Treatment Patterns and Survival Outcomes Before and After Access to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Study From 2004 to 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is a lethal disease with limited treatment options. We aimed to compare the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with mUC who were treated before and after the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study from 2004 to 2021. Access to ICIs began in December 2014. We analyzed differences in clinical characteristics and survival outcomes, such as overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and restricted mean survival time (RMST). RESULTS: A total of 206 patients were included. The median follow-up was 48.6 months. Ninety and 116 patients were treated during the pre-ICIs and the post-ICIs eras, respectively. We found high treatment attrition rates, with no differences in the number of patients who received second-line (48%) and third-line (26%) therapies between the two eras. In the second-line, ICIs became the predominant therapy (58%), leading to a 30% reduction in the utilisation of platinum-based ChT and non-platinum ChT. Innovative approaches including ICIs in the first-line treatment (18%) and targeted therapies in the third-line setting (34%) were observed. We found no differences in the median OS, 2-year OS, or 24-month RMST between the two periods. CONCLUSION: ICIs have emerged as a transformative treatment option, reshaping the treatment landscape. Nevertheless, substantial attrition rates from first-line to subsequent lines of systemic therapies might impede the potential impact of ICIs on long-term survival outcomes across the entire population.

A Signal-finding Study of Abemaciclib in Heavily Pretreated Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from CYCLONE 1.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors radically changed the treatment paradigm for breast cancer. Similar to estrogen receptor in breast cancer, androgen receptor signaling activates cyclin D-CDK4/6, driving proliferation and resistance to hormonal manipulation in prostate cancer. This study was designed to detect signals of clinical activity for abemaciclib in treatment-refractory metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Eligible patients had progressive mCRPC, measurable disease, and previously received ≥1 novel hormonal agent(s) and 2 lines of taxane chemotherapy. Abemaciclib 200 mg BID was administered on a continuous dosing schedule. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) without concurrent bone progression. This study was designed to detect a minimum ORR of 12.5%. RESULTS: At trial entry, forty (90.9%) of 44 patients had objective radiographic disease progression, four (9.1%) had prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-only progression, and 20 (46.5%) had visceral metastases (of these, 60% had liver metastases). Efficacy analyses are as follows: ORR without concurrent bone progression: 6.8%; disease control rate: 45.5%; median time to PSA progression: 6.5 months (95% CI: 3.2, NA); median radiographic PFS; 2.7 months (95% CI: 1.9, 3.7); and median OS: 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.6, 12.7). Most frequent grade ≥3 TEAEs were neutropenia (25.0%), anemia, and fatigue (11.4% each). No grade 4 or 5 AEs were related to abemaciclib. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib monotherapy was well tolerated and showed clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population, nearly half with visceral metastases. This study is considered preliminary proof-of-concept and designates CDK4/6 as a valid therapeutic target in prostate cancer.

Cumulative incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in patients with stage I seminoma treated with a risk-adapted strategy: a Spanish single-centre retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: To describe the incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in patients with stage 1 seminoma (S1S) testicular cancer (TC) treated with a risk-adapted strategy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Active surveillance (AS), carboplatin one cycle, and carboplatin two cycles were offered according to risk factors. Cumulative incidences and relapse-free survival (RFS) were estimated. RESULTS: Of the 145 patients, 8 (5.4%) were excluded due to bilateral TC or hypogonadism at diagnosis. Median follow-up time was 8.2 years. Eighty-four, 30, and 33 patients were treated with AS, carboplatin one cycle, and carboplatin two cycles, respectively. In the overall population, the 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidences were 1.6% and 5.3% for hypogonadism; 2.0% and 8.6% for hypertension; and 12.4% and 25.1% for dyslipidaemia. No statistically significant differences were found in the incidences among the three adjuvant strategies. Five-year and 10-year RFS were 85.9% and 83.3% for AS; 92.4% and 84.0% for carboplatin one cycle; and 96.7% at both times for carboplatin two cycles. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically differences in cumulative incidences of hypogonadism, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia in S1S patients treated with a risk-adapted strategy.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Aspectos prácticos sobre la determinación de PD-L1 en el tratamiento de carcinoma urotelial. Consenso del grupo de uropatología de la SEAP / Practical aspects of PD-L1 assessment in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma: Consensus of the uropathology group of the SEAP

La reciente llegada de nuevos fármacos de inmunoterapia para el tratamiento del carcinoma urotelial hace necesario establecer criterios para armonizar la determinación de PD-L1 mediante inmunohistoquímica como factor pronóstico y para la selección de pacientes a tratar. En este escenario, un grupo de uropatólogos de la Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, junto con un oncólogo médico como colaborador externo subespecializado en urooncología, ha elaborado este documento de recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia disponible. En la determinación de PD-L1 son especialmente relevantes la selección de la muestra analizada, su procesamiento, la plataforma de inmunohistoquímica y anticuerpo empleados, así como el algoritmo que se aplique para la lectura. Todos estos aspectos deben indicarse en el informe de resultados, que debería poder ser fácilmente interpretable en un contexto de rápida evolución de terapias inmunológicas.(AU)

The recent addition of novel immunotherapy drugs for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma makes it necessary the establishment of criteria to harmonize the immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1, both as a prognostic factor and for the selection of patients to be treated. In this scenario, a group of uropathologists from the Spanish Society of Pathological Anatomy, together with a medical oncologist as an external collaborator subspecialized in uro-oncology, have prepared this document of recommendations based on the available evidence. During PD-L1 assessment it is especially relevant the selection of the sample, its processing, the immunohistochemical platform and antibody used, and the algorithm applied in the interpretation of results. All these aspects must be indicated in the results report, which should be easily interpretable in a context of rapid evolution of immunological therapies.(AU)

Exploratory analyses of treatment subgroup interaction by PD-L1 status and according to PD-L1 expression in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial.

PURPOSE: Post hoc analysis of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial of avelumab maintenance in locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) to determine the interaction by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status for overall survival (OS), and additional analyses of survival per a different PD-L1 expression cutoff of ≥ 1% in tumor cells or immune cells (TC/IC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 data were used for the analysis of the interaction by PD-L1 status (per cutoff used in the trial) for OS and, additionally, OS and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses per a different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff (Ventana SP263 assay). RESULTS: No significant interaction between treatment and PD-L1 status was observed for OS. Clinically meaningful and robust survival data were observed in favor of avelumab using the different ≥ 1% TC/IC PD-L1 expression cutoff. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the benefit of avelumab maintenance in la/mUC regardless of PD-L1 expression, consistent with approved labels.

[Practical aspects of PD-L1 assessment in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma: Consensus of the uropathology group of the SEAP]. / Aspectos prácticos sobre la determinación de PD-L1 en el tratamiento de carcinoma urotelial. Consenso del grupo de uropatología de la SEAP.

The recent addition of novel immunotherapy drugs for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma makes it necessary the establishment of criteria to harmonize the immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1, both as a prognostic factor and for the selection of patients to be treated. In this scenario, a group of uropathologists from the Spanish Society of Pathological Anatomy, together with a medical oncologist as an external collaborator subspecialized in uro-oncology, have prepared this document of recommendations based on the available evidence. During PD-L1 assessment it is especially relevant the selection of the sample, its processing, the immunohistochemical platform and antibody used, and the algorithm applied in the interpretation of results. All these aspects must be indicated in the results report, which should be easily interpretable in a context of rapid evolution of immunological therapies.

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.

Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

Introduction: The phase 3 CLEAR study demonstrated that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved efficacy versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Prognostic features including presence and/or site of baseline metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features have been associated with disease and treatment success. This subsequent analysis explores outcomes in patients with or without specific prognostic features. Methods: In CLEAR, patients with clear cell RCC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either lenvatinib (20 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg/day) plus everolimus (5 mg/day), or sunitinib alone (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). In this report, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were all assessed in the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and the sunitinib arms, based on baseline features: lung metastases, bone metastases, liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid histology. Results: In all the assessed subgroups, median PFS was longer with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab than with sunitinib treatment, notably among patients with baseline bone metastases (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52) and patients with sarcomatoid features (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.84). Median OS favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib irrespective of metastatic lesions at baseline, prior nephrectomy, and sarcomatoid features. Of interest, among patients with baseline bone metastases the HR for survival was 0.50 (95% CI 0.30-0.83) and among patients with sarcomatoid features the HR for survival was 0.91 (95% CI 0.32-2.58); though for many groups, median OS was not reached. ORR also favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib across all subgroups; similarly, complete responses also followed this pattern. Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes improved following treatment with lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in patients with RCC-irrespective of the presence or absence of baseline lung metastases, baseline bone metastases, baseline liver metastases, prior nephrectomy, or sarcomatoid features. These findings corroborate those of the primary CLEAR study analysis in the overall population and support lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a standard of care in 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02811861.

Association between the Immunophenotype of Peripheral Blood from mCRPC Patients and the Outcomes of Radium-223 Treatment.

(1) Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with androgen suppression as the standard treatment. Despite initially responding to castration, most metastatic prostate cancer patients eventually experience progression. In these cases, Radium-223 is the chosen treatment. We hypothesized that the immunophenotype of circulating leukocytes conditions the response to Radium-223 treatment. (2) Material and Methods: In this prospective study, we collected peripheral blood from twelve mCRPC patients and nine healthy donors before (baseline) and during treatment with Radium-223. Immunophenotyping and the percentages of leukocyte-platelet complexes were determined by flow cytometry. The increments or decrements of leukocyte subsets between the baseline and the second Radium-223 injection were also calculated. (3) Results: At baseline, the mCRPC patients had a lower percentages of CD4+ T cells and B cells and higher percentages of NK and neutrophils than the HDs. In addition, they had more OX40+ CD4+ T cells, PD-L1+ CD8low cells, PD-L1+ B cells, PD-L1+ NK cells, and monocyte-platelet complexes than the HDs. Moreover, patients with slow and fast progression had different percentages of PD-L1+ CD8+ T cells. In particular, slow progression patients underwent an increment of PD-L1+ CD8+ T cells after two cycles of Radium-223. (4) Conclusions: The characterization of circulating immune cells before initiating Radium-223 treatment could become a non-invasive indicator of the response.

Deubiquitinase USP9X loss sensitizes renal cancer cells to mTOR inhibition.

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a central regulator of mammalian metabolism and physiology. Aberrant hyperactivation of the mTOR pathway promotes tumor growth and metastasis, and can also promote tumor resistance to chemotherapy and cancer drugs; this makes mTOR an attractive cancer therapeutic target. mTOR inhibitors have been approved to treat cancer; however, the mechanisms underlying drug sensitivity remain poorly understood. Here, whole exome sequencing of three chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) patients with exceptional mTOR inhibitor sensitivity revealed that all three patients shared somatic mutations in the deubiquitinase gene USP9X. The clonal characteristics of the mutations, which were amassed by studying multiple patients' primary and metastatic samples from various years, together with the low USP9X mutation rate in unselected chRCC series, reinforced a causal link between USP9X and mTOR inhibitor sensitivity. Rapamycin treatment of USP9X-depleted HeLa and renal cancer 786-O cells, along with the pharmacological inhibition of USP9X, confirmed that this protein plays a role in patients' sensitivity to mTOR inhibitors. USP9X was not found to exert a direct effect on mTORC1, but subsequent ubiquitylome analyses identified p62 as a direct USP9X target. Increased p62 ubiquitination and the augmented rapamycin effect upon bortezomib treatment, together with the results of p62 and LC3 immunofluorescence assays, suggested that dysregulated autophagy in USP9X-depleted cells can have a synergistic effect with mTOR inhibitors. In summary, we show that USP9X constitutes a potential novel marker of sensitivity to mTOR inhibitors in chRCC patients, and represents a clinical strategy for increasing the sensitivity to these drugs.

Survival by Depth of Response and Efficacy by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Subgroup with Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the Phase 3 Randomized CLEAR Study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of tumor shrinkage has been deemed a predictor of survival for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a disease with historically poor survival. OBJECTIVE: To perform an exploratory analysis of overall survival (OS) by tumor response by 6 mo, and to assess the efficacy and survival outcomes in specific subgroups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CLEAR was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial of first-line treatment of advanced clear cell RCC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 wk, lenvatinib plus everolimus (not included in this analysis), or sunitinib 50 mg orally daily for 4 wk on treatment/2 wk of no treatment. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Landmark analyses were conducted to assess the association of OS with tumor shrinkage and progressive disease status by 6 mo. Progression-free survival, duration of response, and objective response rate (ORR) were analyzed by the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk subgroup and by the presence of target kidney lesions. Efficacy was assessed by an independent review committee as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Landmark analyses by tumor shrinkage showed that patients enrolled to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm with a confirmed complete response or >75% target-lesion reduction by 6 mo had a 24-mo OS probability of ≥91.7%. A landmark analysis by disease progression showed that patients with no progression by 6 mo had lower probabilities of death in both arms. Patients with an IMDC risk classification of intermediate/poor had longer median progression-free survival (22.1 vs 5.9 mo) and a higher ORR (72.4% vs 28.8%) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib. Similarly, results favored lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in IMDC-favorable patients and those with/without target kidney lesions. Limitations of the study are that results were exploratory and not powered/stratified. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed improved efficacy versus sunitinib for patients with advanced RCC; landmark analyses showed that tumor response by 6 mo correlated with longer OS. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report of the CLEAR trial, we explored the survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma by assessing how well they initially responded to treatment. We also explored how certain groups of patients responded to treatment overall. Patients were assigned to cycles of either lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 wk or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 wk (followed by a 2-wk break). Patients who either had a "complete response" or had their tumors shrunk by >75% within 6 mo after starting treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab had better survival than those with less tumor reduction by 6 mo. Additionally, patients who had more severe disease (as per the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) at the start of study treatment survived for longer without disease progression with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib.

Safety and efficacy of avelumab plus carboplatin in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in an open-label Phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors have shown limited efficacy in unselected mCRPC. The evidence of a survival benefit with sipuleucel-T and ipilimumab, provides a rationale to study further increasing immunogenicity in mCRPC through combinations. METHODS: Safety and efficacy avelumab plus carboplatin was investigated in a single-arm Phase Ib study in mCRPC, progressing to at least one taxane and one androgen-receptor inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included PSA/radiographic responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline/somatic mutation analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 26 patients were included. Patients were heavily pretreated: 76.9% received ≥3 and 42.3% ≥4 prior lines. A DNA damage repair (DDR) alteration was found in three patients (11.5%). The safety profile was acceptable with 73% Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. PSA response rate ≥50% was seen in 7.7% of patients. The objective response rate was 17.6%, including one complete response (5.9%). Two of these responders had a known DDR alteration (one BRCA2, one ATM). The median response duration was 6 months. Median radiographic PFS was 6.6 months (95% CI 4.28-9.01), and median OS 10.6 months (95% CI 6.68-NR). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab plus carboplatin has an acceptable safety profile and was associated with a prolonged OS given the heavily pretreated population.

Corrigendum: Phase 3 CLEAR study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: outcomes in subgroups for the lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab and sunitinib arms.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1223282.].

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.

Cabozantinib combination therapy for the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review.

Background: Cabozantinib monotherapy is approved for the treatment of several types of solid tumors. Investigation into the use of cabozantinib combined with other therapies is increasing. To understand the evidence in this area, we performed a systematic review of cabozantinib combination therapy for the treatment of solid tumors in adults. Methods: This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020144680). On 9 October 2020, we searched for clinical trials and observational studies of cabozantinib as part of a combination therapy for solid tumors using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases, and by screening relevant congress abstracts. Eligible studies reported clinical or safety outcomes, or biomarker data. Randomized and observational studies with a sample size of fewer than 25 and studies of cabozantinib monotherapy were excluded. For each study, quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology, and the study characteristics were described qualitatively. This study was funded by Ipsen. Results: Of 2421 citations identified, 32 articles were included (6 with results from randomized studies, 24 with results from non-randomized phase I or II studies, and 2 with results from both). The most commonly studied tumor types were metastatic urothelial carcinoma/genitourinary tumors and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Findings from randomized studies suggested that cabozantinib combined with other therapies may lead to better progression-free survival than some current standards of care in renal cell carcinoma, CRPC, and non-small-cell lung cancer. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue. Conclusion: This review demonstrates the promising efficacy outcomes of cabozantinib combined with other therapies, and a safety profile similar to cabozantinib alone. However, the findings are limited by the fact that most of the identified studies were reported as congress abstracts only. More evidence from randomized trials is needed to explore cabozantinib as a combination therapy further.

Cabozantinib for the treatment of solid tumors: a systematic review.

Background: Cabozantinib is approved, in various settings, for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, medullary thyroid cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and it has been investigated for the treatment of other cancers. With the available evidence and the real-world performance of cabozantinib compared with clinical trial data, we performed a systematic review of cabozantinib monotherapy as treatment for solid tumors in adults. Methods: This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020144680). We searched for clinical and observational studies of cabozantinib monotherapy for solid tumors using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases (October 2020), and screened relevant congress abstracts. Eligible studies reported clinical or safety outcomes, or biomarker data. Small studies (n < 25) and studies of cabozantinib combination therapies were excluded. Quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology, and study characteristics were described qualitatively. Results: Of 2888 citations, 114 were included (52 randomized studies, 29 observational studies, 32 nonrandomized phase I or II studies or pilot trials, and 1 analysis of data from a randomized study and a nonrandomized study). Beyond approved indications, other tumors studied were castration-resistant prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, uveal melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma, glioblastoma, pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas, cholangiocarcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, colorectal cancer, salivary gland cancer, carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue. Conclusion: The identified evidence demonstrates the positive efficacy/effectiveness of cabozantinib monotherapy in various solid tumor types, with safety findings being consistent with those observed with other VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors. When available, real-world findings were consistent with the data reported from clinical trials. A limitation of this review is the high proportion of abstracts; however, this allowed us to capture the most up-to-date findings.

Recent therapeutic advances in urothelial carcinoma: A paradigm shift in disease management.

Management of first-line advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) has consisted during the past three decades in the administration of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by observation. Despite moderate to high response rates to first-line treatment, most patients will relapse shortly after and the outcomes with subsequent therapies are poor with 5-year overall survival rates of 5% in the pre-immunotherapy era. Nonetheless, recent therapeutic developments including the paradigm shift of first-line maintenance therapy with avelumab after response or stabilization on platinum-based chemotherapy, along with the incorporation of new drug classes in further lines of treatment such as antibody drug-conjugates and fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors have reshaped the field leading to better outcomes in this patient population. This article reviews the current state of the art with an overview on UC management, recent advances, and the upcoming strategies currently in development in advanced UC with an insight into the biology of this disease.

Management of Localized Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer from a Multidisciplinary Perspective: Current Position of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary (SOGUG) Working Group.

This review presents challenges and recommendations on different aspects related to the management of patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), which were discussed by a group of experts of a Spanish Oncology Genitourinary (SOGUG) Working Group within the framework of the Genitourinary Alliance project (12GU). It is necessary to clearly define which patients are candidates for radical cystectomy and which are candidates for undergoing bladder-sparing procedures. In older patients, it is necessary to include a geriatric assessment and evaluation of comorbidities. The pathological report should include a classification of the histopathological variant of MIBC, particularly the identification of subtypes with prognostic, molecular and therapeutic implications. Improvement of clinical staging, better definition of prognostic groups based on molecular subtypes, and identification of biomarkers potentially associated with maximum benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy are areas for further research. A current challenge in the management of MIBC is improving the selection of patients likely to be candidates for immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in the neoadjuvant setting. Optimization of FDG-PET/CT reliability in staging of MIBC and the selection of patients is necessary, as well as the design of prospective studies aimed to compare the value of different imaging techniques in parallel.

Immunological Status of Bladder Cancer Patients Based on Urine Leukocyte Composition at Radical Cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer (BC) is the ninth most common malignancy worldwide, with high rates of recurrence. The use of urine leukocyte composition at the time of radical cystectomy (RC) as a marker for the study of patients' immunological status and to predict the recurrence of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) has received little attention. METHODS: Urine and matched peripheral blood samples were collected from 24 MIBC patients at the time of RC. Leukocyte composition and expression of PD-L1 and PD-1 in each subpopulation were determined by flow cytometry. RESULTS: All MIBC patients had leukocytes in urine. There were different proportions of leukocyte subpopulations. The expression of PD-L1 and PD-1 on each subpopulation differed between patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), smoking status, and the affectation of lymph nodes influenced urine composition. We observed a link between leukocytes in urine and blood circulation. Recurrent patients without NAC and with no affectation of lymph nodes had a higher proportion of lymphocytes, macrophages, and PD-L1+ neutrophils in urine than non-recurrent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Urine leukocyte composition may be a useful tool for analyzing the immunological status of MIBC patients. Urine cellular composition allowed us to identify a new subgroup of LN- patients with a higher risk of recurrence.