177Lu-PSMA-617 versus a change of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor therapy for taxane-naive patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PSMAfore): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617) prolongs radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and taxane therapy. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with taxane-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 74 sites across Europe and North America, taxane-naive patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had progressed once on a previous ARPI were randomly allocated (1:1) to open-label, intravenous 177Lu-PSMA-617 at a dosage of 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) ± 10% once every 6 weeks for six cycles, or a change of ARPI (to abiraterone or enzalutamide, administered orally on a continuous basis per product labelling). Crossover from ARPI change to 177Lu-PSMA-617 was allowed after centrally confirmed radiographic progression. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation until radiographic progression or death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was a secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04689828) and is ongoing. In this primary report of the study, we present primary (first data cutoff) and updated (third data cutoff) analyses of radiographic progression-free survival; all other data are based on the third data cutoff. FINDINGS: Overall, of the 585 patients screened, 468 met all eligibility criteria and were randomly allocated between June 15, 2021 and Oct 7, 2022 to receive 177Lu-PSMA-617 (234 [50%] patients) or ARPI change (234 [50%]). Baseline characteristics were mostly similar between groups; median number of 177Lu-PSMA-617 cycles was 6·0 (IQR 4·0-6·0). Of patients assigned to ARPI change, 134 (57%) crossed over to receive 177Lu-PSMA-617. In the primary analysis (median time from randomisation to first data cutoff 7·26 months [IQR 3·38-10·55]), the median radiographic progression-free survival was 9·30 months (95% CI 6·77-not estimable) in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 5·55 months (4·04-5·95) in the ARPI change group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·56]; p<0·0001). In the updated analysis at time of the third data cutoff (median time from randomisation to third data cutoff 24·11 months [IQR 20·24-27·40]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 11·60 months (95% CI 9·30-14·19) in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group versus 5·59 months (4·21-5·95) in the ARPI change group (HR 0·49 [95% CI 0·39-0·61]). The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was lower in the 177Lu-PSMA-617 group (at least one event in 81 [36%] of 227 patients; four [2%] grade 5 [none treatment related]) than the ARPI change group (112 [48%] of 232; five [2%] grade 5 [one treatment related]). INTERPRETATION: 177Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged radiographic progression-free survival relative to ARPI change, with a favourable safety profile. For patients with PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who are being considered for a change of ARPI after progression on a previous ARPI, 177Lu-PSMA-617 may be an effective treatment alternative. FUNDING: Novartis.

Real-world study: Impact of multidisciplinary management of apalutamide-associated adverse events in prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the adverse events (AEs) associated with apalutamide and the impact of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) protocol on its management at a tertiary care hospital in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective, cohort study based on real-world evidence at the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. Includes patients diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and who started treatment with apalutamide between May 2019 and March 2023 in a real-world clinical setting. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients treated with apalutamide, 52.1% experienced an AE, 19.8% experienced temporarily interruption or a reduction in the dose of apalutamide, and 13.2% discontinued treatment due to AEs. Without MDT protocol (49 patients), 24.5% of patients had to temporarily interrupt or reduce the dose of apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 10.1 months, and 24.5% discontinued apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 3.1 months. Meanwhile, whit MDT protocol (72 patients), 16.7% of patients had to temporarily interrupt or reduce the dose of apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 1.6 months, and 5.6% discontinued apalutamide due to AEs, with a median time from the start of treatment of 4 months. The risk reduction associated with treatment discontinuation was statistically significant (p-value = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of MDT management of AEs associated with apalutamide to reduce treatment discontinuation.

Phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with genetic alterations in ERBB1-3 (LUX-Bladder 1).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib may be effective in urothelial cancers harbouring ERBB mutations. METHODS: This open-label, phase II, single-arm trial (LUX-Bladder 1, NCT02780687) assessed the efficacy and safety of second-line afatinib 40 mg/d in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with ERBB1-3 alterations. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6) (cohort A); other endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, DCR and safety (cohorts A and B). Cohort A was planned to have two stages: stage 2 enrolment was based on observed antitumour activity. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enroled into cohort A and eight into cohort B. In cohorts A/B, PFS6 was 11.8%/12.5%, ORR was 5.9%/12.5%, DCR was 50.0%/25.0%, median PFS was 9.8/7.8 weeks and median OS was 30.1/29.6 weeks. Three patients (two ERBB2-amplified [cohort A]; one EGFR-amplified [cohort B]) achieved partial responses. Stage 2 for cohort A did not proceed. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), most commonly (any/grade 3) diarrhoea (76.2%/9.5%). Two patients (4.8%) discontinued due to AEs and one fatal AE was observed (acute coronary syndrome; not considered treatment-related). CONCLUSIONS: An exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that basal-squamous tumours and ERBB2 amplification were associated with superior response to afatinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02780687.

A correlative biomarker study and integrative prognostic model in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable need to incorporate biomarkers of resistance to new antiandrogen agents in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide in first-line chemo-naïve asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and analyzed the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG and other biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V7) in CTCs and plasma Androgen Receptor copy number gain (AR-gain). These biomarkers were correlated with treatment response and survival outcomes and developed a clinical-molecular prognostic model using penalized cox-proportional hazard model. This model was validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in 32 patients with no differences observed in efficacy outcomes. CTC detection was associated with worse outcome and AR-V7 in CTCs was associated with increased rate of progression as best response. Plasma AR gain was strongly associated with an adverse outcome, with worse median prostate specific antigen (PSA)-PFS (4.2 vs. 14.7 m; p < 0.0001), rad-PFS (4.5 vs. 27.6 m; p < 0.0001), and OS (12.7 vs. 38.1 m; p < 0.0001). The clinical prognostic model developed in PREVAIL was validated (C-Index 0.70) and the addition of plasma AR (C-Index 0.79; p < 0.001) increased its prognostic ability. We generated a parsimonious model including alkaline phosphatase (ALP); PSA and AR gain (C-index 0.78) that was validated in an independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: TMPRSS2-ERG detection did not correlate with differential activity of enzalutamide in first-line mCRPC. However, we observed that CTCs and plasma AR gain were the most relevant biomarkers.

Safety and efficacy of avelumab plus carboplatin in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in an open-label Phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in unselected mCRPC. The evidence of a survival benefit with sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, provides a rationale to study further increasing immunogenicity in mCRPC through combinations. METHODS: Safety and efficacy avelumab plus carboplatin was investigated in a single-arm Phase Ib study in mCRPC, progressing to at least one taxane and one androgen-receptor inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included PSA/radiographic responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline/somatic mutation analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 26 patients were included. Patients were heavily pretreated: 76.9% received ≥3 and 42.3% ≥4 prior lines. A DNA damage repair (DDR) alteration was found in three patients (11.5%). The safety profile was acceptable with 73% Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. PSA response rate ≥50% was seen in 7.7% of patients. The objective response rate was 17.6%, including one complete response (5.9%). Two of these responders had a known DDR alteration (one BRCA2, one ATM). The median response duration was 6 months. Median radiographic PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI 4.28-9.01), and median OS 10.6 months (95% CI 6.68-NR). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus carboplatin has an acceptable safety profile and was associated with a prolonged OS given the heavily pretreated population.

Ibrutinib combination therapy for advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary tumours: results from a phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is approved for the treatment of various B-cell malignancies and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Based on encouraging preclinical data, safety and efficacy of ibrutinib combined with companion drugs for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gastric/gastroesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma (GC), and colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) were evaluated. METHODS: Ibrutinib 560 mg or 840 mg once daily was administered with standard doses of everolimus for RCC, docetaxel for GC, and cetuximab for CRC. Endpoints included determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ibrutinib in phase 1b and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] for GC and CRC; progression-free survival [PFS] for CRC) in phase 2. RESULTS: A total of 39 (RCC), 46 (GC), and 50 (RCC) patients were enrolled and received the RP2D. Safety profiles were consistent with the individual agents used in the study. Confirmed ORRs were 3% (RCC), 21% (GC), and 19% (CRC). Median (90% CI) PFS was 5.6 (3.9-7.5) months in RCC, 4.0 (2.7-4.2) months in GC, and 5.4 (4.1-5.8) months in CRC. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful increases in efficacy were not observed compared to historical controls; however, the data may warrant further evaluation of ibrutinib combinations in other solid tumours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02599324.

Efficacy and safety of erdafitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib, a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was shown to be clinically active and tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations in the primary analysis of the BLC2001 study at median 11 months of follow-up. We aimed to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the selected regimen of erdafitinib determined in the initial part of the study. METHODS: The open-label, non-comparator, phase 2, BLC2001 study was done at 126 medical centres in 14 countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, at least one prespecified FGFR alteration, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and progressive disease after receiving at least one systemic chemotherapy or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or were ineligible for cisplatin. The selected regimen determined in the initial part of the study was continuous once daily 8 mg/day oral erdafitinib in 28-day cycles, with provision for pharmacodynamically guided uptitration to 9 mg/day (8 mg/day UpT). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of erdafitinib. This is the final analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02365597. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2015, and Aug 9, 2018, 2328 patients were screened, of whom 212 were enrolled and 101 were treated with the selected erdafitinib 8 mg/day UpT regimen. The data cutoff date for this analysis was Aug 9, 2019. Median efficacy follow-up was 24·0 months (IQR 22·7-26·6). The investigator-assessed objective response rate for patients treated with the selected erdafitinib regimen was 40 (40%; 95% CI 30-49) of 101 patients. The safety profile remained similar to that in the primary analysis, with no new safety signals reported with longer follow-up. Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any causality occurred in 72 (71%) of 101 patients. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events of any cause were stomatitis (in 14 [14%] of 101 patients) and hyponatraemia (in 11 [11%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: With longer follow-up, treatment with the selected regimen of erdafitinib showed consistent activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and prespecified FGFR alterations. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Erdafitinib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the gene encoding fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) are common in urothelial carcinoma and may be associated with lower sensitivity to immune interventions. Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1-4, has shown antitumor activity in preclinical models and in a phase 1 study involving patients with FGFR alterations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with prespecified FGFR alterations. All the patients had a history of disease progression during or after at least one course of chemotherapy or within 12 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Prior immunotherapy was allowed. We initially randomly assigned the patients to receive erdafitinib in either an intermittent or a continuous regimen in the dose-selection phase of the study. On the basis of an interim analysis, the starting dose was set at 8 mg per day in a continuous regimen (selected-regimen group), with provision for a pharmacodynamically guided dose escalation to 9 mg. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients in the selected-regimen group received a median of five cycles of erdafitinib. Of these patients, 43% had received at least two previous courses of treatment, 79% had visceral metastases, and 53% had a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml per minute. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib therapy was 40% (3% with a complete response and 37% with a partial response). Among the 22 patients who had undergone previous immunotherapy, the confirmed response rate was 59%. The median duration of progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and the median duration of overall survival was 13.8 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, which were managed mainly by dose adjustments, were reported in 46% of the patients; 13% of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erdafitinib was associated with an objective tumor response in 40% of previously treated patients who had locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR alterations. Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in nearly half the patients. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; BLC2001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02365597.).

Laparoscopic Right Adrenalectomy in a Large Right Adrenal Oncocytic Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinomas are rare and aggressive tumors. The recently described oncocytic subtype has been reported approximately 40 times in the literature.1 In this video, we describe an unusual case of a large adrenal oncocytic carcinoma, its minimally invasive approach, and its anatomopathological features. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 43-year-old male presented to the emergency room with acute abdominal pain and fever. Blood tests showed 20,000 white blood cells and a reactive C-protein of 25. Tomography showed a large right adrenal tumor with necrosis. Antibiotics were started at the intensive care unit. A complete study showed normal tests, including hormones, cortisol, and metanephrines. At the multidisciplinary team meeting it was decided to perform a right transabdominal laparoscopic adrenalectomy. The tumor was approached from the medial side to the lateral side, always controlling the inferior vena cava. Indocyanine green was used to identify vascular structures. Anatomical pathology revealed a 15 cm lesion corresponding to a malignant adrenal oncocytic carcinoma according to the modified Lin-Weis-Bisceglia criteria.2 The patient was discharged without complications on the fifth day. He is receiving mitotane and is disease-free 5 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Oncocytic subtype is a rare entity described only a few times in the literature. Surgical treatment is of choice due to its curative potential, and the open versus laparoscopic approach will be chosen depending on the size of the tumor and the surgeon's experience. It is believed that this subtype may have a less aggressive behavior than the typical adrenal carcinoma,1 therefore its better understanding may help to define therapeutic decisions and prognosis in the future.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. FINDINGS: Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57-0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76-1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.

The influence of treatment sequence in the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG as biomarker of taxane resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TMPRSS2-ERG expression in blood has been correlated with low docetaxel benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This multicenter study aimed to prospectively asses its role as a taxane-resistance biomarker in blood and retrospectively in tumors, exploring also the impact of prior abiraterone/enzalutamide (A/E) in patients and in vitro. TMPRSS2-ERG was tested by quantitative reverse-transcription PCR. We included 204 patients (137 blood and 124 tumor samples) treated with taxanes. TMPRSS2-ERG expression was correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-progression-free survival (PFS), radiological-PFS (RX-PFS), and overall survival (OS). Independent association with survival was evaluated by multivariate Cox modeling. In vitro ERG knockdown and combinatorial and sequential experiments with enzalutamide and docetaxel were performed in VCaP cells. Prior A/E (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.8) and blood TMPRSS2-ERG detection (HR 2, 95% CI 1.1-3.7) were independently associated to lower PSA-PFS. In patients without prior A/E, blood and tumor TMPRSS2-ERG independently predicted lower PSA-PFS (HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.9 and HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.02-3.3, respectively) to taxanes. When prior A/E was administered, TMPRSS2-ERG was not associated with outcome. There was a significant interaction between blood TMPRSS2-ERG and prior A/E related to PSA-PFS (p = 0.032) and RX-PFS (p = 0.009). In vitro stable ERG inhibition did not sensitize VCaP cells to docetaxel. Concomitant enzalutamide and taxanes were synergistic, but prior enzalutamide reduced docetaxel cytotoxicity in VCaP cells. Enzalutamide induced the expression of neuroendocrine markers and reduced that of E-cadherin. We conclude that prior hormone-therapy may influence taxanes response and TMPRSS2-ERG prognostic value. Thus, multiple and sequential biomarkers are needed in CRPC follow-up evaluation.

Radium-223 international early access program: results from the Spanish subset.

AIM: To report results from the Spanish subset included in the radium-223 international early access program (iEAP). PATIENTS & METHODS: Ninety patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases received radium-223 55 kBq/kg every 4 weeks for six cycles. RESULTS: The median time to disease progression was 8 months and to prostate-specific antigen progression was 4 months. The percentage of patients with ≥50% confirmed declines in prostate-specific antigen was 9%. The median overall survival was 14 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 34% of patients (serious TEAEs 28%, TEAEs leading to discontinuation 27%). CONCLUSION: Outcomes of the Spanish subset are consistent with the iEAP. Radium-223 was generally well tolerated with no safety concerns.

Maintenance therapy with vinflunine plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with a response after first-line chemotherapy (MAJA; SOGUG 2011/02): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy improves outcomes in various tumour types, but cumulative toxic effects limit the choice of drugs. We investigated whether maintenance therapy with vinflunine would delay disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had achieved disease control with first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial in 21 Spanish hospitals. Eligible patients had locally advanced, surgically unresectable, or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract, adequate organ function, and disease control after four to six cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine (carboplatin allowed after cycle four). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive vinflunine or best supportive care until disease progression. We initially used block randomisation with a block size of six. Four lists were created for the two stratification factors of starting dose of vinflunine and presence of liver metastases. After a protocol amendment, number of cisplatin and gemcitabine cycles was added as a stratification factor, and eight lists were created, still with a block size of six. Finally, we changed to a minimisation procedure to reduce the risk of imbalance between groups. Vinflunine was given every 21 days as a 20 min intravenous infusion at 320 mg/m2 or at 280 mg/m2 in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1, age 75 years or older, previous pelvic radiotherapy, or creatinine clearance lower than 60 mL/min. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival longer than 5·3 months in the vinflunine group, assessed by modified intention to treat. Comparison of progression-free survival between treatment groups was a secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01529411. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2012, and Jan 29, 2015, we enrolled 88 patients, of whom 45 were assigned to receive vinflunine and 43 to receive best supportive care. One patient from the vinflunine group was lost to follow-up immediately after randomisation and was excluded from the analyses. One patient in the best supportive care group became ineligible for the study and did not receive treatment due to a delay in enrolment, but was included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 15·6 months (IQR 8·5-26·0), 29 (66%) of 44 patients in the vinflunine group had disease progression and 24 (55%) had died, compared with 36 (84%) of 43 patients with disease progression and 32 (74%) deaths in the best supportive care group. Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 2·0-11·1) in the vinflunine group and 4·2 months (2·1-6·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96, p=0·031). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 in the vinflunine group vs none of 42 in the best supportive care group), asthenia or fatigue (seven [16%] vs one [2%]), and constipation (six [14%] vs none). 18 serious adverse events were reported in the vinflunine group and 14 in the best supportive care group. One patient in the vinflunine group died from pneumonia that was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy, progression-free survival exceeded the acceptable threshold with vinflunine maintenance therapy. Moreover, progression-free survival was longer with vinflunine maintenance therapy than with best supportive care. Vinflunine maintenance had an acceptable safety profile. Further studies of the role of vinflunine are warranted. FUNDING: Pierre-Fabre Médicament.

Impact on clinical practice of the implementation of guidelines for the toxicity management of targeted therapies in kidney cancer. The protect-2 study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of such recommendations after their implementation of guidelines has not usually been evaluated. Herein, we assessed the impact and compliance with the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) Guidelines for toxicity management of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Data on 407 mRCC patients who initiated first-line targeted therapy during the year before and the year after publication and implementation of the SOGUG guideline program were available from 34 Spanish Hospitals. Adherence to SOGUG Guidelines was assessed in every cycle. RESULTS: Adverse event (AE) management was consistent with the Guidelines as a whole for 28.7% out of 966 post-implementation cycles compared with 23.1% out of 892 pre-implementation cycles (p = 0.006). Analysis of adherence by AE in non-compliant cycles showed significant changes in appropriate management of hypertension (33% pre-implementation vs. 44.5% post-implementation cycles; p < 0.0001), diarrhea (74.0% vs. 80.5%; p = 0.011) and dyslipemia (25.0% vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Slight but significant improvements in AE management were detected following the implementation of SOGUG recommendations. However, room for improvement in the management of AEs due to targeted agents still remains and could be the focus for further programs in this direction.

Lenvatinib, everolimus, and the combination in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9-20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5-7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24-0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6-10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30-1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38-0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

REACT expanded-access program in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: real-world data from a European subanalysis.

AIM: RAD001 Expanded Access Clinical Trial (REACT) provided everolimus to patients with metastatic RCC before its commercial availability. This retrospective subgroup analysis evaluated eventual differences, mainly in safety, between the large European population (n = 906; 66.3%) and the overall population (n = 1367). PATIENTS & METHODS: REACT enrolled patients from 34 countries who received everolimus 10 mg/day until progression/discontinuation or commercial availability. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, except race/ethnicity, were similar. Incidences of grade 3/4 adverse events were 50.7/11.3% in the European population and 48.8/12.8% in the overall population. A similar percentage of the European and overall populations achieved stable disease (∼ 51%) and completed treatment (20.6 and 19.7%). CONCLUSION: These results do not suggest differences for the European population and support everolimus as a worldwide standard of care for VEGFR-refractory metastatic RCC (NCT00655252).

SPARC mediates metastatic cooperation between CSC and non-CSC prostate cancer cell subpopulations.

BACKGROUND: Tumor cell subpopulations can either compete with each other for nutrients and physical space within the tumor niche, or co-operate for enhanced survival, or replicative or metastatic capacities. Recently, we have described co-operative interactions between two clonal subpopulations derived from the PC-3 prostate cancer cell line, in which the invasiveness of a cancer stem cell (CSC)-enriched subpopulation (PC-3M, or M) is enhanced by a non-CSC subpopulation (PC-3S, or S), resulting in their accelerated metastatic dissemination. METHODS: M and S secretomes were compared by SILAC (Stable Isotope Labeling by Aminoacids in Cell Culture). Invasive potential in vitro of M cells was analyzed by Transwell-Matrigel assays. M cells were co-injected with S cells in the dorsal prostate of immunodeficient mice and monitored by bioluminescence for tumor growth and metastatic dissemination. SPARC levels were determined by immunohistochemistry and real-time RT-PCR in tumors and by ELISA in plasma from patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. RESULTS: Comparative secretome analysis yielded 213 proteins differentially secreted between M and S cells. Of these, the protein most abundantly secreted in S relative to M cells was SPARC. Immunodepletion of SPARC inhibited the enhanced invasiveness of M induced by S conditioned medium. Knock down of SPARC in S cells abrogated the capacity of its conditioned medium to enhance the in vitro invasiveness of M cells and compromised their potential to boost the metastatic behavior of M cells in vivo. In most primary human prostate cancer samples, SPARC was expressed in the epithelial tumoral compartment of metastatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: The matricellular protein SPARC, secreted by a prostate cancer clonal tumor cell subpopulation displaying non-CSC properties, is a critical mediator of paracrine effects exerted on a distinct tumor cell subpopulation enriched in CSC. This paracrine interaction results in an enhanced metastatic behavior of the CSC-enriched tumor subpopulation. SPARC is expressed in the neoplastic cells of primary prostate cancer samples from metastatic cases, and could thus constitute a tumor progression biomarker and a therapeutic target in advanced prostate cancer.

Expert Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Among Men with Prostate Cancer Taking Poly-ADP Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor + Novel Hormonal Therapy Combination Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT. METHODS: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves.

Dual inhibition of MEK and PI3Kß/δ-a potential therapeutic strategy in PTEN-wild-type docetaxel-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Background: Docetaxel remains the standard treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, resistance frequently emerges as a result of hyperactivation of the PI3K/AKT and the MEK/ERK pathways. Therefore, the inhibition of these pathways presents a potential therapeutic approach. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of simultaneous inhibition of the PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK pathways in docetaxel-resistant mCRPC, both in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Docetaxel-sensitive and docetaxel-resistant mCRPC cells were treated with selumetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor), AZD8186 (PI3Kß/δ inhibitor) and capivasertib (pan-AKT inhibitor) alone and in combination. Efficacy and toxicity of selumetinib+AZD8186 were tested in docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice. CRISPR-Cas9 generated a PTEN-knockdown docetaxel-resistant cell model. Changes in phosphorylation of AKT, ERK and downstream targets were analyzed by Western blot. Antiapoptotic adaptations after treatments were detected by dynamic BH3 profiling. Results: PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK pathways were hyperactivated in PTEN-wild-type (wt) docetaxel-resistant cells. Selumetinib+AZD8186 decreased cell proliferation and increased apoptosis in PTEN-wt docetaxel-resistant cells. This observation was further confirmed in vivo, where docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice treated with selumetinib+AZD8186 exhibited reduced tumor growth without additional toxicity. Conclusion: Our findings on the activity of selumetinib+AZD8186 in PTEN-wt cells and in docetaxel-resistant xenograft mice provide an excellent rationale for a novel therapeutic strategy for PTEN-wt mCRPC patients resistant to docetaxel, in whom, unlike PTEN-loss patients, a clinical benefit of treatment with single-agent PI3K and AKT inhibitors has not been demonstrated. A phase I-II trial of this promising combination is warranted.

Development and Independent Validation of a Prognostic Gene Expression Signature Based on RB1, PTEN, and TP53 in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with docetaxel (D) and/or antiandrogen receptor therapies (ARTs) are the standard therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Alterations in the tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) RB1, PTEN, and TP53 are associated with an aggressive evolution and treatment resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical implications of TSG mRNA expression in mHSPC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter retrospective biomarker study in mHSPC patients. TSGlow status was defined when two or more out of the three TSGs presented low RNA expression by nCounter in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples and TSGwt for the remaining cases. The microarray data from the CHAARTED trial were analyzed as an independent validation cohort. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Molecular data were correlated with CRPC-free survival (CRPC-FS) and overall survival (OS) by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 226 patients were included, of whom 218 were eligible: 93 were treated with ADT and 125 with ADT + D; 75.7% presented de novo stage IV and 67.9% high-volume disease. TSGlow (19.2%) was independently correlated with shorter CRPC-FS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, p = 0.002) and OS (HR 2, p = 0.002). In the CHAARTED trial, TSGlow was independently correlated with lower CRPC-FS (HR 2.2, p = 0.02); no differences in clinical outcomes according to treatment were observed in TSGlow patients, while a significant benefit was observed for ADT + D in the TSGwt group for CRPC-FS (HR 0.4, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.4, p = 0.001). However, no interaction was observed between TSG signature and treatment in either series. Study limitations are the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of inclusion of patients treated with ADT + ART. CONCLUSIONS: TSGlow expression correlates with adverse outcomes in patients with mHSPC. The investigation of new therapeutic strategies in these patients is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: The low RNA expression of tumor suppressor genes in the tumors is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.