Belzutifan versus Everolimus for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Belzutifan, a hypoxia-inducible factor 2α inhibitor, showed clinical activity in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma in early-phase studies. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, we enrolled participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies and randomly assigned them, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive 120 mg of belzutifan or 10 mg of everolimus orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. The key secondary end point was the occurrence of an objective response (a confirmed complete or partial response). RESULTS: A total of 374 participants were assigned to belzutifan, and 372 to everolimus. At the first interim analysis (median follow-up, 18.4 months), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in both groups; at 18 months, 24.0% of the participants in the belzutifan group and 8.3% in the everolimus group were alive and free of progression (two-sided P = 0.002, which met the prespecified significance criterion). A confirmed objective response occurred in 21.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 to 26.5) in the belzutifan group and in 3.5% (95% CI, 1.9 to 5.9) in the everolimus group (P<0.001, which met the prespecified significance criterion). At the second interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.7 months), the median overall survival was 21.4 months in the belzutifan group and 18.1 months in the everolimus group; at 18 months, 55.2% and 50.6% of the participants, respectively, were alive (hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.07; two-sided P = 0.20, which did not meet the prespecified significance criterion). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 61.8% of the participants in the belzutifan group (grade 5 in 3.5%) and in 62.5% in the everolimus group (grade 5 in 5.3%). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in 5.9% and 14.7% of the participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Belzutifan showed a significant benefit over everolimus with respect to progression-free survival and objective response in participants with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had previously received immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. Belzutifan was associated with no new safety signals. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; LITESPARK-005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04195750.).

Conditional survival and long-term efficacy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conditional survival estimates provide critical prognostic information for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Efficacy, safety, and conditional survival outcomes were assessed in CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02231749) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. METHODS: Patients with untreated aRCC were randomized to receive nivolumab (NIVO) (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (IPI) (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then either NIVO monotherapy or sunitinib (SUN) (50 mg) daily (four 6-week cycles). Efficacy was assessed in intent-to-treat, International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate-risk/poor-risk, and favorable-risk populations. Conditional survival outcomes (the probability of remaining alive, progression free, or in response 2 years beyond a specified landmark) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 67.7 months; overall survival (median, 55.7 vs 38.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.72), progression-free survival (median, 12.3 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.86), and objective response (39.3% vs 32.4%) benefits were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN, respectively, in intent-to-treat patients (N = 550 vs 546). Point estimates for 2-year conditional overall survival beyond the 3-year landmark were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN (intent-to-treat patients, 81% vs 72%; intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, 79% vs 72%; favorable-risk patients, 85% vs 72%). Conditional progression-free survival and response point estimates were also higher beyond 3 years with NIVO+IPI. Point estimates for conditional overall survival were higher or remained steady at each subsequent year of survival with NIVO+IPI in patients stratified by tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression, grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse event experience, body mass index, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Durable clinical benefits were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 5 years, the longest phase 3 follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor-based combination in patients with aRCC. Conditional estimates indicate that most patients who remained alive or in response with NIVO+IPI at 3 years remained so at 5 years.

TP53 Alterations Are Associated With Poor Survival in Patients With Primary Mediastinal Nonseminoma Germ Cell Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Primary mediastinal nonseminoma germ cell tumors (PMNSGCT) are a subgroup of nonseminoma germ cell tumors (GCT) with poor prognosis. In this study, PMNSGCT-specific genomic landscape was analyzed and correlated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: DNA was extracted and sequenced from 28 archival tumor tissue of patients with mediastinal GCT (3 seminoma and 25 nonseminoma). Overall survival (OS) and association with gene alterations were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox regression methods. RESULTS: Three patients (11%) had a karyotype XXY, 17/28 (61%) tumor samples presented chromosome 12p amplification. Somatic mutations were detected in 19/28 (68%) samples. The most frequently mutated genes were: TP53 (13/28; 46%), KIT (5/28; 18%), and KRAS (5/28; 18%). Deleterious TP53 alterations were associated with significantly reduced overall survival (HR: 7.16; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: TP53 alterations are common in PMNSGCT and are associated with reduced overall survival, potentially underlying the poor sensitivity to chemotherapy observed in these patients.

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Emerging Role of Biomarkers in Testicular Germ Cell Tumors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will focus on biomarkers in testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT), focusing on microRNAs with high potential clinical application to drive management of TGCT. We explore the mechanism of action of microRNAs, literature to date, and how microRNAs may be incorporated into clinical practice in the near future. RECENT FINDINGS: MicroRNAs are small non-coding RNAs found in blood which play an important role in post-transcriptional gene regulation and have been explored in TGCT for the past 15 years. More recently, results show they are promising biomarkers for diagnosis with impressive sensitivity and specificity, while also being cost-effective. MicroRNAs will likely play a critical role in areas of unmet need in GCT in the next decade, as they have many of the characteristics of an ideal biomarker. Ongoing prospective clinical trials evaluating microRNA-371 will be eagerly awaited and will help inform decision-making in real-world application.

Ototoxicity After Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy: Factors Associated With Discrepancies Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiometric Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To provide new information on factors associated with discrepancies between patient-reported and audiometrically defined hearing loss (HL) in adult-onset cancer survivors after cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBCT) and to comprehensively investigate risk factors associated with audiometrically defined HL. DESIGN: A total of 1410 testicular cancer survivors (TCS) ≥6 months post-CBCT underwent comprehensive audiometric assessments (0.25 to 12 kHz) and completed questionnaires. HL severity was defined using American Speech-Language-Hearing Association criteria. Multivariable multinomial regression identified factors associated with discrepancies between patient-reported and audiometrically defined HL and multivariable ordinal regression evaluated factors associated with the latter. RESULTS: Overall, 34.8% of TCS self-reported HL. Among TCS without tinnitus, those with audiometrically defined HL at only extended high frequencies (EHFs) (10 to 12 kHz) (17.8%) or at both EHFs and standard frequencies (0.25 to 8 kHz) (23.4%) were significantly more likely to self-report HL than those with no audiometrically defined HL (8.1%) [odds ratio (OR) = 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31 to 4.68; and OR = 3.49; 95% CI, 1.89 to 6.44, respectively]. Older age (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.11, p < 0.0001), absence of prior noise exposure (OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.84, p = 0.02), mixed/conductive HL (OR = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.02, p = 0.0007), no hearing aid use (OR = 5.64; 95% CI, 1.84 to 17.32, p = 0.003), and lower education (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.67, p = 0.007 for high school or less education versus postgraduate education) were associated with greater underestimation of audiometrically defined HL severity, while tinnitus was associated with greater overestimation (OR = 4.65; 95% CI, 2.64 to 8.20 for a little tinnitus, OR = 5.87; 95% CI, 2.65 to 13.04 for quite a bit tinnitus, and OR = 10.57; 95% CI, 4.91 to 22.79 for very much tinnitus p < 0.0001). Older age (OR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.15, p < 0.0001), cumulative cisplatin dose (>300 mg/m2, OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.80, p = 0.0001), and hypertension (OR = 1.80; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.52, p = 0.0007) were associated with greater American Speech-Language-Hearing Association-defined HL severity, whereas postgraduate education (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.85, p = 0.005) was associated with less severe HL. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between patient-reported and audiometrically defined HL after CBCT are due to several factors. For survivors who self-report HL but have normal audiometric findings at standard frequencies, referral to an audiologist for additional testing and inclusion of EHFs in audiometric assessments should be considered.

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met. Median progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107-2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. BACKGROUND: AGS-16C3F is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets cell-surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Patients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS-16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: In the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107-2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS-16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681-1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%). CONCLUSION: The investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

A phase 1 study of LY3076226, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer.

Background We report a Phase 1 study of LY3076226, an antibody-drug conjugate composed of human IgG1 monoclonal antibody against the human FGFR3 attached with a cleavable linker to the maytansine derivative DM4 in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Methods This study was comprised of two parts: (A) dose escalation in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and (B) dose expansion in patients with urothelial carcinoma with locally determined FGFR3 alterations. The dose range of LY3076226 tested was 0.2-5.0 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The primary objective was to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled (Part A: 22, Part B: 3) and received ≥ 1 dose of LY3076226. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported. LY3076226 was generally well tolerated; most of the toxicities were Grade 1 or 2. Two patients experienced treatment-related Grade 3 toxicity (embolism and decreased platelet count). Four patients experienced serious adverse events (not treatment-related), all in Part A. Dose-proportional exposure was observed, with an estimated half-life of 2-7 days. No responses were seen with LY3076226 treatment. Stable disease persisting for > 6 months was observed in 1 patient receiving 3.2 mg/kg of LY3076226. Conclusion The study demonstrates acceptable safety and tolerability of LY3076226 up to the 5.0 mg/kg dose. Recruitment was stopped due to pipeline prioritization. Dose escalation of LY3076226 beyond 5.0 mg/kg in patients with advanced tumors may be possible. The trial was registered on August 19, 2015 under identifier NCT02529553 with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Management of Germ Cell Tumors During the Outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic: A Survey of International Expertise Centers.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a public health emergency affecting frail populations, including patients with cancer. This poses the question of whether cancer treatments can be postponed or modified without compromising their efficacy, especially for highly curable cancers such as germ cell tumors (GCTs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To depict the state-of-the-art management of GCTs during the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey including 26 questions was circulated by e-mail among the physicians belonging to three cooperative groups: (a) Italian Germ Cell Cancer Group; (b) European Reference Network-Rare Adult Solid Cancers, Domain G3 (rare male genitourinary cancers); and (c) Genitourinary Medical Oncologists of Canada. Percentages of agreement between Italian respondents (I) versus Canadian respondents (C), I versus European respondents (E), and E versus C were compared by using Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous answers and chi square test for trends for the questions with three or more options. RESULTS: Fifty-three GCT experts responded to the survey: 20 Italian, 6 in other European countries, and 27 from Canada. Telemedicine was broadly used; there was high consensus to interrupt chemotherapy in COVID-19-positive patients (I = 75%, C = 55%, and E = 83.3%) and for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis for neutropenia (I = 65%, C = 62.9%, and E = 50%). The main differences emerged regarding the management of stage I and stage IIA disease, likely because of cultural and geographical differences. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the common efforts of GCT experts in Europe and Canada to maintain high standards of treatment for patients with GCT with few changes in their management during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite the chaos, disruptions, and fears fomented by the COVID-19 illness, oncology care teams in Italy, other European countries, and Canada are delivering the enormous promise of curative management strategies for patients with testicular cancer and other germ cell tumors. At the same time, these teams are applying safe and innovative solutions and sharing best practices to minimize frequency and intensity of patient contacts with thinly stretched health care capacity.

Patient selection for a developmental therapeutics program using whole genome and Transcriptome analysis.

Introduction Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the outcomes of early phase clinical trials, whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) can be used to optimize patient selection and study assignment. In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed the impact of this approach on one such program. Methods Patients with advanced malignancies underwent fresh tumor biopsies as part of our personalized medicine program (NCT02155621). Tumour molecular data were reviewed for potentially clinically actionable findings and patients were referred to the developmental therapeutics program. Outcomes were reviewed in all patients, including those where trial selection was driven by molecular data (matched) and those where there was no clear molecular rationale (unmatched). Results From January 2014 to January 2018, 28 patients underwent WGTA and enrolled in clinical trials, including 2 patients enrolled in two trials. Fifteen patients were matched to a treatment based on a molecular target. Five patients were matched to a trial based upon single-gene DNA changes, all supported by RNA data. Ten cases were matched on the basis of genome-wide data (n = 4) or RNA gene expression only (n = 6). With a median follow-up of 6.7 months, the median time on treatment was 8.2 weeks. Discussion When compared to single-gene DNA-based data alone, WGTA led to a 3-fold increase in treatment matching. In a setting where there is a high level of uncertainty around both the investigational agents and the biomarkers, more data are needed to fully evaluate the impact of routine use of WGTA.

The role of micro-RNAs in management of germ cell tumors: future directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: miRNAs 371 and 302/367 clusters are abundantly secreted in the blood of patients with active germ cell malignancy (aGCM), both seminoma and nonseminoma. The serum concentration of those micro-RNAs correlates with tumor burden and to the activity of specific treatments; therefore, representing attractive biomarkers for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with germ cell tumors. This review summarizes the most relevant evidence supporting their clinical validity in germ cell tumors. RECENT FINDINGS: Several retrospective studies have reported high sensitivity and specificity of those micro-RNAs in identifying aGCM prior to the orchiectomy or in patients with metastatic germ cell tumor prior to or during chemotherapy. Most recently, few prospective studies have confirmed their clinical validity during the follow-up of patients after surgery and/or chemotherapy. Large studies are panned across the spectrum of germ cell tumors to assess their clinical utility and several efforts to identify biomarkers of teratoma are underway. SUMMARY: The integration of those micro-RNAs in the management of germ cell tumors has the potential to refine the therapeutic decision, especially in some clinical situations characterized by high uncertainty, such as clinical stage I, clinical stage IIA with normal tumor markers and residual disease postchemotherapy.

Avelumab and axitinib combination therapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Owing to an improved understanding of the immunobiological profile of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the past few years have ushered in significant changes in systemic therapies for advanced stage RCC. First-line treatment with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has been virtually replaced for most patients by immunotherapy combinations. The first of such treatments was the dual immune checkpoint inhibitor combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. More recently, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a TKI has also moved into the first-line setting. This review summarizes the pharmacologic properties, evidence for use and safety of avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor and axitinib a small-molecule TKI, each as monotherapy, and in combination for the management of metastatic RCC.

Survival outcomes associated with different sunitinib dosing regimens in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Standard dosing regimen of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma consists of four weeks treatment followed by two weeks rest (intermittent dosing). Alternative regimens have been suggested, including continuous daily dosing (continuous dosing) and non-conventional dosing (non-conventional dosing: e.g. two weeks on/one week off, non-conventional dosing), to provide more individualized therapy with less toxicities. It is unclear whether non-standard sunitinib dosing affects survival outcomes. PATIENTS: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib between 1 July 2007 and 1 July 2011 at our institution. METHODS: Medical records and dispensing data were reviewed retrospectively to categorize sunitinib dosing as intermittent dosing, continuous dosing, or non-conventional dosing. Primary outcome was to compare overall survival associated with varying regimens, with secondary outcomes of progression-free survival and incidence of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were identified. Most patients received intermittent dosing (n = 120, 67%), followed by continuous dosing (n = 32, 18%) and non-conventional dosing (n = 28, 16%). Compared to intermittent dosing, continuous dosing was associated with similar overall survival (median 9 vs. 13 months, HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.43-1.06, p = 0.088) while non-conventional dosing was associated with significantly longer overall survival (median 9 vs. 23 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.90, p = 0.016). Progression-free survival was significantly better for continuous dosing (median 4 vs. 9 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.94, p = 0.025) and non-conventional dosing (median 4 vs. 10 months, HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.95, p = 0.03) when compared to intermittent dosing. Similar to prior sunitinib trials, a significant proportion of patients (20%) discontinued sunitinib therapy due to adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Based on retrospective, real-world data, alternative sunitinib dosing regimens appear to be viable options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide are both used for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine the best sequence in which to use both drugs, as well as their second-line efficacy. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial done in six cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly-diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without neuroendocrine differentiation and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated random number table to receive either abiraterone acetate 1000 mg orally once daily plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily until PSA progression followed by crossover to enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily (group A), or the opposite sequence (group B). Treatment was not masked to investigators or participants. Primary endpoints were time to second PSA progression and PSA response (≥30% decline from baseline) on second-line therapy, analysed by intention-to-treat in all randomly assigned patients and in patients who crossed over, respectively. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125357. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2014, and Dec 13, 2016, 202 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either group A (n=101) or group B (n=101). At the time of data cutoff, 73 (72%) patients in group A and 75 (74%) patients in group B had crossed over. Time to second PSA progression was longer in group A than in group B (median 19·3 months [95% CI 16·0-30·5] vs 15·2 months [95% CI 11·9-19·8] months; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·45-0·97, p=0·036), at a median follow-up of 22·8 months (IQR 10·3-33·4). PSA responses to second-line therapy were seen in 26 (36%) of 73 patients for enzalutamide and three (4%) of 75 for abiraterone (χ2 p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events throughout the trial were hypertension (27 [27%] of 101 patients in group A vs 18 [18%] of 101 patients in group B) and fatigue (six [10%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) of 101 patients in group A and 20 (20%) of 101 patients in group B. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide showed activity as a second-line novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, whereas abiraterone acetate did not, leading to a longer time to second PSA progression for the sequence of abiraterone followed by enzalutamide than with the opposite treatment sequence. Our data suggest that using a sequencing strategy of abiraterone acetate followed by enzalutamide provides the greatest clinical benefit. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Prostate Cancer Canada, Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, BC Cancer Foundation, Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Janssen, and Astellas.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Clinical effectiveness of docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer in a real-world population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has known efficacy, with an overall survival benefit in Phase III clinical trials. The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in the general patient population remains undefined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective review using the British Columbia Provincial Pharmacy Database. To be included, patients had to have castration-sensitive prostate cancer not previously treated (except in the adjuvant setting) and have received at least one cycle of docetaxel, with complete records available for review. Safety and clinical effectiveness were evaluated. RESULTS: From April 2015 to February 2017, we identified 183 cases; 156 met inclusion criteria. Most patients had high-volume disease (80%). All 6 planned docetaxel cycles were delivered in 126 cases (81%). Dose reductions and delays were required in 39% and 16% of cases. Grade 3-4 adverse events were noted in 40%, with no treatment-related deaths. The rate of febrile neutropenia was 18% and was significantly associated with the presence of high-volume disease (P = 0.038). PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/L was achieved in 27% of patients after 6 months of ADT and maintained in 16% after 12 months. Patients with over 20 bone metastases had worse time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and time to treatment for CRPC, and a trend toward worse overall survival. CRPC developed in 41% within 1 year, with a median time to CRPC of 14.4 months. Treatment for CRPC was given in 84 cases, with 90% receiving either abiraterone or enzalutamide in the first-line, with a PSA decline ≥50% occurring in 47%. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in a general population of patients with mCSPC was associated with poorer outcomes and high rates of toxicity compared to the published studies. Response rates to first-line treatment for mCRPC with abiraterone or enzalutamide appear similar to reported outcomes.

Outcomes based on prior therapy in the phase 3 METEOR trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), after prior antiangiogenic therapy. METHODS: Outcomes were evaluated for subgroups defined by prior therapy with sunitinib or pazopanib as the only prior VEGFR inhibitor, or prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. RESULTS: For the prior sunitinib subgroup (N = 267), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 9.1 versus 3.7 months (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32-0.59), ORR was 16% versus 3%, and median OS was 21.4 versus 16.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.93). For the prior pazopanib subgroup (N = 171), median PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 7.4 versus 5.1 months (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.99), ORR was 19% versus 4%, and median OS was 22.0 versus 17.5 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42-1.04). For prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy (N = 32), median PFS was not reached for cabozantinib versus 4.1 months for everolimus (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.65), ORR was 22% versus 0%, and median OS was not reached versus 16.3 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21-1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib was associated with improved clinical outcomes versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC, irrespective of prior therapy, including checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

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