Global real-world experiences with pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based chemotherapy: the ARON-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed previous treatment paradigm of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). The ARON-2 study (NCT05290038) aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with documented metastatic UC treated by pembrolizumab as second-line therapy were retrospectively collected from 88 institutions in 23 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Cox proportional hazards models were adopted to explore the presence of prognostic factors. RESULTS: In total, 836 patients were included: 544 patients (65%) received pembrolizumab after progression to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (cohort A) and 292 (35%) after recurring within < 12 months since the completion of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cohort B). The median follow-up time was 15.3 months. The median OS and the ORR were 10.5 months and 31% in the overall study population, 9.1 months and 29% in cohort A and 14.6 months and 37% in cohort B. At multivariate analysis, ECOG-PS ≥ 2, bone metastases, liver metastases and pembrolizumab setting (cohort A vs B) proved to be significantly associated with worst OS and PFS. Stratified by the presence of 0, 1-2 or 3-4 prognostic factors, the median OS was 29.4, 12.5 and 4.1 months (p < 0.001), while the median PFS was 12.2, 6.4 and 2.8 months, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that pembrolizumab is effective in the advanced UC real-world context, showing outcome differences between patients recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Use of concomitant proton pump inhibitors, statins or metformin in patients treated with pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: data from the ARON-2 retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant medications may potentially affect the outcome of cancer patients. In this sub-analysis of the ARON-2 real-world study (NCT05290038), we aimed to assess the impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), statins, or metformin on outcome of patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) receiving second-line pembrolizumab. METHODS: We collected data from the hospital medical records of patients with mUC treated with pembrolizumab as second-line therapy at 87 institutions from 22 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate. We carried out a survival analysis by a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 802 patients were eligible for this retrospective study; the median follow-up time was 15.3 months. PPI users compared to non-users showed inferior PFS (4.5 vs. 7.2 months, p = 0.002) and OS (8.7 vs. 14.1 months, p < 0.001). Concomitant PPI use remained a significant predictor of PFS and OS after multivariate Cox analysis. The use of statins or metformin was not associated with response or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest a significant prognostic impact of concomitant PPI use in mUC patients receiving pembrolizumab in the real-world context. The mechanism of this interaction warrants further elucidation.

Pembrolizumab Plus Olaparib for Patients With Previously Treated and Biomarker-Unselected Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III KEYLYNK-010 Trial.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC. METHODS: Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points. RESULTS: Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.

Clinical outcomes and treatment patterns in REASSURE: planned interim analysis of a real-world observational study of radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background: Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is approved to treat bone-dominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), based on significantly prolonged overall survival versus placebo and a favourable safety profile in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA was conducted when few other treatment options were available, and prospectively collected data are limited on the use of radium-223 in the current mCRPC treatment landscape. We sought to understand long-term safety and treatment patterns in men who received radium-223 in real-world clinical practice. Methods: REASSURE (NCT02141438) is a global, prospective, observational study of radium-223 in men with mCRPC. Primary outcomes are adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent serious AEs (SAEs) and drug-related AEs during and ≤30 days after radium-223 completion, grade 3/4 haematological toxicities ≤6 months after last radium-223 dose, drug-related SAEs after radium-223 therapy completion, and second primary malignancies. Findings: Data collection commenced on Aug 20, 2014, and the data cutoff date for this prespecified interim analysis was Mar 20, 2019 (median follow-up 11.5 months [interquartile range 6.0-18.6]), 1465 patients were evaluable. For second primary malignancies, 1470 patients were evaluable, 21 (1%) of whom had a total of 23 events. During radium-223 therapy, 311 (21%) of 1465 patients had treatment-emergent SAEs, and 510 (35%) had drug-related AEs. In the 6 months after completion of radium-223 therapy, 214 (15%) patients had grade 3/4 haematological toxicities. Eighty patients (5%) had post-treatment drug-related SAEs. Median overall survival was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval 14.6-16.5) from radium-223 initiation. Patient-reported pain scores declined or stabilised. Seventy (5%) patients had fractures. Interpretation: REASSURE offers insight into radium-223 use in global real-world clinical practice with currently available therapies. At this interim analysis, with a median follow-up of almost 1 year, 1% of patients had second primary malignancies, and safety and overall survival findings were consistent with clinical trial experience. Final analysis of REASSURE is due in 2024. Funding: Bayer HealthCare.

Experience of bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) in Argentinian oncology centres.

Background: Previous studies with bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) have shown clinical activity in metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) as well as the potential to re-sensitise prostate cancer cells to prior androgen receptor-targeted agents. None of these studies had tested BAT after chemotherapy. In this study, we gathered real-world evidence from three centres in Argentina where BAT is being used in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), not only prior to chemotherapy but also after several lines of treatment. Materials and methods: This retro-prospective nonrandomised multicentre cohort study included patients with mCRPC, who received BAT in different scenarios defined by the treating physician at three centres in Argentina. Results: A total of 21 asymptomatic patients with mCRPC were included. There was a median of two lines before BAT, with nine patients (42.8%) receiving three or more lines, and 13 patients (61.9%) receiving chemotherapy previously. Previous lines included next-generation hormonal agents (NHA) in 100% (abiraterone 33.3% and enzalutamide 71.4%), chemotherapy in 61.9%, Radium-223 in 47.6% and others in 4.8%. The progression free survival (PFS) after BAT was 3.5 months (95% CI: 3.06-7.97). PSA50 response rate (RR) was 28.5% and the overall RR was 14.3%. Of the 17 patients who had disease progression, 9 had a rechallenge to NHA, achieving a 55% RR, 6 received other treatment (chemotherapy in 5 and 177Lu-PSMA in 1) with a 66% RR and 2 best supportive care. The PFS2, calculated after the initiation of BAT in the 15 patients who received further therapy, was 7.93 months (95% CI: 6.73-NR). Treatment was overall well tolerated, with only two patients requiring hospitalisation and treatment interruption due to worsening pain. Conclusion: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first publication of BAT in later lines of therapy in mCRPC. BAT showed clinical activity in this scenario. Our data supports that BAT may play a role in CRPC re-sensitisation after multiple treatment lines.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS: A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS: Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

PARP inhibitors as a radiosensitizer: a future promising approach in prostate cancer?

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (iPARPs) have shown efficacy in homologous recombination (HR) deficiency patients with advanced castration resistant prostate cancer and have shown a radiosensitizing effect in preclinical and early clinical trials. Preclinical data in prostate cancer cells suggest a similar cytotoxic effect with half the radiation dose under the effect of Olaparib or Rucaparib irrespective of HR status. Due to the biologic synergy of radiotherapy (RT) and iPARPs, the risk of recurrence of high-risk prostate cancer and the morbidity associated with prostate cancer local treatment, this interesting strategy seems promising, and a better understanding of the clinical implications remains to be elucidated.

Prostate Cancer in Latin America: Challenges and Recommendations.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most frequent tumor among Latin American (LATAM) men. The incidence of de novo metastatic PCa is higher in LATAM than other parts of the world, and demographic changes in the region have increased disease burden. However, region-specific information regarding prevalence, progression, and treatment effectiveness is not currently available for nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC). Nonmetastatic, castration-resistant PCa is a heterogeneous disease with varying potential to develop metastasis with limited treatments available, until recently. New clinical trials with promising results have allowed second-generation antiandrogen drugs to be used as first-line treatments, rendering guidelines outdated. As a result, this panel of experts reviewed the current status and challenges and developed recommendations for nmCRPC diagnosis and management in LATAM. The Americas Health Foundation (AHF) conducted a literature review and identified LATAM scientists and clinicians who have published in the field of PCa since 2012. The AHF convened a panel of 7 chosen experts urologists and medical oncologists from the region. The AHF developed specific questions relating to nmCRPC, which were answered by the experts prior to the multiday meeting. Each narrative was discussed and edited by the panel, through numerous rounds of discussion until a consensus was reached in a final manuscript. The panel proposes specific and realistic recommendations for improving access to diagnosis and management of PCa in LATAM. No treatment has yet shown improvement in overall survival; however, when including metastasis-free survival as an end point, second-generation antiandrogen drugs have emerged as effective treatment options and are currently included as first-line treatment. Although nmCRPC is a specific disease that represents a small percentage of patients with PCa, effective diagnostic and treatment strategies can contribute toward increasing quality of life and survival rates of patients with PCa in LATAM.

Optimizing the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a Latin America perspective.

Prostate cancer is a significant burden and cause of mortality in Latin America. This article reviews the treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and provides consensus recommendations to assist Latin American prostate cancer specialists with clinical decision making. A multidisciplinary expert panel from Latin America reviewed the available data and their individual experience to develop clinical consensus opinions for the use of life-prolonging agents in mCRPC, with consideration given to factors influencing patient selection and treatment monitoring. There is a lack of level 1 evidence for the best treatment sequence or combinations in mCRPC. In this context, consensus recommendations were provided for the use of taxane-based chemotherapies, androgen receptor axis-targeted agents and targeted alpha therapy, for patients in Latin America. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes alone, during treatment, should be treated with caution; PSA may not be a suitable biomarker for radium-223. Bone scans and computed tomography are the standard imaging modalities in Latin America. Imaging should be prompted during treatment where symptomatic decline and/or significant worsening of laboratory evaluations are reported, or where a course of therapy has been completed and another antineoplastic agent is under consideration. Recommendations and guidance for treatment options in Latin America are provided in the context of country-level variable access to approved agents and technologies for treatment monitoring. Patients should be treated with the purpose of prolonging overall survival and preserving quality of life through increasing the opportunity to administer all available life-prolonging therapies when appropriate.

Cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración. Heterogeneidad tumoral y selección de tratamientos / Cancer castration-resistant prostate. Tumor heterogeneity and selection of treatments

El cáncer de próstata es la neoplasia más frecuente en el hombre y la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer (1). Un número considerable de pacientes con enfermedad localizada desarrollan enfermedad metastásica en un tiempo variable luego del tratamiento local, sea este cirugía, radioterapia o combinaciones de estos con hormonoterapia. Esta progresión es lógicamente más frecuente en los pacientes con tumores de riesgo intermedio-alto (definido fundamentalmente por el valor de PSA, el puntaje de Gleason y el estadio tumoral T) (2). El cáncer de próstata metastásico es una enfermedad incurable pero con prolongada sobrevida. Este periodo está marcado inicialmente por una sensibilidad muy alta de la enfermedad a la deprivación androgénica o castración médica. Pero invariablemente luego de un tiempo promedio de 18 a 24 meses la enfermedad evoluciona hacia la resistencia a la castración (CPRC).CPRC se define por la progresión tumoral bioquímica o clínica a pesar de un nivel de testosterona de 50 ng/dl o menos (3). Esta etapa recibía el nombre de cáncer de próstata andrógeno independiente, pero ha sido descartado debido a la demostración de que los tumores permanecen, por lo menos parcialmente, sensibles al bloqueo androgénico hasta etapas más avanzadas de la enfermedad (4). Más aun , desde que el término CPRC se utiliza se han desarrollado anti andrógenos mucho más potentes por lo que es seguro que incluso esta denominación sea abandonada con el tiempo o cumpla solo un papel regulatorio sin ninguna connotación biológica, algo similar a lo que ocurre actualmente con el termino pre o post docetaxel. Pero el término CRPC engloba pacientes completamente diferentes en sus características y en su pronóstico. Tan solo 10 años atrás las opciones de tratamiento para los pacientes sintomáticos con CPRC estaban limitadas a medidas paliativas como el uso de mitoxantrona más prednisona (5).