Clinical and molecular determinants of PSA response to bipolar androgen therapy in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) is a novel therapy known to be effective in a subset of men with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A better understanding of responders and nonresponders to BAT would be useful to clinicians considering BAT therapy for patients. Herein we analyze clinical and genetic factors in responders/nonresponders to better refine our understanding regarding which patients benefit from this innovative therapy. METHODS: mCRPC patients were assessed for response or no response to BAT. Patients with PSA declines of greater than 50% from baseline after 2 or more doses of testosterone were considered to be responders. Whereas, nonresponders had no PSA decline after 2 doses of testosterone and subsequently manifest a PSA increase of >50%. Differences between these two groups of patients were analyzed using clinical and laboratory parameters. All patients underwent genomic testing using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and germline testing pre-BAT. RESULTS: Twenty five patients were nonresponders and 16 were responders. Baseline characteristics between nonresponders and responders varied. Responders were more likely to have had a radical prostatectomy as definitive therapy and were more likely to have been treated with an androgen receptor (AR) antagonist (enzalutamide or apalutamide) immediately before BAT (compared to abiraterone). Duration of prior enzalutamide therapy was longer in responders. Nonresponders were more likely to have bone-only metastases and responders were more likely to have nodal metastases. Assays detected ctDNA AR amplifications more often in responding patients. Responders trended toward having the presence of more TP53 mutations at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: BAT responders are distinct from nonresponders in several ways however each of these distinctions are imperfect. Patterns of metastatic disease, prior therapies, duration of prior therapies, and genomics each contribute to an understanding of patients that will or will not respond. Additional studies are needed to refine the parameters that clinicians can utilize before choosing among the numerous treatment alternatives available for CRPC patients.

Outcomes With First-Line PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitor Monotherapy for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC): A Multi-Institutional Cohort.

Introduction: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma has advanced significantly with the approval of combination regimens containing an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for patients with treatment-naïve disease. Little information is available regarding the activity of single-agent ICIs for patients with previously untreated mRCC not enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort included consecutive treatment-naïve mRCC patients from six institutions in the United States who received ≥1 dose of an ICI outside a clinical trial, between June 2017 and October 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze outcomes including objective best response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and tolerability. Results: The final analysis included 27 patients, 70% men, median age 64 years (range 42-92), 67% Caucasian, and 33% with ECOG 2 or 3 at baseline. Most patients had intermediate risk (85%, IMDC) with clear cell (56%), papillary (26%), unclassified (11%), chromophobe (4%), and translocation (4%) RCC. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease involving the lungs (59%), lymph node (41%), CNS (19%), liver (11%), adrenal gland (11%), and bone (11%). The median time on ICI was 3.1 (0.1-26.8) months, and the median PFS was 6.3 (95% CI, 0-18.6) months. Among the 21 patients with an evaluable response, the best ORR was 33%, including two complete responses and five partial responses. The ORR was 29% (n = 1 complete response, n = 5 partial response) in clear cell and 5% (n = 1 complete response) in non-clear cell RCC. Adverse events (AEs) of any cause were reported in 37% and included fatigue (11%), dermatitis (11%), diarrhea (7%), and shortness of breath (7%). Significant AEs (30%) included shortness of breath (7%), acute kidney injury (4%), dermatitis (4%), Clostridium difficile infection (4%), cerebrovascular accident (4%), and fatigue (7%). Three patients discontinued therapy due to grade 4 AEs. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional case series, single-agent ICI demonstrated objective responses and was well tolerated in a heterogeneous treatment-naïve mRCC cohort. ICI monotherapy is not the standard of care for patients with mRCC, and further investigation is necessary to explore predictive biomarkers for optimal treatment selection in this setting.