (scRNA+TCRαß-Seq) combined with other multiomics profiling.ResultsThe highest LAG3 expression was noted in NK cells, Tregs, and CD8+ T cells, and these cell populations underwent the most significant changes during the treatment. Adaptive NK cells were enriched in responders and underwent profound transcriptomic changes during the therapy, resulting in an active phenotype. LAG3+ Tregs expanded, but based on the transcriptome profile, became metabolically silent during the treatment. Last, higher baseline TCR clonality was observed in responding patients, and their expanding CD8+ T cell clones gained a more cytotoxic and NK-like phenotype.ConclusionAnti-LAG-3+anti-PD-1 therapy has profound effects on NK cells and Tregs in addition to CD8+ T cells.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01968109)FundingCancer Foundation Finland, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, Relander Foundation, State funding for university-level health research in Finland, a Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences Fellow grant, Academy of Finland (grant numbers 314442, 311081, 335432, and 335436), and an investigator-initiated research grant from BMS.

Safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with darolutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, darolutamide was well tolerated for 25 months, but minimal long-term safety data are available. METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for patients receiving darolutamide for a median of 38 months (n = 13) are described in this pooled analysis of individual patient data from phase 1/2 studies. RESULTS: All patients reported TEAEs (mostly grade 1/2). The most common TEAEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Serious TEAEs were reported in six patients (none related to darolutamide). All treatment-related TEAEs (n = 5) were grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated; no new safety signals observed. In patients with mCRPC, long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. These findings are consistent with previous reports, demonstrating a favorable safety and tolerability profile of darolutamide.