Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

CDK4/6-Inhibitors Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced HR+/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Results and Correlative Biomarker Analyses of the KENDO Randomized Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment approach for hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2-negative MBC) with aggressive characteristics remains controversial, with lack of randomized trials comparing cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6-inhibitors (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) with chemotherapy + ET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label randomized phase II trial (NCT03227328) to investigate whether chemotherapy + ET is superior to CDK4/6i + ET for HR+/HER2-negative MBC with aggressive features. PAM50 intrinsic subtypes (IS), immunological features, and gene expression were assessed on baseline samples. RESULTS: Among 49 randomized patients (median follow-up: 35.2 months), median progression-free survival (mPFS) with chemotherapy + ET (11.2 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-15.4) was numerically shorter than mPFS (19.9 months, 95% CI: 9.0-30.6) with CDK4/6i + ET (hazard ratio: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.75-2.64). Basal-like tumors under CDK4/6i + ET exhibited worse PFS (mPFS: 11.4 months, 95% CI: 3.00-not reached [NR]) and overall survival (OS; mOS: 18.8 months, 95% CI: 18.8-NR) compared to other subtypes (mPFS: 20.7 months, 95% CI: 9.00-33.4; mOS: NR, 95% CI: 24.4-NR). In the chemotherapy arm, luminal A tumors showed poorer PFS (mPFS: 5.1 months, 95% CI: 2.7-NR) than other IS (mPFS: 13.2 months, 95% CI: 10.6-28.1). Genes/pathways involved in BC cell survival and proliferation were associated with worse outcomes, as opposite to most immune-related genes/signatures, especially in the CDK4/6i arm. CD24 was the only gene significantly associated with worse PFS in both arms. Tertiary lymphoid structures and higher tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes also showed favorable survival trends in the CDK4/6i arm. CONCLUSIONS: The KENDO trial, although closed prematurely, adds further evidence supporting CDK4/6i + ET use in aggressive HR+/HER2-negative MBC instead of chemotherapy. PAM50 IS, genomic, and immunological features are promising biomarkers to personalize therapeutic choices.

Long-term responders to nivolumab in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a sub-analysis of meet-URO15 study.

BACKGROUND: Although nivolumab prolongs overall survival (OS) in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), underlining clinical and biological features of long-term responses are still to be determined. This study aims to investigate clinical and pathological characteristics of mRCC patients who achieved long-term responses during nivolumab treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on mRCC patients receiving nivolumab as second or further therapy line between May 2016 and January 2019 in 34 Italian Oncology Centres. Outcome assessments and logistic regression were performed to evaluate factors influencing long-term responses. RESULTS: A total of 571 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 17-85) were included in the analysis. With a median follow-up of 22.1 (1.0-89.0) months, 23.1% of patients were 2-year progression-free on treatment with nivolumab, hence they were categorized as long-term responders. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, and histology, were similar between long- and short-term responders. Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80% was significantly associated with long-term response (p = 0.02), while bone metastases (p = 0.03), International mRCC Database Consortium intermediate-poor risk (p < 0.01) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio ≥ 3.2 (p = 0.02) were associate with short-term responses. Long-term responders exhibited a median progression-free survival of 55.0 months versus 4.0 months of the short-term responders. The median OS was not reached in long-term responders while it was 17.0 months for short*term responders. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis sheds light on factors associated with long-term response to nivolumab in mRCC. Understanding these clinical features will be essential for selecting patients who may mostly benefit from immunotherapy.

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.

International multicenter real-world REGistry for patients with metastatic renAL cell carcinoma - Meet-URO 33 study (REGAL study).

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, different therapeutic options are available for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Immuno-combinations are the standard first-line therapy in all mRCC patients regardless of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, even though TKI monotherapy is still a therapeutic option in selected patients. However, comparisons between the different first-line treatment strategies are lacking and few real-world data are available in this setting. For this reason, the regimen choice represents an important issue in clinical practice and the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear. METHODS: The REGAL study is a multicentric prospective observational study enrolling mRCC patients treated with first-line systemic therapy according to clinical practice in a real-world setting. A retrospective cohort of mRCC patients who received first-line systemic therapy from the 1st of January 2021 will also be included. The primary objective is to identify potential prognostic and predictive factors that could help guide the treatment choice; secondary objectives included the assessment of the prognostic performance of the novel prognostic Meet-URO score (IMDC score + neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + bone metastases) compared with the IMDC score and the comparison between treatment strategies according to response and survival outcomes and toxicity profile. DISCUSSION: Considering the high number of therapeutic first-line strategies available for mRCC, the identification of clinical prognostic and predictive factors to candidate patients to a preferable systemic therapy is still an unmet clinical need. The Meet-URO 33 study aims to provide a large-scale real-world database on mRCC patients, to identify the clinical predictive and prognostic factors and the different performances between the ICI-based combinations according to response, survival and toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CESC IOV 2023-78.

Safety and efficacy analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab, trastuzumab and standard chemotherapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer: real-world data from NeoPowER study.

BACKGROUND: The addition of pertuzumab (P) to trastuzumab (H) and standard chemotherapy (CT) as neoadjuvant treatment (NaT) for patients with HER2 + breast cancer (BC), has shown to increase the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, without main safety concerns. The aim of NeoPowER trial is to evaluate safety and efficacy of P + H + CT in a real-world population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of stage II-III, HER2 + BC patients treated with NaT: who received P + H + CT (neopower group) in 5 Emilia Romagna institutions were compared with an historical group who received H + CT (control group). The primary endpoint was the safety, secondary endpoints were pCR rate, DRFS and OS and their correlation to NaT and other potential variables. RESULTS: 260 patients were included, 48% received P + H + CT, of whom 44% was given anthraciclynes as part of CT, compared to 83% in the control group. The toxicity profile was similar, excluding diarrhea more frequent in the neopower group (20% vs. 9%). Three patients experienced significant reductions in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), all receiving anthracyclines. The pCR rate was 46% (P + H + CT) and 40% (H + CT) (p = 0.39). The addition of P had statistically correlation with pCR only in the patients receiving anthra-free regimens (OR = 3.05,p = 0.047). Preoperative use of anthracyclines (OR = 1.81,p = 0.03) and duration of NaT (OR = 1.18,p = 0.02) were statistically related to pCR. 12/21 distant-relapse events and 14/17 deaths occurred in the control group. Patients who achieve pCR had a significant increase in DRFS (HR = 0.23,p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Adding neoadjuvant P to H and CT is safe. With the exception of diarrhea, rate of adverse events of grade > 2 did not differ between the two groups. P did not increase the cardiotoxicity when added to H + CT, nevertheless in our population all cardiac events occurred in patients who received anthracycline-containing regimens. Not statistically significant, higher pCR rate is achievable in patients receiving neoadjuvant P + H + CT. The study did not show a statistically significant correlation between the addition of P and long-term outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance treatment in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A subgroup analysis of the ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy. METHODS: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931).

Treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors with bone-modifying agents: a web survey of Italian oncologists investigating patterns of practice drug prescription and prevention of side effects.

PURPOSE: Optimal use of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors is uncertain in some aspects: the drug choice; the planned treatment duration and long-term therapy; the prevention and management of possible side effects, including renal toxicity, hypocalcaemia, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). METHODS: Italian oncologists were invited to fulfil a 24-question web survey about prescription of BMAs for bone metastases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and other solid tumors. Prevention and management of side effects were also investigated. RESULTS: Answers of 191 oncologists were collected. BMAs are usually prescribed at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases by 87.0% (breast cancer) and 76.1% (solid tumors except breast and prostate cancers) of oncologists; the decision is more articulated for prostate cancer (endocrine-sensitive versus castration-resistant). The creatinine level (32.3%), the availability of patient venous access (15.8%), and the type of primary neoplasm (13.6%) are the most reported factors involved in choice between bisphosphonates and denosumab. Zoledronic acid every 3 months was considered as a valid alternative to monthly administration by 94% of Italian oncologists. Oncologists reported a good confidence with measures aimed to prevent MRONJ, whereas uncertainness about prevention and management of hypocalcemia was registered. CONCLUSION: Italian oncologists showed a high attitude in prescribing bisphosphonates or denosumab at the time of diagnosis of bone metastases, with a large application of preventive measures of side effects. Further studies are needed to investigate some controversial aspects, such as optimal drug treatment duration and long-term drug schedules.

Blood-based liquid biopsy in advanced prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is characterized by several genetic alterations which could impact prognosis and therapeutic decisions in the advanced disease. Tissue biopsy is still considered the gold standard approach for molecular characterization in prostate cancer, but it has several limitations, including the possibility of insufficient/inadequate tumor tissue to be analyzed. Blood-based liquid biopsy is a non-invasive method to investigate tumor cell derivatives in the bloodstream, being a valid alternative to tissue biopsy for molecular characterization but also for predictive and/or prognostic purposes. In this review, we analyze the most relevant evidence in this field, focusing on clinically relevant targets such as HRD genetic alterations and also focusing on the differences between tissue and liquid biopsy in light of the data from the latest clinical trials.

New-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and clinical impact.

INTRODUCTION: The therapeutic scenario of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has dramatically changed in recent years, with the approval of new-generation Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSIs), in combination with the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which was the previous standard of care. Despite showing a similar clinical efficacy, ARSIs, all of which are administered orally, are different in terms of pharmacokinetic and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). AREAS COVERED: This review covers the main pharmacokinetic characteristics of ARSIs that have been approved for the first-line therapy of mHSPC patients, underlying the differences among these molecules and focusing on the known or possible interactions with other drugs. Full-text articles and abstracts were searched in PubMed. EXPERT OPINION: Since prostate cancer occurs mainly in older age, comorbidities and the consequent polypharmacy increase the DDI risk in mHSPC patients who are candidates for ARSI. Waiting for new therapeutic options, in the absence of direct comparisons, pharmacokinetic knowledge is essential to guide clinicians in prescribing ARSI in this setting.

177Lu-PSMA therapy in metastatic prostate cancer: An updated review of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.

177Lu-PSMA has been approved for the treatment of PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant (mCRPC) patients who progressed to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, a higher proportion of patients do not respond to this type of radioligand therapy (RLT). To date, there is a lack of validated prognostic and predictive biomarkers for 177Lu-PSMA therapy in prostate cancer. Several studies have investigated the prognostic and predictive role of clinical and molecular factors and also the metabolic features of PET imaging. In this review, we aim to take stock of the current scenario, focusing on new emerging data from retrospective/prospective series and clinical trials. Given the high costs and the possibility of primary resistance, it seems essential to identify clinical and molecular characteristics that could allow clinicians to choose the right patient to treat with 177Lu-PSMA. Biomarker-based clinical trials are urgently needed in this field.

Impact of Metastatic Site in Favorable-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib or Pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Although in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients with intermediate and poor risk the benefit of combination strategies versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been ascertained, in those with favorable risk data are ambiguous. Herein, we investigated the impact of number and type of metastatic site in patients with favorable risk to contribute to the best therapeutic choice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Multicenter data regarding patients with favorable risk mRCC carcinoma receiving first-line TKIs, sunitinib or pazopanib, were retrospectively collected. We divided our population into 2 groups based on the number of metastatic sites and analyzed its impact on tumor response and efficacy outcome. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate efficacy outcomes and the log-rank test to examine differences between subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with a median age of 69 years were included in the final analysis. Patients with 1 metastatic site, compared with patients with > 1 site, had a significantly longer overall survival (OS) (not reached vs. 66 months) and a trend, although not statistically significant, of better progression-free survival (PFS) (31 vs. 17 months). In patients with 1 metastatic site, liver involvement was correlated with worse PFS and OS at the univariate analysis (P = .01) and was confirmed as independent poor prognostic factor for PFS at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we reported a longer OS in favorable risk mRCC patients receiving TKI with only 1 metastatic site. Nevertheless, in patients with a single metastatic site, hepatic involvement correlated with worse PFS compared to other metastatic sites.

Lymphomas of the Vulva: A Review of the MITO Rare Cancer Group.

Since they are very rare tumors, lymphomas of the vulva are often not properly recognized. Patients with vulvar lymphoma are generally elderly and the classical manifestation of the disease is a vulvar mass. No significant age differences have been found between primary and secondary lymphoma. To make a correct diagnosis, it is therefore necessary to use not only histological examination but also the genetic and molecular profile in order to establish optimal therapeutic management. Literature analysis confirm the good prognosis of this disease.

Management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in patients with breast and hormone sensitive prostate cancer: AIOM survey.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is a side effect of hormonal therapy that can severely affect patients' quality of life. The aim of this survey was to obtain an updated picture of management of bone health in patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant hormonal therapy and in patients with hormone sensitive prostate cancer according to Italian oncologists. METHODS: Our survey was made up of 21 multiple-choice questions: the first part dealt with the respondents' characteristics, while the second with management of bone health in the described setting. An invitation to complete the survey was sent by e-mail to 2336 oncologists, members of Italian Association of Medical Oncology, in October 2022. RESULTS: Overall, 121 (5.2%) Italian oncologists completed the survey. In most cases (57%) the oncologist personally took charge of the management of bone health in patients at risk for cancer treatment-induced bone loss. At the beginning of hormonal therapy, most respondents reported to require bone health diagnostic exams, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (89%), repeated with different timing. Main reported reasons (not mutually exclusive) for prescribing antiresorptive drugs were modifying fracture risk (87%), densitometry values (75%) or prognosis (34%). Answers about the management of antiresorptive therapy were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: A heterogeneous approach on the management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss in Italy arises from this survey. This scenario highlights the need for a major consensus of the Italian scientific community on the diagnostic and therapeutic approach of cancer treatment-induced bone loss and for a greater awareness of this topic among Italian oncologists.

Endometriosis and endometrial cancer: A propensity score-adjusted real-world data study.

Endometriosis is a benign condition characterized by the presence of ectopic endometrial tissue. Our study investigated the effect of endometriosis on the risk of endometrial cancer (EC) and the prognosis of endometriosis-associated EC. In our study, 197,196 patients with endometriosis and without a previous diagnosis of EC were compared with 6,455,556 females encountering health services for examinations, with body mass index (BMI) data, and without endometriosis or EC. A propensity score generated 197,141 matched pairs. In the endometriosis cohort, 875 cases of EC were seen, whereas 558 were in the control group: the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.56 (95% CI 1.40-1.73, p < 0.001). Women with endometriosis were more likely to develop invasive endometrioid (p = 0.005) and clear cell (p < 0.001) EC. There was no difference in overall survival between endometriosis-associated EC and EC without endometriosis. Our epidemiological findings were consistent with the evidence of an association between endometriosis and EC.

Can contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy increase survival in BRCA-related breast cancer? Results from the Italian MUTina study.

INTRODUCTION: In the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, a unique Hub and Spoke model was adopted to recognize BRCA-related breast cancer (BC) patients. Characteristics and outcomes of tumors identified by this model will be presented. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study involved patients diagnosed with BRCA-related BC identified in the Emilia-Romagna region between January 2000 and December 2013. Seven provinces collected data on patient and tumor characteristics; clinical and gene testing information were also registered. Comparisons between BRCA1 and BRCA2 BC were performed. To balance different variants to identify significant predictors of survival, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis on Cox regression was conducted. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2013, 284 BRCA-related BC were registered (171 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2, and 3 BRCA1 and BRCA2). BRCA1 were diagnosed at an earlier stage compared to BRCA2 (50.1 % vs 30 %, respectively, in stage I, P = 0.0015). BRCA2 patients underwent more up-front surgery (85 % vs. 74.9 %, P = 0.049) and less chemotherapy (69.1 % vs 88.9 %, P = 0.004) than BRCA1 patients. At 11.8 years median follow-up, BRCA1 patients developed more second contralateral BC (P = 0.09), while BRCA2 had more visceral relapses (P = 0.013). No differences in overall survival (OS) between BRCA1 and BRCA2 patients (P = 0.07) were found. An advantage in OS was independently seen for patients who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (P = 0.0001) and oophorectomy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, adopting a homogeneous regional framework provides important information about prevention and treatment strategies of BRCA-related BC and suggests using maximal surgery to improve OS.

Instrumental activities of daily living in older patients with metastatic prostate cancer: results from the meet-URO network ADHERE prospective study.

Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) are significant health indicators closely related to executive functions and able to detect mild cognitive impairment. A decline in IADL usually precedes ADL limitation, including taking medications, and may therefore predict a cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the association of patients' IADL score with other clinical factors, with a particular focus on the presence of a caregiver, and the impact on adherence to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) and survival outcomes within the Meet-URO 5-ADHERE study. It was a large prospective multicentre observational cohort study monitoring adherence to ARPIs in 234 metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥ 70. We observed an association between impaired IADL and lower geriatric G8 scores (p < 0.01), and lower adherence to ARPIs whether assessed by pill counting (p = 0.01) or self-reported by the patient himself (p = 0.03). The combination of an IADL < 6 and the absence of a caregiver resulted in a significantly high risk of non-adherence to the ARPIs at the multivariable analysis (HR 9.23, 95% confidence interval 2.28-37.43, p = 0.01). IADL alongside the geriatric G8 scales represent essential tools to identify frail and less auto-sufficient patients who are extremely vulnerable particularly if not supported by a caregiver and have the highest risk of nonadherence to ARPIs.

Single-Agent Trabectedin Versus Physician's Choice Chemotherapy in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer With BRCA-Mutated and/or BRCAness Phenotype: A Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Literature evidence suggests that trabectedin monotherapy is effective in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) presenting BRCA mutation and/or BRCAness phenotype. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, randomized phase III MITO-23 trial evaluated the activity and safety of trabectedin 1.3 mg/m2 given once every 3 weeks (arm A) in BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers or patients with BRCAness phenotype (ie, patients who responded to ≥two previous platinum-based treatments) with recurrent OC, primary peritoneal carcinoma, or fallopian tube cancer in comparison with physician's choice chemotherapy in the control arm (arm B; pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, gemcitabine, once-weekly paclitaxel, or carboplatin). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 244 patients from 21 MITO centers were randomly assigned (arm A = 122/arm B = 122). More than 70% of patients received ≥three previous chemotherapy lines and 35.7% had received a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) before enrollment. Median OS was not significantly different between the arms: arm A: 15.8 versus arm B: 17.9 months (P = .304). Median progression-free survival was 4.9 months in arm A versus 4.4 months in arm B (P = .897). Among 208 patients evaluable for efficacy, the objective response rate was 17.1% in arm A and 21.4% in arm B, with comparable median duration of response (5.62 v 5.66 months, respectively). No superior effect was observed for trabectedin in the prespecified subgroup analyses according to BRCA mutational status, chemotherapy type, and pretreatment with a PARPi and/or platinum-free interval. Trabectedin showed a higher frequency of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and serious adverse drug reactions compared with control chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Trabectedin did not improve median OS and showed a worse safety profile in comparison with physician's choice control chemotherapy.