Patient-reported psychosocial distress in adolescents and young adults with germ cell tumours.

PURPOSE: Germ cell tumours are the most common cancer of male adolescents and young adults (AYA, age 18-39). Men in this age group have been healthy much of their lives, and a diagnosis of cancer can cause significant psychosocial distress. We therefore sought to examine the psychosocial needs of patients with germ cell tumour and determine whether needs vary based on age (AYA vs non-AYA). We hypothesized that AYA experience more anxiety and distress in emotional, practical and physical domains. METHODS: We evaluated the responses of all patients referred to British Columbia (BC) Cancer who completed a pre-consultation health assessment form. This is a validated screening questionnaire for distress, subclinical/clinical symptoms of depression and anxiety and includes the Canadian Problem Checklist domains of emotional, informational, practical, spiritual, social/family and physical concerns. RESULTS: Data were collected for 349 patients (2011-2015). Patient population was predominantly AYA (n = 227) with median age 33 (range 18-83). The top 3 AYA concerns were financial, work/school, frustration and anger. AYA patients more commonly scored positive for symptoms of subclinical/clinical anxiety than non-AYA (39.4% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.028). Those AYA patients with subclinical/clinical anxiety symptoms experienced more fears and worries, concerns regarding work/school, lack of understanding of their disease, finances and frustration and anger. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that AYA with testicular cancer have unique needs and experience more self-reported anxiety symptoms with emotional, informational and practical concerns. This is valuable information to stakeholders for allocation of resources to address cancer survivorship amongst these patients.

Updated efficacy results from the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial: first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) 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 PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. RESULTS: Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490-0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1-20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7-9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574-0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1-15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7-9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596-1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616-1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. CONCLUSION: Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02684006.

A Canadian cancer trials group phase IB study of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) plus tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) given concurrently or sequentially in patients with advanced, incurable solid malignancies.

Background The IND.226 study was a phase Ib study to determine the recommended phase II dose of durvalumab + tremelimumab in combination with standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Sequential administration of multiple agents increases total chair time adding costs overall and inconvenience for patients. This cohort of the IND.226 study evaluated the safety and tolerability of durvalumab + tremelimumab given either sequentially (SEQ) or concurrently (CON). Methods Patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled and randomised to either SEQ tremelimumab 75 mg IV over 1 h followed by durvalumab 1500 mg IV over 1 h q4wks on the same day, or CON administration over 1 h. The serum pharmacokinetic profile of SEQ versus CON of durvalumab and tremelimumab administration was also evaluated. Results 14 patients either received SEQ (n = 7pts) or CON (n = 7 pts). There were no infusion related reactions. Drug related adverse events (AEs) were mainly low grade and manageable, and comparable in frequency between SEQ/CON- fatigue (43%/57%), rash (43%/43%), pruritus (43%/29%) and nausea (14%/29%). One patient in each cohort discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The PK profiles of durvalumab and tremelimumab were similar between CON and SEQ, and to historical reference data. Conclusions Concurrent administration of durvalumab and tremelimumab over 1 h is safe with a comparable PK profile to sequential administration.

Current landscape of immunotherapy in the treatment of solid tumours, with future opportunities and challenges.

Immunotherapy has emerged as a new standard of care, showing survival benefit for solid tumours in multiple disease sites and indications. The survival improvements seen in diseases that were highly resistant to traditional therapies, with a poor prognosis, are unprecedented. Although the benefits observed in clinical trials are undeniable, not all patients derive those benefits, leading to emerging combination strategies and an ongoing quest for biomarker selection. Here, we summarize the current evidence for immunotherapy in the treatment of solid tumours, and we discuss emerging strategies at the forefront of research. We discuss future challenges that will be encountered as experience and knowledge continue to expand in this rapidly emerging field.

Use of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical and economic impact in a Canadian real-life setting.

Introduction: Outside of randomized controlled clinical trials, the understanding of the effectiveness and costs associated with targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) is limited in Canada. The purpose of the present study was to use real-world prospective data to assess the effectiveness and cost of targeted therapies for patients with mrcc. Methods: The Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System, a pan-Canadian database, was used to identify prospectively collected data relating to patients with mrcc. First- and subsequent-line time to treatment termination (ttt) was determined from therapy initiation time (sunitinib or pazopanib) to discontinuation of therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted overall survival (os) by treatment. Unit treatment cost was used to estimate the cost by line of treatment and the total cost of therapy for the management of patients with mrcc. Results: The study included 475 patients receiving sunitinib or pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patients were treated mostly with sunitinib (81%); 19% of patients were treated with pazopanib. The median ttt in the first line was 7.7 months for patients receiving sunitinib and 4.6 months for those receiving pazopanib (p < 0.001). The adjusted os was 32 months with sunitinib and 21 months with pazopanib (hazard ratio: 1.61; p < 0.01). The total median cost of first- and second-line treatments was $56,476 (interquartile range: $23,738-$130,447) for patients in the sunitinib group and $46,251 (interquartile range: $28,167-$91,394) for those in the pazopanib group. Conclusions: For the two therapies, os differed significantly, with a higher median os being observed in the sunitinib group. The cost of treatment was higher in the sunitinib group, which is to be expected with longer survival.

A phase I dose-escalation study of apatorsen (OGX-427), an antisense inhibitor targeting heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27), in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and other advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: Heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) is a chaperone protein that regulates cell survival via androgen receptor and other signaling pathways, thereby mediating cancer progression. Apatorsen (OGX-427) is a 2'-methoxyethyl-modified antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits Hsp27 expression. This study evaluated the safety profile and recommended phase II dosing of apatorsen in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with castration-resistant prostate (CRPC), breast, ovary, lung, or bladder cancer were enrolled to this phase I dose-escalation study. Apatorsen was administered i.v. weekly in 21-day cycles following 3 loading doses and over 5 dose levels (200-1000 mg). Apatorsen plasma concentrations, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and CTC Hsp27 expression, and serum Hsp27 levels were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were accrued, of which 52% had CRPC. Patients were heavily pretreated, with 57% having had ≥3 prior chemotherapy regimens. During the loading dose/cycle 1 and overall study period, 93% and 100% of patients (N = 42) experienced treatment-related adverse events, respectively; most were grade 1-2 and included chills, pruritus, flushing, prolonged aPTT, lymphopenia, and anemia. One patient experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at the 600 mg dose level (intracranial hemorrhage in a previously undiagnosed brain metastasis). A maximum tolerated dose was not defined. Apatorsen Cmax increased proportionally with dose. Decreases in tumor markers and declines in CTCs were observed, with a prostate-specific antigen decline >%50% occurring in 10% of patients with CRPC; 29/39 assessable patients (74%) had reductions from ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml at baseline to <5 CTC/7.5 ml post-treatment. Twelve patients had stable measurable disease as best response. CONCLUSIONS: Apatorsen was tolerated at the highest dose evaluated (1000 mg). Single-agent activity was suggested by changes in tumor markers, CTC, and stable measurable disease. Phase II studies evaluating apatorsen are underway. CLINICALTRIALSGOV ID: NCT00487786.

Anti-VEGF therapy in mRCC: differences between Asian and non-Asian patients.

BACKGROUND: Several reports suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be more toxic in Asian vs non-Asian populations. Comparative efficacy of these agents with respect to ethnicity is not well characterised. METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using Asian and non-Asian centres which collected data on ethnicity, dose reductions and outcomes using the International mRCC Database Consortium. RESULTS: This study included 1024 (464 Asian, 560 non-Asian) patients with a 29.4 months median follow-up. The percentage of dose modifications/reductions between non-Asians and Asians was similar (55% vs 61% P=0.1197). When adjusted for risk groups, there was no difference in overall or progression-free survival between non-Asians and Asians. Patients with dose reductions due to toxicity had longer treatment durations and overall survival than those who did not in both non-Asian (10.6 vs 5.0 months, P<0.0001; 22.6 vs 16.1 months, P=0.0016, respectively) and Asian populations (8.9 vs 5.4 months, P=0.0028; 28.0 vs 18.7 months, P=0.0069, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for risk groups, there appears to be no difference in outcome between Asian vs non-Asian patients with mRCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy. Judicious dose reductions may allow for better outcomes in both populations due to longer treatment durations, but direct comparisons are needed.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been approved based on registration clinical trials that have strict eligibility criteria. The clinical outcomes of patients treated with targeted agents but are ineligible for trials are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRCC patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were retrospectively deemed ineligible for clinical trials (according to commonly used inclusion/exclusion criteria) if they had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <70%, nonclear-cell histology, brain metastases, hemoglobin ≤9 g/dl, creatinine >2× the upper limit of normal, corrected calcium ≥12 mg/dl, platelet count of <100 × 10(3)/uL, or neutrophil count <1500/mm(3). RESULTS: Overall, 768 of 2210 (35%) patients in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were deemed ineligible for clinical trials by the above criteria. Between ineligible versus eligible patients, the response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival of first-line targeted therapy were 22% versus 29% (P = 0.0005), 5.2 versus 8.6 months, and 12.5 versus 28.4 months (both P < 0.0001), respectively. Second-line PFS (if applicable) was 2.8 months in the trial ineligible versus 4.3 months in the trial eligible patients (P = 0.0039). When adjusted by the IMDC prognostic categories, the HR for death between trial ineligible and trial eligible patients was 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.378-1.751, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients that are ineligible for clinical trials is substantial and their outcomes are inferior. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer.

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

A phase I pharmacokinetic study of matuzumab in combination with paclitaxel in patients with EGFR-expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Matuzumab is a humanized IgG1 EGFR monoclonal antibody. This phase I study investigated the tolerability, safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of matuzumab in combination with paclitaxel in patients with EGFR-expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Six dose levels/schedules of matuzumab were explored in combination with paclitaxel. Dose was escalated from 100 mg to 1,600 mg on a modified Fibonacci scheme according to the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) over the first two cycles. DLT was assessed in patients who completed the first two treatment cycles or who stopped treatment because of a DLT during those cycles. Patients with non-progressive disease could then continue to receive study treatment for up to 6 months. The safety population comprised 44 patients, with DLT evaluable in 33. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached, with only one DLT reported at the 1,600 mg 3-weekly dose level. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events across all cycles were dyspnea (23 %) and neutropenia (11 %). Matuzumab exhibited non-linear PK, with accumulation after escalation and repeated dosing. Tumor growth control was seen in 15/44 (34 %) patients, including 5/9 (56 %) at the 800 mg weekly dose level. Matuzumab combined with paclitaxel was generally well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC. There was some evidence of anticancer activity in relation to the matuzumab 800 mg weekly dose.

Effect of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone on the pharmacokinetics of dextromethorphan and theophylline in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone on the pharmacokinetics of dextromethorphan HBr (CYP2D6 substrate) and theophylline (CYP1A2 substrate) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Men with progressive metastatic mCRPC who failed gonadotropin-releasing hormone therapy and ≥1 lines of chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients received two doses of dextromethorphan HBr-30 mg (n = 18; group A) or theophylline-100 mg (n = 16; group B) under fasting conditions; one dose on cycle 1, day -8, and the other dose on cycle 1, day 8. Only patients with extensive CYP2D6 metabolizing status were assigned to group A. All patients received continuous daily oral abiraterone acetate (1,000 mg) plus prednisone (10 mg) starting on cycle 1, day 1. RESULTS: Coadministration of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone increased the systemic exposure of dextromethorphan by approximately 100%. Ratios of geometric means for maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) (275.36%) and area under plasma concentration-time curves from time 0 to 24 h (AUC(24h)) (268.14%) of dextromethorphan were outside the bioequivalence limit. The pharmacokinetics of theophylline was unaltered following coadministration of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone. Ratios of geometric means [C(max); 102.36% and AUC(24h); 108.03%] of theophylline exposure parameters were within the bioequivalence limit. The safety profile of abiraterone acetate was consistent with reported toxicities. CONCLUSION: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone increased the exposure of dextromethorphan, suggesting a need for caution when coadministrating with known CYP2D6 substrates. The pharmacokinetics of theophylline was unaffected when coadministered with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.

Hypertension management in patients with renal cell cancer treated with anti-angiogenic agents.

Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor (vegf-is) signalling pathway have fundamentally changed the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). Hypertension is one of the most common side effects of vegf-is and has been reported with almost every vegf-i used for treatment to date. The exact mechanism of vegf-i-induced hypertension appears complex and multifactorial, and it remains to be fully explained. No randomized clinical trials are available to guide the management of hypertension during vegf-i treatment in mrcc patients. The guiding principles suggested here summarize the consensus of opinions on the diagnosis and management of vegf-i-induced hypertension during treatment of mrcc obtained from an expert working group composed of 4 Canadian medical oncologists and 5 Canadian hypertension specialists. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines, available literature, and expert opinion were used to develop the guiding principles.

Primary anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical characteristics, risk factors, and subsequent therapy.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients treated with initial anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy exhibit progressive disease (PD) as the best response per RECIST criteria. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty-six assessable patients received initial VEGF inhibitors and 272 (26%) of these patients had PD as best response. Initial treatment included sunitinib (n = 203), sorafenib (n = 51), or bevacizumab (n = 18). Six percent of patients were at favorable risk, 55% at intermediate risk, and 39% at poor risk. On multivariable analysis, predictors of PD were Karnofsky performance status < 80% [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, P < 0.0001], diagnosis to treatment < 1 year (OR = 2.1, P < 0.0001), neutrophilia (OR = 1.9, P = 0.0021), thrombocytosis (OR = 1.7, P = 0.0068), and anemia (OR = 1.6, P = 0.0058). Median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD versus without PD was 2.4 versus 11 months (P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) was 6.8 versus 29 months (P < 0.0001), respectively. One hundred and eight (40%) VEGF-refractory patients proceeded to receive further systemic therapies. Response rate, PFS, and OS for subsequent therapy were 9%, 2.5 months, and 7.4 months, respectively, with no statistical differences between patients who received VEGF versus mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anti-VEGF-refractory mRCC patients have a dismal prognosis. Second-line anti-mTOR and anti-VEGF agents produce similar outcomes.

2-¹8fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for postchemotherapy seminoma residual lesions: a retrospective validation of the SEMPET trial.

BACKGROUND: 2-¹8fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been recommended in international guidelines in the evaluation of postchemotherapy seminoma residuals. Our trial was designed to validate these recommendations in a larger group of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FDG-PET studies in patients with metastatic seminoma and residual masses after platinum-containing chemotherapy were correlated with either the histology of the resected lesion(s) or the clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy seven FDG-PET results were contributed. Of 127 eligible PET studies, 69% were true negative, 11% true positive, 6% false negative, and 15% false positive. We compared PET scans carried out before and after a cut-off level of 6 weeks after the end of the last chemotherapy cycle. PET sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value were 50%, 77%, 91%, and 25%, respectively, before the cut-off and 82%, 90%, 95%, and 69% after the cut-off. PET accuracy significantly improved from 73% before to 88% after the cut-off (P=0.032). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the high specificity, sensitivity, and NPV of FDG-PET for evaluating postchemotherapy seminoma residuals. When carried out at an adequate time point, FDG-PET remains a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in this clinical setting and spares patients unnecessary therapy.

Temsirolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors: a NCIC-CTG, phase I, open-label dose-escalation study (IND 179).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to assess the safety, tolerability, recommended phase II dose (RPTD), and preliminary antitumor activity of the combination of carboplatin-paclitaxel (Taxol)-temsirolimus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with solid malignancies suitable for carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) chemotherapy and two or less prior lines of chemotherapy received 15, 20, or 25 mg of temsirolimus per week with CP given every 21 days. Thirty-eight eligible patients were entered into six dose levels with the first two levels administering temsirolimus on days 8 and 15 and the subsequent four dose levels switching to days 1 and 8 temsirolimus administration. RESULTS: Days 8 and 15 administration of temsirolimus was not feasible due to myelosuppression on day 15. CP on day 1 with temsirolimus on days 1 and 8 was well tolerated. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=2) and grade 3 fatigue (n=1). Relative dose intensities for carboplatin, paclitaxel, and temsirolimus at the RPTD were 92%, 82%, and 56%, respectively. Non-DLT treatment-related adverse events occurring in >20% of patients included fatigue, mucositis, alopecia, neuropathy, nausea, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and infection. Grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity was rare. Partial responses (PRs) and disease stabilization were seen in 46% and 49% of patients, respectively. Nine of 11 (82%) endometrial cancer patients had objective PRs. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin-paclitaxel-temsirolimus is well tolerated and the RPTD is carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/ml/min, paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, both given on day 1 with temsirolimus 25 mg on days 1 and 8.

Progression-free survival as a clinical trial endpoint in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Traditionally, overall survival (os) has been considered the "gold standard" for evaluating new systemic oncologic therapies, because death is easy to define, is easily compared across disease sites, and is not subject to investigator bias. However, as the available options for continuing therapy increase, the use of os as a clinical trial endpoint has become problematic because of the increasing crossover and contamination of trials. As a result, the approval of promising new therapies may be delayed.Many clinicians believe that progression-free survival (pfs) is a more viable option for evaluating new therapies in metastatic and advanced renal cell carcinoma. As with all endpoints, pfs has inherent biases, and those biases must be addressed to ensure that trial results are not compromised and that they will be accepted by regulatory authorities. In this paper, we examine the issues surrounding the use of pfs as a clinical trial endpoint, and we suggest solutions to ensure that data integrity is maintained.