Role of Gut Microbiome in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Prospective Cohort Evaluation.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is linked with clinical advantages in urothelial carcinoma for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Despite comprehensive research into the influence of tumor mutation expression profiles and clinicopathological factors on chemotherapy response, the role of the gut microbiome (GM) in bladder cancer(BC) chemotherapy response remains poorly understood. This study examines the variance in the gut microbiome(GM) of BC patients compared to healthy adults, and investigates GM compositional differences between patients who respond to chemotherapy versus those who exhibit residual disease. Our study reveals distinct clustering, effectively separating the BC and healthy cohorts. However, no significant differences were observed between chemotherapy responders and non-responders within community subgroups. Machine Learning models based on responder status outperformed clinical variables in predicting complete response (AUC 0.88 vs AUC 0.50), although no single microbial species emerged as a fully reliable biomarker. The evaluation of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentration in blood and stool revealed no correlation with responder status. Still, SCFA analysis showed a higher abundance of Akkermansia (rs = 0.51, p = 0.017) and Clostridia (rs = 0.52, p = 0.018), which correlated with increased levels of detectable fecal isobutyric acid. Higher levels of fecal Lactobacillus (rs = 0.49, p=0.02) and Enterobacteriaceae (rs = 0.52, p < 0.03) correlated with increased fecal propionic acid. In conclusion, our study constitutes the first large-scale, multi-center assessment of GM composition, suggesting the potential for a complex microbial signature to predict patients more likely to respond to NAC based on multiple taxa.

Renal cell carcinoma histologic subtypes exhibit distinct transcriptional profiles.

Molecular profiling of clear cell RCC (ccRCC) tumors of clinical trial patients has identified distinct transcriptomic signatures with predictive value, yet data in non-clear cell variants (nccRCC) are lacking. We examined the transcriptional profiles of RCC tumors representing key molecular pathways, from a multi-institutional, real-world patient cohort, including ccRCC (n = 508) and centrally-reviewed nccRCC (n = 149) samples. ccRCC had increased angiogenesis signature scores compared to the heterogeneous group of nccRCC tumors (mean z-score 0.37 vs -0.99, P < 0.001), while cell cycle, fatty acid oxidation (FAO)/AMPK signaling, fatty acid synthesis (FAS)/pentose phosphate signature scores were increased in one or more nccRCC subtypes. Among both ccRCC and nccRCC tumors, T-effector scores statistically correlated with increased immune cell infiltration and were more commonly associated with immunotherapy-related markers (PD-L1+/TMB-High/MSI-High). In conclusion, this study provides evidence of differential gene transcriptional profiles among ccRCC vs nccRCC tumors, providing new insights for optimizing personalized and histology-specific therapeutic strategies for patients with advanced RCC.

Molecular Characterization of TFE3-Rearranged Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Comparative Study With Papillary and Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinomas.

TFE3-rearranged renal cell carcinoma (rRCC) is a rare subtype of renal cell carcinomas belonging to the MiT family translocation RCC. To further elucidate the co-alterations that occur along with TFE3 fusions in rRCC, we characterized the genomic, transcriptional, and immune landscapes in comparison to clear cell (ccRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). Next-generation sequencing of RNA (whole transcriptome) and DNA (592-gene panel or whole exome) for rRCC (N = 20), pRCC (N = 20), and ccRCC samples (N = 392) was performed. Patients with rRCC were significantly younger and more frequently female (median 44.5 years, 75.0% female) as compared with patients with pRCC (68.5 years, 25.0% female; P < .05) and ccRCC (62.0 years, 27.8% female; P < .05). A total of 8 unique fusion partners were observed, including a novel fusion with SRRM2::TFE3 in 2 patients. ccRCC exhibited significantly higher mutation rates of VHL (0% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 78.7% ccRCC; P < .05) and PBMR1 (0% rRCC, 5.0% pRCC, 49.4% ccRCC; P < .05). The genomic landscapes of rRCC were sparse with no mutations occurring with a prevalence higher than 10% other than pTERT (18.2% rRCC, 0% pRCC, 9.2% ccRCC). rRCC were associated with significantly less M1 macrophages (0.8%) as compared with pRCC (1.4%) and ccRCC (2.7%) (P < .05), suggesting a cold tumor-immune microenvironment. However, rRCC were more commonly PD-L1+ (rRCC 50%, pRCC 19.0%, ccRCC 12.2%; P < .05). Gene set enrichment analysis showed that rRCC are enriched in genes related to oxidative phosphorylation when compared with both ccRCC and pRCC. Despite having a colder tumor-immune microenvironment than pRCC and ccRCC, increased PDL1+ rates in rRCC suggest a potential benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

"Cancer's a demon": a qualitative study of fear and multilevel factors contributing to cancer treatment delays.

PURPOSE: Delays initiating cancer therapy are increasingly common, impact outcomes, and have implications for health equity. However, it remains unclear (1) whether patients' beliefs regarding acceptable diagnostic to treatment intervals align with current guidelines, and (2) to what degree psychological factors contribute to longer intervals. We conducted a qualitative study with patients and cancer care team members ("providers"). METHODS: We interviewed patients with several common solid tumors as well as providers. Interviews were analyzed using an interpretive approach, guided by modified grounded theory. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients and 12 providers participated. Half of patients had breast cancer; 27% waited >60 days between diagnosis and treatment. Several themes emerged. (1) Patients felt treatment should begin immediately following diagnosis, while providers' opinion on the goal timeframe to start treatment varied. (2) Patients experienced psychological distress while waiting for treatment. (3) Participants identified logistical, social, and psychological sources of delay. Fear related to multiple aspects of cancer care was common. Emotion-driven barriers could manifest as not taking steps to move ahead, or as actions that delayed care. (4) Besides addressing logistical challenges, patients believed that education and anticipatory guidance, from their care team and from peers, may help overcome psychological barriers to treatment and facilitate the start of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients feel an urgency to start cancer therapy, desiring time frames shorter than those included in guidelines. Psychological distress is frequently both a contributor to, and a consequence of, treatment delays. Addressing multilevel barriers, including psychological ones, may facilitate timely treatment and reduce distress.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer may undergo multiple lines of treatment, switching therapies as their disease progresses. We developed a general microsimulation framework to study therapy sequence and applied it to metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: We constructed a discrete-time state transition model to study 2 lines of therapy. Using digitized published survival curves (progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival [OS]), we inferred event types (progression or death) and estimated transition probabilities using cumulative incidence functions with competing risks. We incorporated within-patient dependence over time; first-line therapy response informed subsequent event probabilities. Parameters governing within-patient dependence calibrated the model-based results to a target clinical trial. We applied these methods to 2 therapy sequences for metastatic prostate cancer, wherein both docetaxel (DCT) and abiraterone acetate (AA) are appropriate for either first- or second-line treatment. We assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (5-y QALYs) for 2 treatment strategies: DCT → AA versus AA → DCT. RESULTS: Models assuming within-patient independence overestimated OS time, which corrected with the calibration approach. With generic pricing, AA → DCT dominated DCT → AA, (higher 5-y QALYs and lower costs), consistent for all values of calibration parameters (including no correction). Model calibration increased the difference in 5-y QALYs between treatment strategies (0.07 uncorrected v. 0.15 with base-case correction). Applying the correction decreased the estimated difference in cost (-$5,360 uncorrected v. -$3,066 corrected). Results were strongly affected by the cost of AA. Under a lifetime horizon, AA → DCT was no longer dominant but still cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $19,463). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a microsimulation approach to study the cost-effectiveness of therapy sequences for advanced prostate cancer, taking care to account for within-patient dependence. HIGHLIGHTS: We developed a discrete-time state transition model for studying therapy sequence in advanced cancers.Results are sensitive to dependence within patients.A calibration approach can introduce dependence across lines of therapy and closely match simulation outcomes to target trial outcomes.

Role of perioperative immunotherapy in localized renal cell carcinoma.

Immunotherapy has proven effective in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The current standard of treatment in localized RCC is partial or complete nephrectomy. However, after surgery, there is a high recurrence rate and survival rates ranging from 53% to 85% depending on the stage of disease at presentation. Given clinical response to immunotherapies in metastatic RCC, these therapies are being tested as monotherapy and in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the (neo)adjuvant setting. Here we describe the current landscape of these treatments in localized RCC.

Development of a Multilevel Model to Identify Patients at Risk for Delay in Starting Cancer Treatment.

Importance: Delays in starting cancer treatment disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and can influence patients' experience and outcomes. Machine learning algorithms incorporating electronic health record (EHR) data and neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) measures may identify at-risk patients. Objective: To develop and validate a machine learning model for estimating the probability of a treatment delay using multilevel data sources. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated 4 different machine learning approaches for estimating the likelihood of a treatment delay greater than 60 days (group least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO], bayesian additive regression tree, gradient boosting, and random forest). Criteria for selecting between approaches were discrimination, calibration, and interpretability/simplicity. The multilevel data set included clinical, demographic, and neighborhood-level census data derived from the EHR, cancer registry, and American Community Survey. Patients with invasive breast, lung, colorectal, bladder, or kidney cancer diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 and treated at a comprehensive cancer center were included. Data analysis was performed from January 2022 to June 2023. Exposures: Variables included demographics, cancer characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory values, imaging orders, and neighborhood variables. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome estimated by machine learning models was likelihood of a delay greater than 60 days between cancer diagnosis and treatment initiation. The primary metric used to evaluate model performance was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Results: A total of 6409 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [12.5] years; 4321 [67.4%] female; 2576 [40.2%] with breast cancer, 1738 [27.1%] with lung cancer, and 1059 [16.5%] with kidney cancer). A total of 1621 (25.3%) experienced a delay greater than 60 days. The selected group LASSO model had an AUC-ROC of 0.713 (95% CI, 0.679-0.745). Lower likelihood of delay was seen with diagnosis at the treating institution; first malignant neoplasm; Asian or Pacific Islander or White race; private insurance; and lacking comorbidities. Greater likelihood of delay was seen at the extremes of neighborhood deprivation. Model performance (AUC-ROC) was lower in Black patients, patients with race and ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, and those living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Though the model selected neighborhood SDOH variables as contributing variables, performance was similar when fit with and without these variables. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a machine learning model incorporating EHR and SDOH data was able to estimate the likelihood of delays in starting cancer therapy. Future work should focus on additional ways to incorporate SDOH data to improve model performance, particularly in vulnerable populations.

A phase 1 study of nivolumab in combination with interferon-gamma for patients with advanced solid tumors.

This phase I, dose-escalation trial evaluates the safety of combining interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and nivolumab in patients with metastatic solid tumors. Twenty-six patients are treated in four cohorts assessing increasing doses of IFN-γ with nivolumab to evaluate the primary endpoint of safety and determine the recommended phase two dose (RP2D). Most common adverse events are low grade and associated with IFN-γ. Three dose limiting toxicities are reported at the highest dose cohorts. We report only one patient with any immune related adverse event (irAE). No irAEs ≥ grade 3 are observed and no patients require corticosteroids. The maximum tolerated dose of IFN-γ is 75 mcg/m2, however based on a composite of safety, clinical, and correlative factors the RP2D is 50 mcg/m2. Exploratory analyses of efficacy in the phase I cohorts demonstrate one patient with a complete response, and five have achieved stable disease. Pre-planned correlative assessments of circulating immune cells demonstrate intermediate monocytes with increased PD-L1 expression correlating with IFN-γ dose and treatment duration. Interestingly, post-hoc analysis shows that IFN-γ induction increases circulating chemokines and is associated with an observed paucity of irAEs, warranting further evaluation. ClinicalTrials.gov Trial Registration: NCT02614456.

Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Cisplatin-Ineligible Patients With Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

A Phase Ib, Open-label Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Ipatasertib plus Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the safety and efficacy of ipatasertib (AKT inhibitor) combined with rucaparib (PARP inhibitor) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-part phase Ib trial (NCT03840200), patients with advanced prostate, breast, or ovarian cancer received ipatasertib (300 or 400 mg daily) plus rucaparib (400 or 600 mg twice daily) to assess safety and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A part 1 dose-escalation phase was followed by a part 2 dose-expansion phase in which only patients with mCRPC received the RP2D. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) in patients with mCRPC. Patients were not selected on the basis of tumor mutational status. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (part 1 = 21; part 2 = 30). Ipatasertib 400 mg daily plus rucaparib 400 mg twice daily was the selected RP2D, received by 37 patients with mCRPC. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 46% (17/37) of patients, with one grade 4 adverse event (anemia, deemed related to rucaparib) and no deaths. Adverse events leading to treatment modification occurred in 70% (26/37). The PSA response rate was 26% (9/35), and the objective response rate per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 was 10% (2/21). Median radiographic progression-free survival per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria was 5.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.0-8.1], and median overall survival was 13.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-not evaluable). CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib plus rucaparib was manageable with dose modification but did not demonstrate synergistic or additive antitumor activity in previously treated patients with mCRPC.

Between the Hammer and Anvil: Resolution of unresectable muscle invasive bladder cancer in a renal transplant patient after cessation of immunosuppressive therapy.

Multimodal immunosuppression is the backbone of modern solid organ transplantation. However, immunosuppression itself is an independent risk factor for post-transplant malignancy. Although skin malignancy is the most common post-transplant malignancy, genitourinary cancers are also described. Dose reduction or cessation of immunosuppression has a beneficial role in the management of transplant patients with concomitant malignancy, but only limited data exist with respect to bladder cancer (BCa). We describe a patient who developed metastatic muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) after diseased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) who was successfully managed with dose reduction and elimination of an immunosuppression regimen.

Flutamide With or Without PROSTVAC in Non-metastatic Castration Resistant (M0) Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Before 2018, there was no standard of care for non-metastatic (M0) castration resistant prostate cancer nmCRPC. Androgen receptor antagonists (ARAs) were commonly used sequentially nmCRPC. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing the ARA flutamide+/-PROSTVAC, a pox viral vaccine targeting PSA that includes T-cell co-stimulatory molecules. Eligible men had negative CT and Tc99 bone scans, and rising PSA on ADT. Previous treatment with ARA was a stratification factor. Patients were also evaluated for antigen-specific immune responses using intracellular cytokine staining. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients randomized to flutamide and 31 to flutamide+vaccine. The median age was 71.8 and 69.8 years, respectively. The median time to treatment failure after a median potential follow-up of 46.7 months was, 4.5 months (range 2-70) for flutamide alone vs. 6.9 months (2.5-40; P = .38) with flutamide+vaccine. Seven patients in each arm had a >50% PSA response. Antigen-specific responses were similar in both arms (58% of patients in flutamide alone and 56% in flutamide+vaccine). The treatments were well tolerated. The most common side effect > grade 2 was injection site reaction seen in 29/31 vaccine patients which were self-limiting. CONCLUSION: The combination of flutamide+PROSTVAC did not improve outcomes in men with nmCRPC compared with flutamide alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00450463).

Current Status and Future Direction to Address Disparities in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Prostate Cancer Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disparities in prostate cancer care and outcomes have been well recognized for decades. The purpose of this review is to methodically highlight known racial disparities in the care of prostate cancer patients, and in doing so, recognize potential strategies for overcoming these disparities moving forward. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past few years, there has been a growing recognition and push towards addressing disparities in cancer care. This has led to improvements in care delivery trends and a narrowing of racial outcome disparities, but as we highlight in the following review, there is more to be addressed before we can fully close the gap in prostate cancer care delivery. While disparities in prostate cancer care are well recognized in the literature, they are not insurmountable, and progress has been made in identifying areas for improvement and potential strategies for closing the care gap.

A Phase II Trial of Guadecitabine plus Atezolizumab in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing after Initial Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: On the basis of preclinical evidence of epigenetic contribution to sensitivity and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), we hypothesized that guadecitabine (hypomethylating agent) and atezolizumab [anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)] together would potentiate a clinical response in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) unresponsive to initial immune checkpoint blockade therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed a single arm phase II study (NCT03179943) with a safety run-in to identify the recommended phase II dose of the combination therapy of guadecitabine and atezolizumab. Patients with recurrent/advanced UC who had previously progressed on ICI therapy with programmed cell death protein 1 or PD-L1 targeting agents were eligible. Preplanned correlative analysis was performed to characterize peripheral immune dynamics and global DNA methylation, transcriptome, and immune infiltration dynamics of patient tumors. RESULTS: Safety run-in enrolled 6 patients and phase II enrolled 15 patients before the trial was closed for futility. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Four patients, with best response of stable disease (SD), exhibited extended tumor control (8-11 months) and survival (>14 months). Correlative analysis revealed lack of DNA demethylation in tumors after 2 cycles of treatment. Increased peripheral immune activation and immune infiltration in tumors after treatment correlated with progression-free survival and SD. Furthermore, high IL6 and IL8 levels in the patients' plasma was associated with short survival. CONCLUSIONS: No RECIST responses were observed after combination therapy in this trial. Although we could not detect the anticipated tumor-intrinsic effects of guadecitabine, the addition of hypomethylating agent to ICI therapy induced immune activation in a few patients, which associated with longer patient survival.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

A Phase 1 Trial of Durvalumab in Combination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) or External Beam Radiation Therapy in Patients with BCG-unresponsive Non-muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: The Hoosier Cancer Research Network GU16-243 ADAPT-BLADDER Study.

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments and trial designs remain a high priority for bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of anti-PD-L1 directed therapy with durvalumab (D), durvalumab plus BCG (D + BCG), and durvalumab plus external beam radiation therapy (D + EBRT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter phase 1 trial was conducted at community and academic sites. INTERVENTION: Patients received 1120 mg of D intravenously every 3 wk for eight cycles. D + BCG patients also received full-dose intravesical BCG weekly for 6 wk with BCG maintenance recommended. D + EBRT patients received concurrent EBRT (6 Gy × 3 in cycle 1 only). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Post-treatment cystoscopy and urine cytology were performed at 3 and 6 -mo, with bladder biopsies required at the 6-mo evaluation. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each regimen was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included toxicity profiles and complete response (CR) rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Twenty-eight patients were treated in the D (n = 3), D + BCG (n = 13), and D + EBRT (n = 12) cohorts. Full-dose D, full-dose BCG, and 6 Gy fractions × 3 were determined as the RP2Ds. One patient (4%) experienced a grade 3 dose limiting toxicity event of autoimmune hepatitis. The 3-mo CR occurred in 64% of all patients and in 33%, 85%, and 50% within the D, D + BCG, and D + EBRT cohorts, respectively. Twelve-month CRs were achieved in 46% of all patients and in 73% of D + BCG and 33% of D + EBRT patients. CONCLUSIONS: D combined with intravesical BCG or EBRT proved feasible and safe in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC patients. Encouraging preliminary efficacy justifies further study of combination therapy approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: Durvalumab combination therapy can be safely administered to non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients with the goal of increasing durable response rates.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Accelerated Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin in Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: A Retrospective Age-stratified Analysis on Safety and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care (SOC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) includes cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting followed by radical cystectomy. Older patients often do not receive SOC due to perceived toxicity concerns despite guideline-directed recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (aMVAC) in MIBC patients as a function of age. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in 186 MIBC patients treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2018. Adults with histologically proven muscle-invasive urothelial cancer were eligible. The exclusion criteria included nonurothelial histology, lack of muscularis propria invasion, and primary upper tract or metastatic disease. INTERVENTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with aMVAC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patients were stratified by age (<65, 65-74, and >75 yr old). Renal function was assessed at baseline and at time points after treatment. Clinicopathologic variables were compared between age groups to determine efficacy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in dose reductions, treatment interruptions, time to surgery, or adverse events when patients were stratified by age in univariate and multivariate analyses. Full safety data were not available due to the retrospective nature of the study. Baseline renal function was significantly worse among older patients, and the percent decline in creatinine clearance was greater with older age. We found comparable efficacy of aMVAC regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated MVAC was safe and demonstrated efficacy in MIBC irrespective of age in this single-center, retrospective study. Careful selection based on clinical variables, and not age, should identify patients able to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the feasibility of the standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen given prior to surgery in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Elderly patients experienced a greater decline in kidney function with treatment but not more complications than younger patients and tolerated therapy with minimal dose changes, resulting in benefit regardless of age.

Comparative Effectiveness of Front-Line Ipilimumab and Nivolumab or Axitinib and Pembrolizumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is rapidly evolving with new combination therapies demonstrating improved response rates and survival. There are no head-to-head prospective trials comparing an immunotherapy doublet with an immunotherapy/tyrosine-kinase inhibitor-based combination. We compare real-world outcomes in patients treated with axitinib/pembrolizumab (axi/pembro) or ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo). The primary endpoints were overall-survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a de-identified database to select patients diagnosed with clear cell mRCC and treated with front-line axi/pembro or ipi/nivo from 2018 to 2022. Analyses are adjusted using propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting, balancing age, gender, insurance, race, IMDC risk, and nephrectomy status. We compared survival by treatment groups using weighted and unweighted Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and weighted Cox proportional hazards regressions. RESULTS: We included a total of 1506 patients with mRCC who received frontline axi/pembro (n = 547) or ipi/nivo (n = 959). Median follow-up time was 20.0 months (range: 0.2-47.6). Baseline demographics were similar between the 2 cohorts. Adjusted median OS for the full population was 28.9 months for axi/pembro and was 24.3 months for ipi/nivo (P = .09). Twenty-four-month survival was 53.8% for axi/pembro treated patients and 50.2% for ipi/nivo treated patients. rwPFS was 10.6 months for axi/pembro treated patients and 6.9 months for ipi/nivo treated patients. Treatment with axi/pembro conferred improved survival in the IMDC favorable risk strata, with no significant difference in survival observed within the full cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, real-world study of patients treated with front-line combination therapy, patients with IMDC favorable risk disease had better survival when treated with axi/pembro compared to ipi/nivo. However, survival for the entire population and the 24-month median overall survival were not statistically different between treatment groups. Longer follow-up is necessary to discern any emerging significant differences.