Randomized Phase III Study of Enzalutamide Compared With Enzalutamide Plus Abiraterone for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (Alliance A031201 Trial).

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS: In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION: The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.

Orteronel for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Trial (SWOG-1216).

PURPOSE: Orteronel (TAK-700) is a nonsteroidal 17,20-lyase inhibitor suppressing androgen synthesis. We evaluated the clinical benefit of orteronel when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label randomized phase III study, patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to ADT with orteronel (300 mg oral twice daily; experimental arm) or ADT with bicalutamide (50 mg oral once daily; control arm). The primary objective was the comparison of overall survival (OS), targeting a 33% improvement in median survival. A stratified log-rank test with a one-sided P ≤ .022 would indicate statistical significance. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 7 months (≤ 0.2 v 0.2 to ≤ 4 v > 4 ng/mL), and adverse event profile. RESULTS: Among 1,279 patients included in the analysis, 638 were randomly assigned to the ADT plus orteronel arm and 641 to the control arm. The median age was 68 years; 49% had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, there was a significant improvement in PFS (median 47.6 v 23.0 months, hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67; P < .0001) and PSA response at 7 months (P < .0001), but not in OS (median 81.1 v 70.2 months, hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .040, one-sided). More grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in the experimental versus the control arms (43% v 14%). Postprotocol life-prolonging therapy was received by 77.4% of patients in the control arm and 61.3% of patients in the orteronel arm. CONCLUSION: The study did not meet the primary end point of improved OS with orteronel. The lack of correlation of PFS and PSA response with OS raises concerns over assumption of their consistent surrogacy for OS in the context of extensive postprotocol therapy in this setting.

Vorolanib (X-82), an oral anti-VEGFR/PDGFR/CSF1R tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with everolimus in solid tumors: results of a phase I study.

Background Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combined with mTOR inhibitors, like everolimus, result in significant responses and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) [1]. However, everolimus doses >5 mg are often not tolerated when combined with other TKIs2,3. Vorolanib (X-82), an oral anti-VEGFR/platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)/colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) multitarget TKI, has a short half-life and limited tissue accumulation. We conducted a Phase 1 study of vorolanib with everolimus (10 mg daily) in patients with solid tumors. Methods A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized to determine dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of vorolanib/everolimus. Oral vorolanib at 100, 150, 200, 300, or 400 mg was combined with 10 mg oral everolimus daily. The phase 2 portion was terminated after enrolling two patients due to funding. Results Eighteen patients were evaluable for DLT among 22 treated subjects. Observed DLTs were grade 3 fatigue, hypophosphatemia, and mucositis. The RP2D is vorolanib 300 mg with everolimus 10 mg daily. In 15 patients evaluable for response, three had partial response (PR; 2 RCC, 1 neuroendocrine tumor [NET]) and eight had stable disease (SD; 2 RCC, 6 NET). Conclusions Vorolanib can safely be combined with everolimus. Encouraging activity is seen in RCC and NET. Further studies are warranted. Trial Registration Number: NCT01784861.

Management of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer During a Pandemic: Impact of Treatment Delay on Survival Outcomes for Patients Treated With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making to ensure that the benefit of early intervention for muscle-invasive bladder cancer exceeds the risk of contracting COVID-19 in the clinical setting. It is unknown whether treatment delays for patients eligible for curative chemoradiation (CRT) compromise long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate whether there is an association between a ≥ 90-day delay from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in initiating CRT and overall survival. We included patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle-invasive bladder cancer from 2004 to 2015 who underwent TURBT and curative-intent concurrent CRT. Patients were grouped on the basis of timing of CRT: ≤ 89 days after TURBT (earlier) vs. ≥ 90 and < 180 days after TURBT (delayed). RESULTS: A total of 1387 (87.5%) received earlier CRT (median, 45 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 34-59 days), and 197 (12.5%) received delayed CRT (median, 111 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 98-130 days). Median overall survival was 29.0 months (95% CI, 26.0-32.0) versus 27.0 months (95% CI, 19.75-34.24) for earlier and delayed CRT (P = .94). On multivariable analysis, delayed CRT was not associated with an overall survival difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although these results are limited and require validation, short, strategic treatment delays during a pandemic can be considered on the basis of clinician judgment.

Management of Clinical Stage I Germ Cell Tumors.

Experience demonstrates multiple paths to cure for patients with clinical stage I testicular cancer. Because all options should provide a long-term disease-free rate near 100%, overall survival is no longer relevant in decision making, allowing practitioners to factor in quality of life, toxicity, cost, and impact on compliance. Surveillance for clinical stage I seminoma and clinical stage I nonseminoma has become the preferred option. The contrarian view is that a risk-adapted approach should persist, with surveillance for low-risk individuals and active therapy high-risk individuals. However, results obtained in unselected patients provide a strong argument against the need for such an approach.

Effectiveness of postoperative radiotherapy after radical cystectomy for locally advanced bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local-regional failure (LF) for locally advanced bladder cancer (LABC) after radical cystectomy (RC) is common even with chemotherapy and is associated with high morbidity/mortality. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) can reduce LF and may enhance overall survival (OS) but has no defined role. We hypothesized that the addition of PORT would improve OS in LABC in a large nationwide oncology database. METHODS: We identified ≥ pT3pN0-3M0 LABC patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed 2004-2014 who underwent RC ± PORT. OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to identify predictors of OS. Propensity matching was performed to match RC patients who received PORT vs those who did not. RESULTS: 15,124 RC patients were identified with 512 (3.3%) receiving PORT. Median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2-21.8) for PORT vs 20.8 months (95% CI, 20.3-21.3) for no PORT (P = 0.178). In multivariable analysis, PORT was independently associated with improved OS: hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.97); P = 0.008. A one-to-three propensity match yielded 1,858 patients (24.9% receiving PORT and 75.1% without). In the propensity-matched cohort, median OS was 19.8 months (95% CI, 18.0-21.6) for PORT vs 16.9 months (95% CI, 15.6-18.1) for no PORT (P = 0.030). In the propensity-matched cohort of urothelial carcinoma patients (N = 1,460), PORT was associated with improved OS for pT4, pN+, and positive margins (P < 0.01 all). CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort, PORT was associated with improved OS in LABC. While the data should be interpreted cautiously, these results lend support to the use of PORT in selected patients with LABC, regardless of histology. Prospective trials of PORT are warranted.

A propensity analysis comparing definitive chemo-radiotherapy for muscle-invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder vs. urothelial carcinoma of the bladder using the National Cancer Database.

INTRODUCTION: Squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) is the second most common histology of primary bladder cancer, but still very limited information is known about its treatment outcomes. Most bladder cancer trials have excluded SqCC, and the current treatment paradigm for localized SqCC is extrapolated from results in urothelial carcinoma (UC). In particular, there is limited data on the efficacy of definitive chemo-radiotherapy (CRT). In this study, we compare overall survival outcomes between SqCC and UC patients treated with definitive CRT. MATERIALS/METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for muscle-invasive (cT2-T4 N0 M0) bladder cancer patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2013 who underwent concurrent CRT. Propensity matching was performed to match patients with SqCC to those with UC. OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, and the log-rank test and Cox regression were used for analyses. RESULTS: 3332 patients met inclusion criteria of which 79 (2.3%) had SqCC. 73.4% of SqCC patients had clinical T2 disease compared to 82.5% of UC patients. Unadjusted median OS for SqCC patients was 15.6 months (95% CI, 11.7-19.6) versus 29.1 months (95% CI, 27.5-30.7) for those with UC (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse OS included: SqCC histology [HR: 1.53 (95% CI, 1.19-1.97); P = 0.001], increasing age [HR: 1.02 (95% CI, 1.02-1.03); P < 0.0001], increasing clinical T-stage [HR: 1.21 (95% CI, 1.13-1.29); P < 0.0001], and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index [HR: 1.26 (95% CI, 1.18-1.33); P < 0.0001]. Seventy-seven SqCC patients were included in the propensity-matched analysis (154 total patients) with a median OS for SqCC patients of 15.1 months (95% CI, 11.1-18.9) vs. 30.4 months (95% CI, 19.4-41.4) for patients with UC (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to-date assessing survival outcomes for SqCC of the bladder treated with CRT. In this study, SqCC had worse overall survival compared to UC patients. Histology had a greater impact on survival than increasing T-stage, suggesting that histology should be an important factor when determining a patient's treatment strategy and that treatment intensification in this subgroup may be warranted.

Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial.

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Phase 2 Study of Weekly Paclitaxel Plus Estramustine in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Carcinoma: ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1898) Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This multicenter phase 2 study assessed the combination of estramustine and weekly paclitaxel with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 77 patients who had received no prior chemotherapy for CRPC between 1998 and 2000; a total of 74 subjects were eligible for the study. Each 8-week cycle included paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 provided intravenously weekly for 6 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy and oral estramustine 280 mg twice daily for 3 days beginning 24 hours before the first dose of paclitaxel. The primary end point was rate of objective or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response at 16 weeks. A 50% response rate was considered of further interest. RESULTS: Eligible patients received a median of 3 cycles (range, 1-10 cycles). The response rate among patients with measurable disease was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-52). The PSA response rate was 58% (95% CI, 47-70). Clinical benefit rate was 45% (95% CI, 33-57). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.4-6.7). The median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI, 14.6-20.8). The most common clinical grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue (14%) and sensory neuropathy (7%). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included lymphopenia (21%) and anemia (9%). There was one toxicity-related death. Quality-of-life scores improved by week 8, but the change was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The combination has activity defined by PSA declines in CRPC but did not meet the protocol-specified end point for efficacy as defined by objective response rate. Since this study was conducted, more effective, better-tolerated regimens have been developed.

Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. FUNDING: Exelixis Inc.

Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline Amendment 2015.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate relevant newly-published literature to better provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 studies published from 1996 through 2013. This review informed the majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence. In April 2014, the CRPC guideline underwent amendment based on an additional literature search, which retrieved additional studies published between February 2013 and February 2014. Thirty-seven studies from this search provided data relevant to the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. In March 2015, the CRPC guideline underwent a second amendment, which incorporated 10 additional studies into the evidence base published through February 2015. RESULTS: Guideline statements based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements for multiple index patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. Patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges in the field.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT: Since its founding in 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has been committed to improving cancer outcomes through research and the delivery of quality care. Research is the bedrock of discovering better treatments--providing hope to the millions of individuals who face a cancer diagnosis each year. The studies featured in "Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology" represent the invaluable contributions of thousands of patients who participate in clinical trials and the scientists who conduct basic and clinical research. The insights described in this report, such as how cancers hide from the immune system and why cancers may become resistant to targeted drugs, enable us to envision a future in which cancer will be even more controllable and preventable. The scientific process is thoughtful, deliberate, and sometimes slow, but each advance, while helping patients, now also points toward new research questions and unexplored opportunities. Both dramatic and subtle breakthroughs occur so that progress against cancer typically builds over many years. Success requires vision, persistence, and a long-term commitment to supporting cancer research and training. Our nation's longstanding investment in federally funded cancer research has contributed significantly to a growing array of effective new treatments and a much deeper understanding of the drivers of cancer. But despite this progress, our position as a world leader in advancing medical knowledge and our ability to attract the most promising and talented investigators are now threatened by an acute problem: Federal funding for cancer research has steadily eroded over the past decade, and only 15% of the ever-shrinking budget is actually spent on clinical trials. This dismal reality threatens the pace of progress against cancer and undermines our ability to address the continuing needs of our patients. Despite this extremely challenging economic environment, we continue to make progress. Maintaining and accelerating that progress require that we keep our eyes on the future and pursue a path that builds on the stunning successes of the past. We must continue to show our policymakers the successes in cancer survival and quality of life (QOL) they have enabled, emphasizing the need to sustain our national investment in the remarkably productive US cancer research enterprise. We must also look to innovative methods for transforming how we care for-and learn from-patients with cancer. Consider, for example, that fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer currently participate in clinical trials. What if we were able to draw lessons from the other 95%? This possibility led ASCO this year to launch CancerLinQ, a groundbreaking health information technology initiative that will provide physicians with access to vast quantities of clinical data about real-world patients and help achieve higher quality, higher value cancer care. As you read the following pages, I hope our collective progress against cancer over the past year inspires you. More importantly, I hope the pride you feel motivates you to help us accelerate the pace of scientific advancement. Clifford A. Hudis, MD, FACP President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.

PURPOSE: This Guideline is intended to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer based on currently available published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted using controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords relating to the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. The search strategy was developed and executed by reference librarians and methodologists to create an evidence report limited to English-language, published peer-reviewed literature. This review yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013 that were used to form a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence-based data. RESULTS: Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the appropriate use of observation, androgen-deprivation and antiandrogen therapy, androgen synthesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, radionuclide therapy, systemic chemotherapy, palliative care and bone health. These were based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. In all cases, patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies.

Clinical cancer advances 2011: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A message from ASCO'S President. It has been forty years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, which many view as the nation's declaration of the "War on Cancer." The bill has led to major investments in cancer research and significant increases in cancer survival. Today, two-thirds of patients survive at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer compared with just half of all diagnosed patients surviving five years after diagnosis in 1975. The research advances detailed in this year's Clinical Cancer Advances demonstrate that improvements in cancer screening, treatment, and prevention save and improve lives. But although much progress has been made, cancer remains one of the world's most serious health problems. In the United States, the disease is expected to become the nation's leading cause of death in the years ahead as our population ages. I believe we can accelerate the pace of progress, provided that everyone involved in cancer care works together to achieve this goal. It is this viewpoint that has shaped the theme for my presidential term: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer. In practice, this means that physicians and researchers must learn from every patient's experience, ensure greater collaboration between members of a patient's medical team, and involve more patients in the search for cures through clinical trials. Cancer advocates, insurers, and government agencies also have important roles to play. Today, we have an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of cancer care by drawing lessons from the real-world experiences of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is taking the lead in this area, in part through innovative use of health information technology. In addition to our existing quality initiatives, ASCO is working with partners to develop a comprehensive rapid-learning system for cancer care. When complete, this system will provide physicians with personalized, real-time information that can inform the care of every patient with cancer as well as connect patients with their entire medical teams. The rapid learning system will form a continuous cycle of learning: securely capturing data from every patient at the point of care, drawing on evidence-based guidelines, and evaluating quality of care against those standards and the outcomes of other patients. Clinical trials are another area in which collaboration is critical. Increasing clinical trial participation will require commitment across the cancer community from physicians, patients, insurers, hospitals, and industry. A 2010 report by the Institute of Medicine described challenges to participation in trials by both physicians and patients and provided recommendations for revitalizing clinical trials conducted through the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program. ASCO has pledged its support for the full implementation of these recommendations. More broadly, ASCO recently outlined a bold vision for translational and clinical cancer research for the next decade and made recommendations to achieve that vision. Accelerating Progress Against Cancer: ASCO's Blueprint for Transforming Clinical and Translational Research, released in November, calls for a research system that takes full advantage of today's scientific and technologic opportunities and sets a high-level agenda for policy makers, regulators, and advocates. Cancer research has transformed cancer care in the past forty years, and this year's Clinical Cancer Advances illustrates how far we have come in the past year alone. We now have a tremendous opportunity to use today's knowledge and collaborate across all facets of cancer care to conquer this deadly disease. Michael P. Link, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Phase 2 trial of sorafenib in patients with advanced urothelial cancer: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective second-line systemic chemotherapy for patients with disease progression after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A phase 2 trial of sorafenib was performed to determine the activity and toxicity of this agent in a multi-institutional setting in patients previously treated with 1 prior chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma were treated with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: There were no objective responses observed. The 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 9.5%; median overall survival of the group was 6.8 months. There were no therapy-related deaths, and common grade 3 toxicities included fatigue and hand-foot syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Although sorafenib as a single agent has minimal activity in patients with advanced urothelial cancer in the second-line setting, further investigation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors using different trial designs with PFS endpoints is warranted.