Pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing on enzalutamide: cohorts 4 and 5 of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-199 study.

BACKGROUND: KEYNOTE-199 (NCT02787005) is a multicohort phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Results from cohorts 4 (C4) and 5 (C5) are presented. METHODS: Eligible patients had not received chemotherapy for mCRPC and had responded to enzalutamide prior to developing resistance as defined by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 guidelines. Patients with RECIST-measurable disease were enrolled in C4, and patients with bone-only or bone-predominant disease were enrolled in C5. All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤35 cycles with ongoing enzalutamide until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review in C4. Secondary end points included disease control rate (DCR), overall survival, and safety in each cohort and both cohorts combined. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were treated (C4, n = 81; C5, n = 45). Median age was 72 years (range 43-92), and 87.3% had received ≥6 months of enzalutamide prior to study entry. Confirmed ORR was 12.3% (95% CI 6.1-21.5%) for C4. Median duration of response in C4 was 8.1 months (range, 2.5+ to 15.2), and 5 of these patients experienced an objective response lasting ≥6 months. DCR was 53.1% (95% CI 41.7-64.3%) in C4 and 51.1% (95% CI 35.8-66.3%) in C5. Median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI 14.0-22.6) in C4 and 20.8 months (95% CI 14.1-28.9) in C5. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 35 patients (27.8%); 2 patients in C4 died from immune-related adverse events (myasthenic syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pembrolizumab to ongoing enzalutamide treatment in patients with mCRPC that progressed on enzalutamide after initial response demonstrated modest antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND ID: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02787005.

TAS0313 plus Pembrolizumab for Post-Chemotherapy Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Naïve Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TAS0313, a multi-epitope long peptide vaccine, plus pembrolizumab in post-chemotherapy immune checkpoint inhibitor-naïve patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC). TAS0313 9 mg was administered subcutaneously followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg on Day 1, and as monotherapy on Day 8 and 15 of Cycles 1 and 2, and Day 1 of subsequent cycles in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Biomarkers of response were assessed. In 36 patients enrolled, the ORR was 33.3% (complete response: 7 patients; partial response: 5 patients). Median PFS was 5.0 months; 6- and 12-month progression-free rates were 46.4% and 36.5%, respectively. Median OS was not reached; 6-, 12-, and 24-month OS rates were 83.3%, 72.2%, and 55.1%, respectively. In post hoc analysis, patients with a tumor infiltrating CD8+ lymphocyte (CD8+ TIL) count ≥99 and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥50 and lymphocyte count >1,380 cells/µL had higher ORRs and prolonged PFS versus patients with a CD8+ TIL count <99, PD-L1 CPS <50, and lymphocyte count ≤1,380 cells/µL. Thirty-four (94.4%) patients receiving combination therapy experienced treatment-related adverse events (AE), with pyrexia (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site reactions (n = 15, 41.7%), injection-site induration (n = 6, 16.7%), and malaise (n = 6, 16.7%) the most common. No grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs occurred in ≥10% of patients. TAS0313 plus pembrolizumab combination therapy showed promising efficacy and manageable safety in la/mUC. Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI-183824.

Real-world effectiveness of nivolumab and subsequent therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (POST-NIVO study): 36-month follow-up results of a clinical chart review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the long-term effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy and following subsequent therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Japanese real-world settings. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study, with a 36-month follow-up, and conducted in Japanese patients with mRCC who initiated nivolumab monotherapy between 1 Feb 2017 and 31 Oct 2017. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Of the 208 patients, 36.5% received nivolumab monotherapy as second-line, 30.8% as third-line, and 31.7% as fourth- or later-line therapy. By 36 months, 12.0% of patients continued nivolumab monotherapy; 88.0% discontinued, mainly because of disease progression (66.7%). The median (m) OS was not reached irrespective of treatment line, with a 36-month OS rate of 54.3% (second-line, 57.4%; third-line, 52.6%; fourth- or later-line, 52.9%). The ORR was 24.2% and five patients achieved complete response. The OS from first-line therapy was 8.9 years. In the 95 patients receiving therapy after nivolumab, 87.4% received vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, with mOS and mPFS of 27.4 and 8.1 months, respectively. Irrespective of treatment line, the mOS was not reached in patients with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable or intermediate risk at mRCC diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This 36-month real-world follow-up analysis showed a survival benefit of nivolumab monotherapy for patients with mRCC. The long-term effectiveness of sequential therapy from first-line therapy to therapy after nivolumab was also demonstrated. Additionally, nivolumab monotherapy was beneficial for patients with favorable IMDC risk at the time of mRCC diagnosis.

Development and validation of novel nomogram to identify the candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer patients in the robotic era.

OBJECTIVES: To determine candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection using a novel nomogram to assess the risk of lymph node invasion in Japanese prostate cancer patients in the robotic era. METHODS: A total of 538 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection in three hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Medical records were reviewed uniformly and the following data collected: prostate-specific antigen, age, clinical T stage, primary and secondary Gleason score at prostate biopsy, and percentage of positive core numbers. Finally, data from 434 patients were used for developing the nomogram and data from 104 patients were used for external validation. RESULTS: Lymph node invasion was detected in 47 (11%) and 16 (15%) patients in the development and validation set, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, prostate-specific antigen, clinical T stage ≥3, primary Gleason score, grade group 5, and percentage of positive cores were selected as variables to incorporate into the nomogram. The area under the curve values were 0.781 for the internal and 0.908 for the external validation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present nomogram can help urologists identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection concomitant with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy among patients with prostate cancer.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese patients from the CLEAR study.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated statistically significantly improved efficacy with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib, including progression-free survival and overall survival, in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. This subset analysis investigated efficacy and safety in Japanese patients randomized to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or sunitinib in the CLEAR study. METHODS: Progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor response, and safety were assessed in Japanese patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma randomized to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 42) or sunitinib (n = 31). Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by independent imaging review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 22.1 vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.74). Median overall survival was not estimable in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm and 30.6 months in the sunitinib arm (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.39-3.66). Overall survival adjusted for the imbalance of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic risk group favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.18-2.39). Objective response rate (69.0% vs. 45.2%; odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.03-7.10) was higher and median duration of response (20.3 vs. 9.1 months) was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95.2% versus 87.1% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib arms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a potential first-line treatment for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Subgroup analysis of the AFTER I-O study: a retrospective study on the efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immune-oncology therapy in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We performed subgroup analyses of the AFTER I-O study to clarify the association of time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and discontinuation reason of prior immune-oncology (I-O) therapy, and molecular targeted therapy (TT) regimen with the outcomes of TT after I-O. METHODS: The data of Japanese metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with TT after nivolumab (NIVO) (CheckMate 025) or NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI) (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. The objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of TT after I-O were analyzed by subgroups: TTF (<6 or ≥6 months) and discontinuation reason of prior I-O (progression or adverse events), and TT regimen (sunitinib or axitinib). We also analyzed PFS2 of prior I-O and OS from first-line therapy. RESULTS: The ORR and median PFS of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI among the subgroups was 17-36% and 20-44%, and 7.1-11.6 months and 16.3-not reached (NR), respectively. The median OS of TT after NIVO was longer in patients with longer TTF of NIVO and treated with axitinib. Conversely, median OS of TT after NIVO+IPI was similar among subgroups. The median PFS2 of NIVO and NIVO+IPI was 36.7 and 32.0 months, respectively. The median OS from first-line therapy was 70.5 months for patients treated with NIVO and NR with NIVO+IPI. The safety profile of each TT after each I-O was similar to previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI was favorable regardless of the TTF and discontinuation reason of prior I-O, and TT regimen.

Enzalutamide with androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A subgroup analysis of the phase III ARCHES study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the Japanese subgroup in the phase III, randomized, multinational ARCHES study (NCT02677896) was carried out. Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized to receive enzalutamide or a placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. The primary end-point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end-points included time to prostate-specific antigen progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 1150 patients, 92 Japanese patients were randomized to enzalutamide (n = 36) or a placebo (n = 56), plus androgen deprivation therapy; none received prior docetaxel. Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death in Japanese patients by 61% versus the placebo, similar to the overall population. Similar results were observed with secondary end-points, showing clinical benefit of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients. Overall survival data were immature. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 47% and 25% of the enzalutamide and placebo groups, respectively. Nasopharyngitis, hypertension and abnormal hepatic function were reported more frequently in Japanese patients versus the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has clinical benefit with a tolerable safety profile in Japanese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, consistent with the overall population.

Efficacy and safety of subsequent molecular targeted therapy after immuno-checkpoint therapy, retrospective study of Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AFTER I-O study).

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines for treatment of mRCC recommend nivolumab monotherapy (NIVO) for treated patients, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy (NIVO+IPI) for untreated IMDC intermediate and poor-risk mRCC patients. Although molecular-targeted therapies (TTs) such as VEGFR-TKIs and mTORi are recommended as subsequent therapy after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, their efficacy and safety remain unclear. METHODS: Outcome of Japanese patients with mRCC who received TT after NIVO (CheckMate 025) or NIVO+IPI (CheckMate 214) were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR of the first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI. Secondary endpoints included TFS, PFS, OS and safety of TTs. RESULTS: Twenty six patients in CheckMate 025 and 19 patients in CheckMate 214 from 20 centers in Japan were analyzed. As the first subsequent TT after NIVO or NIVO+IPI, axitinib was the most frequently treated regimen for both CheckMate 025 (54%) and CheckMate 214 (47%) patients. The ORRs of TT after NIVO and NIVO+IPI were 27 and 32% (all risks), and median PFSs were 8.9 and 16.3 months, respectively. During the treatment of first TT after either NIVO or NIVO+IPI, 98% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3-4 events in 51% of patients, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: TTs have favorable antitumor activity in patients with mRCC after ICI, possibly via changing the mechanism of action. Safety signals of TTs after ICI were similar to previous reports. These results indicate that sequential TTs after ICI may contribute for long survival benefit.

[CLINICAL STUDY OF OPEN RADICAL CYSTECTOMY AND ILEAL CONDUIT CONSTRUCTION FOR BLADDER CANCER: RESULTS OF 15-YEAR SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE].

(Objective) We retrospectively analyzed clinical outcome, prognostic factors and adjuvant chemotherapy for bladder cancer patients with open radical cystectomy (ORC) combined with ileal conduit construction (ICC). (Patients and methods) From February 2005 to February 2019, 179 patients underwent ORC and ICC for invasive bladder cancer or BCG unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. We investigated intraoperative and early postoperative complications, overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and poor prognostic factors affecting OS. Furthermore, we evaluated the prognosis of patients with pT3,4 or pN1-3 depending on adjuvant chemotherapy. (Results) Clavien-Dindo Grade 4 or 5 complications were not occurred. The 5-year and 10-year OS probability were 71.1% and 57.4%, respectively, while the 5-year and 10-year CSS probability were 76.5% and 71.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that male (HR = 2.70, 95%CI [0.97-7.51]), pT3,4 (HR = 1.83, 95%CI [1.05-3.21]), and pN1-3 (HR = 2.85, 95%CI [1.62-5.03]) were independent poor prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved OS (p = 0.03) and CSS (p = 0.017) in pN1-3 patients. (Conclusion) ORC combined with ICC was an effective operative method, and good results were obtained. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be effective for patients with positive regional lymph nodes.

A randomized phase III trial of personalized peptide vaccination for castration­resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel.

First­line chemotherapy for men with metastatic castration­resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has been employed to improve overall survival (OS) and progression­free survival (PFS). However, several new agents for CRPC after first­line chemotherapy prolonged survival by only a few months. To develop a new treatment modality, we conducted a phase III randomized trial of personalized peptide vaccination (PPV) for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)­A24­positive patients with castration­resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) for whom docetaxel chemotherapy failed. This randomized, double­blind, placebo­controlled, phase III trial was carried out at 68 medical centers in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to receive PPV or placebo. Four of 12 warehouse peptides selected based on pre­existing peptide­specific immunoglobulin G levels or the corresponding placebo were subcutaneously injected in 6 doses weekly and then bi­weekly following the maximum of 30 doses until disease progression. The primary end­point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed by the full analysis set. Between August 2013 and April 2016, 310 patients were randomly assigned, and 306 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. The estimated median OS was 16.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13­18.2] with PPV and 16.9 months (95% CI, 13.1­20.4) with placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 1.04, 95% CI, 0.80­1.37; P=0.77]. Grade ≥3 adverse events were observed in 41% of both groups. The analysis of treatment arm effects among subgroups revealed lower HRs for OS in favor of the PPV arm in patients with <64% neutrophils (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.33­0.93; P=0.03) or ≥26% lymphocytes (HR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.52­0.92; P=0.02) at baseline. PPV did not prolong OS in HLA­A24­positive patients with CRPC progressing after docetaxel chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis suggested that the patients with a lower proportion of neutrophils or a higher proportion of lymphocytes at baseline can receive survival benefits from PPV treatment.

Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a sub-group analysis of the phase III ARAMIS trial.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, has been approved for treating nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), based on significant improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the ARAMIS clinical trial. Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Japanese patients are reported here. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 1509 patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤ 10 months were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or matched placebo while continuing androgen deprivation therapy. The primary endpoint was MFS. RESULTS: In Japan, 95 patients were enrolled and randomized to darolutamide (n = 62) or placebo (n = 33). At the primary analysis (cut-off date: September 3, 2018), after 20 primary end-point events had occurred, median MFS was not reached with darolutamide vs. 18.2 months with placebo (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11-0.70). Median OS was not reached due to limited numbers of events in both groups but favored darolutamide in the Japanese subgroup. Time to pain progression, time to PSA progression, and PSA response also favored darolutamide. Among Japanese patients randomized to darolutamide vs. placebo, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 85.5 vs. 63.6%, and incidences of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs were 8.1 vs. 6.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy outcomes favored darolutamide in Japanese patients with nmCRPC, supporting the clinical benefit of darolutamide in this patient population. Darolutamide was well tolerated; however, due to the small sample size, it is impossible to conclude with certainty whether differences in the safety profile exist between Japanese and overall ARAMIS populations.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

A multicenter retrospective study of nivolumab monotherapy in previously treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: interim analysis of Japanese real-world data.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III clinical trial, CheckMate 025, treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with nivolumab demonstrated superior efficacy over everolimus. However, as the clinical trial excluded patients with specific complications and poor performance status (PS), the effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in clinical practice, in which patients with various clinical complications are treated, is unclear. This study explored real-world nivolumab treatment in Japanese mRCC patients. METHODS: This is an interim analysis of a multicenter, non-interventional, medical record review study (minimum follow-up: 9 months). All eligible Japanese mRCC patients who first received nivolumab between February and October 2017 were included; data cut-off was April 2019. We analyzed nivolumab treatment patterns, efficacy (including overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response) and safety (including immune-related adverse events). RESULTS: Of 208 evaluable patients, 31.7% received nivolumab as fourth- or later line of treatment. At data cut-off, 26.9% of patients were continuing nivolumab treatment. The major reason for discontinuation was disease progression (n = 100, 65.8%). Median overall survival was not reached; the 12-month survival rate was 75.6%. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months, the objective response rate was 22.6%, and median duration of response was 13.3 months. Patients who were excluded or limited in number in CheckMate 025, such as those with non-clear cell RCC or poor PS, also received benefits from nivolumab treatment. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 27.4% of patients (grade ≥ 3, 10.1%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab was effective and well-tolerated in real-world Japanese mRCC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000033312.

Prognostic factors influencing overall survival in de novo oligometastatic prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic cancer has been suggested as an intermediate state between localized disease and wide-ranging metastases. The clinical significance of local treatment in oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa) has been a recent topic of interest. However, standard definitions of oligometastasis are lacking. Here we studied risk factors among Japanese de novo oligometastatic patients with PCa. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed clinical data from 264 patients, including locally advanced (T3 or T4N0M0) cancer, lymph-node-positive cancer (Tany N1M0), and cancer with ≤10 bone metastases. All patients received androgen deprivation therapy only. The number of bone metastases and clinical factors were evaluated in association with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The Mann-Whitney U test, Cox proportional hazard models, and Kaplan-Meier methods were used as statistical analyses. RESULTS: Median age, PSA at baseline and OS were 74 years, 55.2 ng/mL, and 129.0 months, respectively. The cutoff for the number of bone metastases having the greatest impact on OS was ≥3 (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.67; P = .0001). In multivariate analysis, non-regional lymph node (LN) metastases (HR: 2.15; P = .0222), ISUP grade group (GG) 5 (HR: 2.04; P = .0186) and ≥3 bone metastases (HR: 1.82; P = .0390) were independent predictors of OS. In risk classification based on these factors, OS and PFS were significantly classifiable into poor (2-3 factors), intermediate (1 factor), and good (no factors) risk groups (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Not only the number of bone metastases, but also non-regional LN metastases predict OS in patients with de novo oligometastatic PCa.

Efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer: final subgroup analysis of LATITUDE, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: LATITUDE was a randomized, double-blind, international and phase 3 study of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer. In the first interim analysis of LATITUDE (clinical cutoff date: 31 October 2016), significant prolongation in overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival (co-primary endpoints) was observed when compared with placebo. The results of the Japanese subgroup analysis of LATITUDE first interim analysis were consistent with those of the overall population. In this study, overall survival and safety results from the final analysis of the Japanese subgroup of the LATITUDE study are presented (clinical cutoff date: 15 August 2018). METHODS: Abiraterone acetate (1000 mg/day) and prednisone (5 mg/day) were administered orally in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group, and matching placebos in the placebo group. RESULTS: Of the 1199 patients included in LATITUDE, 70 constituted the Japanese subgroup (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone: n = 35, placebo: n = 35). Following a median (range) follow-up of 56.6 (2.5, 64.2) months, the median overall survival was not reached in both the treatment arms of the Japanese subgroup (hazard ratio: 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.27-1.42; nominal P = 0.2502). A total of 23 deaths (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone: 9 [25.7%], placebo group: 14 [40.0%]) were reported in Japanese subgroup. Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 24 (68.6%) and 9 (25.7%) patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this Japanese subgroup analysis, addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer. Survival benefits observed in the Japanese subgroup first interim analysis were sustained long-term and were consistent with the overall population.

Pembrolizumab for Treatment-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Multicohort, Open-Label Phase II KEYNOTE-199 Study.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab has previously shown antitumor activity against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we assessed the antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in three parallel cohorts of a larger mCRPC population. METHODS: The phase II KEYNOTE-199 study included three cohorts of patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel and one or more targeted endocrine therapies. Cohorts 1 and 2 enrolled patients with RECIST-measurable PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative disease, respectively. Cohort 3 enrolled patients with bone-predominant disease, regardless of PD-L1 expression. All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 assessed by central review in cohorts 1 and 2. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled: 133 in cohort 1, 66 in cohort 2, and 59 in cohort 3. Objective response rate was 5% (95% CI, 2% to 11%) in cohort 1 and 3% (95% CI, < 1% to 11%) in cohort 2. Median duration of response was not reached (range, 1.9 to ≥ 21.8 months) and 10.6 months (range, 4.4 to 16.8 months), respectively. Disease control rate was 10% in cohort 1, 9% in cohort 2, and 22% in cohort 3. Median OS was 9.5 months in cohort 1, 7.9 months in cohort 2, and 14.1 months in cohort 3. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 60% of patients, were of grade 3 to 5 severity in 15%, and led to discontinuation of treatment in 5%. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in a subset of patients with RECIST-measurable and bone-predominant mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel and targeted endocrine therapy. Observed responses seem to be durable, and OS estimates are encouraging.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer in Japanese patients: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 trial.

BACKGROUND: The open-label, randomized, active-controlled KEYNOTE-045 study (NCT02256436) showed that second-line pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) that progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, compared with standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine). Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with bladder cancer in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis was performed in the subgroup of Japanese patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE-045 study. Coprimary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: Fifty-two Japanese patients (pembrolizumab, n = 30; chemotherapy, n = 22) were followed up for a median of 26.1 months. Patients who received pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy had a 19% lower risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.44-1.50); after adjusting for baseline covariates, the HR for OS was 0.61 (95% CI 0.32-1.15). The 24-month OS rate was higher with pembrolizumab (26.9% vs 14.3%). PFS was 2.0 and 4.9 months for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.71, 95% CI 0.95-3.08). ORR was similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (20.0% vs 18.2%); durability of response was higher with pembrolizumab: 67% and 33% of patients, respectively, maintained a response for > 12 months. Treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3-5 events, occurred less frequently with pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC that progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy in the overall population and in the Japanese subgroup; safety profile was consistent with that previously observed for pembrolizumab.

Impact of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients undergoing cabazitaxel treatment: an open-label study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel is an efficacious treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have previously progressed on docetaxel, but febrile neutropenia during the first cycle is a frequent complication. Asian patients are at increased risk of febrile neutropenia. Although primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can reduce the incidence, its efficacy has not been prospectively demonstrated in Japanese patients with cabazitaxel treatment. METHODS: PEGAZUS, a prospective, single-arm study conducted at eight clinical sites in Japan, enrolled 21 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, up to 10 cycles. Oral prednisolone 10 mg was taken daily. Pegfilgrastim 3.6 mg was administered at least 24 h after the cabazitaxel infusion. The primary endpoint was the incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first cycle. RESULTS: The median number of treatment cycles was seven. The relative dose intensity of cabazitaxel was 67.4% (range, 53.2-91.3%). Two of 21 patients (9.5%) experienced febrile neutropenia in the first cycle. This rate was lower than the rate (43%) previously observed without prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in a similar patient population. Six patients showed a prostate-specific antigen response (28.6%). Three of four patients evaluable for tumor response had stable disease and one had progressive disease. Grade ≥3 diarrhea was not observed. Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor significantly reduced the incidence of febrile neutropenia in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is safe and effective for Japanese patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have previously progressed on docetaxel. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02441894).

Prognostic factors and survival in Japanese patients with brain metastasis from renal cell cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with brain metastasis from renal cell carcinoma have poor outcomes despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, factors affecting such poor outcomes are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with overall survival in renal cell carcinoma patients with brain metastasis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 50 consecutive patients with brain metastasis from renal cell carcinoma at our institution between 1988 and 2017. The evaluated prognostic factors for overall survival included clinicopathological factors at diagnosis, treatment for brain metastasis, and the Graded Prognostic Assessment score of renal cell carcinoma. The associations between preoperative clinicopathological factors and overall survival were assessed using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models for univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included, among whom 39 died during follow-up. The median follow-up was 8.2 months. The median survival time was 8.2 months (95% confidence interval 5.5-13.7). A Graded Prognostic Assessment score ≤ 2 (hazard ratio 1.967; 95% confidence interval 1.024-3.892; P = 0.042), the presence of sarcomatoid components (hazard ratio 3.299; 95% confidence interval 1.424-7.193; P = 0.007), and no treatment for brain metastasis (hazard ratio 2.594; 95% confidence interval 1.033-5.858; P = 0.043) were independently associated with poor prognosis in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with renal cell carcinoma who develop brain metastasis have poor overall survival. The Graded Prognostic Assessment score, sarcomatoid components, and treatment for brain metastasis from renal cell carcinoma were independent factors associated with prognosis.