Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists' perspective.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC.

Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors. RESULTS: In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Dose escalation of tolinapant (ASTX660) in combination with standard radical chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer : a study protocol for a phase 1b TiTE-CRM clinical trial (CRAIN) in UK secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with an estimated 342,000 deaths worldwide in 2020. Current standard of care in the UK for locally advanced cervical cancer is concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly cisplatin, yet 5-year overall survival rates are only 65% with a distant relapse rate of 50%. Inhibitors of Apoptosis Proteins (IAPs) are often overexpressed in cancer cells and associated with tumour progression and resistance to treatment. Tolinapant, developed by Astex Pharmaceuticals, is an IAP antagonist with an additional mechanism of action via down-regulation of NF-kB, an important regulator in cervical cancer. Preclinical studies performed using tolinapant in combination with cisplatin and radiotherapy showed inhibition of tumour growth and enhanced survival. There is therefore a strong rationale to combine tolinapant with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: CRAIN is a phase Ib open-label, dose escalation study to characterise the safety, tolerability and initial evidence for clinical activity of tolinapant when administered in combination with cisplatin based CRT. Up to 42 patients with newly diagnosed cervix cancer will be recruited from six UK secondary care sites. The number of participants and the duration of the trial will depend on toxicities observed and dose escalation decisions, utilising a TiTE-CRM statistical design. Treatment will constist of standard of care CRT with 45 Gy external beam radiotherapy given in 25 daily fractions over 5 weeks with weekly cisplatin 40mg/m2. This is followed by brachytherapy for which common schedules will be 28 Gy in 4 fractions high-dose-rate or 34 Gy in 2 fractions pulsed-dose-rate. Tolinapant will be administered in fixed dose capsules taken orally daily for seven consecutive days as an outpatient on alternate weeks (weeks 1, 3, 5) during chemoradiation. Dose levels for tolinapant which will be assessed are: 60 mg; 90 mg (starting level); 120 mg; 150 mg; 180 mg. Escalation will be guided by emerging safety data and decisions by the Safety Review Committee. DISCUSSION: If this trial determines a recommended phase II dose and shows tolinapant to be safe and effective in combination with CRT, it would warrant future phase trials. Ultimately, we hope to provide a synergistic treatment option for these patients to improve outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2021-006555-34 (issued 30th November 2021); ISRCTN18574865 (registered 30th August 2022).

Cost-effectiveness analysis for avelumab first-line maintenance treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland was assessed. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed comparing avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone, incorporating JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data, costs from national databases and published literature and clinical expert validation of assumptions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated using lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Results: Avelumab plus BSC had incremental costs of £9446 and a QALY gain of 0.63, leading to a base-case (deterministic) ICER of £15,046 per QALY gained, supported by robust sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Avelumab first-line maintenance is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

What is this article about? This study looked at the costs of avelumab when given as maintenance treatment for people in Scotland with advanced urothelial carcinoma, compared with the longer survival and other benefits that it provides. How was this done? Researchers estimated the costs and treatment benefits expected with avelumab using data from a clinical trial called JAVELIN Bladder 100, national databases, data from previously published studies and expert opinions. What were the results? Costs associated with using avelumab maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland were considered to be acceptable based on the benefits it provides. What do the results of the study mean? These results support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance as a standard treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

Real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors has challenged previous treatment paradigms for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) in the post-platinum setting as well as in the first-line setting for cisplatin-ineligible patients. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of pembrolizumab as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible UC. METHODS: Data from patients aged ≥ 18 years with cisplatin-ineligible UC and receiving first-line pembrolizumab from January 1st 2017 to September 1st 2022 were collected. Cisplatin ineligibility was defined according to the Galsky criteria. Thirty-three Institutions from 18 countries were involved in the ARON-2 study. RESULTS: Our analysis included 162 patients. The median follow-up time was 18.9 months (95%CI 15.3-76.9). In the overall study population, the median OS was 15.8 months (95%CI 11.3-32.4). The median OS was significantly longer in males versus females while no statistically significant differences were observed between patients aged < 65y versus ≥ 65y and between smokers and non-smokers. According to Recist 1.1 criteria, 26 patients (16%) experienced CR, 32 (20%) PR, 39 (24%) SD and 55 (34%) PD. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the role of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for cisplatin-unfit patients. Further studies investigating the biological and immunological characteristics of UC patients are warranted in order to optimize the outcome of patients receiving immunotherapy in this setting.

Use of concomitant proton pump inhibitors, statins or metformin in patients treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: data from the ARON-2 retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab. METHODS: We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

Evaluating atezolizumab in patients with urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (AURORA): study protocol for a single arm, open-label, multicentre, phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bladder and urinary tract cancers account for approximately 21,000 new diagnoses and 5,000 deaths annually in the UK. Approximately 90% are transitional cell carcinomas where advanced disease is treated with platinum based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy. Urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (UTSCC) accounts for about 5% of urinary tract cancers overall making this a rare disease. We have yet to establish definitive systemic treatment options for advanced UTSCC. Preliminary translational data, from UTSCC patient tumour samples, indicate high PD-L1 expression and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in a proportion of cases. Both of these features are associated with differential gene expression consistent with a tumour/immune microenvironment predicted to be susceptible to immune checkpoint directed immunotherapy which we will evaluate in the AURORA trial. METHODS: AURORA is a single arm, open-label, multicentre,UK phase II clinical trial. 33 patients will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients with UTSCC, suitable for treatment with palliative intent, will receive atezolizumab PD-L1 directed immunotherapy (IV infusion, 1680 mg, every 28 days) for one year if tolerated. Response assessment, by cross sectional imaging will occur every 12 weeks. AURORA uses a Simon's 2-stage optimal design with best overall objective response rate (ORR, by RECIST v1.1) at a minimum of 12 weeks from commencing treatment as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints will include overall survival, progression-free survival, duration of response, magnitude of response using waterfall plots of target lesion measurements, quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C30 tool, safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) and evaluation of potential biomarkers of treatment response including PD-L1 expression. Archival tumour samples and blood samples will be collected for translational analyses. DISCUSSION: If this trial shows atezolizumab to be safe and effective it may lead to a future late phase randomised controlled trial in UTSCC. Ultimately, we hope to provide a new option for treatment for such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2021-001995-32 (issued 8th September 2021); ISRCTN83474167 (registered 11 May 2022); NCT05038657 (issued 9th September 2021).

Addition of nintedanib or placebo to neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NEOBLADE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is common after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We investigated the effect of adding nintedanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on response and survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: NEOBLADE was a parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy with nintedanib or placebo in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were recruited from 15 hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nintedanib or placebo using permuted blocks with random block sizes of two or four, stratified by centre and glomerular filtration rate. Treatments were allocated using an interactive web-based system, and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Patients received oral nintedanib (150 mg or 200 mg twice daily for 12 weeks) or placebo, in addition to usual neoadjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, assessed at cystectomy or at day 8 of cyclde 3 (plus or minus 7 days) if cystectomy did not occur. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with EudraCT, 2012-004895-01, and ISRCTN, 56349930, and has completed planned recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2018, 120 patients were recruited and were randomly allocated to receive nintedanib (n=57) or placebo (n=63). The median follow-up for the study was 33·5 months (IQR 14·0-44·0). Pathological complete response in the intention-to-treat population was reached in 21 (37%) of 57 patients in the nintedanib group and 20 (32%) of 63 in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·25, 70% CI 0·84-1·87; p=0·28). Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed in 53 (93%) of 57 participants who received nintedanib and 50 (79%) of 63 patients in the placebo group (OR 1·65, 95% CI 0·74-3·65; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were thromboembolic events (17 [30%] of 57 patients in the nintedanib group vs 13 [21%] of 63 patients in the placebo group [OR 1·63, 95% CI 0·71-3·76; p=0·29]) and decreased neutrophil count (22 [39%] in the nintedanib group vs seven [11%] in the placebo group [5·03, 1·95-13·00; p=0·0006]). 45 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in the nintedanib group and 43 occurred in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group, which was due to myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nintedanib to chemotherapy was safe but did not improve the rate of pathological complete response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. CONCLUSION: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.

Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A survey of UK Uro-oncologists.

AIM: To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group. RESULTS: All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease. CONCLUSION: All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.

Olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair gene aberrations (TOPARP-B): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is enriched in DNA damage response (DDR) gene aberrations. The TOPARP-B trial aims to prospectively validate the association between DDR gene aberrations and response to olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, investigator-initiated, randomised phase 2 trial following a selection (or pick-the-winner) design, we recruited participants from 17 UK hospitals. Men aged 18 years or older with progressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with one or two taxane chemotherapy regimens and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less had tumour biopsies tested with targeted sequencing. Patients with DDR gene aberrations were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated minimisation method, with balancing for circulating tumour cell count at screening, to receive 400 mg or 300 mg olaparib twice daily, given continuously in 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to dose allocation. The primary endpoint of confirmed response was defined as a composite of all patients presenting with any of the following outcomes: radiological objective response (as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), a decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 50% or more (PSA50) from baseline, or conversion of circulating tumour cell count (from ≥5 cells per 7·5 mL blood at baseline to <5 cells per 7·5 mL blood). A confirmed response in a consecutive assessment after at least 4 weeks was required for each component. The primary analysis was done in the evaluable population. If at least 19 (43%) of 44 evaluable patients in a dose cohort responded, then the dose cohort would be considered successful. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682772. Recruitment for the trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 711 patients consented for targeted screening between April 1, 2015, and Aug 30, 2018. 161 patients had DDR gene aberrations, 98 of whom were randomly assigned and treated (49 patients for each olaparib dose), with 92 evaluable for the primary endpoint (46 patients for each olaparib dose). Median follow-up was 24·8 months (IQR 16·7-35·9). Confirmed composite response was achieved in 25 (54·3%; 95% CI 39·0-69·1) of 46 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort, and 18 (39·1%; 25·1-54·6) of 46 evaluable patients in the 300 mg cohort. Radiological response was achieved in eight (24·2%; 11·1-42·3) of 33 evaluable patients in the 400 mg cohort and six (16·2%; 6·2-32·0) of 37 in the 300 mg cohort; PSA50 response was achieved in 17 (37·0%; 23·2-52·5) of 46 and 13 (30·2%; 17·2-46·1) of 43; and circulating tumour cell count conversion was achieved in 15 (53·6%; 33·9-72·5) of 28 and 13 (48·1%; 28·7-68·1) of 27. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in both cohorts was anaemia (15 [31%] of 49 patients in the 300 mg cohort and 18 [37%] of 49 in the 400 mg cohort). 19 serious adverse reactions were reported in 13 patients. One death possibly related to treatment (myocardial infarction) occurred after 11 days of treatment in the 300 mg cohort. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib has antitumour activity against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DDR gene aberrations, supporting the implementation of genomic stratification of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Prostate Cancer UK, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres Network, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres.

A randomised Phase II trial of carboplatin and gemcitabine ± vandetanib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer not suitable to receive cisplatin.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, vandetanib, in combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma urothelial cancer (UC) who were unsuitable for cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, 82 patients were randomised from 16 hospitals across the UK into the TOUCAN double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised Phase II trial, receiving six 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (target area under the concentration versus time curve 4.5, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) combined with either oral vandetanib 100 mg or placebo (once daily). Progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), adverse events, tolerability and feasibility of use, objective response rate and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were used to analyse the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The 82 patients were randomised 1:1 to vandetanib (n = 40) or placebo (n = 42), and 25 patients (30%) completed six cycles of all allocated treatment. Toxicity Grade ≥3 was experienced in 80% (n = 32) and 76% (n = 32) of patients in the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively. The median PFS was 6.8 and 8.8 months for the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.76; P = 0.71); the median OS was 10.8 vs 13.8 months (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.79-2.52; P = 0.88); and radiological response rates were 50% and 55%. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that vandetanib improves clinical outcome in this setting. Our present data do not support its adoption as the regimen of choice for first-line treatment in patients with UC who were unfit for cisplatin.

Tumor downstaging as an intermediate endpoint to assess the activity of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has been associated with improved overall survival (OS). This study was aimed at evaluating the impact of pathologic downstaging (pDS; ie, a pT stage at least 1 stage lower than the pre-NAC cT stage) on the OS of patients with MIBC treated with NAC. METHODS: The Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) were queried for cT2-4N0M0 patients treated with NAC. A multivariable Cox model including either pDS or pCR was generated. A nested model was built to evaluate the added value of pDS (excluding patients achieving a pCR) to a model including pCR alone. C indices were computed to assess discrimination. NCDB was used for validation. The treatment effect of NAC versus cystectomy alone in achieving pDS was estimated through an inverse probability-weighted regression adjustment. RESULTS: Overall, 189 and 2010 patients from the RISC and NCDB cohorts, respectively, were included; pDS and pCR were achieved by 33% and 35% and by 20% and 15% in RISC and NCDB, respectively. In both data sets, pDS and pCR were associated with better OS and C indices. Adding pDS excluding pCR to the model with pCR fit the data better (likelihood ratio, P = .019 for RISC and P < .001 for NCDB), and it yielded better discrimination (incremental C index, 4.2 for RISC and 1.6 for NCDB). The treatment effect of NAC in achieving pDS was 2.07-fold (P < .001) in comparison with cystectomy alone. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease of at least 1 stage from the cT stage to the pT stage is associated with improved OS in patients with MIBC treated with NAC.

The Impact of Cisplatin- or Non-Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy on Long-Term and Conditional Survival of Patients with Advanced Urinary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cisplatin use on long-term survival of unselected patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) has not been adequately investigated. We used a multinational database to study long-term survival and the impact of treatment type in unselected patients with aUTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,333 patients with aUTC (cT4bN0M0, cTanyN+M0, cTanyNanyM+), transitional-cell, squamous, or adenocarcinoma histology who received systemic chemotherapy and had available survival data were selected. Long-term survival was defined as alive at 3 years following initiation of first-line chemotherapy. Conditional overall survival (COS) analysis was employed to study change in prognosis given time survived from initiation of first-line chemotherapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 31.7 months. The combination of cisplatin use and cisplatin eligibility accurately predicted long-term survival. Eligible patients treated with cisplatin conferred a 31.6% probability of 3-year survival (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1-38.3), and 2-year COS for patients surviving 3 years after initiation of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was 83% (95% CI: 59.7-93.5). The respective probabilities for patients who were ineligible for cisplatin or not treated with cisplatin despite eligibility were 14% (95% CI: 10.8-17.6) and 49.3% (95% CI: 28.2-67.4). Two-year COS remained significantly different between these two groups up to 3 years after chemotherapy initiation. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin-based therapy was associated with the highest likelihood of long-term survival in patients with aUTC and should be used in patients who fulfill the established eligibility criteria. Novel therapies are necessary to increase long-term survival in cisplatin-ineligible patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Long-term, disease-free survival is possible in one in four eligible-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. Therefore, deviations from eligibility criteria should be avoided. Consolidation surgery should be considered in responders. These data provide benchmarks for the study of novel therapies in aUTC.

The latest treatment options for bladder cancer.

Introduction: Bladder cancer carries a high healthcare burden and a poor prognosis once distant metastatic spread has occurred. Sources of data: We utilised a PubMed/MEDLINE literature search using the terms bladder cancer, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, intra-vesical therapy, surgery and radiotherapy, and current clinical management guidelines (Association of Cancer Physicians, British Association of Urological Surgeons, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Association of Urology). Areas of agreement: Optimal bladder cancer management requires a multi-modal approach incorporating surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Areas of controversy: Selection criteria for radical surgery, or radiotherapy as a bladder sparing option, and their relative efficacy, remains poorly defined. Growing points: Palliative immunotherapy has been recently established for advanced bladder cancer after prior chemotherapy. Earlier use is under investigation. Areas timely for developing research: Validated predictive biomarkers, potentially from easily repeatable sites ('liquid biopsies'), will be required to optimise use of molecularly targeted treatment options.

Impact of the Number of Cycles of Platinum Based First Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of the number of cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy (fewer than 6 cycles vs the conventional 6 cycles or more) on the survival of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the RISC (Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium) database. The association of the number of cycles of chemotherapy with overall survival was investigated by Cox multiple regression analysis after controlling for recognized prognostic factors. We excluded patients who received fewer than 3 or more than 9 platinum chemotherapy cycles to reduce confounding factors. The primary analysis was a comparison of overall survival for 3 to 5 vs 6 to 9 cycles using 6-month landmark analysis when 281 death events were observed. RESULTS: Of the 1,020 patients in the RISC 472 received cisplatin or carboplatin, of whom 338 and 134, respectively, were evaluable. A total of 157 patients received 3 to 5 cycles (median 4) and 315 received 6 to 9 cycles (median 6). There was no significant difference in overall survival between 3 to 5 and 6 to 9 cycles (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.33, p = 0.91). No significant interactions were observed for the type of platinum (p = 0.09) and completed planned chemotherapy (p = 0.56). The limitations of a hypothesis generating, retrospective analysis applied. CONCLUSIONS: Four cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy appeared adequate and did not significantly compromise the survival of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. The omission of excessive cycles may avoid unnecessary cumulative toxicity and facilitate a better transition to second line therapy and investigational switch maintenance therapy strategies. These results require prospective validation but they may impact practice in select patients.

LSD1 inhibition attenuates androgen receptor V7 splice variant activation in castration resistant prostate cancer models.

BACKGROUND: Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is often driven by constitutively active forms of the androgen receptor such as the V7 splice variant (AR-V7) and commonly becomes resistant to established hormonal therapy strategies such as enzalutamide as a result. The lysine demethylase LSD1 is a co-activator of the wild type androgen receptor and a potential therapeutic target in hormone sensitive prostate cancer. We evaluated whether LSD1 could also be therapeutically targeted in CRPC models driven by AR-V7. METHODS: We utilised cell line models of castrate resistant prostate cancer through over expression of AR-V7 to test the impact of chemical LSD1 inhibition on AR activation. We validated findings through depletion of LSD1 expression and in prostate cancer cell lines that express AR-V7. RESULTS: Chemical inhibition of LSD1 resulted in reduced activation of the androgen receptor through both the wild type and its AR-V7 splice variant forms. This was confirmed and validated in luciferase reporter assays, in LNCaP and 22Rv1 prostate cancer cell lines and in LSD1 depletion experiments. CONCLUSION: LSD1 contributes to activation of both the wild type and V7 splice variant forms of the androgen receptor and can be therapeutically targeted in models of CRPC. Further development of this approach is warranted.

Radical cystectomy or bladder preservation with radiochemotherapy in elderly patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC) Investigators.

BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy (RC) and radiochemotherapy (RCT) are curative options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Optimal treatment strategy remains unclear in elderly patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients aged 80 years old and above with T2-T4aN0-2M0-Mx MIBC were identified in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract (RISC) database. Patients treated with RC were compared with those treated with RCT. The impact of surgery on overall survival (OS) was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model. Progression included locoregional and metastatic relapse and was considered a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: Between 1988 and 2015, 92 patients underwent RC and 72 patients had RCT. Median age was 82.5 years (range 80-100) and median follow-up was 2.90 years (range 0.04-11.10). Median OS was 1.99 years (95%CI 1.17-2.76) after RC and 1.97 years (95%CI 1.35-2.64) after RCT (p = .73). Median progression-free survival (PFS) after RC and RCT were 1.25 years (95%CI 0.80-1.75) and 1.52 years (95%CI 1.01-2.04), respectively (p = .54). In multivariate analyses, only disease progression was significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 10.27 (95%CI 6.63-15.91), p < .0001). Treatment modality was not a prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: RCT offers survival rates comparable to those observed with RC for patients aged ≥80 years.

ProCAID: a phase I clinical trial to combine the AKT inhibitor AZD5363 with docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Background Docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy (DP) extends survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, emergent clinical resistance is almost inevitable. AKT pathway activation is highly prevalent in mCRPC contributing to disease progression and DP resistance. AZD5363 is a potent oral pan-AKT inhibitor with pre-clinical data indicating activity in mCRPC and synergy with docetaxel. Methods This phase I trial was to determine an AZD5363 recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for combination with DP. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy naive mCRPC, PSA or radiographic disease progression and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Treatment comprised DP (75 mg/m2, IV, day 1 and 5 mg BID, PO, day 1-21 respectively for ten cycles) and AZD5363 to disease progression for all patients. We utilised a 3 + 3 dose escalation design to determine a maximum tolerated dose according to defined dose limiting toxicity criteria assessed using CTCAE version 4.03. Planned AZD5363 dose levels were 320 mg (DL1), 400 mg (DL2) and 480 mg (DL3), BID, PO, 4 days on/3 days off, from day 2 of each cycle. Results 10 patients were treated. Dose limiting toxicities affected 2 patients (grade 3 rash ≥5 days; grade 3 diarrhoea) in DL2. The commonest grade 3 or 4, AZD5363 related, symptomatic adverse events were rash and diarrhoea. Hyperglycaemia affected all patients but was self-limiting. PSA reduction to <50% at 12 weeks occurred in 7 patients. Conclusions The RP2D for AZD5363 is 320 mg BID, 4 days on/3 days off, in combination with full dose DP for mCRPC.