Efficacy and safety of ramucirumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in untreated metastatic thymic carcinoma: RELEVENT phase II trial (NCT03921671).

BACKGROUND: Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare tumor with aggressive behavior. Chemotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel represents the treatment of choice for advanced disease. Antiangiogenic drugs, including ramucirumab, have shown activity in previously treated patients. The RELEVENT trial was designed to evaluate the activity and safety of ramucirumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced TC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II trial was conducted within the Italian TYME network. Eligible patients had treatment-naïve advanced TC. They received ramucirumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel for six cycles, followed by ramucirumab maintenance until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 as assessed by the investigator. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Centralized radiologic review was carried out. RESULTS: From November 2018 to June 2023, 52 patients were screened and 35 were enrolled. Median age was 60.8 years, 71.4% of patients were male and 85.7% had Masaoka-Koga stage IVB. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 in 68.5% and 1 in 31.4% of patients. At the present analysis carried out some months after the interim analysis (earlier than expected) on 35 patients, ORR was 80.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 63.1% to 91.6%]. At the centralized radiological review of 33/35 assessable patients, ORR was 57.6% (95% CI 39.2% to 74.5%). After a median follow-up of 31.6 months, median PFS was 18.1 months (95% CI 10.8-52.3 months) and median OS was 43.8 months (95% CI 31.9 months-not reached). Thirty-two out of 35 patients (91.4%) experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE), of which 48.6% were AE ≥ grade 3. CONCLUSIONS: In previously untreated advanced TC, the addition of ramucirumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel showed the highest activity compared to historical controls, with a manageable safety profile. Despite the small number of patients, given the rarity of the disease, the trial results support the consideration of this combination as first-line treatment in TC.

Cabozantinib Plus Durvalumab in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma After Platinum Chemotherapy: Safety and Preliminary Activity of the Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase 2 ARCADIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab and cabozantinib have shown single-agent activity in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). ARCADIA is a phase 2 study evaluating their combination in patients with platinum-treated, advanced UC (NCT03824691). Herein, we report the results of the planned interim safety analysis and the preliminary activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1, UC and non-UC histology, and failure of a maximum of two regimens received cabozantinib 40 mg daily, orally, in combination with durvalumab 1500 mg, intravenously, every 28 days. Response was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 every two cycles and by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scans. RESULTS: As of August 20, 2020, 16 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 6.7 months (range, 2-11). Four patients (25%) had ECOG PS 1 and had received two prior regimens. No grades 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred within the first two cycles. The most common grades 1 and 2 TRAEs were fatigue (7, 43.8%), diarrhea (5, 31.3%), and dysphonia (5, 31.3%). Objective responses were seen in six patients (37.5%; 95% confidence interval, 15.2-64.6), including two complete responses (12.5%). One additional patient with bone-only disease obtained a decrease in FDG uptake and in circulating tumor DNA consistent with response. Angiogenesis-related gene alterations were found in 57% responders versus 0% nonresponders. CONCLUSION: The durvalumab and cabozantinib combination was safe and endowed with preliminary clinical activity in patients with advanced UC. Mature results will clarify the role of cabozantinib and that of tumor biomarkers in this tumor type.

Pembrolizumab and nab-paclitaxel as salvage therapy for platinum-treated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: interim results of the open-label, single-arm, phase II PEANUT study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a new standard of care for patients with platinum-treated, metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). Nab-paclitaxel is active in advanced UC. In the PEANUT study (NCT03464734) we investigated their combination in advanced UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PEANUT was an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial that included patients who had failed one or two chemotherapy regimens, including platinum chemotherapy. Biomarker analyses focused on programmed cell-death ligand-1 combined positive score (CPS) and comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor samples and circulating tumor DNA. Patients received 200 mg pembrolizumab on day 1 (D1), and 125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel on D1 and D8, every 3 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST (v1.1). The assumption was to detect an improvement in the median PFS from ≤3.0 months (H0) to ≥5.0 months (H1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and January 2020, the PEANUT study enrolled 70 patients: 24% had failed two prior systemic therapies; 31% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1; and 28.6% had liver metastases. After a median follow-up of 9.8 months, 40 patients have relapsed (57.1%). The median PFS was 5.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-11.5]. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% (95% CI 27-51) with 17 partial responses and 10 complete responses (14.3%). The median duration of response was not reached. Five patients (7.1%) had ongoing responses lasting >12 months. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events included alopecia (71.4%), neutropenia (32.9%), and peripheral neuropathy (34.3%). Neither tumor mutational burden nor CPS was significantly associated with PFS at univariable analyses. The single-arm design of the trial was the major limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel, as second- and third-line chemoimmunotherapy for metastatic UC, showed a favorable safety profile, durable PFS, and a clinically meaningful ORR in these preliminary analyses. This combination warrants additional randomized studies in earlier disease stages. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03464734; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03464734.

Pazopanib in advanced germ cell tumors after chemotherapy failure: results of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 Pazotest trial.

Background: Therapeutic options for patients with chemoresistant germ cell tumors (GCTs) are limited. Pazopanib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with distinct antiangiogenic activity. We aimed to evaluate pazopanib activity in patients with refractory GCT. Patients and methods: In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 Pazotest study (NCT01743482), patient eligibility included failure of ≥2 platinum-based regimens, and allowed prior high-dose chemotherapy administration. Patients were given pazopanib 800 mg/day until disease progression (PD) or onset of unacceptable toxicity. Measurements of serum tumor markers (STM), computed tomography and FDG-PET were carried out at baseline, after 4 weeks of pazopanib treatment, and every 8 weeks thereafter. PD was defined as increasing levels of STM, increasing size of non-teratomatous masses, or appearance of new lesions. The study primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS, H0: 3-month PFS ≤ 10%, H1: ≥25%, α = 5%, ß = 20%). Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled from May 2013 to July 2016. The number of prior chemotherapy regimens was: 2 (11.6%), 3 (51.2%), >3 (37.2%). Grade 3 adverse events were observed in six patients (13.9%). Overall, 70.3% of patients had reduced levels of STM after 4 weeks. There were 2 partial responses (4.7%), 19 cases of stable disease, and 16 cases of PD (6 not evaluable by RECIST). The median follow-up duration was 29.6 months. The 3-month PFS probability was 12.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.7%-28.9%]. The 24-month OS probability was 14.2% (95% CI: 6.0%-33.7%). In patients with a >50% decline in STM, the 24-month OS probability was 24.1% (95% CI: 8.3%-69.6%). The small sample size was the major limitation. Conclusions: Despite pazopanib showed potent but short-lived activity in refractory GCT, long-term survival was obtained in a proportion of treated patients. According to the kinetics of pazopanib activity, this drug may be investigated in less pre-treated patients as an optimal bridging therapy preceding and/or combined with salvage chemotherapy.

Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: comparison of performance between annual and biennial screen.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance metrics of two different strategies of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), namely, annual (LDCT1) or biennial (LDCT2) screen. METHODS: Recall rate, detection rate, interval cancers, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) were compared between LDCT1 and LDCT2 arms of the MILD trial over the first seven (T0-T6; median follow-up 7.3 years) and four rounds (T0-T3; median follow-up 7.3 years), respectively. RESULTS: 1152 LDCT1 and 1151 LDCT2 participants underwent a total of 6893 and 4715 LDCT scans, respectively. The overall recall rate was higher in LDCT2 arm (6.97 %) than in LDCT1 arm (5.81 %) (p = 0.01), which was counterbalanced by the overall lower number of LDCT scans. No difference was observed for the overall detection rate (0.56 % in both arms). The two LDCT arms had similar specificity (99.2 % in both arms), sensitivity (73.5 %, in LDCT2 vs. 68.5 % in LDCT1, p = 0.62), PPV (42.4 %, in LDCT2, vs. 40.6 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.83) and NPV (99.8 %, in LDCT2 vs. 99.7 %, in LDCT1, p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Biennial screen may save about one third of LDCT scans with similar performance indicators as compared to annual screening. KEY POINTS: • Biennial LDCT screening may be as efficient as the annual screening. • Annual and biennial LDCT screening have similar frequency of interval lung cancers. • Biennial screening may save about one third of LDCT scans.