Bone health and body composition in prostate cancer: Meet-URO and AIOM consensus about prevention and management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) treatments are associated with a detrimental impact on bone health (BH) and body composition. However, the evidence on these issues is limited and contradictory. This consensus, based on the Delphi method, provides further guidance on BH management in PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2023, a survey made up of 37 questions and 74 statements was developed by a group of oncologists and endocrinologists with expertise in PCa and BH. In June 2023, 67 selected Italian experts, belonging to the Italian scientific societies Italian Association of Medical Oncology and Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO), were invited by e-mail to complete it, rating their strength of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale. An agreement ≥75% defined the statement as accepted. RESULTS: In non-metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, the panel agreed that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone implies sufficient fracture risk to warrant antifracture therapy with bone-targeting agents (BTAs) for cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) prevention (79%). Therefore, no consensus was reached (48%) for the treatment with BTAs of patients receiving short-term ADT (<6 months). All patients receiving active treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (75%), non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa (89%) and metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) without bone metastases (84%) should be treated with BTAs at the doses and schedule for CTIBL prevention. All mCRPC patients with bone metastasis should be treated with BTAs to reduce skeletal-related events (94%). In all settings, the panel analyzed the type and timing of treatments and examinations to carry out for BH monitoring. The panel agreed on the higher risk of sarcopenic obesity of these patients and its correlation with bone fragility. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights areas lacking major agreement, like non-metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients undergoing short-term ADT. Evaluation of these issues in prospective clinical trials and identification of early biomarkers of bone loss are particularly urgent.

Erdafitinib in BCG-treated high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with disease recurrence after bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment and who are ineligible for/refuse radical cystectomy. FGFR alterations are commonly detected in NMIBC. We evaluated the activity of oral erdafitinib, a selective pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus intravesical chemotherapy in patients with high-risk NMIBC and select FGFR3/2 alterations following recurrence after BCG treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with recurrent, BCG-treated, papillary-only high-risk NMIBC (high-grade Ta/T1) and select FGFR alterations refusing or ineligible for radical cystectomy were randomized to 6 mg daily oral erdafitinib or investigator's choice of intravesical chemotherapy (mitomycin C or gemcitabine). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The key secondary endpoint was safety. RESULTS: Study enrollment was discontinued due to slow accrual. Seventy-three patients were randomized 2 : 1 to erdafitinib (n = 49) and chemotherapy (n = 24). Median follow-up for RFS was 13.4 months for both groups. Median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.9 months-not estimable] and was 11.6 months (95% CI 6.4-20.1 months) for chemotherapy, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI 0.1-0.6; nominal P value = 0.0008). In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib prolonged RFS compared with intravesical chemotherapy in patients with papillary-only, high-risk NMIBC harboring FGFR alterations who had disease recurrence after BCG therapy and refused or were ineligible for radical cystectomy.

An Italian multicenter retrospective real-life analysis of patients with brain metastases from renal cell carcinoma: the BMRCC study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of patients with brain-spread renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an unmet clinical need, although more recent therapeutic strategies have significantly improved RCC patients' life expectancy. Our multicenter, retrospective, observational study investigated a real-world cohort of patients with brain metastases (BM) from RCC (BMRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 226 patients with histological diagnosis of RCC and radiological evidence of BM from 22 Italian institutions were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate models were performed to investigate the impact of clinicopathological features and multimodal treatments on both overall survival (OS) from the BM diagnosis and intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS). RESULTS: The median OS from the BM diagnosis was 18.8 months (interquartile range: 6.2-43 months). Multivariate analysis confirmed the following as positive independent prognostic factors: a Karnofsky Performance Status >70% [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.92, P = 0.0026] and a single BM (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.86, P = 0. 0310); in contrast, the following were confirmed as worse prognosis factors: progressive extracranial disease (HR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.003-2.74, P = 0.00181) and only one line of systemic therapy after the BM occurrence (HR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.62-5.49, P = 0.029). Subgroup analyses showed no difference in iPFS according to the type of the first systemic treatment [immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT)] carried out after the BM diagnosis (HR = 1.033, 95% CI 0.565-1.889, P = 0.16), and revealed that external radiation therapy (eRT) significantly prolonged iPFS when combined with IT (10.7 months, 95% CI 4.9-48 months, P = 0.0321) and not when combined with TT (9.01 months, 95% CI 2.7-21.2 months, P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a potential additive effect in terms of iPFS for eRT combined with IT and encourage a more intensive multimodal therapeutic strategy in a multidisciplinary context to improve the survival of BMRCC patients.

Validation of the Meet-URO score in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab in the Italian Expanded Access Program.

BACKGROUND: The Meet-URO score allowed a more accurate prognostication than the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) for patients with pre-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by adding the pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and presence of bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis was carried out to validate the Meet-URO score on the overall survival (OS) of patients with IMDC intermediate-poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab within the prospective Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). We additionally considered progression-free survival (PFS) and disease response rates. Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of survival prediction. RESULTS: Overall the EAP included 306 patients, with a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median OS was not reached, 1-year OS was 66.8% and median PFS was 7.9 months. By univariable analysis, both the IMDC score and the two additional variables of the Meet-URO score were associated with either OS or PFS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The four Meet-URO risk groups (G) had 1-year OS of 92%, 72%, 50% and 21% for G2 (29.1% of patients), G3 (28.8%), G4 (33.0%) and G5 (9.1%), respectively. OS was significantly shorter in each consecutive G (P = 0.001 for G3, P < 0.001 for both G4 and G5 compared to G2). Similarly, Meet-URO Gs 2-5 showed decreasing median PFS and response rates. The Meet-URO score showed the highest c-index for both OS (0.73) and PFS (0.67). Limitations include the post hoc nature of this analysis and the lack of a comparative arm to assess predictive value. CONCLUSION: The Meet-URO score appeared to show better prognostic classification than the IMDC alone in patients with mRCC at IMDC intermediate-poor risk treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab.

Real-world experience of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: long-term results of the prospective ABItude study.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world data exist on the effectiveness and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone hereafter) in the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) naive to chemotherapy. Most of the few available studies had a retrospective design and included a small number of patients. In the interim analysis of the ABItude study, abiraterone showed good clinical effectiveness and safety profile in the chemotherapy-naive setting over a median follow-up of 18 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone as for clinical practice in the Italian, observational, prospective, multicentric ABItude study. mCRPC patients were enrolled at abiraterone start (February 2016-June 2017) and followed up for 3 years; clinical endpoints and PROs, including quality of life (QoL) and pain, were prospectively collected. Kaplan-Meier curves were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 481 patients enrolled, 454 were assessable for final study analyses. At abiraterone start, the median age was 77 years, with 58.6% elderly patients and 69% having at least one comorbidity (57.5% cardiovascular diseases). Visceral metastases were present in 8.4% of patients. Over a median follow-up of 24.8 months, median progression-free survival (any progression reported by the investigators), time to abiraterone discontinuation, and overall survival were, respectively, 17.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.1-19.4 months], 16.0 months (95% CI 13.1-18.2 months), and 37.3 months (95% CI 36.5 months-not estimable); 64.2% of patients achieved ≥50% reduction in prostate-specific antigen. QoL assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level, and European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale remained stable during treatment. Median time to pain progression according to Brief Pain Inventory data was 31.1 months (95% CI 24.8 months-not estimable). Sixty-two patients (13.1%) had at least one adverse drug reaction (ADR) and 8 (1.7%) one serious ADR. CONCLUSION: With longer follow-up, abiraterone therapy remains safe, well tolerated, and active in a large unselected population.

PARP inhibitors and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: uture directions and pitfalls.

PARP inhibitors (PARPi) gained major interest among prostate cancer researchers in the last few years, thanks to the outstanding results coming from the PROfound an TRITON2 studies. Following that, PARPi gained approval also in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with mutations in homologous repair (HR) - related genes. Nevertheless, some questions still remain unanswered concerning the management of drug resistance and PARPi-sensitivity in patients harboring alterations in various DNA damage response (DDR) related genes, not only BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this perspective article we focus on the key issues concerning PARPi in mCRPC, specifically those related to drug sensitivity and resistance mechanisms, exploring the possible role of combination therapeutic approaches and trying to depict potential future addresses in translational oncology research.

Efficacy of VEGFR-TKIs plus immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients with favorable IMDC prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) with VEGFR-TKIs as first-line therapy significantly improve outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. The benefit of these combinations is well evident in the IMDC intermediate- and poor-risk population, but remains unclear in the subgroup of patients with favorable prognosis. Our meta-analysis aims at evaluating whether the addition of ICIs to VEGFR-TKIs is able to improve the outcome compared to VEGFR-TKIs alone in mRCC patients with favorable prognosis. METHODS: This meta-analysis searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ASCO Meeting abstracts for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of VEGFR-TKI + ICI in mRCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Summary hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using random- or fixed-effects models, depending on studies heterogeneity. RESULTS: Four RCTs were selected. VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations improved PFS compared to sunitinib (fixed-effect, HR = 0.63; p < 0.00001). However, VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations did not significantly prolong OS (fixed-effect; HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.74-1.33; p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: VEGFR-TKI + ICI combinations improved PFS but not OS as first-line therapy for mRCC patients with favorable IMDC prognosis. Longer follow-up and further studies will increase the power of our analysis, suggesting the best first-line therapy for mRCC patients with favorable prognosis.

Radical metastasectomy followed by sorafenib versus observation in patients withclear cell renal cell carcinoma: extended follow -up of efficacy results from the randomized phase II RESORT trial.

Background: The RESORT trial showed no longer relapse free survival (RFS) with sorafenib following radical metastasectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We present the updated 42-month follow-up data.Methods: The phase II RESORT trial randomized patients to sorafenib or observation within 12 weeks from surgery. RFS was the primary endpoint.Results: We analyzed 68 patients (32 in sorafenib and 36 in the observation arm), randomized between November 2012 and November 2017. Eighty-one percent in the sorafenib arm and 80% in the observation arm had one metastasis . At a median follow-up of 42 months (interquartile range 31-58), in the observation arm the median RFS was 35 months, RFS probability was 57% (95% CI 42-76%) at 24 and 44% (95% CI 30-65%) at 48 months. In the sorafenib arm, median RFS was 21 months, RFS probability was 50% (95% CI 34-71%) at 24 and 32% (95% CI 18-57%) at 48 months (p = 0.342;HR 1.35;95% CI 0.72-2.54). Forty-seven percent and 37.5% of the patients in the two arms, respectively, are disease free. The site of relapses was independent of the previous metastasectomy site.Expert commentary: Sorafenib after metastasectomy did not improve RFS, but surgery in selected patients should be considered in order to potentially improve survival.Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT0144480.

Re-treatment with radium-223: first experience from an international, open-label, phase I/II study in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Six radium-223 injections at 4-week intervals is indicated for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases. However, patients usually develop disease progression after initial treatment. This prospective phase I/II study assessed re-treatment safety and efficacy of up to six additional radium-223 injections. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases and six initial radium-223 injections with no on-treatment bone progression; all had subsequent radiologic or clinical progression. Concomitant agents were allowed at investigator discretion, excluding chemotherapy and initiation of new abiraterone or enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was safety; additional exploratory endpoints included time to radiographic bone progression, time to total alkaline phosphatase and prostate-specific antigen progression, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), SSE-free survival, and time to pain progression. RESULTS: Among 44 patients, 29 (66%) received all six re-treatment injections. Median time from end of initial radium-223 treatment was 6 months. Forty-one (93%) reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event. No grade 4-5 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events occurred. Only one (2%) patient had radiographic bone progression; eight (18%) had radiographic soft tissue tumor progression (three lymph node and five visceral metastases). Median times to total alkaline phosphatase and prostate-specific antigen progression were not reached and 2.2 months, respectively. Median radiographic progression-free survival was 9.9 months (12.8-month maximum follow-up). Five (11%) patients died and eight (18%) experienced first SSEs. Median overall survival, time to first SSE, and SSE-free survival were not reached. Five (14%) of 36 evaluable patients (baseline worst pain score ≤7) had pain progression. After 2 years of follow-up, 28 (64%) patients died, and the median overall survival was 24.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with a second course of six radium-223 injections after disease progression is well tolerated, with minimal hematologic toxicity and low radiographic bone progression rates in this small study with limited follow-up. Favorable safety and early effects on disease progression indicate that radium-223 re-treatment is feasible and warrants further evaluation in larger prospective trials.

Sunitinib administered on 2/1 schedule in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the RAINBOW analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line sunitinib is recommended in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but it is frequently associated with relevant toxicities and subsequent dose reductions. Alternative schedules, such as 2-week-on treatment and 1-week-off (2/1 schedule), might improve tolerability. We evaluated the safety and outcomes of this schedule in a large multicenter analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, multicenter analysis of mRCC patients treated with first-line sunitinib on a 2/1 schedule. Data of 249 patients were reviewed: 208 cases who started sunitinib on the 4/2 schedule (full dosage: 188/208, 90.4%) and thereafter switched to the 2/1 schedule for toxicity (group 4/2 → 2/1) and 41 patients who started first-line sunitinib with the 2/1 schedule because of suboptimal clinical conditions (group 2/1). A total of 211 consecutive patients treated with the 4/2 schedule in another institution served as external controls. Safety was the primary end point. Treatment duration (TD), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also analyzed. RESULTS: In group 4/2 → 2/1, the overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicities was significantly reduced (from 45.7% to 8.2%, P < 0.001) after the switch to 2/1 schedule. This advantage was maintained also in the 106/188 cases (56.4%) who maintained the full dosage. Fatigue, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia were less frequent. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the negatively selected group 2/1 (only 73.2% starting at full dose) was 26.8%, similar to what observed in the external control group (29.4%). Median TD was 28.2 months in the 4/2 → 2/1 group (total time spent with both schedules), 7.8 months in the 2/1 group and 9.7 months in external controls. Median PFS was 30.2, 10.4 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median OS was not reached, 23.2 and 27.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: mRCC patients who moved to a modified 2/1 schedule of sunitinib experience an improved safety profile compared with that observed during the initial 4/2 schedule.

Overall survival for sorafenib plus interleukin-2 compared with sorafenib alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): final results of the ROSORC trial.

BACKGROUND: The ROSORC trial, a randomised, phase II trial comparing sorafenib plus interleukin (IL-2) versus sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) failed to demonstrate differences in progression-free survival (PFS). Updated overall survival (OS) results are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 128 patients were randomised to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily plus subcutaneous IL-2 4.5 million international units (MIU) five times per week for 6 weeks every 8 weeks (arm A) or sorafenib alone (arm B). OS was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the two-sided log-rank test. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 58 months (interquartile range: 28-63 months), the median OS was 38 and 33 months in arms A and B, respectively (P = 0.667). The 5-year OS was 26.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9-43.5) and 23.1% (95% CI 13.2-40.5) for the combination- and single-agent arm, respectively. Most of the patients who were refractory to first-line treatment were subsequently treated with different targeted agents; they had a median survival greater than expected. CONCLUSIONS: This outcome suggests a synergistic effect of the subsequent therapies following sorafenib failure. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00609401.

Are post-docetaxel treatments effective in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and performance of 2? A meta-analysis of published trials.

BACKGROUND: About 20% of patients with prostate cancer have an ECOG performance status (PS) 2 at diagnosis. We investigate if current treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) may decrease the risk of death even in patients with ECOG PS of 2. METHODS: PubMed was reviewed for phase III randomized trials in patients with CRPC progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. Characteristics of each study and the relative hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival and 95% confidence interval (CI) were collected. Summary HR was calculated using random- or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 3,149 patients was available for meta-analysis. In the overall population, the experimental treatments decrease the risk of death by 31% (HR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.63-0.76; P<0.001). The activity of experimental treatments was similar in 2,859 patients with ECOG-PS=0 or 1 with a reduced risk of death of 31% (HR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.62-0.76). A total of 290 patients (9.2%) had ECOG-PS=2 and experimental treatments decreased the risk of death by 26% (HR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.56-0.98; P=0.035) compared with the controls even in this sub-group. When patients were stratified by type of treatment, the reduction of the risk of death was confirmed for hormonal therapies: abiraterone and enzalutamide (HR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.52-0.99; P=0.046), but not for chemotherapy (HR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37; P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first study reporting a benefit in second-line setting for CRPC patients previously treated with docetaxel and poor PS.