TROP-2, NECTIN-4 and predictive biomarkers in sarcomatoid and rhabdoid bladder urothelial carcinoma.

Introduction: The surface protein TROP-2/TACSTD2 and the cell adhesion protein NECTIN-4/NECTIN4 are responsible for the efficacy of anticancer therapies based on antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) targeting intracellular microtubules. In contrast with common histologic subtypes of bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC), little is known of TROP-2 and NECTIN-4 expression in sarcomatoid and rhabdoid BUC. Aims: In this study, we aimed to analyze TROP-2 and NECTIN-4 expression and additional predictive biomarkers by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on 35 undifferentiated BUC (28 sarcomatoid and 7 rhabdoid). Wide genomic investigation was also performed on 411 BUC cases of the PanCancer Atlas, focusing on genes related to the microtubule pathways. Results: Seven of 35 (20%) undifferentiated BUC showed expression of TROP-2. NECTIN-4 was expressed in 10 cases (29%). Seven cases (20%) co-expressed TROP-2 and NECTIN-4. HER-2 FISH was amplified in 5 cases (14%) while HER-2 immunoexpression was observed in 14 cases (40%). PD-L1 scored positive for combined proportion score (CPS) in 66% of cases and for tumor proportion score (TPS) in 51% of cases. Pan-NTRK1-2/3 was elevated in 9 cases (26%) and FGFR-2/3 was broken in 7 of 35 cases (20%). Of 28 sarcomatoid BUC, 9 (32%) were negative for all (TROP-2, NECTIN-4, PD-L1, HER-2, FGFR and pan-NTRK) biomarkers and 3 (11%) expressed all five biomarkers. Among cases with rhabdoid dedifferentiation, 1 of 7 (14%) showed activation of all biomarkers, whereas 2 of 7 (28%) showed none. The mRNA analysis identified microtubule-related genes and pathways suitable for combined ADC treatments in BUC. Conclusion: Sarcomatoid and rhabdoid BUC do harbor positive expression of the ADC targets TROP-2 or NECTIN-4 in a relatively modest subset of cases, whereas the majority do not. Different combinations of other positive biomarkers may help the choice of medical therapies. Overall, these findings have important clinical implications for targeted therapy for BUC.

Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

Nectin-4 and DNA mismatch repair proteins expression in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) as a model for tumor targeting approaches: an ImGO pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) accounts for only about 5-10% of all urothelial cancers and is characterized by an aggressive and frequently rapidly fatal behavior. However, detailed knowledge of its molecular profile is still lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified, by chart analysis, patients who underwent radical nephroureterectomy or diagnostic biopsy for UTUC between January 2015 and August 2020 at the Santa Maria Hospital of Terni, in Italy. Eligible patients were required to have also adequate clinical informations and follow-up details. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins and Nectin-4 immunohistochemical expression in UTUC, looking also for an eventual correlation between these molecular features. The secondary objective was to investigate genomic instability in the case of a MMR protein loss. Expression of proteins was assessed by using immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability (MSI) performed by next generation sequencing. Nectin-4 expression was reported using an intensity scoring system (score, 0-3+), instead the expression of DNA MMR proteins was indicated as present (no loss) or not present (loss). RESULTS: Thirty four cases have been evaluated and 27 considered eligible for the study with their tumor samples analyzed. Nectin-4 was found to be expressed in 44% of cases and 18.5% of patients showed defective-MMR phenotype. We found a significant correlation between Nectin-4 expression and MSH2/MSH6 protein loss. Out of 7 patients with DNA MMR proteins loss or equivocal phenotype, 3 showed MSI. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study suggest a possible relationship between Nectin-4 and DNA MMR protein expression in UTUC and a clinically significant correlation between defective MMR phenotype and genomic instability. Because of the possible implications of these data for innovative treatment approaches, the need for further studies in this area is warranted.

Analysis by region of outcomes for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with cabozantinib or everolimus: a sub-analysis of the METEOR study.

INTRODUCTION: METEOR was a phase 3 trial (NCT01865747) of cabozantinib versus everolimus in adults with advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC previously treated with VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). This post hoc analysis of METEOR compared outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic clear cell RCC who had received ≥ 1 prior VEGFR-TKI treatment were randomized 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. Patients were categorized by recruitment region: Europe or outside of Europe (rest of world [RoW]). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between regional subgroups. RESULTS: In total, there were 320 eligible patients from Europe (cabozantinib, 167; everolimus, 153) and 338 from RoW (North America, 240 patients; Asia-Pacific, 86; Latin America, 12; randomized as cabozantinib, 163; everolimus, 175). PFS and OS were longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus and similar for the Europe and RoW subgroups. For PFS, the hazard ratio (HR) for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 0.54 for the Europe subgroup (p < .001) and 0.50 for the RoW subgroup (p < .001). For OS, the HR was 0.75 for the Europe subgroup (p = .034) and 0.69 for the RoW subgroup (p = .006). ORR in the Europe subgroup was 15% for cabozantinib and 3.9% for everolimus (p < .001). For the RoW subgroup, ORR was 20% for cabozantinib and 2.9% for everolimus (p < .001). Incidence of grade 3/4 AEs were similar for the Europe (cabozantinib, 74%; everolimus, 58%) and RoW subgroups (cabozantinib, 69%; everolimus, 64%). CONCLUSION: In the METEOR trial, efficacy outcomes for patients recruited from European and non-European countries favored cabozantinib over everolimus. The efficacy and safety results for the regional subgroups were consistent with those of the overall METEOR population.

Plain language summary of results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study: avelumab maintenance treatment for advanced urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JAVELIN BLADDER 100 STUDY?: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Combination Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma: the Best Choice for Every Patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Therapeutic alternatives to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are increasing, and combination therapies, including antiangiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase/mTOR/immune checkpoint inhibitors, are identified as the gold standard driven by the results of recent clinical studies. Nevertheless, the real-world RCC population is very heterogeneous, with categories of patients not represented in the enrolled trial population who may not benefit more from these treatments. The purpose of this expert review is to assess the rationale on which tyrosine kinase alone may still be a viable first-line treatment option for some subgroups of patients with mRCC. RECENT FINDINGS: The first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy can still be considered an effective tool for addressing selected mRCCs, as highlighted by the successful outcome in a range of subjects such as favorable-risk patients, the ones suffering from autoimmune diseases, those with pancreatic or lung metastases, or previously undergoing organ transplantation and elderly subjects. Some selected categories of patients may still benefit from monotherapy with TKI, and smart sequential therapies can also be considered instead of a combination strategy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also act as immune modulator agents, boosting the immune response to facilitate and potentiate the therapeutic effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: real-world results from an expanded access programme.

OBJECTIVE: To report the safety and efficacy results of patients enrolled in the Italian Nivolumab Renal Cell Cancer Expanded Access Programme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Patients included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for adverse events (AEs) using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016, of whom 18% were aged ≥75 years, 6.7% had non-clear cell RCC, 49.6% had bone and 8.2% brain metastases, and 79% had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were fatigue (13%) and rash (9%). Twenty-two patients (5.7%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. The objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Similar survival rates were reported among patients with non-clear-cell histology, elderly patients, those with bone and/or brain metastases, and those who had received prior first-line sunitinib or pazopanib, or prior everolimus. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy observed were consistent with those reported in the pivotal Checkmate 025 trial. Results in patients with non-clear-cell mRCC who were elderly, pretreated with everolimus, and had bone and/or brain metastases encourage the use of nivolumab in these categories of patients.

Docetaxel rechallenge in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: any place in the modern treatment scenario? An intention to treat evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the possible advantages of a docetaxel (DCT) rechallenge strategy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients, also given the possible earlier positioning of this treatment option in the modern scenario. PATIENTS & METHODS: All mCRPC patients planned for DCT chemotherapy rechallenge in our institutions were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 128 patients, 98 achieved disease control on the initial DCT round. After a treatment holiday of 8.3 months, the 98 responsive patients underwent a second DCT round, with 56 cases achieving again disease control. After a 5.7-month off-treatment period, 32 of these cases underwent a third DCT round, and 16 responded. Lastly, after a further 4.2-month treatment holiday, eight patients underwent a fourth DCT round and two responded. Median time to definitive disease progression for the whole population was 16.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Rechallenge with DCT may be considered a suitable treatment option for mCRPC patients recurring after a successful DCT chemotherapy. The interest in this strategy may be increased because of the showed efficacy of early DCT chemotherapy in patients with bulky disease (CHAARTED study) and the potential lower efficacy of the new hormonal agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide when used in a immediate sequencing.

The 5-WS of targeting DNA-damage repair (DDR) pathways in prostate cancer.

DNA-damage repair (DDR) pathways alterations, a growing area of interest in oncology, are detected in about 20% of patient with prostate cancer and are associated with improved sensitivity to poly(ADP ribose) polymerases (PARP) inhibitors. In May 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved two PARP inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) for prostate cancer treatment. Moreover, germline aberrations in DDR pathways genes have also been related to familial or hereditary prostate cancer, requiring tailored health-care programs. These emerging scenarios are rapidly changing diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic approaches in prostate cancer management. The aim of this review is to highlight the five W-points of DDR pathways in prostate cancer: why targeting DDR pathways in prostate cancer; what we should test for genomic profiling in prostate cancer; "where" testing genetic assessment in prostate cancer (germline or somatic, solid or liquid biopsy); when genetic testing is appropriate in prostate cancer; who could get benefit from PARP inhibitors; how improve patients outcome with combinations strategies.

Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib combination for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in a Real-World Scenario: Data From the Prospective ProPAXI Study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab/Axitinib combination is approved as first-line therapy in mRCC. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes of PAXI combo in the real-world in Italy. METHODS: This is a prospective study including patients diagnosed with mRCC who received combination as first-line therapy in recruiting Italian Centers. Data about patient characteristics, safety and outcome were collected. RESULTS: 170 pts have been treated from December 2020 to September 2023. The majority had clear-cell histology (83%). Sarcomatoid feature was present in 33%of available cases. About one half of patients (55%) had synchronous metastasis. In 58% of cases nephrectomy was performed, of which 27% were cytoreductive and 4% were deferred nephrectomies. Lung metastases were identified in 106 patients (62%), bone and liver involvement in 66 and 29 patients (38.8% and 17.1%) respectively. Stratifying by IMDC criteria, 32 patients (18.8%) were at favorable-risk, 106 (62.4%) at intermediate-risk, and 32 (18.8%) at poor-risk. At time of analysis, treatment was ongoing in 49% of patients. Progression occurred in 45% of patients. Median PFS was 19.2 months (95% CI: 15-NR). With a median follow-up of 19.3 months (range 1.3-34.5), at 24-months and 36-months landmark analysis 62% (95% CI, 53-70) and 58% (95% CI, 47-69) of treated patients are still alive respectively. Disease control rate was achieved in 84.6% of patients: 4.3% reached a complete response, 52% had a partial response and 28.8% a stable disease. Primary progression was observed in 15.3% of patients. In the multivariate analysis, the prognostic significance of age ≥ 65 years, non-clear cell histology, IMDC score, and adverse events and gender interaction as predictors of worse OS were confirmed. CONCLUSION: This is the first available prospective study on first-line Pembrolizumab/Axitinib combination in real world scenario. Our findings support the effectiveness and safety of first-line this combination in mRCC and reveal that gender emerged as a prognostic factor in relation to the occurrence of adverse events.

Avelumab First-Line Maintenance for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results From the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Trial After ≥2 Years of Follow-Up.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Initial results from the phase III JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02603432) showed that avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free after 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance treatment is now a standard of care for aUC. Here, we report updated data with ≥ 2 years of follow-up in all patients, including OS (primary end point), PFS, safety, and additional novel analyses. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). At data cutoff (June 4, 2021), median follow-up was 38.0 months and 39.6 months, respectively; 67 patients (19.5%) had received ≥2 years of avelumab treatment. OS remained longer with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone in all patients (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91]; 2-sided P = .0036). Investigator-assessed PFS analyses also favored avelumab. Longer-term safety was consistent with previous analyses; no new safety signals were identified with longer treatment duration. In conclusion, longer-term follow-up continues to show clinically meaningful efficacy benefits with avelumab 1L maintenance plus BSC versus BSC alone in patients with aUC. An interactive visualization of data reported in this article is available.

Avelumab First-line Maintenance Therapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Comprehensive Clinical Subgroup Analyses from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries. OBJECTIVE: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1+ tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer.

Patient-reported Outcomes from JAVELIN Bladder 100: Avelumab First-line Maintenance Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In JAVELIN Bladder 100, avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without disease progression with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized phase 3 trial (NCT02603432) was conducted in 700 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that had not progressed with first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin. PROs were a secondary endpoint. INTERVENTION: Avelumab plus BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Symptom Index-18 (FBlSI-18) and EuroQol five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed-effect models. Time to deterioration (TTD; prespecified definition: a ≥3-point decrease from baseline in the FBlSI-18 disease-related symptoms-physical subscale for two consecutive assessments) was evaluated via Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Completion rates for scheduled on-treatment PRO assessments were >90% (overall and average per assessment). Results from descriptive analyses and mixed-effect or repeated-measures models of FBlSI-18 and EQ-5D-5L were similar between arms. TTD was also similar, both in the prespecified analysis (hazard ratio 1.26 [95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.77]) and in the post hoc analyses including off-treatment assessments and different event definitions. Limitations included the open-label design and limited numbers of evaluable patients at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of avelumab first-line maintenance to BSC in patients with aUC that had not progressed with first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy prolonged OS, with a relatively minimal effect on quality of life. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this trial of people with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had benefited from first-line chemotherapy (ie, had stable disease or reduced tumor size), treatment with avelumab maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone improved survival significantly, without compromising quality of life, as reported by the patients themselves.

Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817.

INTRODUCTION: We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). METHODS: We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

Targeted Approaches in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Which Data?

Prostate cancer is the second most common diagnosed cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide. Despite significant advances in the management of castration-sensitive prostate cancer, the majority of patients develop a castration-resistant disease after a median duration of treatment of 18-48 months. The transition to a castrate resistance state could rely on alternative survival pathways, some related to androgen-independent mechanisms. Although several agents have been approved in this setting, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease. Recent studies revealed some of the complex pathways underlying inherited and acquired mechanisms of resistance to available treatments. A better understanding of these pathways may lead to significant improvements in survival by providing innovative therapeutic targets. The present comprehensive review attempts to provide an overview of recent progress in novel targeted therapies and near-future directions.

Looking for a Simplified Diagnostic Model to Identify Potentially Lethal Cases of Prostate Cancer at Initial Diagnosis: An ImGO Pilot Study.

The recurrent genetic anomalies used to classify prostate cancer (PC) into distinct molecular subtypes have limited relevance for clinical practice. In consideration of WHO 2016 histological classification, which includes the introduction of Gleason Score 4 for patients with cribriform component and the definition of intraductal carcinoma as a new entity, a retrospective pilot study was conducted to investigate, by histological review, if there were any variations of Gleason Score and the incidence of intraductal carcinoma and cribriform pattern, intended as "phenotypic" markers of potentially lethal PC, among metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) samples. Potentially predictive factors were also assessed. Among 125 cases, a variation in the Gleason Score was reported in 26% of cases. A cribriform (36%) or intraductal (2%) pattern was reported in a higher percentage. Of them, a primary Gleason pattern 4 was reported in 80% of cases. All patients with intraductal carcinoma present a BRCA2 mutation, also found in 80% of cases with a cribriform pattern. This pilot study documented some hypothesis-generating data, as the evaluation of de novo mCSPC and mCRPC as phenotypic/biologic model to be translated in clinical practice. A cribriform pattern/intraductal carcinoma might be a marker of potentially lethal PC. The high incidence of TP53 and BRCA2 mutations in de novo mCSPC may also have a therapeutic implication.

Primary Tumor Shrinkage and the Effect on Metastatic Disease and Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Kidney Cancer With Intermediate or Poor Prognosis Treated With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Cabozantinib.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations have become the first-line standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but their activity on the primary tumor is still one of the most debated issues. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the primary tumor's response to first-line therapy with cabozantinib or nivolumab+ipilimumab, and its correlation with metastatic response and with patient outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven mRCC patients met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis (30 treated with cabozantinib and 37 with nivolumab+ipilimumab). In the overall population, the primary tumor control rate (PTCR) was 90.9%; no complete responses (CR) were achieved. A significant correlation was found between the baseline size of the primary tumor's longest diameter and its response according to RECIST v1.1 criteria at the time of the second radiological assessment (rs = -0.351; P = .049). Moreover, a significant correlation between the type of primary tumor response and the response of the metastases was observed in the overall population (rs = 0.50; two-sided P < 0.001). There was also a significant correlation between primary tumor response and 1-year survival rate (P = .002), even when adjusted for the IMDC prognostic group and type of therapy (HR = 8.70; 95%CI, 2.52-30.05; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Extension of the primary tumor did not affect patient survival, while its response was significantly related to the response on metastatic disease and survival. No significant differences in terms of primary tumor shrinkage were identified between treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab or cabozantinib in this cohort.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). RESULTS: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population. CONCLUSIONS: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

Treatment of recurrent glioblastoma with stereotactic radiotherapy: long-term results of a mono-institutional trial.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Few clinical data exist concerning normal brain tissue tolerance to re-irradiation. The present study evaluated long-term outcome of 22 recurrent glioblastoma patients re-irradiated with radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-two patients were treated with radiosurgery (13, 59%) or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (9, 41%) for 24 lesions of recurrent glioblastoma. The male/female ratio was 14:8, median age 55 years (range, 27-81), and median Karnofsky performance status 90 (range, 70-100). The majority of the cases (77%) was in recursive partitioning analysis classes III or IV Radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy was chosen according to lesion size and location. RESULTS: Median time between primary radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 9 months. Median doses were 17 Gy and 30 Gy, whereas median cumulative normalized total dose was 141 Gy and 98 Gy for radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, respectively. All patients submitted to radiosurgery had a cumulative normalized total dose of more than 100 Gy, whereas only a few (44%) of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy patients had a cumulative normalized total dose exceeding 100 Gy. Median follow-up from re-irradiation was 54 months. At the time of analysis, all patients had died. After re-irradiation, 1 (4%) lesion was in partial remission, 16 (67%) lesions were stable, and the remaining 7 (29%) were in progression. Median duration of response was 6 months, and median survival from re-irradiation 11 months. Three of 13 (23%) patients submitted to radiosurgery developed asymptomatic brain radionecrosis. The cumulative normalized total dose for the 3 patients was 122 Gy, 124 Gy, and 141 Gy, respectively. In one case, the volume of the lesion was large (14 cc), and in the other 2 the interval between the first and second cycle of radiotherapy was short (5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Re-irradiation with radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy is feasible and effective in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Apart from the importance of an accurate patient selection, cumulative radiotherapy dose and a correct indication for radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy must be taken into account to avoid brain toxicity.

Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M) Plus Temozolomide in Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients: Real-World Experience from a Multicenter Study of Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology (AINO).

BACKGROUND: Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M; ABT-414) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a specific antibody against activated EGFR and a cytotoxic agent with antimicrotubule activity. The INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 phase 2 trial produced interesting results for the combination regimen of Depatux-M and temozolomide in EGFR-amplified glioblastoma patients at first recurrence. For the first time worldwide, our work investigated the clinical outcome and safety of this combination in a real-life population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled from seven AINO (Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology) Institutions. The major inclusion criteria were: histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma, EGFR-amplified, one or more prior systemic therapies and ECOG PS ≤ 2. According to the original schedule, patients received Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks combined with temozolomide. The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival and safety. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients were enrolled. The median age was 57 years, ECOG PS was 0-1 in 28 patients (88%), MGMT methylated status was found in 22 (64%), 15 patients (42%) received the combined treatment as second-line therapy. The median OS was 8.04 months (95% CI, 5.3-10.7), the 12 month-OS was 37%. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the MGMT methylation status was the only factor resulting significantly associated with survival. Grade 3 ocular toxicity occurred in 11% of patients; no grade 4 ocular toxicity was reported. No death was considered to be drug-related. CONCLUSIONS: The study reported the first "real world" experience of Depatux-M plus temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Encouraging clinical benefits were demonstrated, even though most patients were treated beyond second-line therapy. Overall, the results are close to those reported in the previous phase 2 trial. Toxicity was moderate and manageable.