Improved Disease-Free Survival With Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Final Results of the POUT Trial.

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.POUT was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial, including 261 patients with muscle-invasive or lymph node-positive, nonmetastatic upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) randomly assigned after radical nephroureterectomy to platinum-based chemotherapy (132) or surveillance (129). Primary outcome analysis demonstrated that chemotherapy improved disease-free survival (DFS). At that time, the planned secondary outcome analysis of overall survival (OS) was immature. By February 2022, 50 and 67 DFS events had occurred in the chemotherapy and surveillance groups, respectively, at a median follow-up of 65 months. The 5-year DFS was 62% versus 45%, univariable hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80, P = .001). The restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 18 months longer (95% CI, 6 to 30) in the chemotherapy arm. There were 46 and 60 deaths in the chemotherapy and control arms, respectively. The 5-year OS was 66% versus 57%, with univariable HR = 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.00, P = .049) and RMST difference 11 months (95% CI, 1 to 21). Treatment effects were consistent across chemotherapy regimens (carboplatin or cisplatin) and disease stage. Toxicities were similar to those previously reported, and there were no clinically relevant differences in quality of life between arms. In summary, although OS was not the primary outcome measure, the updated results add further support for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with UTUC, suggesting long-term benefits.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. RESULTS: Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. METHODS: Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS: These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices. METHODS: A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints. RESULTS: Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy and exposure to sunitinib - a post hoc analysis of the Immediate Surgery or Surgery After Sunitinib Malate in Treating Patients With Metastatic Kidney Cancer (SURTIME) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse if exposure to sunitinib in the Immediate Surgery or Surgery After Sunitinib Malate in Treating Patients With Metastatic Kidney Cancer (SURTIME) trial, which investigated opposite sequences of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and systemic therapy, is associated with the overall survival (OS) benefit observed in the deferred CN arm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis of SURTIME trial data. Variables analysed included number of patients receiving sunitinib, time from randomisation to start sunitinib, overall response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and duration of drug exposure and dose in the intention-to-treat population of the immediate and deferred arm. Descriptive methods and 95% confidence-intervals (CI) were used. RESULTS: In the deferred arm, 97.7% (95% CI 89.3-99.6%; n = 48) received sunitinib vs 80% (95% CI 66.9-88.7%, n = 40) in the immediate arm. Following immediate CN, 19.6% progressed 4 weeks after CN and the median time to start sunitinib was 39.5 vs 4.5 days in the deferred arm. At week 16, 46.0% had progressed at metastatic sites in the immediate CN arm vs 32.7% in the deferred arm. Sunitinib dose reductions, escalations and interruptions were not statistically significantly different between arms. Among patients who received sunitinib in the immediate or deferred arm the median total sunitinib treatment duration was 172.5 vs 248 days. Reduction of target lesions was more profound in the deferred arm. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the deferred CN approach, immediate CN impairs administration, onset, and duration of sunitinib. Starting with systemic therapy leads to early and more profound disease control and identification of progression prior to planned CN, which may have contributed to the observed OS benefit.

Long-Term Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Nivolumab Alone Versus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 067 trial, durable clinical benefit was demonstrated previously with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab. Here, we report 6.5-year efficacy and safety outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 314), nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 316), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks (four doses; n = 315). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab. Secondary end points included objective response rate, descriptive efficacy assessments of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone, and safety. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS; descriptive analysis), which excludes deaths unrelated to melanoma, was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS (minimum follow-up, 6.5 years) was 72.1, 36.9, and 19.9 months in the combination, nivolumab, and ipilimumab groups, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, 58.7, and 21.9 months, respectively; 6.5-year OS rates were 57%, 43%, and 25% in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46%, 42%, and 22% in those with BRAF-wild-type tumors, respectively. In patients who discontinued treatment, the median treatment-free interval was 27.6, 2.3, and 1.9 months, respectively. Since the 5-year analysis, no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: These 6.5-year CheckMate 067 results, which include the longest median OS in a phase III melanoma trial reported to date and the first report of MSS, showed durable, improved clinical outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and, in descriptive analyses, with the combination over nivolumab monotherapy.

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

BACKGROUND: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus. METHODS: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC. LAY SUMMARY: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract (UTUCs) are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder. No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent. The POUT (Peri-Operative chemotherapy versus sUrveillance in upper Tract urothelial cancer) trial aimed to assess the efficacy of systemic platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with UTUCs. METHODS: We did a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 71 hospitals in the UK. We recruited patients with UTUC after nephroureterectomy staged as either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 or pTany N1-3 M0. We randomly allocated participants centrally (1:1) to either surveillance or four 21-day cycles of chemotherapy, using a minimisation algorithm with a random element. Chemotherapy was either cisplatin (70 mg/m2) or carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]4·5/AUC5, for glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min only) administered intravenously on day 1 and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1 and 8; chemotherapy was initiated within 90 days of surgery. Follow-up included standard cystoscopic, radiological, and clinical assessments. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival analysed by intention to treat with a Peto-Haybittle stopping rule for (in)efficacy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01993979. A preplanned interim analysis met the efficacy criterion for early closure after recruitment of 261 participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2012, and Nov 8, 2017, we enrolled 261 participants from 57 of 71 open study sites. 132 patients were assigned chemotherapy and 129 surveillance. One participant allocated chemotherapy withdrew consent for data use after randomisation and was excluded from analyses. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·30-0·68; p=0·0001) at a median follow-up of 30·3 months (IQR 18·0-47·5). 3-year event-free estimates were 71% (95% CI 61-78) and 46% (36-56) for chemotherapy and surveillance, respectively. 55 (44%) of 126 participants who started chemotherapy had acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, which accorded with frequently reported events for the chemotherapy regimen. Five (4%) of 129 patients managed by surveillance had acute grade 3 or worse emergent adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Gemcitabine-platinum combination chemotherapy initiated within 90 days after nephroureterectomy significantly improved disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced UTUC. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be considered a new standard of care after nephroureterectomy for this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Epstein-Barr Virus-Positive Mucocutaneous Ulcers Complicate Colitis Caused by Immune Checkpoint Regulator Therapy and Associate With Colon Perforation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cancer therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause colitis and colon perforation. We investigated whether infection with Epstein Barr virus (EBV) associates with development and severity of colitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of fixed colon tissues from 16 patients (12 men, 4 women, median age, 69.5 y) with colitis after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (9 patients treated with anti-CTLA4, 3 patients treated with anti-PD1, and 4 patients received a combination). Ten tissue samples were biopsies and 6 were collected during resection (4 surgeries for colon perforation). Patients were treated between 2010 and 2018 in the United Kingdom. The tissues were analyzed by pathology, in situ hybridization (to detect EBV-encoded small RNAs [EBERs]), and immunohistochemistry. Clinical data were also collected. RESULTS: Colon tissues from 4 of the 13 patients who received anti-CTLA4 (alone or in combination, 4 with colon perforation) had EBV-positive lymphoproliferations that manifested as florid ulcers associated with polymorphous infiltrates containing EBV-positive blasts (CD30+ or CD30-negative, CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+), plasma cells (CD138+, CD20-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), and small B cells (CD20+, CD3-negative, and EBER+ or EBER-negative), consistent with EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcers (EBVMCUs). In analyses of biopsies collected from 2 patients with EBVMCUs over multiple time points, we found that earlier biopsies had no or only a few EBV-positive cells, whereas 1 later biopsy had EBVMCU and co-infection with cytomegalovirus. EBVMCUs were associated with steroid-refractory colitis (100% of EBV-positive patients vs 12.5% of EBV-negative patients; P = .008) and colon perforation (100% of EBV-positive patients vs no EBV-negative patients; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that colon tissues from 4/13 patients with colitis after anti-CTLA4 therapy (4/6 patients who underwent resection and 4/4 patients with colon perforation) contained EBVMCUs. EBVMCUs seem to arise secondarily in areas of inflamed colon due to immunosuppressive treatment for colitis. EBVMCUs are associated with steroid-refractory colitis and colon perforation.

Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained long-term overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

Extracting data from a chemotherapy prescription platform for real-world oncology research in the UK: a pilot study.

Aim: In the UK, there are limited data sources for evaluating real-world research questions related to oncology therapy. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of extracting data directly from a chemotherapy prescription platform (ChemoCare®) utilized in standard care. Patients & methods: Concordance was compared with data extracted manually for patients with advanced melanoma as part of a concurrent chart review (gold-standard) using Cohen's kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: There was high concordance between data automatically extracted from the prescription platform and chart review data. Conclusion: This pilot can be used as a framework for future studies using direct, automated extraction from prescription platforms.

Surgical Safety of Cytoreductive Nephrectomy Following Sunitinib: Results from the Multicentre, Randomised Controlled Trial of Immediate Versus Deferred Nephrectomy (SURTIME).

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer SURTIME trial explored timing of sunitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Previous retrospective studies suggest increased surgery-related adverse events (AEs) after presurgical TKI. We report surgical safety from a randomised comparison of CN before or after sunitinib. In-hospital mortality, 30-d readmission rate, and intraoperative and 30-d postoperative AEs according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 and Clavien-Dindo (CD) were analysed. Patients were randomised 1:1 to immediate CN followed by sunitinib versus sunitinib followed by deferred CN 24h after the last dose of sunitinib. None of the tumours in the deferred arm became unresectable, and only two patients had a sunitinib-related delay of CN of >2wk. AEs related to surgery (all grades) in the immediate and deferred arms occurred in 52% and 53% after CN, respectively, although the number of intraoperative surgery-related AEs was higher in the immediate arm. Postoperative AEs (CD ≥3), 30-d readmission, and in-hospital mortality rates were 6.5%, 13%, and 4.3% in the immediate arm and 2.5%, 7.5%, and 2.5% in the deferred arm, respectively. There were no differences in surgery time, blood loss, and hospital stay. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with metastatic kidney cancer do not have more surgical complications irrespective of whether they are treated with systemic therapy before or after surgery.

Comparison of Immediate vs Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients With Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Sunitinib: The SURTIME Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In clinical practice, patients with primary metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been offered cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) followed by targeted therapy, but the optimal sequence of surgery and systemic therapy is unknown. Objective: To examine whether a period of sunitinib therapy before CN improves outcome compared with immediate CN followed by sunitinib. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial began as a phase 3 trial on July 14, 2010, and continued until March 24, 2016, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years and a clinical cutoff date for this report of May 5, 2017. Patients with mRCC of clear cell subtype, resectable primary tumor, and 3 or fewer surgical risk factors were studied. Interventions: Immediate CN followed by sunitinib therapy vs treatment with 3 cycles of sunitinib followed by CN in the absence of progression followed by sunitinib therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival was the primary end point, which needed a sample size of 458 patients. Because of poor accrual, the independent data monitoring committee endorsed reporting the intention-to-treat 28-week progression-free rate (PFR) instead. Overall survival (OS), adverse events, and postoperative progression were secondary end points. Results: The study closed after 5.7 years with 99 patients (80 men and 19 women; mean [SD] age, 60 [8.5] years). The 28-week PFR was 42% in the immediate CN arm (n = 50) and 43% in the deferred CN arm (n = 49) (P = .61). The intention-to-treat OS hazard ratio of deferred vs immediate CN was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.34-0.95; P = .03), with a median OS of 32.4 months (95% CI, 14.5-65.3 months) in the deferred CN arm and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.3-29.5 months) in the immediate CN arm. In the deferred CN arm, 48 of 49 patients (98%; 95% CI, 89%-100%) received sunitinib vs 40 of 50 (80%; 95% CI, 67%-89%) in the immediate arm. Systemic progression before planned CN in the deferred CN arm resulted in a per-protocol recommendation against nephrectomy in 14 patients (29%; 95% CI, 18%-43%). Conclusions and Relevance: Deferred CN did not improve the 28-week PFR. With the deferred approach, more patients received sunitinib and OS results were higher. Pretreatment with sunitinib may identify patients with inherent resistance to systemic therapy before planned CN. This evidence complements recent data from randomized clinical trials to inform treatment decisions in patients with primary clear cell mRCC requiring sunitinib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01099423.

Recombination hotspots in an extended human pseudoautosomal domain predicted from double-strand break maps and characterized by sperm-based crossover analysis.

The human X and Y chromosomes are heteromorphic but share a region of homology at the tips of their short arms, pseudoautosomal region 1 (PAR1), that supports obligate crossover in male meiosis. Although the boundary between pseudoautosomal and sex-specific DNA has traditionally been regarded as conserved among primates, it was recently discovered that the boundary position varies among human males, due to a translocation of ~110 kb from the X to the Y chromosome that creates an extended PAR1 (ePAR). This event has occurred at least twice in human evolution. So far, only limited evidence has been presented to suggest this extension is recombinationally active. Here, we sought direct proof by examining thousands of gametes from each of two ePAR-carrying men, for two subregions chosen on the basis of previously published male X-chromosomal meiotic double-strand break (DSB) maps. Crossover activity comparable to that seen at autosomal hotspots was observed between the X and the ePAR borne on the Y chromosome both at a distal and a proximal site within the 110-kb extension. Other hallmarks of classic recombination hotspots included evidence of transmission distortion and GC-biased gene conversion. We observed good correspondence between the male DSB clusters and historical recombination activity of this region in the X chromosomes of females, as ascertained from linkage disequilibrium analysis; this suggests that this region is similarly primed for crossover in both male and female germlines, although sex-specific differences may also exist. Extensive resequencing and inference of ePAR haplotypes, placed in the framework of the Y phylogeny as ascertained by both Y microsatellites and single nucleotide polymorphisms, allowed us to estimate a minimum rate of crossover over the entire ePAR region of 6-fold greater than genome average, comparable with pedigree estimates of PAR1 activity generally. We conclude ePAR very likely contributes to the critical crossover function of PAR1.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAFV600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505. FINDINGS: Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9-51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5-51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6-49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2-not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3-not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9-24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44-0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53-0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7-19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1-10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8-3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35-0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44-0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. INTERPRETATION: The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE): Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. INTERVENTION: SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. PATIENT SUMMARY: Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).