RENO Study: Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and survival results in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Northern Spain.

BACKGROUND: The current available evidence on the management of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) in real life is scarce in our environment. We present a summary of the existing real-world data and the results of an analysis describing the clinical characteristics, treatments, and health outcomes of patients with mRCC in northern Spain. METHODS: Retrospective observational study. Adult patients diagnosed with mRCC between Jan 2007 and Dec 2019 were included. Epidemiological, efficacy and toxicity data were collected. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 829 patients were included (median age at diagnosis:63 years;73% men). Median follow-up was 180 months. The preponderant histology was clear cell (85%). In 50% the initial diagnosis was advanced disease. The distribution according to IMDC prognosis was good (24%), intermediate (50%) and poor (26%). The most frequent metastatic locations were lung (68.3%) and lymph node (41.0%). Most patients (95%) received a first line (1L) systemic treatment, 60% were treated with a second line (2L) of therapy and 37% received third line (3L). A VEGFR-TKIs was the most common treatment (1L: 90%, n = 507; 2L: 49%, n = 233; 3L: 54%, n = 156) followed by mTOR inhibitors (1L: 2%, n = 4; 2L: 27%, n = 126; 3L: 23%, n = 68) and immunotherapy (1L: 3.7%, n = 25; 2L: 27%, n = 126). Median OS was 24.5 months in the general population. According to IMDC prognostic groups, OS was 52.5, 25.7 and 9 months respectively. From the start of the 1L, 2L, and 3L treatment, median PFS was: 1L: 7.8 (6.8-9.0); 2L: 4.9 (4.3-5.5); 3L: 4.3 (3.8-4.8) months. No unexpected toxicity was reported. CONCLUSIONS: The Real-World Data on the management of mRCC in Northern Spain are comparable in epidemiology, efficacy, and safety to studies conducted in other areas of the world. The significant reduction in the number of patients receiving second and subsequent lines of therapy hampers the access to new therapies developed in this context.

Outcomes with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial cancer: real-world data from a single institution

Purpose Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been incorporated in the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) upon platinum-based chemotherapy according to the positive results of large clinical trials. Nevertheless, results from unselected populations reflecting real-world data (RWD) are highly informative to the clinician. We reviewed daily clinical practice outcomes in patients with mUC who received atezolizumab in our institution. Methods Here we evaluated the clinical activity and safety of atezolizumab in an unselected population of mUC patients who received atezolizumab between 2018 and 2022 reflecting RWD. Efficacy and safety information were retrospectively collected. Results A total of 63 patients were included. The mean age was 68 years and the objective response rate was 14.3%. The median progression-free survival was 3 months and the median overall survival 6 months. At 1 year, 42% of the patients were alive. ECOG (0 vs 1) and neutrophil–lymphocytes ratio < 2 at the start of ICI were positive prognostic factors that discriminated between long vs short survivors. Overall tolerance was good with no new safety signals. Five patients (17%) had treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 2 that required corticosteroids. Conclusion In this retrospective study, atezolizumab was an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with mUC after progression to platinum-based chemotherapy. Yet, patient selection remains critical to improve outcomes (AU)

Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dose-dense MVAC in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a tertiary center experience

Purpose Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients has proven beneficial in overall survival. However, the optimal regimen is still a matter of debate. Materials and method In this retrospective analysis, we evaluate the results obtained in 42 patients treated in our center with 4 cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) followed by radical cystectomy from August 2015 to October 2020. All patients had cT2 or higher non-metastatic MIBC. Clinical and pathological outcomes are reported. Results Of the 42 patients, 90.5% were men (n = 38) and the mean age was 65 years. All of them had ECOG 0–1 at diagnosis and most tumors had an initial clinical stage T2N0 (76%). Thirty-six patients (85.7%) completed 4 cycles of neoadjuvant treatment, and 21.4% required a dose reduction. The most frequent adverse event (AE) was grade 1–2 asthenia (81%), while neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or higher AE (38%). Complete pathological response (ypT0, ypN0) was achieved in 50% of patients (n = 21), and down-staging was observed in 57.1% (n = 24). Only one patient presented radiological progressive disease during neoadjuvant treatment (2.4%), and after a mean follow-up time of 31.5 months, 33.3% of patients experienced disease recurrence. Conclusions Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 4 cycles of dd-MVAC is an effective regimen with high rates of pathological complete responses and down-staging along with an acceptable toxicity profile. DD-MVAC should be considered as an alternative to cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with good clinical performance status (AU)

Criteria and indicators to evaluate quality of care in genitourinary tumour boards.

PURPOSE: Genitourinary (GU) multidisciplinary tumour boards (GUMTBs) are key components of patient care, as they might lead to changes in treatment plan, improved survival, and increased adherence to guidelines. However, there are no guidelines on how GUMTBs should operate or how to assess their quality of performance. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify criteria and indicators to evaluate quality in GUMTBs. A scientific committee-comprising 12 GU cancer specialists from seven disciplines-proposed a list of criteria and developed indicators, evaluated in two rounds of Delphi method. Appropriateness and utility of indicators were scored using a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category that encompassed the median score of the group. RESULTS: Forty-five criteria were selected to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs covering five dimensions: organisation, personnel, protocol and documentation, resources, and interaction with patients. Then, 33 indicators were developed and evaluated in the first round of Delphi, leading to a selection of 26 indicators in two dimensions: function, governance and resources, and GUMTB sessions. In the second round, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of all 26 indicators and on the utility of 24 of them. Index cards for criteria and indicators were developed to be used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria and indicators were developed to evaluate the quality of GUMTBs, aiming to serve as a guide to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with GU cancer.

Outcomes with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial cancer: real-world data from a single institution.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been incorporated in the treatment of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) upon platinum-based chemotherapy according to the positive results of large clinical trials. Nevertheless, results from unselected populations reflecting real-world data (RWD) are highly informative to the clinician. We reviewed daily clinical practice outcomes in patients with mUC who received atezolizumab in our institution. METHODS: Here we evaluated the clinical activity and safety of atezolizumab in an unselected population of mUC patients who received atezolizumab between 2018 and 2022 reflecting RWD. Efficacy and safety information were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were included. The mean age was 68 years and the objective response rate was 14.3%. The median progression-free survival was 3 months and the median overall survival 6 months. At 1 year, 42% of the patients were alive. ECOG (0 vs 1) and neutrophil-lymphocytes ratio < 2 at the start of ICI were positive prognostic factors that discriminated between long vs short survivors. Overall tolerance was good with no new safety signals. Five patients (17%) had treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 2 that required corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, atezolizumab was an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with mUC after progression to platinum-based chemotherapy. Yet, patient selection remains critical to improve outcomes.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dose-dense MVAC in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a tertiary center experience.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients has proven beneficial in overall survival. However, the optimal regimen is still a matter of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we evaluate the results obtained in 42 patients treated in our center with 4 cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) followed by radical cystectomy from August 2015 to October 2020. All patients had cT2 or higher non-metastatic MIBC. Clinical and pathological outcomes are reported. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients, 90.5% were men (n = 38) and the mean age was 65 years. All of them had ECOG 0-1 at diagnosis and most tumors had an initial clinical stage T2N0 (76%). Thirty-six patients (85.7%) completed 4 cycles of neoadjuvant treatment, and 21.4% required a dose reduction. The most frequent adverse event (AE) was grade 1-2 asthenia (81%), while neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or higher AE (38%). Complete pathological response (ypT0, ypN0) was achieved in 50% of patients (n = 21), and down-staging was observed in 57.1% (n = 24). Only one patient presented radiological progressive disease during neoadjuvant treatment (2.4%), and after a mean follow-up time of 31.5 months, 33.3% of patients experienced disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 4 cycles of dd-MVAC is an effective regimen with high rates of pathological complete responses and down-staging along with an acceptable toxicity profile. DD-MVAC should be considered as an alternative to cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with good clinical performance status.

Ibrutinib combination therapy for advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary tumours: results from a phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is approved for the treatment of various B-cell malignancies and chronic graft-versus-host disease. Based on encouraging preclinical data, safety and efficacy of ibrutinib combined with companion drugs for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gastric/gastroesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma (GC), and colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) were evaluated. METHODS: Ibrutinib 560 mg or 840 mg once daily was administered with standard doses of everolimus for RCC, docetaxel for GC, and cetuximab for CRC. Endpoints included determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ibrutinib in phase 1b and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] for GC and CRC; progression-free survival [PFS] for CRC) in phase 2. RESULTS: A total of 39 (RCC), 46 (GC), and 50 (RCC) patients were enrolled and received the RP2D. Safety profiles were consistent with the individual agents used in the study. Confirmed ORRs were 3% (RCC), 21% (GC), and 19% (CRC). Median (90% CI) PFS was 5.6 (3.9-7.5) months in RCC, 4.0 (2.7-4.2) months in GC, and 5.4 (4.1-5.8) months in CRC. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful increases in efficacy were not observed compared to historical controls; however, the data may warrant further evaluation of ibrutinib combinations in other solid tumours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02599324.

Tailored immunotherapy approach with nivolumab with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab as immunotherapeutic boost in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (TITAN-RCC): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is approved as first-line regimen for intermediate-risk or poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and nivolumab monotherapy as second-line therapy for all risk groups. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination as an immunotherapeutic boost after no response to nivolumab monotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk and poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: TITAN-RCC is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, done at 28 hospitals and cancer centres across Europe (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk or poor-risk clear-cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were formerly untreated (first-line population) or pretreated with one previous systemic therapy (anti-angiogenic or temsirolimus; second-line population) were eligible. Patients had to have a Karnofsky Performance Status score of at least 70 and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). Patients started with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks. On early progressive disease (week 8) or non-response at week 16, patients received two or four doses of intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) boosts (once every 3 weeks), whereas responders continued with intravenous nivolumab (240 mg, once every 2 weeks), but could receive two to four boost doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for subsequent progressive disease. The primary endpoint was confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study medication; safety was also assessed in this population. An objective response rate of more than 25% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show improvement, on the basis of results from the pivotal phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02917772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2016, and Nov 30, 2018, 207 patients were enrolled and all received nivolumab induction (109 patients in the first-line group; 98 patients in the second-line group). 60 (29%) of 207 patients were female and 147 (71%) were male. 147 (71%) of 207 patients had intermediate-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma and 51 (25%) had poor-risk disease. After median follow-up of 27·6 months (IQR 10·5-34·8), 39 (36%, 90% CI 28-44; p=0·0080) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 31 (32%, 24-40; p=0·083) of 98 patients in the second-line group had a confirmed objective response for nivolumab with and without nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Confirmed response to nivolumab at week 8 or 16 was observed in 31 (28%) of 109 patients in the first-line group and 18 (18%) of 98 patients in the second-line group. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (reported in ≥5% of patients) were increased lipase (15 [7%] of 207 patients), colitis (13 [6%]), and diarrhoea (13 [6%]). Three deaths were reported that were deemed to be treatment-related: one due to possible ischaemic stroke, one due to respiratory failure, and one due to pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: In treatment-naive patients, nivolumab induction with or without nivolumab plus ipilimumab boosts significantly improved the objective response rate compared with that reported for nivolumab monotherapy in the CheckMate-025 trial. However, overall efficacy seemed inferior when compared with approved upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab. For second-line treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab could be a rescue strategy on progression with approved nivolumab monotherapy. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Response and Outcomes of Maintenance Avelumab After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy (PBC) in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (aUC): "Real World" Experience.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) followed by avelumab switch maintenance in nonprogressors is standard first line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). We describe clinical features and outcomes in a "real-world' cohort treated with avelumab maintenance for aUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) who received 1L switch maintenance avelumab after no progression on PBC for aUC. We calculated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initiation of maintenance avelumab. We also described OS and PFS for specific subsets using Cox regression and observed response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 108 pts with aUC from 14 sites treated with maintenance avelumab were included. There was a median of 6 weeks1-30 from end of PBC to avelumab initiation; median follow-up time from avelumab initiation was 8.8 months (1-42.7). Median [m]PFS was 9.6 months (95%CI 7.5-12.1) and estimated 1-year OS was 72.5%. CR/PR (vs. SD) to 1L PBC (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.87) and ECOG PS 0 (vs. ≥1), (HR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.47) were associated with longer OS. The presence of liver metastases was associated with shorter PFS (HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.17-4.59). ORR with avelumab maintenance was 28.7% (complete response 17.6%, partial response 11.1%), 29.6% stable disease, 26.9% progressive disease as best response (14.8% best response unknown). CONCLUSIONS: Results seem relatively consistent with findings from JAVELIN Bladder100 trial and recent "real world" studies. Prior response to platinum-based chemotherapy, ECOG PS 0, and absence of liver metastases were favorable prognostic factors. Limitations include the retrospective design, lack of randomization and central scan review, and possible selection/confounding biases.

Results from a Phase 1b/2 Study of Ibrutinib Combination Therapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

Ibrutinib is a first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of various B-cell malignancies and chronic graft-versus-host disease. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ibrutinib, alone or combined with standard-of-care regimens, in adults with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Once-daily ibrutinib was administered orally at 840 mg (single-agent or with paclitaxel) or at 560 mg (with pembrolizumab). Phase 1b determined the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ibrutinib, and phase 2 assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Thirty-five, eighteen, and fifty-nine patients received ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus pembrolizumab, and ibrutinib plus paclitaxel at the RP2D, respectively. Safety profiles were consistent with those of the individual agents. The best-confirmed ORRs were 7% (two partial responses) with single-agent ibrutinib and 36% (five partial responses) with ibrutinib plus pembrolizumab. Median PFS was 4.1 months (range, 1.0-37.4+) with ibrutinib plus paclitaxel. The best-confirmed ORR was 26% (two complete responses). In previously treated patients with UC, ORR was higher with ibrutinib plus pembrolizumab than with either agent alone (historical data in the intent-to-treat population). ORR with ibrutinib plus paclitaxel was greater than historical values for single-agent paclitaxel or ibrutinib. These data warrant further evaluation of ibrutinib combinations in UC.

Management of Fibroblast Growth Factor Inhibitor Treatment-emergent Adverse Events of Interest in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Background: Erdafitinib is indicated for the treatment of adults with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations progressing on/after one or more lines of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To better understand the frequency and management of select treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) to enable optimal fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi) treatment. Design setting and participants: Longer-term efficacy and safety results of the BLC2001 (NCT02365597) trial in patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were studied. Intervention: Erdafitinib schedule of 8 mg/d continuous in 28-d cycles, with uptitration to 9 mg/d if serum phosphate level was <5.5 mg/dl and no significant TEAEs occurred. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for the cumulative incidence of the first onset of TEAEs by grade. Time to resolution of TEAEs was summarized descriptively. Results and limitations: At data cutoff, the median treatment duration was 5.4 mo among 101 patients receiving erdafitinib. Select TEAEs (total; grade 3) were hyperphosphatemia (78%; 2.0%), stomatitis (59%; 14%), nail events (59%; 15%), non-central serous retinopathy (non-CSR) eye disorders (56%; 5.0%), skin events (55%; 7.9%), diarrhea (55%; 4.0%), and CSR (27%; 4.0%). Select TEAEs were mostly of grade 1 or 2, and were managed effectively with dose modifications, including dose reductions or interruptions, and/or supportive concomitant therapies, resulting in few events leading to treatment discontinuation. Further work is needed to determine whether management is generalizable to the nonprotocol/general population. Conclusions: Identification of select TEAEs and appropriate management with dose modification and/or concomitant therapies resulted in improvement or resolution of most TEAEs in patients, allowing for continuation of FGFRi treatment to ensure maximum benefit. Patient summary: Early identification and proactive management are warranted to mitigate or possibly prevent erdafitinib side effects to allow for maximum drug benefit in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

A correlative biomarker study and integrative prognostic model in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable need to incorporate biomarkers of resistance to new antiandrogen agents in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: We conducted a phase II trial of enzalutamide in first-line chemo-naïve asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and analyzed the prognostic value of TMPRSS2-ERG and other biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V7) in CTCs and plasma Androgen Receptor copy number gain (AR-gain). These biomarkers were correlated with treatment response and survival outcomes and developed a clinical-molecular prognostic model using penalized cox-proportional hazard model. This model was validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included. TMPRSS2-ERG fusion gene was detected in 32 patients with no differences observed in efficacy outcomes. CTC detection was associated with worse outcome and AR-V7 in CTCs was associated with increased rate of progression as best response. Plasma AR gain was strongly associated with an adverse outcome, with worse median prostate specific antigen (PSA)-PFS (4.2 vs. 14.7 m; p < 0.0001), rad-PFS (4.5 vs. 27.6 m; p < 0.0001), and OS (12.7 vs. 38.1 m; p < 0.0001). The clinical prognostic model developed in PREVAIL was validated (C-Index 0.70) and the addition of plasma AR (C-Index 0.79; p < 0.001) increased its prognostic ability. We generated a parsimonious model including alkaline phosphatase (ALP); PSA and AR gain (C-index 0.78) that was validated in an independent cohort. CONCLUSIONS: TMPRSS2-ERG detection did not correlate with differential activity of enzalutamide in first-line mCRPC. However, we observed that CTCs and plasma AR gain were the most relevant biomarkers.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Association of the Time to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Initiation and Outcomes With Second Line ICI in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Early progression on first-line (1L) platinum-based therapy or between therapy lines may be a surrogate of more aggressive disease and poor outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC), but its prognostic role regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response and survival is unclear. We hypothesized that shorter time until start of second-line (2L) ICI would be associated with worse outcomes in aUC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study in patients with aUC treated with 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, who received 2L ICI. Patients receiving switch maintenance ICI were excluded. We defined time to 2L ICI therapy as the time between the start of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy to the start of 2L ICI and categorized patients a priori into 1 of 3 groups: less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months. We calculated overall response rate (ORR) with 2L ICI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of 2L ICI. ORR was compared among the 3 groups using multivariable logistic regression, and PFS, OS using cox regression. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: We included 215, 215, and 219 patients in the ORR, PFS, and OS analyses, respectively, after exclusions. ORR difference did not reach statistical significance between patients with less than 3 months versus 3-6 months versus more than 6 months to 2L ICI. However, PFS (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and OS (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.10-2.84) was shorter among those with time to 2L ICI less than 3 months compared to those who initiated 2L ICI more than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Among patients with aUC treated with 2L ICI, time to 2L ICI less than 3 months was associated with lower, but not significantly different ORR, but shorter PFS and OS compared to 2L ICI more than 6 months. This highlights potential cross resistance mechanisms between ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Sapanisertib ± TAK-117 vs. Everolimus in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma After VEGF-Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib, a dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor, may offer more complete inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway than mTORC1 inhibitors, such as everolimus. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-agent sapanisertib and sapanisertib plus the PI3Kα inhibitor TAK-117, vs. everolimus in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) that had progressed on or after VEGF-targeted therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, advanced ccRCC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive single-agent everolimus 10 mg once daily, single-agent sapanisertib 30 mg once weekly, or sapanisertib 4 mg plus TAK-117 200 mg, both once daily for 3 days/week, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were treated with everolimus or sapanisertib (n = 32 each), or sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (n = 31). There were no significant differences in PFS among the 3 groups or across any subgroups. Median PFS was 3.8 months with everolimus vs. 3.6 months with sapanisertib (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.75-2.36), and 3.1 months with sapanisertib plus TAK-117 (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.75-2.52). No significant differences in overall survival were seen among groups. Overall response rate was 16.7%, 0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 15.6%, 28.1%, and 29.0%. CONCLUSION: Sapanisertib with or without TAK-117 was less tolerable and did not improve efficacy vs. everolimus in patients with advanced ccRCC who had relapsed after or were refractory to VEGF-targeted therapies. Dual mTORC1/2 inhibition may not be an effective therapeutic approach for these patients.

A phase II randomised trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in combination with docetaxel or docetaxel plus prednisone after disease progression to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: The ABIDO-SOGUG trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of maintaining or withdrawing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had experienced cancer progression to this treatment and were beginning a docetaxel-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase II, randomised, open-label study conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. After open-label treatment with AAP, patients who had experienced cancer progression to AAP were randomised to 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus AAP or to receive 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel plus 10 mg of prednisone orally daily. The primary outcome was the radiographic progression-free survival rate at 12 months as evaluated by the investigators in all randomised patients. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were included in open-label treatment with AAP, and of them, 94 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel plus AAP (intervention group; n = 47) or docetaxel plus prednisone (control group; n = 47). The 12-month radiographic progression-free survival rates did not differ between the intervention group (34.9%; 95% CI 20.7-49.2) and the control group (33.9%; 95% CI 19.5-48.3). There were no significant differences in the time to radiographic progression and the overall survival between the intervention and control groups. Grade 3-5 neutropenia with the combination of docetaxel plus prednisone and AA was more frequent than with docetaxel plus prednisone (59.6% versus 27.7%). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the therapeutic strategy of maintaining AAP added to docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients who have experienced cancer progression to AAP treatment should not be further evaluated and should be avoided in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIALS: NCT02036060 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036060.