Cabozantinib with immune checkpoint inhibitor versus cabozantinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma progressing after prior immune checkpoint inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Rechallenge with antibodies targeting programmed cell death protein-1 or its ligand (PD-1/L1) after discontinuation or disease progression in solid tumors following a prior PD-1/L1 treatment is often practiced in clinic. This study aimed to investigate if adding PD-1/L1 inhibitors to cabozantinib, the most used second-line treatment in real-world patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC), offers additional benefits. METHODS: Using de-identified patient-level data from a large real-world US-based database, patients diagnosed with mccRCC, who received any PD-1/L1-based combination in first-line (1L) setting, followed by second-line (2L) therapy with either cabozantinib alone or in combination with PD-1/L1 inhibitors were included. Patients given a cabozantinib-containing regimen in 1L were excluded. The study end points were real-world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) by 2L. RESULTS: Of 12,285 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the data set, 348 patients met eligibility and were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching weighting, cabozantinib with PD-1/L1 inhibitors versus cabozantinib (ref.) had similar rwTTNT and rwOS in the 2L setting. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) for rwTTNT and rwOS are 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.12) and 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.79), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this study, the results align with the phase 3 CONTACT-03 trial results, which showed no additional benefit of adding PD-L1 inhibitor to cabozantinib compared to cabozantinib alone in 2L following PD-1/L1-based therapies in 1L. These results from real-world patients strengthen the evidence regarding the futility of rechallenge with PD-1/L1 inhibitors.

Natural course of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the era of intensified androgen deprivation therapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) intensification (ADTi) (i.e., ADT with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor or docetaxel, or both) has significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the impact of prior ADTi in the mHSPC setting on the disease presentation and survival outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is not well characterized. In this study, our objective was to compare the disease characteristics and survival outcomes of patients with new mCRPC with respect to receipt of intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study, eligibility criteria were as follows: patients diagnosed with mCRPC, treated with an approved first-line mCRPC therapy, and who received either intensified or nonintensified ADT in the mHSPC setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to progression per Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria or death, and overall survival (OS) was defined from the start of first-line therapy for mCRPC to death or censored at the last follow-up. A multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model was used, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Patients (n = 387) treated between March 20, 2008, and August 18, 2022, were eligible and included: 283 received nonintensified ADT, whereas 104 were treated with ADTi. At mCRPC diagnosis, patients in the ADTi group were significantly younger, had more visceral metastasis, lower baseline prostate-specific antigen (all p < 0.01), and lower hemoglobin (p = 0.027). Furthermore, they had significantly shorter PFS (median 4.8 vs. 8.4 months, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.07-2, p = 0.017) and OS (median 21.3 vs. 33.1 months, adjusted HR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.06-2.21, p = 0.022) compared to patients in the nonintensified ADT group. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with ADTi in the mHSPC setting and experiencing disease progression to mCRPC had more aggressive disease features of mCRPC (characterized by a higher number of poor prognostic factors at mCRPC presentation). They also had shorter PFS on first-line mCRPC treatment and shorter OS after the onset of mCRPC compared to those not receiving ADTi in the mHSPC setting. Upon external validation, these findings may impact patient counseling, prognostication, treatment selection, and design of future clinical trials in the mCRPC setting. There remains an unmet need to develop novel life-prolonging therapies with new mechanisms of action to improve mCRPC prognosis in the current era.

Impact of Initial Timing of Metastatic Disease on Survival in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with synchronous (de novo) metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer appear to have worse survival outcomes and shorter time to develop castration resistance than patients with metachronous disease. However, the impact of synchronous metastasis on outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting is unknown in patients without prior exposure to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs). In this study, we assessed the impact of initial timing of metastasis (synchronous vs metachronous) on survival outcomes of patients with new-onset mCRPC in a real-world population treated with first-line abiraterone or enzalutamide. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 323 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mCRPC who received ARPIs as first-line therapy and had no prior exposure to ARPIs. The study endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The results showed that median overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with synchronous disease than those with metachronous disease (26 vs 38.7 months, HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09-1.86, P = .011). However, there was no difference in median progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: The initial presentation with synchronous metastasis remained an independent factor associated with shorter OS in the multivariable analysis. These hypothesis-generating data, after external validation, may have implications in patient counseling, prognostication, and design of future clinical trials in the new-onset mCRPC setting.

Access to Care and Healthcare Quality Metrics for Patients with Advanced Genitourinary Cancers in Urban versus Rural Areas.

Compared to the urban population, patients in rural areas face healthcare disparities and experience inferior healthcare-related outcomes. To compare the healthcare quality metrics and outcomes between patients with advanced genitourinary cancers from rural versus urban areas treated at a tertiary cancer hospital, in this retrospective study, eligible patients with advanced genitourinary cancers were treated at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in Utah. Rural-urban commuting area codes were used to classify the patients' residences as being in urban (1-3) or rural (4-10) areas. The straight line distances of the patients' residences from the cancer center were also calculated and included in the analysis. The median household income data were obtained and calculated from "The Michigan Population Studies Center", based on individual zip codes. In this study, 2312 patients were screened, and 1025 eligible patients were included for further analysis (metastatic prostate cancer (n = 679), metastatic bladder cancer (n = 184), and metastatic renal cell carcinoma (n = 162). Most patients (83.9%) came from urban areas, while the remainder were from rural areas. Both groups had comparable demographic profiles and tumor characteristics at baseline. The annual median household income of urban patients was $8604 higher than that of rural patients (p < 0.001). There were fewer urban patients with Medicare (44.9% vs. 50.9%) and more urban patients with private insurance (40.4% vs. 35.1%). There was no difference between the urban and rural patients regarding receiving systemic therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, or tumor genomic profiling. The overall survival rate was not significantly different between the two populations in metastatic prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, respectively. As available in a tertiary cancer hospital, access to care can mitigate the difference in the quality of healthcare and clinical outcomes in urban versus rural patients.

Impact of androgen receptor alterations on cell-free DNA genomic profiling on survival outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen receptor (AR) gene alterations, as detected by circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) genomic profiling, have been shown to emerge after a variable duration of androgen signaling inhibition. AR alterations were associated with inferior outcomes on treatment with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) in the first line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting in a phase 2 trial. Here in, we assessed the impact of these AR alterations on survival outcomes in a real-world patient population of mCRPC experiencing disease progression on an ARPI. METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, consecutively seen patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mCRPC, with disease progression on a treatment with ARPIs in the first line mCRPC setting, with no prior exposure to an ARPI in the castration sensitive setting, and with available cfDNA profiling from a CLIA certified laboratory were included. Patients were categorized based on AR status: wild-type (ARwt ) or alteration-positive (AR+ ). The objective was to correlate overall survival (OS) after disease progression on the first-line ARPI with the presence or absence of AR alterations. Kaplan-Meier and Cox Regression Tests were used as implemented in R-Studio (v.4.2). RESULTS: A total of 137 mCRPC patients were eligible: 69 with ARwt versus 68 with AR+ . The median OS posttreatment with the first ARPI was significantly higher for ARwt than AR+ patients (30.1 vs. 15.2 mos; p < 0.001). Of 108 patients who received a subsequent line of therapy, 63 received an alternate ARPI (AR+ 39 vs. 24 ARwt ), while 20 received a taxane-based therapy (11 AR+ vs. 9 ARwt ). Among patients receiving an alternate ARPI, AR+ had numerically shorter OS (16.8 vs. 30.4 mos, p = 0.1). Among patients receiving taxane-based regimens, the OS was not significantly different between AR+ and ARwt (14.5 vs. 10.1 mos, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, mCRPC patients with AR alterations on cfDNA had inferior OS after disease progression on the first ARPI, compared to those who did not, and may impact outcomes on a subsequent ARPI but not on subsequent taxane-based therapy received. By providing survival estimates for patients with or without AR alterations, our data may aid in patient counseling, prognostication, treatment decision, and for designing future clinical trials in this setting.

Survival of Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer After Disease Progression on an Androgen Receptor Axis-Targeted Therapy Given in the Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Versus Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Setting.

Androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs; androgen receptor or androgen synthesis inhibitors) have been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCSPC and mCRPC) on the basis of improved overall survival (OS) in randomized clinical trials. However, it is not clear whether the OS for patients after progression on first-line ARAT differs if the first ARAT was administered in the mCSPC versus mCRPC setting and what its estimates are. We assessed the OS after disease progression on ARAT given as first-line therapy in mCSPC versus mCRPC. Patient-level data were collected retrospectively, and only those treated with first-line ARAT for mCSPC or mCRPC were included. For patients receiving ARAT in the mCRPC setting, no prior ARAT was allowed in the mCSPC setting. The median OS and hazard ratio (HR) were determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis from the time of progression on ARAT. Of 382 patients treated with first-line ARAT, 172 (44 mCSPC and 128 mCRPC) had experienced disease progression and were included in the analysis. Median OS was similar in the mCSPC (23 mo) and mCRPC (17 mo) settings (HR 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.56; p = 0.95). A total of 138 patients received subsequent systemic therapy after progression. Our results suggest that median OS is similar after progression on one ARAT, whether given in the first-line mCSPC or first-line mCRPC setting, and is estimated to be <2 yr. These data have implications for patient prognostication and the design of clinical trials in the post-ARAT setting for further drug development. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated whether the survival benefit differs between metastatic castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer for patients who have already experienced cancer progression after first-line treatment with one drug targeting the androgen receptor pathway  (called ARAT). We found that the median survival benefit was less than 2 years and was similar for the two groups.

A retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with advanced genitourinary cancers.

Background: COVID-19 vaccination is one of the pivotal key tools against the ongoing pandemic, but its acceptance relies on efficacy and safety data among various populations, including patients with cancers. However, there is limited data on seroconversion rates, efficacy, and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer. Breakthrough infections after vaccination have also been reported, which could further strengthen the refusal behavior of specific populations to be immunized. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in real-world patients with advanced genitourinary cancers. Methods and results: A retrospective study of the 738 patients with advanced metastatic genitourinary malignancy was conducted at our genitourinary oncology clinic from October 2020 to September 2021, out of which 462 patients (62.6%) were vaccinated. During the study period, two vaccinated, and six unvaccinated patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (breakthrough infection rate: 0.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.027). Vaccine protection against infection was 81.8% (95% CI: 0.04-0.98). One vaccinated and 4 unvaccinated patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (0.2% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.048). Vaccine effectiveness in preventing hospitalization was 85.7% (95% CI: 0.02-1.33). Within one month of vaccination, 1.5% of patients (n = 7) had emergency visits, 0.8% (n = 4) were hospitalized for any reason, and of these, 3 (0.6%) experienced a delay in the receipt of their cancer therapy. Conclusion: In our hypothesis-generating data among patients with advanced genitourinary cancers, COVID-19 vaccination was efficacious and safe and was rarely associated with treatment disruptions. These data should help improve the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the general population and patients with cancer. The vaccine effectiveness in our patients is comparable with existing published data without cancer.