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.

Medical oncology workload, workforce census, and needs in Spain: two nationwide studies by the Spanish Society of medical oncology

Purpose Growing complexity and demand for cancer care entail increased challenges for Medical Oncology (MO). The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has promoted studies to provide updated data to estimate the need for medical oncologists in 2040 and to analyse current professional standing of young medical oncologists. Methods Two national, online surveys were conducted. The first (2021) targeted 146 Heads of MO Departments, and the second (2022), 775 young medical oncologists who had completed their MO residency between 2014 and 2021. Participants were contacted individually, and data were processed anonymously. Results Participation rates reached 78.8% and 48.8%, respectively. The updated data suggest that 87–110 new medical oncologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) should be recruited each year to achieve an optimal ratio of 110–130 new cases per medical oncologist FTE by 2040. The professional standing analysis reveals that 9.1% of medical oncologists trained in Spain do not work in clinical care in the country, with tremendous employment instability (only 15.2% have a permanent contract). A high percentage of young medical oncologists have contemplated career paths other than clinical care (64.5%) or working in other countries (51.7%). Conclusions Optimal ratios of medical oncologists must be achieved to tackle the evolution of MO workloads and challenges in comprehensive cancer care. However, the incorporation and permanence of medical oncologists in the national healthcare system in Spain could be compromised by their current sub-optimal professional standing (AU)

Medical oncology workload, workforce census, and needs in Spain: two nationwide studies by the Spanish Society of medical oncology.

PURPOSE: Growing complexity and demand for cancer care entail increased challenges for Medical Oncology (MO). The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has promoted studies to provide updated data to estimate the need for medical oncologists in 2040 and to analyse current professional standing of young medical oncologists. METHODS: Two national, online surveys were conducted. The first (2021) targeted 146 Heads of MO Departments, and the second (2022), 775 young medical oncologists who had completed their MO residency between 2014 and 2021. Participants were contacted individually, and data were processed anonymously. RESULTS: Participation rates reached 78.8% and 48.8%, respectively. The updated data suggest that 87-110 new medical oncologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) should be recruited each year to achieve an optimal ratio of 110-130 new cases per medical oncologist FTE by 2040. The professional standing analysis reveals that 9.1% of medical oncologists trained in Spain do not work in clinical care in the country, with tremendous employment instability (only 15.2% have a permanent contract). A high percentage of young medical oncologists have contemplated career paths other than clinical care (64.5%) or working in other countries (51.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal ratios of medical oncologists must be achieved to tackle the evolution of MO workloads and challenges in comprehensive cancer care. However, the incorporation and permanence of medical oncologists in the national healthcare system in Spain could be compromised by their current sub-optimal professional standing.

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.

Phase II Trial Evaluating Olaparib Maintenance in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Responsive or Stabilized on Docetaxel Treatment: SOGUG-IMANOL Study.

The SOGUG-IMANOL trial was a phase 2, uncontrolled, Spanish multicenter study to assess the effect of maintenance treatment with olaparib on radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who achieved partial or complete response or disease stabilization on docetaxel treatment and had a documented germline/somatic mutation in any of the homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Patients received olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily. From the screened population (n = 134), 26 (19.4%) somatic mutations were found, and 14 patients were included in the study. The median radiographic PFS was 11.1 (95%CI, 5.7 to 16.5) months. The median PSA-PFS was 3.5 (95%CI, 1.0 to 6.0) months, and the median clinical PFS was 14.7 (95%CI, 1.8 to 27.5 months). Clinical benefit was observed in 12 patients (85.7%, 95%CI 67.4% to 100%), including two patients with partial response and 10 with stable disease. Six patients reported grade 3-5 adverse events: asthenia (n = 3), anemia (n = 2) and neutropenia (n = 1). In this setting, olaparib has been shown to be an efficacious maintenance treatment in terms of radiographic PFS and clinical benefit, becoming a therapeutic option for some patients harboring an HRR gene mutation and in scenarios where further investigation is needed.

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.

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022)

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a “bridge” to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab–axitinib, nivolumab–cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab–lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (AU)

SEOM SOGUG clinical guideline for treatment of kidney cancer (2022).

Renal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in men and the tenth in women. The aim of this article is to review the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of renal carcinoma accompanied by recommendations with new evidence and treatment algorithms. A new pathologic classification of RCC by the World Health Organization (WHO) was published in 2022 and this classification would be considered a "bridge" to a future molecular classification. For patients with localized disease, surgery is the treatment of choice with nephron-sparing surgery recommended when feasible. Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab is an option for intermediate-or high-risk cases, as well as patients after complete resection of metastatic disease. More data are needed in the future, including positive overall survival data. Clinical prognostic classification, preferably IMDC, should be used for treatment decision making in mRCC. Cytoreductive nephrectomy should not be deemed mandatory in individuals with intermediate-poor IMDC/MSKCC risk who require systemic therapy. Metastasectomy can be contemplated in selected subjects with a limited number of metastases or long metachronous disease-free interval. For the population of patients with metastatic ccRCC as a whole, the combination of pembrolizumab-axitinib, nivolumab-cabozantinib, or pembrolizumab-lenvatinib can be considered as the first option based on the benefit obtained in OS versus sunitinib. In cases that have an intermediate IMDC and poor prognosis, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has demonstrated superior OS compared to sunitinib. As for individuals with advanced RCC previously treated with one or two antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, nivolumab and cabozantinib are the options of choice. When there is progression following initial immunotherapy-based treatment, we recommend treatment with an antiangiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. While no clear sequence can be advocated, medical oncologists and patients should be aware of the recent advances and new strategies that improve survival and quality of life in the setting of metastatic RC.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Phase II Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Savolitinib and Durvalumab in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cancer (CALYPSO).

PURPOSE: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated. METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status). RESULTS: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction). CONCLUSION: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

Long-term Clinical Outcomes of a Spanish Cohort of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients with a Complete Response to Sunitinib.

INTRODUCTION: The long-term clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and a complete response (CR) to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sunitinib are poorly known. The characteristics of these patients could reveal previously undetected associations with clinical variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational, retrospective study (ATILA) used data from a registry of patients with mRCC who had received first-line sunitinib and had achieved CR from 2007 to 2018 in Spain. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with CR were included; 48 patients (77.4%) received sunitinib in monotherapy and 14 (22.6%) combined with or followed by local treatment. Median age was 58.5 years (range, 32-81). Most patients (79.0%) had clear cell histology and had undergone previous nephrectomy (90.3%). The majority (70.2%) had an intermediate IMDC prognosis, 23% favorable and 7.0% poor. The median time on treatment with sunitinib was 28.2 months (IQR, 16.7-41.0) and the median time to CR was 10.9 months (IQR, 7.2-19.3). After a median follow-up of 8 years (range, 3-13 years), the median PFS was not reached. The overall median duration of complete response was 64.1 months (IQR, 32.2-99.4). The tolerance and safety profile of sunitinib was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: Durable CR to sunitinib was observed in patients regardless the prognosis group, metastasis site or histology type, with 75% of patients remaining in CR after 10 years. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03916458.

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.].

Health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus versus sunitinib (CLEAR): a randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6-22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was -1·75 (SE 0·59) versus -2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, -5·93 (0·86) versus -6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and -4·96 (0·85) versus -6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43-12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14-15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94-1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29-15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·14; 0·88 [0·74-1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43-12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·00; 0·83 [0·70-0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00-not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14-131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14-153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29-105·14; 0·60 [0·47-0·77], log-rank p<0·0001) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 124·86 weeks (94·71-134·57) versus 74·86 weeks (54·14-96·00; 0·67 [0·53-0·85], log-rank p=0·0012) for the EQ-5D VAS. No outcomes on any of the instruments significantly favoured sunitinib over lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab. Most HRQOL comparisons of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus sunitinib were similar or favoured sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: These HRQOL results demonstrate that patients given lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment had similar or favourable scores compared with patients given sunitinib, particularly with respect to time to definitive deterioration. These results support the efficacy and safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai (Nutley, NJ, USA) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain

PurposeTo review current measures for renal cancer care and develop a comprehensive and updated list of measures for their practical use in Spain.MethodsThe study was developed by Fundación ECO, a Spanish foundation aiming to improve oncology quality of care. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures and knowledge gaps. A scientific committee composed of nine experts reviewed the literature findings and added measures. A preliminary list of 42 measures was evaluated with the Delphi method to gather feedback from 47 medical oncology experts in Spain. Experts scored the appropriateness of the measures and ranked their priority in two consecutive online surveys. The scientific committee reviewed the Delphi results and developed the measures. A technical group from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria conducted and oversaw the Delphi method.ResultsThe Delphi method led to consensus on all 42 measures. The scientific committee used a prioritisation matrix to select 25 of these measures for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer. These measures regarded structure, process, and outcome and covered general management, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and evaluation of health outcomes. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for all 25 measures, including their definition, formula, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale.ConclusionsThis manuscript aims to provide healthcare professionals with expert- and evidence-based measures that are useful for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer in Spain and cover all aspects and stages.

Measures to evaluate quality of care in renal cancer: results of a Delphi study in Spain.

PURPOSE: To review current measures for renal cancer care and develop a comprehensive and updated list of measures for their practical use in Spain. METHODS: The study was developed by Fundación ECO, a Spanish foundation aiming to improve oncology quality of care. A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures and knowledge gaps. A scientific committee composed of nine experts reviewed the literature findings and added measures. A preliminary list of 42 measures was evaluated with the Delphi method to gather feedback from 47 medical oncology experts in Spain. Experts scored the appropriateness of the measures and ranked their priority in two consecutive online surveys. The scientific committee reviewed the Delphi results and developed the measures. A technical group from Universidad Francisco de Vitoria conducted and oversaw the Delphi method. RESULTS: The Delphi method led to consensus on all 42 measures. The scientific committee used a prioritisation matrix to select 25 of these measures for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer. These measures regarded structure, process, and outcome and covered general management, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and evaluation of health outcomes. Easy-to-use index cards were developed for all 25 measures, including their definition, formula, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript aims to provide healthcare professionals with expert- and evidence-based measures that are useful for evaluating quality of care in renal cancer in Spain and cover all aspects and stages.

Expert recommendations on the management of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progress after CHAARTED or LATITUDE.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide practical recommendations on the management of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have progressed after docetaxel plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or abiraterone plus ADT. METHODS: Systematic literature review (SLR), nominal group meeting, and Delphi process. A panel of 12 experts was established who defined the scope, users, and sections of the document. We performed an SLR in order to assess the efficacy and safety of available drugs in patients with mCRPC. Abstracts from the American Society of Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings were also examined. The results were discussed during an expert meeting in which 14 recommendations were generated. The level of agreement with the recommendations was also tested by 13 additional experts following the Delphi process. Recommendations were voted by means of scores ranging from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). We defined agreement when at least 70% of the experts voted ⩾7. Next, we assigned a level of evidence and grade to the recommendation using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence, following which the final document was drafted. RESULTS: The literature search did not find any articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Finally, 13 out of 14 recommendations were accepted after two Delphi rounds (two were modified after the first round). They pertain to general and individual case-based treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRPC patients who have progressed after docetaxel or abiraterone plus ADT in the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer setting, these recommendations may support treatment decision-making, due to the lack of evidence or other globally accepted sequencing algorithms.

Clinical Utility of Ghrelin-O-Acyltransferase (GOAT) Enzyme as a Diagnostic Tool and Potential Therapeutic Target in Prostate Cancer.

Recent data suggested that plasma Ghrelin O-Acyl Transferase enzyme (GOAT) levels could represent a new diagnostic biomarker for prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, we aimed to explore the diagnostic and prognostic/aggressiveness capacity of GOAT in urine, as well as to interrogate its putative pathophysiological role in PCa. We analysed urine/plasma levels of GOAT in a cohort of 993 patients. In vitro (i.e., cell-proliferation) and in vivo (tumor-growth in a xenograft-model) approaches were performed in response to the modulation of GOAT expression/activity in PCa cells. Our results demonstrate that plasma and urine GOAT levels were significantly elevated in PCa patients compared to controls. Remarkably, GOAT significantly outperformed PSA in the diagnosis of PCa and significant PCa in patients with PSA levels ranging from 3 to 10 ng/mL (the so-called PSA grey-zone). Additionally, urine GOAT levels were associated to clinical (e.g., Gleason-score, PSA levels) and molecular (e.g., CDK2/CDK6/CDKN2A expression) aggressiveness parameters. Indeed, GOAT overexpression increased, while its silencing/blockade decreased cell-proliferation in PCa cells. Moreover, xenograft tumors derived from GOAT-overexpressing PCa (DU145) cells were significantly higher than those derived from the mock-overexpressing cells. Altogether, our results demonstrate that GOAT could be used as a diagnostic and aggressiveness marker in urine and a therapeutic target in PCa.

Re-treatment with radium-223: 2-year follow-up from an international, open-label, phase 1/2 study in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is approved for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), symptomatic bone metastases, and no visceral disease using a dosing regimen of 6 injections (55 kBq/kg intravenously; 1 injection every 4 weeks). Early results from international, open-label, phase 1/2 study NCT01934790 showed that re-treatment with radium-223 was well tolerated with favorable effects on disease progression. Here we report safety and efficacy findings from 2-year follow-up of the radium-223 re-treatment study. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases who completed 6 initial radium-223 injections with no disease progression in bone and later progressed were eligible for radium-223 re-treatment (up to 6 additional radium-223 injections), provided that hematologic parameters were adequate and chemotherapy had not been administered after the initial course of radium-223. Concomitant cytotoxic agents were not allowed during re-treatment but were allowed at the investigator's discretion during follow-up; other concomitant agents for prostate cancer (including abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide) were allowed at investigator's discretion. The primary objective was safety. Exploratory objectives included time to radiographic bone progression, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to total alkaline phosphatase (tALP), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, overall survival (OS), time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), and SSE-free survival, all calculated from re-treatment start. Evaluation of safety and exploratory efficacy objectives included active 2-year follow-up. Safety results from active follow-up and updated efficacy are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients were re-treated with radium-223; 29 (66%) completed all 6 injections, and 34 (77%) entered 2-year active follow-up, during which no new safety concerns and no serious drug-related adverse events were noted. rPFS events (progression or death) occurred in 19 (43%) of 44 patients; median rPFS was 9.9 months. Radiographic bone progression occurred in 5 (11%) of 44 patients. Median OS was 24.4 months. Median times to first SSE and SSE-free survival were 16.7 and 12.8 months, respectively. Median time to tALP progression was not reached; median time to PSA progression was 2.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Re-treatment with radium-223 in this selected patient population was well tolerated, led to minimal hematologic toxicity, and provided continued disease control in bone at 2-year follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone vs. cabazitaxel as a subsequent treatment after first-line docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from a prospective observational study (CAPRO).

BACKGROUND: To describe the patterns of second-line treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel treatment in a Spanish population, to identify the factors associated with those patterns, and to compare the efficacy and safety of the treatments most frequently administered. METHODS: Observational, prospective study conducted in patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; documented metastatic castration-resistant disease; progression after first-line, docetaxel-based chemotherapy with or without other agents. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients recruited into the study, 100 patients were prescribed abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP), 44 patients received cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CP), and 6 patients received other treatments. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% [confidence interval] CI 1.01 to 1.11) and not elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.76) were independently associated with the administration of AAP. Treatment with AAP was associated with significantly longer clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.76) compared to CP, while no significant differences between the treatments were found regarding biochemical progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.49 to 1.24]). However, in a post-hoc Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders there were not differences between AAP and CP in any of the time-to-event outcomes, including overall survival. We observed no new safety signals related to either regimen. CONCLUSION: Second-line AAP for patients with mCRPC is the most common treatment strategy after progression with a docetaxel-based regimen. When controlling for potential confounders, patients receiving this treatment showed no differences in PFS and OS in comparison to those receiving CP, although these latter results should be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.