Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Final efficacy and safety results and biomarker analysis of a phase 2 study of cabozantinib in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib was established as the standard of care for the treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) whose disease had progressed after vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy in the global randomized trial METEOR. A phase 2 study was conducted to bridge the findings in METEOR to Japanese patients. Here, we report a biomarker analysis and update the efficacy and safety results of cabozantinib treatment. METHODS: Japanese patients with RCC who received at least one prior VEGFR-TKI were enrolled and received cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Exploratory analyses included the relationship between plasma protein hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) levels and treatment responses. RESULTS: In total, 35 patients were enrolled. The median treatment duration was 58.3 (range 5.1-131.4) weeks. The objective response rate was 25.7% (90% confidence interval [CI] 14.1-40.6). Kaplan-Meier estimate of median progression-free survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 7.4-18.4). The estimated progression-free survival proportion was 73.1% (95% CI 54.6-85.0) at 6 months. Median overall survival was not reached. Adverse events were consistent with those in METEOR and the safety profile was acceptable. Nonresponders to cabozantinib showed relatively higher HGF levels than responders at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Updated analyses demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in Japanese patients with advanced RCC after at least one VEGFR-TKI therapy. Responders tended to show lower baseline HGF levels ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03339219.

Prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a secondary analysis of the ARCHERY study.

BACKGROUND: Nephrectomy is a curative treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but patients with poor prognostic features may experience relapse. Understanding the prognostic impact of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC may aid in future development of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Of 770 surgical specimens collected from Japanese patients enrolled in the ARCHERY study, only samples obtained from patients with recurrent RCC after nephrectomy were examined for this secondary analysis. Patients were categorized into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical stage and Fuhrman grade. Time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Both TTR and OS were shorter in patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 12.1 vs. 21.9 months [HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17, 1.81]; median OS, 75.8 vs. 97.7 months [HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00, 1.75]). TTR and OS were shorter in high-risk patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 7.6 vs. 15.3 months [HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11, 2.00]; median OS, 55.2 vs. 83.5 months [HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06, 2.21]) but not in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: This ARCHERY secondary analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression may play a role in predicting OS and risk of recurrence in high-risk patients with localized RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000034131.

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.

Phase I/II study of multipeptide cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell cancer with long-term follow up.

BACKGROUND: IMA901 is the first therapeutic vaccine for renal cell cancer (RCC). It contains multiple tumor-associated peptides (TUMAPs) that are naturally present in human cancers. METHODS: In a phase I/II study, we treated a total of 10 Japanese patients with advanced RCC who were human leukocyte antigen A (HLA-A)*02 +. Vaccination involved i.d. injection of GM-CSF (75 µg), followed within 15-30 min by i.d. injection of IMA901 (containing 413 µg of each peptide). No treatment with either anticancer agents or immunosuppressants was allowed within 4 weeks before entering the trial. Patients were scheduled to receive 7 vaccinations during the first 5 weeks of treatment (induction period), followed by 10 further vaccinations at 3-week intervals for up to 30 weeks (maintenance period). The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, while the secondary endpoints were PFS, OS, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: There were no treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths during the study period. When the response was assessed after 4 months, 10% of patients showed a partial response, 80% had stable disease, and 10% had progressive disease. Among patients in whom the T-cell response was analyzed, five patients showed a vaccine-induced T-cell response against at least one HLA class I-restricted TUMAP and two patients had T-cell responses to multiple TUMAPs. PFS was 5.5 months and OS was 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and tolerability of IMA901 vaccine in Japanese RCC patients, and also showed that vaccination elicited an immune response.

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) trial, pembrolizumab + axitinib demonstrated improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate over sunitinib monotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-426. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab + axitinib (n = 432) or sunitinib (n = 429). HRQoL data were available for 429 patients treated with pembrolizumab + axitinib and 423 patients treated with sunitinib. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: HRQoL end points were measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Core (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EQ-5D visual analog rating scale (VAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Cancer Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) questionnaires. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Better or not different overall improvement rates from baseline between pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib were observed for the FKSI-DRS (-0.79% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.2 to 5.6), QLQ-C30 (7.5% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 1.0-14), and EQ-5D VAS (9.9% improvement vs sunitinib; 95% CI 3.2-17). For time to confirmed deterioration (TTcD) and time to first deterioration (TTfD), no differences were observed between arms for the QLQ-C30 (TTcD hazard ratio [HR] 1.0; 95% CI 0.82-1.3; TTfD HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97) and EQ-5D VAS (TTcD HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.87-1.3; TTfD HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.2). TTfD was not different between treatment arms (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.95-1.3) for the FKSI-DRS, but TTcD favored sunitinib (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7). Patients were assessed during the off-treatment period for sunitinib, which may have underestimated the negative impact of sunitinib on HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patient-reported outcome scales showed that results between the pembrolizumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms were not different, with the exception of TTcD by the FKSI-DRS. PATIENT SUMMARY: Compared with sunitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib delays disease progression and extends survival, while HRQoL outcomes were not different between groups.

Pathologic complete response with pembrolizumab plus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Immunotherapy-based combinations have played a central role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and long-term survival of patients is expected. In this context, it is clear that a certain number of patients can achieve a complete response. However, the diagnosis of complete response is usually based on imaging, and there are few cases of pathological complete response. In this study, we report a case of a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who was treated with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, followed by resection of the primary tumor and metastatic lesions, and pathologically achieved a complete response.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: outcomes of Japanese patients enrolled in the randomized, phase III, open-label KEYNOTE-426 study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III open-label KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study, first-line pembrolizumab and axitinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). KEYNOTE-426 evaluated patients enrolled from 25 sites in Japan. METHODS: Patients enrolled in Japan were included in this post hoc subgroup analysis. Adults with clear cell mRCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily or oral sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The Japanese subgroup comprised 94 patients (pembrolizumab-axitinib, n = 44; sunitinib, n = 50; 11% of the intent-to-treat population). Median time from randomization to data cutoff (January 6, 2020) was 29.5 months (range 24.6-37.3). Consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the OS, PFS, and ORR suggested improvement with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus sunitinib in the Japanese subgroup. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 70% of patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78% receiving sunitinib; 11 (25%) patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib and 13 (27%) patients receiving sunitinib discontinued the study medication due to AEs. TRAEs led to the discontinuation of pembrolizumab, axitinib, pembrolizumab-axitinib, or sunitinib in 32%, 34%, 14%, and 20%, respectively. No deaths from TRAEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy outcomes for the Japanese subgroup were consistent with those of the global population. Safety in Japanese patients was consistent with the results from the global population.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: A phase II, open-label, single-arm study of Japanese patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib, through a bridging study to METEOR, in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who had progressed after prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. METHODS: This phase II, open-label, single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03339219) included adult Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and measurable disease who had received one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Patients received cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily while there was clinical benefit, or until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end-point was objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1. Secondary end-points included clinical benefit rate (complete or partial response, or ≥8-week stable disease), progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients enrolled, 68.6%, 22.9% and 8.6% had previously received one, two and three prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors, respectively. The median duration of cabozantinib exposure was 27.0 weeks (range 5.1-43.0 weeks). The objective response rate was 20.0% (90% confidence interval 9.8-34.3%), and the clinical benefit rate was 85.7% (95% confidence interval 69.7-95.2%). The 6-month estimated progression-free survival was 72.3% (95% confidence interval 53.3-84.6%); the median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. All patients reported adverse events, which were manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification; two patients (5.7%) discontinued therapy due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that findings from METEOR can be extrapolated, and that cabozantinib 60 mg/day is a viable treatment option in Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who had progressed after prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells are essential partners for immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cisplatin-resistant bladder cancer.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are one of the key players that contribute to immune evasion. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether MDSCs could be a novel target for the treatment of cisplatin-resistant bladder cancer. We established cisplatin-resistant bladder cancer cell lines (MB49R, MBT-2R, and T24R) and evaluated chemokine expression and MDSC expansion. We also assessed the antitumor effect by depleting MDSCs with or without a α-PD-L1 antibody using MB49R xenograft models. The chemokine expression of CXCL1, CXCL2, and CCL2 increased in cisplatin-resistant cells compared to those in their parent strains. Monocytic MDSCs (Mo-MDSCs) were observed more frequently compared to polymorphonuclear MDSCs (PMN-MDSCs) in MB49R tumors. The immunosuppressive genes arginase 1 and iNOS were comparably expressed in each MDSC subtype. In vivo, combination therapy targeting both PMN- and Mo-MDSCs using α-Gr1 and α-Ly6C antibodies significantly reduced tumor volume with increased infiltration of CD8 T cells in the tumor. Finally, co-targeting pan-MDSCs and PD-L1 remarkably reduced the tumor growth. These findings suggest that targeting MDSCs might enhance the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cisplatin-resistant bladder cancers.

Enzalutamide versus flutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide: the OCUU-CRPC study.

BACKGROUND: Before the androgen target therapy era, flutamide was widely used for castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan. Enzalutamide is currently the recommended treatment; however, the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide and flutamide after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide, has not been compared. METHODS: Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who received combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide were randomly assigned to receive either enzalutamide or flutamide. The primary endpoint for efficacy was the 3-month prostate-specific antigen response rate. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02346578) and the University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000016301). RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients were enrolled. The 3- (80.8% vs. 35.3%; p < 0.001) and 6-month (73.1% vs. 31.4%; p < 0.001) prostate-specific antigen response rates were higher in the enzalutamide than in the flutamide group. The 3-month disease progression rates (radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression) were 6.4% and 38.8% in the enzalutamide and flutamide groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR): 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.47; p < 0.001]; the 6-month rates were 11.4% and 51.1%, respectively (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09-0.50; p < 0.001). Enzalutamide provided superior prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival compared with flutamide (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.15-0.54; p < 0.001). Median time to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival was not reached and was 6.6 months in the enzalutamide and flutamide groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As an alternative anti-androgen therapy in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who fail bicalutamide-combined androgen blockade therapy, enzalutamide provides superior clinical outcomes compared with flutamide. Enzalutamide should be preferred over flutamide in these patients.

Enzalutamide versus flutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide: study protocol for a multicenter randomized phase II trial (the OCUU-CRPC study).

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor targeted agent that has been shown to improve survival in PREVAIL trials and has been approved for patients with chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Meanwhile, flutamide is a non-steroidal oral anti-androgen that was commonly used before the approval of bicalutamide. The objective of the OCUU-CRPC study is to compare the efficacy and safety between second-line hormonal therapy of enzalutamide and flutamide as alternative anti-androgen therapy (AAT) after combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy that included bicalutamide in patients with CRPC. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with CRPC with or without distant metastases after disease progression who received CAB therapy with bicalutamide were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio according to distant metastases to the enzalutamide (160 mg/day, 4 × 40 mg capsules once daily) and flutamide (375 mg/day; 3 × 125 mg tablets thrice daily) groups. The primary endpoint for the drug efficacy is the response rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (i.e., the ratio of patients whose PSA declined by ≥50% from baseline) at 3 months. Meanwhile, the secondary endpoints are PSA progression rate at 3 and 6 months, PSA response rate at 6 months, change in quality of life, PSA progression-free survival, and safety. The patient registration started in January 2015 and will end in March 2018, and the follow-up period is 6 months after the last patient registration. The main result will be reported in March 2019. DISCUSSION: In the OCUU-CRPC study, we compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide or alternative AAT with flutamide in participants with CRPC who were previously treated with a CAB therapy with bicalutamide. The expected results of this study will be that enzalutamide is superior to flutamide in terms of PSA response. A longer time to disease progression with enzalutamide over flutamide may translate to better overall survival. However, flutamide may be more accessible for patients owing to its lower cost than enzalutamide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OCUU-CRPC study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02346578 , January 2015) and University Hospital Medical Information Network ( UMIN000016301 , January 2015).

Enzalutamide versus flutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Alternative anti-androgen therapy (AAT) with flutamide after combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy with bicalutamide for metastatic prostate cancer is common. However, no studies have compared enzalutamide without AAT with enzalutamide after AAT with flutamide as treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We aimed to compare the efficacies of flutamide and enzalutamide for CRPC. METHODS: In our hospital, 55 patients were diagnosed with CRPC after CAB therapy and administered flutamide or enzalutamide between May 2014 and December 2017. Patients with flutamide failure were administered enzalutamide. We evaluated the (1) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best response with initial therapy, (2) PSA progression-free survival with initial therapy (PSA-PFS), (3) PSA best response with enzalutamide therapy, (4) PSA-PFS of enzalutamide therapy, and (5) overall survival (OS). RESULTS: As first-line therapy, patients were administered enzalutamide (n = 29) or flutamide (n = 26). In the flutamide group, 18 patients showed disease progression and were administered enzalutamide. PSA best response was statistically higher in the enzalutamide group. PSA-PFS was significantly longer in the enzalutamide group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.92, p = 0.024]. However, there was no significant difference in PSA best response with enzalutamide therapy and PSA-PFS between the first- and second-line enzalutamide therapies (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.33-1.94, p = 0.62). There was no significant difference in OS between enzalutamide and flutamide groups (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.53-6.42, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: AAT with subsequent flutamide after CAB therapy with bicalutamide may be suitable for some CRPC patients.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Near infrared fluorescence imaging system for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, the use of indocyanine green (ICG) with near infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging has emerged as an alternative technique for the real-time delineation of resection margins during partial nephrectomy (PN). We aimed to assess the feasibility of using NIRF imaging with ICG during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) to delineate the margin between normal renal parenchyma and renal cortical tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparison of real-time tumor margin identification and operative outcomes was conducted for 83 patients who underwent LPN with NIRF imaging (IMAGE1 system) and 74 patients who did not. RESULTS: Tumor margins were identified in 82% of cases in the NIRF group, with a rate of 79% for the clear cell renal carcinoma cases only. Volume of blood loss was higher for the NIRF than normal imaging group (p = 0.015), while the warm ischemia time was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) for the NIRF group. There was no significant difference in the pre to postoperative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.38) or rate of severe complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3; p = 0.88). The rate of positive surgical margins was comparable between the groups (3%; p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: NIRF imaging with ICG during LPN was safe and feasible, although the surgical outcomes with NIRF alone was not significantly superior to the ones with conventional methods.

Steroid sulfatase promotes invasion through epithelial-mesenchymal transition and predicts the progression of bladder cancer.

Androgen signal has been recently suggested to be associated with the progression of bladder cancer. Steroid sulfatase (STS) is a steroid sulfate activation enzyme, considered to be one of the key enzymes in the androgen signaling pathway. However, the role of STS in bladder cancer has not been elucidated. The purpose of the present study was to determine the clinical and functional significance of STS in bladder cancer. Immunohistochemical analysis of surgical specimens obtained by radical cystectomy (n=114) demonstrated that overexpression of STS was associated with the invasion of bladder cancer, as evidenced by the incidence of STS-positive cancers (11.5 and 37.1% in non-muscle invasive and muscle invasive bladder cancers, respectively; P=0.003). STS-positive cancer demonstrated shorter recurrence-free survival and cancer-specific survival (P=0.0027 and 0.0030, respectively). Furthermore, knockdown of STS significantly reduced cell migration and invasion capacities of bladder cancer cells (P<0.001 and P=0.005, respectively), accompanied by the upregulation of E-cadherin and downregulation of vimentin. In summary, the present study demonstrated that STS promotes the invasion capability of bladder cancer via regulation of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and may be a useful marker for predicting the progression of bladder cancers.