A randomized phase IIa study of quantified bone scan response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with radium-223 dichloride alone or in combination with abiraterone acetate/prednisone or enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), assessing treatment response and bone lesions with technetium-99m is limited by image resolution and subjectivity. We evaluated bone scan lesion area (BSLA), a quantitative imaging assessment of response in patients with mCRPC receiving radium-223 alone or in combination with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, non-comparative phase IIa three-arm trial (NCT02034552) evaluated technetium-99m-based BSLA response rate (RR), safety, radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE) in men with mCRPC and bone metastases receiving radium-223 with/without abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was week 24 BSLA RR. RESULTS: Overall, 63 patients received treatment (abiraterone/prednisone combination, n = 22; enzalutamide combination, n = 22; radium-223 monotherapy, n = 19). Median treatment duration (first to last dose of any study treatment) was 12 months (abiraterone/prednisone combination), 10 months (enzalutamide combination), and 3 months (radium-223 monotherapy). Week 24 BSLA RR was 58% [80% confidence interval (CI) 41% to 74%; one-sided P < 0.0001; 11/19 patients] with abiraterone/prednisone combination, 50% (32% to 68%; one-sided P < 0.0001; 8/16 patients) with enzalutamide combination, and 22% (10% to 40%; one-sided P = 0.0109; 4/18 patients) with radium-223 monotherapy. Median rPFS was not evaluable for combination arms and 4 months (80% CI 4 to 12) for monotherapy. SSEs were reported in 32% of patients; median time to first SSE was not estimable. Fatigue and back pain were the most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); more patients receiving combination therapy than monotherapy had TEAEs. Fractures were reported in 18% receiving abiraterone/prednisone, 32% receiving enzalutamide, and 11% receiving radium-223 monotherapy. Fracture rates were lower in patients taking bone health agents versus not taking bone health agents at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Technetium-99m imaging BSLA may offer objective, quantifiable assessment of isotope uptake changes, and potentially treatment response, in patients with mCRPC and bone metastases treated with radium-223 alone or in combination with abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide. In this largely treatment-naive population, BSLA RR was numerically lower with radium-223 monotherapy versus combination therapy, indicating a limited role as first-line treatment. Use of radium-223 should follow evidence-based treatment guidelines and the licensed indication.

A randomised phase II trial of three dosing regimens of radium-223 in patients with bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 prolongs overall survival and delays symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. The approved radium-223 regimen is 55 kBq/kg every 4 weeks (q4w) for six cycles (standard dose). We investigated different radium-223 regimens in patients with mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to radium-223 standard-dose, high-dose (88 kBq/kg q4w for six cycles) or extended-schedule arms (55 kBq/kg q4w for 12 cycles). The primary end point, SSE-free survival (SSE-FS), was compared in patients treated with a high- versus standard-dose regimen, or with a standard dose in an extended (>6 to 12 cycles) versus standard schedule (six cycles). RESULTS: A total of 391 patients were randomised; baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. On-treatment SSEs developed in 37/130 (28%), 42/130 (32%) and 48/131 (37%) patients in the standard-dose, high-dose and extended-schedule arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in SSE-FS in the high- versus standard-dose arms [median 12.9 months versus 12.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 80% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.27, P = 0.70], and in the extended- versus standard-schedule arms (median 10.8 months versus 13.2 months; HR 1.26, 80% CI 0.94-1.69, P = 0.31). Overall survival in the three treatment arms was similar. As many as 370 (95%) patients received treatment (median of six cycles) in each arm. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affected 34% of patients in the standard-dose, 48% in the high-dose and 53% in the extended-schedule arm, causing permanent discontinuation in 9%, 16% and 17% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Radium-223 high-dose or extended-schedule regimens resulted in no change in SSE-FS or other efficacy end points and were associated with more grade ≥3 TEAEs. The extended-schedule regimen (beyond six doses) could not be implemented in a large proportion of patients due to disease progression. Therefore, the standard-dose schedule remains one of the standard therapies for patients with symptomatic mCRPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02023697.

Activity of enzalutamide in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is affected by prior treatment with abiraterone and/or docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and abiraterone are new androgen-axis disrupting treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We examined the response and outcomes of enzalutamide-treated mCRPC patients in the real-world context of prior treatments of abiraterone and/or docetaxel. METHODS: We conducted a seven-institution retrospective study of mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide between January 2009 and February 2014. We compared the baseline characteristics, PSA declines, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), duration on enzalutamide and overall survival (OS) across subgroups defined by prior abiraterone and/or docetaxel. RESULTS: Of 310 patients who received enzalutamide, 36 (12%) received neither prior abiraterone nor prior docetaxel, 79 (25%) received prior abiraterone, 30 (10%) received prior docetaxel and 165 (53%) received both prior abiraterone and prior docetaxel. Within these groups, respectively, ⩾30% PSA decline was achieved among 67, 28, 43 and 24% of patients; PSA-PFS was 5.5 (95% CI 4.2-9.1), 4.0 (3.2-4.8), 4.1 (2.9-5.4) and 2.8 (2.5-3.2) months; median duration of enzalutamide was 9.1 (7.3-not reached), 4.7 (3.7-7.7), 5.4 (3.8-8.4) and 3.9 (3.0-4.6) months. Median OS was reached only for the patients who received both prior abiraterone and docetaxel and was 12.2 months (95% CI 10.7-16.5). 12-month OS was 78% (59-100%), 64% (45-90%), 77% (61-97%) and 51% (41-62%). Of 70 patients who failed to achieve any PSA decline on prior abiraterone, 19 (27%) achieved ⩾30% PSA decline with subsequent enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: The activity of enzalutamide is blunted after abiraterone, after docetaxel, and still more after both, suggesting subsets of overlapping and distinct mechanisms of resistance.

First-, second-, third-line therapy for mRCC: benchmarks for trial design from the IMDC.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with multiple lines of therapy. Benchmarks for survival are required for patient counselling and clinical trial design. METHODS: Outcomes of mRCC patients from the International mRCC Database Consortium database treated with 1, 2, or 3+ lines of targeted therapy (TT) were compared by proportional hazards regression. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using different population inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In total, 2705 patients were treated with TT of which 57% received only first-line TT, 27% received two lines of TT, and 16% received 3+ lines of TT. Overall survival of patients who received 1, 2, or 3+ lines of TT were 14.9, 21.0, and 39.2 months, respectively, from first-line TT (P<0.0001). On multivariable analysis, 2 lines and 3+ lines of therapy were each associated with better OS (HR=0.738 and 0.626, P<0.0001). Survival outcomes for the subgroups were as follows: for all patients, OS 20.9 months and PFS 7.2 months; for those similar to eligible patients in the first-line ADAPT trial, OS 14.7 months and PFS 5.6 months; for those similar to patients in first-line TIVO-1 trial, OS 24.8 months and PFS 8.2 months; for those similar to patients in second-line INTORSECT trial, OS 13.0 months and PFS 3.9 months; and for those similar to patients in the third-line GOLD trial, OS 18.0 months and PFS 4.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are able to receive more lines of TT live longer. Survival benchmarks provide context and perspective when interpreting and designing clinical trials.

Outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma that do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been approved based on registration clinical trials that have strict eligibility criteria. The clinical outcomes of patients treated with targeted agents but are ineligible for trials are unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mRCC patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy were retrospectively deemed ineligible for clinical trials (according to commonly used inclusion/exclusion criteria) if they had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <70%, nonclear-cell histology, brain metastases, hemoglobin ≤9 g/dl, creatinine >2× the upper limit of normal, corrected calcium ≥12 mg/dl, platelet count of <100 × 10(3)/uL, or neutrophil count <1500/mm(3). RESULTS: Overall, 768 of 2210 (35%) patients in the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) were deemed ineligible for clinical trials by the above criteria. Between ineligible versus eligible patients, the response rate, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival of first-line targeted therapy were 22% versus 29% (P = 0.0005), 5.2 versus 8.6 months, and 12.5 versus 28.4 months (both P < 0.0001), respectively. Second-line PFS (if applicable) was 2.8 months in the trial ineligible versus 4.3 months in the trial eligible patients (P = 0.0039). When adjusted by the IMDC prognostic categories, the HR for death between trial ineligible and trial eligible patients was 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.378-1.751, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients that are ineligible for clinical trials is substantial and their outcomes are inferior. Specific trials addressing the unmet needs of protocol ineligible patients are warranted.

Primary anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical characteristics, risk factors, and subsequent therapy.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients treated with initial anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy exhibit progressive disease (PD) as the best response per RECIST criteria. METHODS: Data from patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with anti-VEGF therapy were collected through the International mRCC Database Consortium from 12 centers. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty-six assessable patients received initial VEGF inhibitors and 272 (26%) of these patients had PD as best response. Initial treatment included sunitinib (n = 203), sorafenib (n = 51), or bevacizumab (n = 18). Six percent of patients were at favorable risk, 55% at intermediate risk, and 39% at poor risk. On multivariable analysis, predictors of PD were Karnofsky performance status < 80% [odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, P < 0.0001], diagnosis to treatment < 1 year (OR = 2.1, P < 0.0001), neutrophilia (OR = 1.9, P = 0.0021), thrombocytosis (OR = 1.7, P = 0.0068), and anemia (OR = 1.6, P = 0.0058). Median progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD versus without PD was 2.4 versus 11 months (P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) was 6.8 versus 29 months (P < 0.0001), respectively. One hundred and eight (40%) VEGF-refractory patients proceeded to receive further systemic therapies. Response rate, PFS, and OS for subsequent therapy were 9%, 2.5 months, and 7.4 months, respectively, with no statistical differences between patients who received VEGF versus mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anti-VEGF-refractory mRCC patients have a dismal prognosis. Second-line anti-mTOR and anti-VEGF agents produce similar outcomes.

Racial disparity in incidence patterns and outcome of kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the subgroups that primarily contribute to the greater incidence and mortality of renal cancer in black Americans compared with white Americans. METHODS: We analyzed age, stage, and race-related differences in the incidence and survival among patients with renal cancer using the national Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry database. White and black patients with renal cell carcinoma who were older than 19 years of age and had been diagnosed between 1975 and 1998 were included. Incidence trends were analyzed by joinpoint regression with the statistical significance level at P <0.05. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the overall survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma by race (white versus black), age (20 to 59 versus 60+ years), and stage (local versus regional/distant). RESULTS: Localized disease predominantly accounted for the rise in incidence. Both black age groups with localized disease had a greater estimated annual percentage of incidence increase (4.46% for 20 to 59 years and 4.35% for 60+ years) compared with their white counterparts (2.87% and 3.06%, respectively). The magnitude of survival difference was largest between black versus white patients younger than 60 years of age who had local stage disease, with a median survival time of 190 and 259 months, respectively (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Young black patients with localized renal cancer appear to have had a greater rise in incidence and a poorer outcome than white patients of the same age and disease stage. Additional investigation is warranted to define the role of these race, stage, and age-related disparities in the etiology, prognosis, treatment, and follow-up of kidney cancer.

A single-institution experience with concurrent capecitabine and radiation therapy in gastrointestinal malignancies.

PURPOSE: We report our clinical experience with 32 patients receiving concurrent irradiation and capecitabine. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medical records of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies treated with radiation and capecitabine therapy were reviewed. RESULTS: The population consisted of 20 males and 12 females, with a median age of 67.5 years (45-84 years) and adequate hepatic and bone marrow function. Histology was adenocarcinoma in all patients, except two with esophageal squamous carcinoma. Twenty-one patients received the regimen as adjuvant therapy, three received preoperative therapy, and 8 patients received therapy for palliation. The median dose of capecitabine was 1600 mg/m(2)/day (1200-2500 mg/m(2)/day) orally for 5 days per week for the duration of radiation therapy. Thirty patients received a total dose ranging from 45 Gy to 64 Gy over 4-6 weeks. Two previously radiated patients received total doses of 29.9 Gy and 46 Gy. Grade 3/4 toxicities observed were neutropenia in 3 patients and diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and myocardial infarction in 1 patient each. No treatment-related mortality was observed. Twenty of 21 patients (95.2%) who received adjuvant therapy continue to be in complete remission. Four of 11 (36%) evaluable patients demonstrated a response. CONCLUSION: Concurrent capecitabine and radiation were very well tolerated and warrant further investigation in prospective trials.

Blastic mantle cell lymphoma associated with Burkitt-type translocation and hypodiploidy.

Two elderly men with stage IV mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) rapidly developed a leukaemic phase with unusually high blast counts that proved fatal. One lymph node biopsy showed diffuse MCL, the other blastic morphology. In addition to t(11;14), there were t(8;14) and t(1;19) in case 1 and dup(8)(q24q13) in case 2. Fluorescence in situ hybridization revealed genomic fusion of IgH/MYC genes in case 1 and an extra copy of C-MYC gene in case 2. The genomic alteration of C-MYC oncogene is probably implicated in the blastic transformation and aggressive behaviour of the disease.