Search

Background: In ARCHES, treatment intensification of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with enzalutamide versus placebo improved clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Understanding the benefits and tolerability of enzalutamide for men aged ≥75 yr may inform disease management., Objective: To determine whether age is associated with clinical outcomes in mHSPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: A post hoc analysis of the multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ARCHES trial in 1150 men with mHSPC (median follow-up [mo]: <75 yr, 44.6; ≥75 yr, 44.3) was performed., Intervention: Randomization 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT; stratification by disease volume and prior docetaxel use., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), safety, and other secondary endpoints were compared between age groups (<75 and ≥75 yr) and treatment arms (Cox proportional hazard models)., Results and Limitations: Men aged <75 versus ≥75 yr had longer OS (enzalutamide plus ADT: hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.91; p = 0.02; placebo plus ADT: HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60-1.09; p = 0.13) and rPFS (enzalutamide plus ADT: HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58-1.04; p = 0.12; placebo plus ADT: HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.74-1.30; p = 0.007). Enzalutamide improved OS (<75 yr: HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79; ≥75 yr: HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.09) and secondary efficacy endpoints without evidence of statistical heterogeneity, and was generally well tolerated in both age groups, with minimal quality-of-life impact. Older versus younger patients experienced more frequent dose interruptions (20.2% vs 10.9%) and treatment-emergent adverse events (95.2% vs 89.1%). Post hoc examination and small sample size preclude definitive conclusions., Conclusions: Enzalutamide plus ADT improved efficacy outcomes and was generally well tolerated despite shorter treatment exposure in older patients, indicating enzalutamide's utility in patients with mHSPC aged <75 and ≥75 yr., Patient Summary: Enzalutamide is a drug approved to treat men with prostate cancer. In this report, we compared patients aged <75 and ≥75 yr treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy to determine whether age affected how long they lived without the cancer spreading to other parts of their body. We found that, although younger patients had more favorable survival outcomes, enzalutamide was associated with longer survival and reduced disease spread in both age groups., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC., Methods: ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1)., Results: A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46-55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33-43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%)., Conclusions: Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) levels correlate with poor outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are often co-expressed. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In a subgroup analysis of patients with advanced UC participating in a phase I/II study, epacadostat-pembrolizumab treatment produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 35%., Methods: ECHO-303/KEYNOTE-698 was a double-blinded, randomized phase III study of adults with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced UC with recurrence or progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomized to epacadostat 100 mg twice daily (BID) plus pembrolizumab or placebo plus pembrolizumab until completion of 35 pembrolizumab infusions, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1., Results: Target enrollment was 648 patients; enrollment was halted early based on efficacy results from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study in metastatic melanoma. Forty-two patients were randomized to each treatment arm. Median duration of follow-up was 62 days in each arm. The investigator-assessed ORR (unconfirmed) was 26.2% (95% CI 16.35-48.11) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11.9% (95% CI 4.67-29.50) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Two complete responses were reported, both in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Circulating kynurenine levels increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and numerically decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. The safety profile of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab monotherapy, although a numerically greater proportion of patients in the combination vs. control arm experienced treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (16.7% vs. 7.3%). One patient in each arm died due to cardiovascular events, which were not deemed drug-related. No new safety concerns were identified for either agent., Conclusions: Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity and was generally tolerable as second-line treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or recurrent/progressive metastatic UC. Epacadostat 100 mg BID, when administered with pembrolizumab, did not normalize circulating kynurenine in most patients. Further study of combined IDO1/PD-L1 inhibition in this patient population, particularly with epacadostat doses that result in durable normalization of circulating kynurenine, may be warranted., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03374488. Registered 12/15/2017., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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.

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours., Patient Summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Few phase 3 studies have evaluated optimal systemic treatment strategies for patients with oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC), who may be at risk of undertreatment., Objective: To evaluate outcomes for patients with oligometastatic and polymetastatic HSPC treated with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of data for 927 patients with nonvisceral metastatic HSPC in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896)., Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/d orally) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT with HSPC categorized as oligometastatic (1-5 metastases) or polymetastatic (≥6 metastases)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The treatment effect on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoints was evaluated in terms of the number of metastases. Safety was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios (HRs). The Brookmeyer and Crowley method was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Kaplan-Meier median values., Results and Limitations: Enzalutamide plus ADT improved rPFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001), OS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; p < 0.005), and secondary endpoints in patients with oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease (rPFS: HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.46; p < 0.001; OS: HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were generally similar across subgroups. Limitations include the small numbers of patients with fewer than three metastases., Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrated the utility of enzalutamide, irrespective of metastatic burden or type of oligometastatic disease, and suggests that earlier treatment intensification with systemic potent androgen receptor inhibition is advantageous., Patient Summary: This study considered two treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in patients with one to five metastases or six or more metastases. Treatment with enzalutamide plus ADT improved survival and other outcomes over ADT alone, whether patients had few or many metastases., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Molecular heterogeneity in prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the key reasons underlying the differing likelihoods of recurrence after surgical treatment in individual patients of the same clinical category. In this study, we performed RNA-Seq profiling of 58 localized PCa and 43 locally advanced PCa tissue samples obtained as a result of radical prostatectomy on a cohort of Russian patients. Based on bioinformatics analysis, we examined features of the transcriptome profiles within the high-risk group, including within the most commonly represented molecular subtype, TMPRSS2-ERG. The most significantly affected biological processes in the samples were also identified, so that they may be further studied in the search for new potential therapeutic targets for the categories of PCa under consideration. The highest predictive potential was found with the EEF1A1P5 , RPLP0P6 , ZNF483 , CIBAR1 , HECTD2 , OGN , and CLIC4 genes. We also reviewed the main transcriptome changes in the groups at intermediate risk of PCa-Gleason Score 7 (groups 2 and 3 according to the ISUP classification)-on the basis of which the LPL , MYC , and TWIST1 genes were identified as promising additional prognostic markers, the statistical significance of which was confirmed using qPCR validation.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TKC reports research funding, paid to their institution, from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Circle Pharma, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Nuscan, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVA, Infiniti, Ipsen, Kanaph, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Takeda, Tempest, Up-To-Date, and CME events; support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai, Merck, Exelixis, and Pfizer; patents planned, issued, or pending related to ctDNA and biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (no royalties as of April 12, 2022); participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Aravive; a leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group, for KidneyCan (unpaid), committees for American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, and Genitourinary Steering Committee of the National Cancer Institute; stock or stock options from Pionyr, Tempest, Precede Bio, and Osel; and salary and research support from Dana-Farber and Harvard Cancer Center Kidney SPORE (2P50CA101942-16) and Program 5P30CA006516-56, the Kohlberg Chair at Harvard Medical School, and the Trust Family, Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ME reports research funding from Kissei, Sanofi, Astellas, ONO, Takeda, and Bayer; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, ONO, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, and Merck. RM reports research funding, paid to their institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Pfizer, and Aveo Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda. UDG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis oncology, Eisai, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Roche and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ipsen. TB reports research support, paid to their institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Merck, and Novartis; consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Janssen, and Sanofi/Aventis; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, and Pfizer; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services, paid to their institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Servier. NSB reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, and Bayer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Merck; and support for attending meetings or travel from Eisai and Janssen. MJM-V reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. BM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Eisai, E Lilly, and Pierre Farbre; support for attending meetings or travel from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Eisai, E Lilly, and Pierre Farbre. TH reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution, from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas Pharma, Bayer/Onyx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Pfizer. BMcG reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution from Exelixis, SeaGen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera, Eisai, Exelixis, Pfizer, and SeaGen. TP reports research funding from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; support for attending meetings or travel Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. VG reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution, from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Ipsen; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Oncorena, PCI Biotech, Nanobiotix, Merck Serono, EUSA Pharm, Debiopharm, Eisai, and Apogepha; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Astellas; support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer and Merck; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, PharmaMar, and PharmaMar; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group from National Working Group AIO (Working Group on Internal Oncology in the German Cancer Society), German Cancer Society; and stock or stock options in AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and SeaGen. BA reports grants or contracts from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche; payment for expert testimony from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. SYR reports grants or contracts from Amgen, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Beigene, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Eisai; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Amgen, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Indivumed, Beigene, Eisai, and Daiichi Sankyo. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, AbbVie; leadership or fiduciary role in for Kidney Cancer Canada; and stock in Verity Pharma. TAG reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Roche, and Ipsen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Ipsen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Astellas. JCG reports consulting fees for an advisory board meeting from Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia), Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen–Cilag, Ipsen, Merck Sharp and Dohme (Australia), and AstraZeneca (Australia); and support for attending meetings or travel AstraZeneca (Australia), GlaxoSmithKline, and MSD. MS reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Immatics, Wilex, Ipsen, Exelixis, and Eisai; consulting fees from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bayer, Roche, Aveo, EUSA Pharm, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pelloton, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Apogepha, and Oncorena; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AVEO, Novartis, Bayer, EUSA Pharma, Astellas, Ipsen, Exelixis, Pelloton, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Apogepha; and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, EUSAPharm, Ipsen, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Apogepha. JRM reports grants or contracts, paid to their institution from Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Replimune, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Sillajen, Tizona Therapeutics, Tocagen, and Vyriad, and consulting fees from Exelixis. RX, KM, and JMcK are employees of Eisai. RFP is an employee of and holds stock in Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA. CGP reports consulting fees from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, and MSD; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Angelini Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, General Electric, Ipsen, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, MSD, the European Society of Medical Oncology, and the Italian Association for Medical Oncology. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have a high risk of progression to metastatic disease, particularly if their prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is ≤6 mo. However, patients remain at a high risk with a PSADT of >6 mo., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in patients stratified by PSADT >6 or ≤6 mo., Design, Setting, and Participants: A planned subgroup analysis of a global multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial in men with nmCRPC and PSADT ≤10 mo was conducted., Intervention: Patients were randomized 2:1 to oral darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, and symptomatic skeletal events. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using validated prostate-relevant tools. Safety was recorded throughout the study., Results and Limitations: Of 1509 patients enrolled, 469 had PSADT >6 mo (darolutamide n = 286; placebo n = 183) and 1040 had PSADT ≤6 mo (darolutamide n = 669; placebo n = 371). Baseline characteristics were balanced between subgroups. Darolutamide significantly prolonged MFS versus placebo in both subgroups (unstratified hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: PSADT >6 mo, 0.38 [0.26-0.55]; PSADT ≤6 mo, 0.41 [0.33-0.52]). OS and other efficacy and QoL endpoints favored darolutamide with significant improvement over placebo in both subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including events commonly associated with androgen receptor inhibitors (fractures, falls, hypertension, and mental impairment), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low and similar to placebo. Limitations include small subgroup populations., Conclusions: In patients with nmCRPC and PSADT >6 mo (maximum 10 mo), darolutamide provided a favorable benefit/risk ratio, characterized by significant improvements in MFS, OS, and other clinically relevant endpoints; maintenance of QoL; and favorable tolerability., Patient Summary: In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to standard hormonal therapy (indicated by an increase in prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels), there is a risk that the cancer will spread to other parts of the body. This risk is highest when the time it takes for the PSA level to double (ie, "PSA doubling time" [PSADT]) is less than 6 mo. However, there is still a risk that the cancer will spread even if the PSADT is longer than 6 mo. In a group of patients whose PSADT was more than 6 mo but no more than 10 mo, treatment with darolutamide slowed the cancer spread and allowed them to live longer than patients who received placebo (inactive drug). Darolutamide treatment did not cause many side effects and helped maintain patients' quality of life without disruptions., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard treatment for prostate cancer (PCa); however, it does not always completely cure PCa, and patients often experience a recurrence of the disease. In addition, the clinical and pathological parameters used to assess the prognosis and choose further tactics for treating a patient are insufficiently informative and need to be supplemented with new markers. In this study, we performed RNA-Seq of PCa tissue samples, aimed at identifying potential prognostic markers at the level of gene expression and miRNAs associated with one of the key signs of cancer aggressiveness-lymphatic dissemination. The relative expression of candidate markers was validated by quantitative PCR, including an independent sample of patients based on archival material. Statistically significant results, derived from an independent set of samples, were confirmed for miR-148a-3p and miR-615-3p, as well as for the CST2 , OCLN , and PCAT4 genes. Considering the obtained validation data, we also analyzed the predictive value of models based on various combinations of identified markers using algorithms based on machine learning. The highest predictive potential was shown for the "CST2 + OCLN + pT" model (AUC = 0.863) based on the CatBoost Classifier algorithm.

Background: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560)., Patients and Methods: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales., Conclusions: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Relapse of breast cancer is one of the key obstacles to successful treatment. Previously we have shown that low expression of ELOVL5 and IGFBP6 genes in breast cancer tissue corresponded to poor prognosis. ELOVL5 participates directly in the elongation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that are considered to play an important role in cancer cell metabolism. Thus, in this work we studied the changes in lipid metabolism in breast cancer cells with reduced expression of either ELOVL5 or IGFBP6 gene. Methods: MDA-MB-231 cells with a stable knockdown of either ELOVL5 or IGFBP6 gene were used in this study. Transcriptomic and proteomic analysis as well as RT-PCR were utilized to assess gene expression. Content of individual fatty acids in the cells was measured with HPLC-MS. HPLC was used for analysis of the kinetics of PUFAs uptake. Cell viability was measured with MTS assay. Flow cytometry was used to measure activation of apoptosis. Fluorescent microscopy was utilized to assess accumulation of ROS and formation of lipid droplets. Glutathione peroxidase activity was measured with a colorimetric assay. Results: We found that the knockdown of IGFBP6 gene led to significant changes in the profile of fatty acids in the cells and in the expression of many genes associated with lipid metabolism. As some PUFAs are known to inhibit proliferation and cause death of cancer cells, we also tested the response of the cells to single PUFAs and to combinations of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, a n-3 PUFA) with standard chemotherapeutic drugs. Our data suggest that external PUFAs cause cell death by activation of ferroptosis, an iron-dependent mechanism of cell death with excessive lipid peroxidation. Moreover, both knockdowns increased cells' sensitivity to ferroptosis, probably due to a significant decrease in the activity of the antioxidant enzyme GPX4. Addition of DHA to commonly used chemotherapeutic drugs enhanced their effect significantly, especially for the cells with low expression of IGFBP6 gene. Discussion: The results of this study suggest that addition of PUFAs to the treatment regimen for the patients with low expression of IGFBP6 and ELOVL5 genes can be potentially beneficial and is worth testing in a clinically relevant setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Nikulin, Razumovskaya, Poloznikov, Zakharova, Alekseev and Tonevitsky.)

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a common form of prostate cancer in which docetaxel-based chemotherapy is used as the first line. The present study is devoted to the analysis of transcriptome profiles of tumor cells in the development of resistance to docetaxel as well as to the assessment of the combined effect with the XAV939 tankyrase inhibitor on maintaining the sensitivity of tumor cells to chemotherapy. RNA-Seq was performed for experimental PC3 cell lines as well as for plasma exosome samples from patients with CRPC. We have identified key biological processes and identified a signature based on the expression of 17 mRNA isoforms associated with the development of docetaxel resistance in PC3 cells. Transcripts were found in exosome samples, the increased expression of which was associated with the onset of progression of CRPC during therapy. The suppression of pathways associated with the participation of cellular microtubules has also been shown when cells are treated with docetaxel in the presence of XAV939. These results highlight the importance of further research into XAV939 as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of CRPC; moreover, we have proposed a number of mRNA isoforms with high predictive potential, which can be considered as promising markers of response to docetaxel., Competing Interests: The author has no conflict of interest to declare.

Following radical surgery, patients may suffer a relapse. It is important to identify such patients so that therapy tactics can be modified appropriately. Existing stratification schemes do not display the probability of recurrence with enough precision since locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is classified as high-risk but is not ranked in greater detail. Between 40 and 50% of PCa cases belong to the TMPRSS2-ERG subtype that is a sufficiently homogeneous group for high-precision prognostic marker search to be possible. This study includes two independent cohorts and is based on high throughput sequencing and qPCR data. As a result, we have been able to suggest a perspective-trained model involving a deep neural network based on both qPCR data for mRNA and miRNA and clinicopathological criteria that can be used for recurrence risk forecasts in patients with TMPRSS2-ERG-positive, locally advanced PCa (the model uses ALDH3A2 + ODF2 + QSOX2 + hsa-miR-503-5p + ISUP + pT, with an AUC = 0.944). In addition to the prognostic model's use of identified differentially expressed genes and miRNAs, miRNA-target pairs were found that correlate with the prognosis and can be presented as an interactome network.

Background: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients., Findings: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group., Interpretation: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results., Funding: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FS reports fees to his institution from AstraZeneca and Merck and Co during the conduct of the study, and institutional and personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Myovant, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), and Pfizer outside the submitted work. AT-V reports grants from Pfizer, Ipsen, and Bayer; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme (MSD), JNJ, BMS, Astellas, Ipsen, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. PW reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck and Co, Astellas, and MSD outside the submitted work. BA reports support from Eisai for the submitted work and fees from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck and Co, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. NS reports receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen outside the submitted work. RJ reports personal fees from Roche and support for attending meetings or travel from Bayer outside the submitted work. VEC reports personal fees from Janssen and Ipsen outside the submitted work. JJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and MSD; and support from Boehringer outside the submitted work. AF reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Novartis, and AAA Pharmaceutical outside the submitted work. CR reports Pfizer stock ownership. JK reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. JB reports full-time employment and stock ownership with Merck, and past employment with AstraZeneca. CG reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. AD reports full-time employment with AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and AstraZeneca stock ownership. NWC reports receiving consulting fees, honoraria for lectures, and support for trial-related work from AstraZeneca. IK declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups., Methods: ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT])., Results: There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale., Conclusion: Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures., (© 2022 The Authors. The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies., Objective: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted)., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORR wk24 ); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization., Results and Limitations: The ORR wk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORR wk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms., Conclusions: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC., Patient Summary: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RM reports research funding (institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. CP reports consulting fees and honoraria from Angelini Farma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, General Electric, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, and Pfizer; expert testimony for EUSA Pharma and Pfizer; protocol steering committee membership for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, and MSD; and travel support from Roche. BA reports support for the present manuscript from Eisai; grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; consulting fees and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; expert testimony for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Roche; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Astellas, Ipsen, and Janssen. SYR reports grants or contracts and honoraria from, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for, Eisai. TKC reports support for the present manuscript from Eisai and Merck; research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Nikang, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, and Takeda; patents filed, royalties, or other intellectual properties (no income as of current date) related to biomarkers of immune checkpoint blockers and circulating tumour DNA; consulting fees, honoraria, or advisory roles for Alexion, Analysis Group, Aravive, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Cerulean, Corvus, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Heron Therapeutics, Infinity Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, IQVIA, Lilly, Merck, NCCN, NiKang, Novartis, Nuscan, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Labs, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Surface Oncology, Tempest, Up-to-Date, Continuing Medical Education-related events (eg, OncLive, PVI, and MJH Life Sciences), US National Cancer Institute Genitourinary Steering Committee, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network; travel in relation to meetings, lectures, and advisory boards; stock ownership in Pionyr and Tempest. MJM-V reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, EISAI, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and Roche. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Eisai, Janssen, and AbbVie; leadership or fiduciary roles in other board, society, committee, or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid; being vice chair of Kidney Cancer Canada; and stock or stock options from Verity Pharma. JCG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, MSD Australia (Merck), Ipsen, and Bristol Myers Squibb; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson); and stock or stock options from ICON Cancer Care, Australia. ME reports research funding from Kissei, Sanofi, Astellas, ONO, Takeda, and Bayer; and honoraria for lectures from MSD, ONO, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Janssen, and Merck. LB and JW are employees of RTI Health Solutions, which was contracted by Eisai, to perform statistical analyses reported in this manuscript. JJP and CSH are full-time employees of Eisai. TLS is a paid employee of and shareholder in Merck & Co. RFP is an employee and a stock owner of Merck & Co. KM is an employee of Eisai. DC reports consulting fees (personal) from Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Ipsen, and Evidera, and is president of FACIT.org. S-HH declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer is one of the most common and socially significant cancers among men. The aim of this study was to identify significant changes in the expression of exosomal miRNAs associated with an increase in the level of prostate specific antigen in castration-resistant prostate cancer during therapy and to evaluate them as potential prognostic markers for this category of disease. High-throughput miRNA sequencing was performed on 49 blood plasma samples taken from 11 Russian patients with castration-resistant cancer during therapy. Bioinformatic analysis of the obtained miRNA-seq data was carried out. Additionally, miRNA-seq data from the PRJNA562276 project were analyzed to identify exosomal miRNAs associated with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We found 34 differentially expressed miRNAs associated with the progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer during therapy in Russian patients. It was also shown that hsa-miRNA-148a-3p expression can serve as a potential prognostic marker. We found the exosomal miRNA expression signature associated with castration-resistant prostate cancer progression, in particular on the Russian patient cohort. Many of these miRNAs are well-known players in either oncogenic transformation or tumor suppression. Further experimental studies with extended sampling are required to validate these results., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

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. In primary analysis, enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC); however, overall survival data were immature. In the phase III, double-blind, global ARCHES trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896), 1,150 patients with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. Here, we report the final prespecified analysis of overall survival (key secondary end point) and an update on rPFS, other secondary end points, and safety. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) progression-free patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT crossed over to open-label enzalutamide plus ADT. As of May 28, 2021 (median follow-up, 44.6 months), 154 of 574 patients randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus ADT and 202 of 576 patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT had died. Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced risk of death by 34% versus placebo plus ADT (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). Enzalutamide plus ADT continued to improve rPFS and other secondary end points. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous reports of long-term enzalutamide use. In conclusion, enzalutamide plus ADT significantly prolongs survival versus placebo plus ADT in patients with mHSPC., Competing Interests: Andrew J. ArmstrongConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Dendreon, Pfizer, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, FORMA Therapeutics, Novartis, Exelixis, Myovant Sciences, GoodRxResearch Funding: Dendreon (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Constellation Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), FORMA Therapeutics (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Circulating tumor cell novel capture technology (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc Arun A. AzadHonoraria: Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Tolmar, Amgen, Pfizer, Bayer, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Noxopharm, Aculeus TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Tolmar, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Amgen, Noxopharm, Aculeus TherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck SeronoResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Merck Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Aptevo Therapeutics (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Bionomics (Inst), Synthorx (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), MSD (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Merck Serono, Amgen, Janssen, Tolmar, Pfizer Taro IguchiConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, TakedaResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin Russell Z. SzmulewitzHonoraria: Astellas PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Exelixis, Merck, Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma, PfizerResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), MacroGenics (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Plexxikon (Inst), Harpoon Therapeutics (Inst), Merck (Inst), Novartis (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent licensed by The University of Chicago, of which I am a coinventor to Corcept Therapeutics for combination AR/GR inhibition in prostate cancerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Corcept Therapeutics Daniel P. PetrylakStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, TYMEConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Exelixis, Pfizer, Roche, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Incyte, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, UroGen Pharma, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, Bicycle Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Monopteros Therapeutics, Regeneron, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Progenics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Endocyte (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Astellas Medivation (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Advanced Accelerator Applications (Inst), Agensys (Inst), BioXcel Therapeutics (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Medivation (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst)Expert Testimony: Celgene, Sanofi Jeffrey HolzbeierleinConsulting or Advisory Role: Basilea, KDx DiagnosticsResearch Funding: MDxHealth (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: Astellas Medivation Arnauld VillersResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Ipsen (Inst) Antonio AlcarazConsulting or Advisory Role: AstellasTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Olympus, Ipsen, Janssen, Bayer Boris AlexeevHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Ferring, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, MSD, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, EisaiSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen, Sanofi, Ferring, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, RocheResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck, Sanofi, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bavarian Nordic, Pfizer, ICON Clinical Research, Eisai, MSD, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi Neal D. ShoreConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Janssen Scientific Affairs, Dendreon, Tolmar, Ferring, Medivation/Astellas, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, AbbVie, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Exact Imaging, FerGene, Foundation Medicine, CG Oncology, Invitae, MDxHealth, Myriad Genetics, Nymox, Propella Therapeutics, Genzyme, Sanofi, Sesen Bio, CG Oncology, Exact Sciences, Genesis Cancer Care, Pacific Edge Biotechnology, Phosphorus, UroGen Pharma, Speciality Networks, PreViewSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen, Bayer, Dendreon, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Guardant Health, Merck, Foundation MedicineResearch Funding: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Ferring, Foundation Medicine, Invitae, Janssen, MDxHealth, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Nymox, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sesen Bio, Tolmar Francisco Gomez-VeigaHonoraria: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ferring, GE, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ferring, GE, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Janssen, SanofiSpeakers' Bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GE, Janssen, OrionResearch Funding: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, JanssenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AbbVie, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Orion Brad RosbrookEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer Fabian ZohrenEmployment: PfizerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pfizer, AlloVir Inc (I)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: AlloVir Inc (I) Shunsuke YamadaEmployment: Astellas PharmaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Astellas Pharma Gabriel P. HaasEmployment: Astellas Pharma Arnulf StenzlConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Roche, Janssen, Alere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Steba Biotech, Synergo, Ferring, Bayer, Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: Karl Storz (Inst), Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Medivation, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Roche (Inst), Cepheid (Inst), Immatics (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Amgen (Inst), GenomeDx (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent A290/99 Implantable incontinence device, AT00/0001:C-Trap, implantable device to treat urinary incontinence, 2018/6579 Gene expression signature for subtype and prognostic prediction of renal cell carcinomaExpert Testimony: GBA PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen, Ipsen, Sanofi/Aventis, CureVac, Ferring, Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved efficacy over sunitinib in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma in the KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study. However, a relatively high incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations was observed., Objective: To further characterize treatment-emergent aminotransferase elevations in patients treated with pembrolizumab-axitinib., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 were included in this study., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Three Standardized MedDRA Queries for potential hepatic disorders were used to identify patients for the hepatic event analysis subpopulation (HEAS). Alanine aminotransferase events were characterized for time to onset, time to recovery, corticosteroid use, and rechallenge with study treatment(s)., Results and Limitations: The HEAS comprised 189/429 (44%) pembrolizumab-axitinib patients and 128/425 (30%) sunitinib patients. Grade 3/4 hepatic adverse events were more common in the combination arm: 22% (94/429) versus 7% (29/425); 3% (13/429) discontinued the combination due to hepatic adverse events. In the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm, 125/426 patients (29%) had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN), with median time to onset of 84 d (range, 7-840 d). Among patients with ALT ≥3× ULN, 120/125 (96%) recovered to <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation, with a median time to recovery of 15 d (3-176 d): 68/120 (57%) received corticosteroids. One hundred patients were rechallenged with one or both study treatment(s): 45/100 (45%) had ALT ≥3× ULN recurrence, and all 45 recovered to ALT <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation. No fatal hepatic events occurred., Conclusions: A higher incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations occurs with pembrolizumab-axitinib. These events should be carefully evaluated and managed with prompt study treatment interruption or discontinuation, with or without corticosteroid treatment. The decision to rechallenge with one or both drugs should be based on severity of event and thorough causality assessment., Patient Summary: Renal cell carcinoma patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib are at a higher risk of liver enzyme elevations, which could be reversed with appropriate management., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown., Methods: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively)., Conclusions: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: While enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly reduces the risk of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and improves overall survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the efficacy in clinically relevant subgroups of patients based on prior local and systemic therapy, disease volume, and risk has not been analyzed to date. These post hoc analyses of the phase 3 ARCHES trial (NCT02677896) evaluated the efficacy of enzalutamide plus ADT according to prior local and systemic treatment, disease volume, and risk, assessed at trial baseline., Methods: In ARCHES, a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 1150 patients with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to receive enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by prior docetaxel therapy and disease volume. Primary endpoint was rPFS. Secondary endpoints included time to prostate-specific antigen progression, symptomatic skeletal events, and prostate-specific antigen and radiographic responses. Analyses of clinical endpoints were completed by prior local therapy, prior docetaxel exposure, CHAARTED (NCT00309985)-defined disease volume, and LATITUDE (NCT01715285)-defined risk groups., Results: Patients were randomized to enzalutamide plus ADT (n = 574) and placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Enzalutamide plus ADT significantly improved rPFS (hazard ratio: 0.39; p < 0.0001), with similar improvements reported in all subgroups based on prior local and docetaxel treatment, disease volume, and risk. Treatment benefits were observed with enzalutamide plus ADT in multiple secondary clinical endpoints in the overall population and all subgroups., Conclusions: Enzalutamide plus ADT demonstrated clinical benefit across all patients with mHSPC, irrespective of prior local and systemic treatment, disease volume, and risk., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Importance: Interim analyses of the IMmotion151 trial (A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Versus Sunitinib in Participants With Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma) reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with programmed death ligand 1-positive (PD-L1+) metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) receiving the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab plus the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab vs the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib. Overall survival (OS) results were immature at interim analyses., Objective: To report the final OS results, safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses of the association of transcriptomic subgroups with OS in the IMmotion151 trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: IMmotion151 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial that compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in patients with untreated mRCC. IMmotion151 included patients from 152 academic medical centers and community oncology practices in 21 countries. Adult patients with mRCC with components of clear cell or sarcomatoid histologic features, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), adequate performance status, hematologic and end organ function, and tumor tissue available for PD-L1 testing were included. IMmotion151 was initiated on May 20, 2015, and the study is ongoing. This final analysis was performed from May 20, 2015, to February 14, 2020., Interventions: Receipt of 1200 mg of intravenous (IV) atezolizumab every 3 weeks and 15 mg/kg of IV bevacizumab every 3 weeks or 50 mg orally once daily of sunitinib (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were PFS (previously reported) in patients with PD-L1+ disease and OS in the intention-to-treat population. Additional exploratory outcomes included OS in the PD-L1+ population, association with transcriptomic subgroups, and safety., Results: The IMmotion151 trial assessed 915 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Mean (IQR) age was 62 (56-69) years for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 60 (54-66) years for patients receiving sunitinib; 669 (73.1%) were male and 246 (26.9%) were female. The final analysis showed similar median OS in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib in the intention-to-treat (36.1 vs 35.3 months) and PD-L1+ (38.7 vs 31.6 months) populations. No new safety signals were reported. The additional exploratory outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sunitinib showed improved median OS trends in patients whose tumors were characterized by T-effector/proliferative, proliferative, or small nucleolar RNA transcriptomic profiles (35.4 vs 21.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.98)., Conclusions and Relevance: The primary end point of PFS was met at interim analyses, although no improvement in OS was observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at the final analysis. Biomarker analyses provided insight into which patients with mRCC may benefit from combined anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420821.

Early clinical data indicate that some patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer may benefit from program death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition, especially with enzalutamide. The IMbassador250 trial (no. NCT03016312) enrolled 759 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on abiraterone. The addition of atezolizumab to enzalutamide in an open-label randomized trial did not meet the primary endpoint of improved overall survival in unselected patients (stratified hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval (0.91, 1.37), P = 0.28), despite an acceptable safety profile. In archival tumor samples, prostate tumors showed comparatively low expression of key immune biomarkers. DNA damage-response alterations, phosphatase and tensin homolog status and PD-L1 expression levels were similar between hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancers. In planned biomarker analysis, longer progression-free survival was seen with atezolizumab in patients with high PD-L1 IC2/3, CD8 expression and established immune gene signatures. Exploratory analysis linked progression-free survival in the atezolizumab arm with immune genes such as CXCL9 and TAP1, together with other potentially relevant biomarkers including phosphatase and tensin homolog alterations. Together these data indicate that the expected biology associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is present in prostate cancer, albeit in fewer patients. Careful patient selection may be required for immune checkpoint inhibitors to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from this treatment approach., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and lethal types of cancer. Although researchers have made significant efforts to study the mechanisms underlying CRC drug resistance, our knowledge of this disease is still limited, and novel therapies are in high demand. It is urgent to find new targeted therapy considering limited chemotherapy options. KRAS mutations are the most frequent molecular alterations in CRC. However, there are no approved K-Ras targeted therapies for these tumors yet. GSK-3β is demonstrated to be a critically important kinase for the survival and proliferation of K-Ras-dependent pancreatic cancer cells. In this study, we tested combinations of standard-of-care therapy and 9-ING-41, a small molecule inhibitor of GSK-3β, in CRC cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoid models of CRC. We demonstrate that 9-ING-41 inhibits the growth of CRC cells via a distinct from chemotherapy mechanism of action. Although molecular biomarkers of 9-ING-41 efficacy are yet to be identified, the addition of 9-ING-41 to the standard-of-care drugs 5-FU and oxaliplatin could significantly enhance growth inhibition in certain CRC cells. The results of the transcriptomic analysis support our findings of cell cycle arrest and DNA repair deficiency in 9-ING-41-treated CRC cells. Notably, we find substantial similarity in the changes of the transcriptomic profile after inhibition of GSK-3β and suppression of STK33, another critically important kinase for K-Ras-dependent cells, which could be an interesting point for future research. Overall, the results of this study provide a rationale for the further investigation of GSK-3 inhibitors in combination with standard-of-care treatment of CRC., Competing Interests: IG is a co-inventor on the 9-ING-41 patent. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Poloznikov, Nikulin, Bolotina, Kachmazov, Raigorodskaya, Kudryavtseva, Bakhtogarimov, Rodin, Gaisina, Topchiy, Asachenko, Novosad, Tonevitsky and Alekseev.)

Background: In the ARAMIS trial, darolutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS) and time to pain progression in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Herein, we present analyses of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes., Patients and Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial randomised patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen doubling time ≤10 months to darolutamide 600 mg (n = 955) twice daily or matched placebo (n = 554) while continuing ADT. The primary end-point was MFS; the secondary end-points included OS and time to pain progression. In this analysis, HRQoL was assessed by the time to deterioration using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) prostate cancer subscale (PCS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) subscales., Results: Darolutamide significantly prolonged time to deterioration of FACT-P PCS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.91; P = 0.0005) at the primary analysis (cut-off date: 3rd September 2018). Time to deterioration of EORTC QLQ-PR25 outcomes showed statistically significant delays with darolutamide versus placebo for urinary (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.76; P < 0.0001) and bowel (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0027) symptoms. Time to worsening of hormonal treatment-related symptoms was similar between the two groups., Conclusion: In patients with nmCRPC who are generally asymptomatic, darolutamide maintained HRQoL by significantly delaying time to deterioration of prostate cancer-specific quality of life and disease-related symptoms versus placebo., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MRS has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen and Lilly, and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis and Pfizer. NS has received personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer and Janssen, personal fees from Tolmar, Ferring, Medivation, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma and Merck, and non-financial support from Dendreon. TLT has received grants from Bayer, Lidds AB and Astellas Pharma, and personal fees from Janssen. AU and SP have no conflicts of interest to disclose. EV has received grants and personal fees from Orion Pharma, and grants from Bayer, Ipsen and Janssen. MJ has received grants from Bayer, Ipsen and Janssen. ML has received grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer and Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas Pharma, non-financial support from Roche and grants from Medivation, Myovant Sciences and Pfizer. BA has received grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ferring, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Sanofi, and grants from Bavarian Nordic and Icon clinical Research. IK is an employee of Bayer AG. MA-LB and AFM are employees of Bayer HealthCare. DO and JB are employees of the Research Triangle Institute Health Solutions. AS and TS are employees of Orion Pharma. KF has received personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen and Amgen, and personal fees from Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Orion Pharma, Curevac, AstraZeneca, ESSA and Roche., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238., Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group., Interpretation: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors report editorial assistance from F Hoffmann-La Roche. CS reports grants or personal fees, or both from Janssen, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Sanofi, Astellas, Pfizer, Bayer, and Lilly, during the conduct of the study; and has a patent abiraterone plus cabozantinib issued to Exelixis, a patent parthenolide as treatment for cancer licensed to Indiana University, and a patent dimethylaminoparthenolide as treatment for cancer licensed to Leuchemix, outside of the submitted work. SB reports serving as advisory board member for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, MSD, Merck, AAA, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. CNS reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Pfizer, MSD, Merck, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi and Genzyme, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Incyte, and Clovis, outside of the submitted work. KNC reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Constellation Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. DO reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Astellas Medivation, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Pfizer, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. SS reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Amgen, MSD, Merck Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. CM reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm Group, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Innate Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Sanofi, and Taiho, outside of the submitted work. NM reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Janssen, MSD, Chugai, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Taiho, Pfizer, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. BA reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. RG reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre, outside of the submitted work. LC reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study. GVA reports grants from MSD, BMS, Merck-Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Ipsen, and Janssen, outside of the submitted work. EB reports personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharmaceuticals, Roche Hellas, Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Pierre Fabre, and Merck, outside of the submitted work. JP reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi, Clovis Oncology, and MSD, and grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. M-LH-Y, JGal, and JGar are employees of F Hoffmann-La Roche. GC, JH, and MJW are employees of Genentech. JSdB reports personal fees and grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Taiho, Daiichi, Bayer, Orion Pharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Merck Serono, Sierra Oncology, MSD, Astellas, Cellcentric, Sanofi Aventis, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and personal fees or travel expenses from Terumo, Menarini and Silicon Biosystems, Bioexcel Therapeutics, Eisai, and Qiagen, outside of the submitted work; and has a patent for DNA damage repair inhibitors for treatment of cancer (patent number WO 2005 053662 licensed to AstraZeneca) and a patent for 17-substituted steroids useful in cancer treatment (patent number US 5604213 licensed to Janssen). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Currently, seven molecular subtypes of prostate cancer (PCa) are known, the most common of which being the subtype characterized by the presence of the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcript. While there is a considerable amount of work devoted to the influence of this transcript on the prognosis of the disease, data on its role in the progression and prognosis of PCa remain controversial. The present study is devoted to the analysis of the association between the TMPRSS2-ERG transcript and the biochemical recurrence of PCa. The study included two cohorts: the RNA-Seq sample of Russian patients with PCa ( n = 72) and the TCGA-PRAD data ( n = 203). The results of the analysis of the association between the TMPRSS2-ERG transcript and biochemical recurrence were contradictory. The differential expression analysis (biochemical recurrence cases versus biochemical recurrence-free) and the gene set enrichment analysis revealed a list of genes involved in major cellular pathways. The GNL3 , QSOX2 , SSPO , and SYS1 genes were selected as predictors of the potential prognostic model (AUC = 1.000 for a cohort of Russian patients with PCa and AUC = 0.779 for a TCGA-PRAD cohort).

Purpose: Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy has previously been shown to improve clinical outcomes in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ARCHES; NCT02677896). Here, we assessed if and how the pattern of metastatic spread impacts efficacy of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in men enrolled in ARCHES., Materials and Methods: Men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus androgen deprivation therapy or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel treatment. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary end points included time to prostate specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event and castration resistance. Post hoc analyses were performed by pattern of metastatic spread based on study entry imaging., Results: Of the overall population with metastases identified at enrollment (1,146), the largest patient subgroups were those with bone metastases only (513) and those with bone plus lymph node metastases (351); there were fewer men with lymph node metastases only (154) and men with visceral±bone or lymph node metastases (128). Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy reduced the risk of radiographic progression vs placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with bone metastases only (HR 0.33) and bone plus lymph node metastases (HR 0.31). Similar improvements in secondary end points were also observed in these subgroups., Conclusions: These findings indicate that treatment with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy provides improvements in men with bone and/or lymph node metastases but may be less effective in men with visceral patterns of spread.

Background: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated., Results: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels., Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway inhibitors have not been prospectively evaluated in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). The phase II KEYNOTE-427 study (cohort B) was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of single-agent pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, in advanced nccRCC., Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed, measurable (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) nccRCC and no prior systemic therapy received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for ≤ 24 months. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1., Results: Among enrolled patients (N = 165), 71.5% had confirmed papillary, 12.7% had chromophobe, and 15.8% had unclassified RCC histology. Most patients (67.9%) had intermediate or poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk status and tumors with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 (61.8%). The median time from enrollment to database cutoff was 31.5 months (range, 22.7-38.8). In all patients, the ORR was 26.7%. The median duration of response was 29.0 months; 59.7% of responses lasted ≥ 12 months. The ORR by CPS ≥ 1 and CPS < 1 status was 35.3% and 12.1%, respectively. The ORR by histology was 28.8% for papillary, 9.5% for chromophobe, and 30.8% for unclassified. Overall, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 5.6); the 24-month rate was 18.6%. The median overall survival was 28.9 months (95% CI, 24.3 months to not reached); the 24-month rate was 58.4%. Overall, 69.7% of patients reported treatment-related adverse events, most commonly pruritus (20.0%) and hypothyroidism (14.5%). Two deaths were treatment related (pneumonitis and cardiac arrest)., Conclusion: First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy showed promising antitumor activity in nccRCC. The safety profile was similar to that observed in other tumor types.

Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the most common cancers among men worldwide, and advanced PCs, such as locally advanced PC (LAPC) and castration-resistant PC (CRPC), present the greatest challenges in clinical management. Current indicators have limited capacity to predict the disease course; therefore, better prognostic markers are greatly needed. In this study, we performed a bioinformatic analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets, including RNA-Seq data from the prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD; n = 55) and West Coast Dream Team - metastatic CRPC (WCDT-MCRPC; n = 84) projects, to evaluate the transcriptome changes associated with progression-free survival (PFS) for LAPC and CRPC, respectively. We identified the genes whose expression was positively/negatively correlated with PFS. In LAPC, the genes with the most significant negative correlations were ZC2HC1A , SQLE , and KIF11 , and the genes with the most significant positive correlations were SOD3 , LRRC26 , MIR22HG , MEG3 , and MIR29B2CHG . In CRPC, the most significant positive correlations were found for BET1 , CTAGE5 , IFNGR1 , and GIMAP6 , and the most significant negative correlations were found for CLPB , PRPF19 , ZNF610 , MPST , and LINC02001 . In addition, we performed a gene network interaction analysis using STRINGdb, which revealed a significant relationship between genes predominantly involved in the cell cycle and characterized by upregulated expression in early recurrence. Based on the results, we propose several genes that can be used as potential prognostic markers., Competing Interests: The reviewer AT declared a shared affiliation with two of the authors, GS and DT, to the handling editor at time of review. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Pudova, Krasnov, Kobelyatskaya, Savvateeva, Fedorova, Pavlov, Nyushko, Kaprin, Alekseev, Trofimov, Sukhikh, Snezhkina and Kudryavtseva.)

Epigenetic alterations represent promising therapeutic targets in cancer treatment. Recently it was revealed that small molecules have the potential to act as microRNA silencers. Capacity to bind the discrete stem-looped structure of pre-miR-21 and prevent its maturation opens opportunities to utilize such compounds for the prevention of initiation, progression, and chemoresistance of cancer. Molecular simulations performed earlier identified 3,3'-diindolylmethane (DIM) as a potent microRNA-21 antagonist. However, data on DIM and microRNA-21 interplay is controversial, which may be caused by the limitations of the cell lines., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Author declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. and Société Française de Biochimie et Biologie Moléculaire (SFBBM). All rights reserved.)

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.

Background: In the ARCHES study in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus ADT alone., Objective: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to week 73., Design, Setting, and Participants: ARCHES (NCT02677896) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in mHSPC patients., Intervention: Enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: PROs were assessed at baseline, week 13, and every 12 wk until disease progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Prostate 25 (QLQ-PR25), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), Brief Pain Inventory Short Form, and EuroQoL 5-Dimensions, 5-Levels (EQ-5D-5 L) instruments. Endpoints included time to first (TTFD) and first confirmed (TTFCD) clinically meaningful deterioration (using predefined questionnaire thresholds) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain., Results and Limitations: A total of 1150 patients received ADT plus enzalutamide (n = 574) or placebo (n = 576). Baseline PRO scores indicated high HRQoL and low pain, which was generally maintained in both groups. There were no statistically significant (nominal p > 0.05) between-group differences that occurred in both TTFD and TTFCD together for QLQ-PR25 and FACT-P scores. Enzalutamide significantly delayed TTFD in worst pain (by ∼3 mo; nominal p = 0.032), pain severity (nominal p = 0.021), and EQ-5D-5 L visual analogue scale score (nominal p = 0.0070) versus placebo (not significant for confirmed deterioration for pain outcomes). Enzalutamide delays deterioration in several HRQoL subscales and pain severity in high-volume disease., Conclusions: Enzalutamide plus ADT enables men with mHSPC to maintain high-functioning HRQoL and low symptom burden., Patient Summary: This study examined the effect on health-related quality of life and pain of adding enzalutamide or placebo to androgen deprivation therapy for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Addition of enzalutamide allowed patients to maintain their health-related quality of life., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prostate cancer is one of the most common and socially significant cancers among men. The aim of our study was to reveal changes in miRNA expression profiles associated with lymphatic dissemination in prostate cancer and to identify the most prominent miRNAs as potential prognostic markers for future studies., Methods: High-throughput miRNA sequencing was performed for 44 prostate cancer specimens taken from Russian patients, with and without lymphatic dissemination (N1 - 20 samples; N0 - 24 samples)., Results: We found at least 18 microRNAs with differential expression between N0 and N1 sample groups: miR-182-5p, miR-183-5p, miR-96-5p, miR-25-3p, miR-93-5p, miR-7-5p, miR-615-3p, miR-10b, miR-1248 (N1-miRs; elevated expression in N1 cohort; p < 0.05); miR-1271-5p, miR-184, miR-222-3p, miR-221-5p, miR-221-3p, miR-455-3p, miR-143-5p, miR-181c-3p and miR-455-5p (N0-miRs; elevated expression in N0; p < 0.05). The expression levels of N1-miRs were highly correlated between each other (the same is applied for N0-miRs) and the expression levels of N0-miRs and N1-miRs were anti-correlated. The tumor samples can be divided into two groups depending on the expression ratio between N0-miRs and N1-miRs., Conclusions: We found the miRNA expression signature associated with lymphatic dissemination, in particular on the Russian patient cohort. Many of these miRNAs are well-known players in either oncogenic transformation or tumor suppression. Further experimental studies with extended sampling are required to validate these results.

Background: Darolutamide is a structurally distinct androgen-receptor inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. In the planned primary analysis of a phase 3 trial, the median metastasis-free survival was significantly longer with darolutamide (40.4 months) than with placebo (18.4 months). The data for the analysis of overall survival were immature at the time of the primary analysis., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1509 men, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive darolutamide (955 patients) or placebo (554 patients) while they continued to receive androgen-deprivation therapy. After the results of the primary end-point analysis were found to be positive, unblinding of the treatment assignments occurred, and patients in the placebo group were permitted to cross over to receive open-label darolutamide treatment. At the time of this prespecified final analysis, which had been planned to be performed after approximately 240 deaths had occurred, overall survival and all other secondary end points were evaluated., Results: The median follow-up time was 29.0 months. At the time of unblinding of the data, all 170 patients who were still receiving placebo crossed over to receive darolutamide; 137 patients who had discontinued placebo before unblinding had occurred received at least one other life-prolonging therapy. Overall survival at 3 years was 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80 to 86) in the darolutamide group and 77% (95% CI, 72 to 81) in the placebo group. The risk of death was significantly lower, by 31%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.88; P = 0.003). Darolutamide was also associated with a significant benefit with respect to all other secondary end points, including the time to first symptomatic skeletal event and the time to first use of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The incidence of adverse events after the start of treatment was similar in the two groups; no new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, the percentage of patients who were alive at 3 years was significantly higher among those who received darolutamide than among those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer HealthCare and Orion Pharma; ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02200614.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Methods: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636., Findings: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1-17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5-8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2-7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70-0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9-18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0-15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69-1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1-17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7-15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83-1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo., Interpretation: Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: LATITUDE, a randomized, double-blind trial, compared abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo (PBO) + ADT in high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC)., Objective: To assess the correlation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics with overall survival (OS) and radiological progression-free survival (rPFS)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A post hoc analysis of data from 597 men receiving AAP + ADT and 602 receiving PBO + ADT., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The associations of PSA-related outcomes (rates of confirmed 50% [PSA50] and 90% [PSA90] decline from baseline PSA [Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria], rates of PSA < 0.2 ng/ml, median nadir PSA, time to PSA nadir [TPN], and time to PSA progression [TPP] with long-term outcomes [OS and rPFS]) were evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. Correlations of TPP with coprimary endpoints rPFS and OS were evaluated using Kendall's tau (KT)., Results and Limitations: AAP + ADT significantly delayed median TPP versus PBO + ADT (33.2 vs 7.4 mo; HR: 0.3, p <  0.001). TPP correlated with rPFS (KT = 0.921) and OS (KT = 0.666). In the AAP + ADT group, 91% had PSA50 and 79% had PSA90 responses (relative risk [RR]: 1.36 and 2.30, respectively; p <  0.001 for both comparisons vs PBO + ADT). Compared with nonresponders, PSA50 and PSA90 responders had reduced risk of death (RR: 0.44 and 0.12, respectively). At 6 mo, 40% receiving AAP + ADT and 6.5% receiving PBO + ADT achieved PSA ≤0.1 ng/ml, which was significantly associated with longer rPFS and OS. Median nadir PSA was 0.09 ng/ml with AAP + ADT versus 2.36 ng/ml with PBO + ADT. Median TPN (AAP + ADT, 6.4 mo; PBO + ADT, 3.8 mo) positively correlated with rPFS and OS., Conclusions: Superior PSA response dynamics with AAP + ADT versus ADT + PBO strongly correlated with long-term outcomes of rPFS and OS in high-risk mCSPC., Patient Summary: We found that low prostate-specific antigen levels (≤0.1 ng/ml) after 6 mo may indicate a good long-term response to treatment. Our results need confirmation., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist-plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (60 mg/m 2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues., Findings: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5-13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3-4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6-2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573-0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9-11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0-9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724-1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group., Interpretation: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Information about the characteristics of measuring chips according to their storage conditions is of great importance for clinical diagnosis. In our present work, we have studied the capability of chips to detect nanowire biosensors when they are either freshly prepared or have been stored for either one or two years in a clean room. Potential to detect DNA oligonucleotides (oDNAs)-synthetic analogues of microRNAs (miRNAs) 198 and 429 that are associated with the development of prostate cancer (PCa)-in buffer solution was demonstrated using a nanowire biosensor based on silicon-on-insulator structures (SOI-NW biosensor). To provide biospecific detection, nanowire surfaces were sensitized with oligonucleotide probes (oDNA probes) complimentary to the known sequences of miRNA 183 and 484. In this study it is demonstrated that freshly prepared SOI-NW biosensor chips with n-type conductance and immobilized oDNA probes exhibit responses to the addition of complimentary oDNAs in buffer, leading to decreases in chips' conductance at a concentration of 3.3 × 10 -16 M. The influence of storage time on the characteristics of SOI-NW biosensor chips is also studied herein. It is shown that a two-year storage of the chips leads to significant changes in their characteristics, resulting in "inverse" sensitivity toward negatively charged oDNA probes (i.e., through an increase in chips' conductance). It is concluded that the surface layer makes the main contribution to conductance of the biosensor chip. Our results indicate that the detection of target nucleic acid molecules can be carried out with high sensitivity using sensor chips after long-term storage, but that changes in their surface properties, which lead to inversed detection signals, must be taken into account. Examples of the applications of such chips for the detection of cancer-associated microRNAs in plasma samples of patients with diagnosed prostate cancer are given. The results obtained herein are useful for the development of highly sensitive nanowire-based diagnostic systems for the revelation of (prostate) cancer-associated microRNAs in human plasma.

Purpose: Enzalutamide, a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor, has demonstrated significant benefits in metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)., Methods: ARCHES (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896) is a multinational, double-blind, phase III trial, wherein 1,150 men with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) or placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival., Results: As of October 14, 2018, the risk of radiographic progression or death was significantly reduced with enzalutamide plus ADT versus placebo plus ADT (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50; P < .001; median not reached v 19.0 months). Similar significant improvements in radiographic progression-free survival were reported in prespecified subgroups on the basis of disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. Enzalutamide plus ADT significantly reduced the risk of prostate-specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, castration resistance, and reduced risk of pain progression. More men achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level and/or an objective response with enzalutamide plus ADT ( P < .001). Patients in both treatment groups reported a high baseline level of quality of life, which was maintained over time. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 24.3% of patients who received enzalutamide plus ADT versus 25.6% of patients who received placebo plus ADT, with no unexpected adverse events., Conclusion: Enzalutamide with ADT significantly reduced the risk of metastatic progression or death over time versus placebo plus ADT in men with mHSPC, including those with low-volume disease and/or prior docetaxel, with a safety analysis that seems consistent with the safety profile of enzalutamide in previous clinical trials in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Epithelial cells of prostate express significant level of ACE and, as a result, seminal fluid has 50-fold more ACE than plasma. The substitution of highly specialized prostate epithelial cells by tumor cells results in dramatic decrease in ACE production in prostate tissues. We performed detailed characterization of ACE status in prostate tissues from patients with benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PC) using new approach- ACE phenotyping, that includes evaluation of: 1) ACE activity with two substrates (HHL and ZPHL); 2) the ratio of the rates of their hydrolysis (ZPHL/HHL ratio); 3) the ratio of immunoreactive ACE protein to ACE activity; 4) the pattern of mAbs binding to different epitopes on ACE - ACE conformational fingerprint - to reveal conformational changes in prostate ACE due to prostate pathology. ACE activity dramatically decreased and the ratio of immunoreactive ACE protein to ACE activity increased in PC tissues. The catalytic parameter, ZPHL/HHL ratio, increased in prostate tissues from all patients with PC, but was did not change for most |BPH patients. Nevertheless, prostate tissues of several patients diagnosed with BPH based on histology, also demonstrated decreased ACE activity and increased immunoreactive ACE protein/ACE activity and ZPHL/HHL ratios, that could be considered as more early indicators of prostate cancer development than routine histology. Thus, ACE phenotyping of prostate biopsies has a potential to be an effective approach for early diagnostics of prostate cancer or at least for differential diagnostics of BPH and PC., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interest, (Copyright: © 2019 Danilov et al.)