Search

Background: Despite metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) expanded treatment options, disease progression ultimately occurs for most patients. Rechallenge may be a compelling strategy in a refractory setting. Cabozantinib is the standard of care in first and later lines of therapy, but its activity in rechallenge is unknown., Methods: This retrospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib rechallenge, as defined by a second exposure after an interval of ≥3 months without treatment or ≥1 other treatment line, in patients with mRCC. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS) at rechallenge. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety at rechallenge., Results: We included 51 mRCC patients who received cabozantinib in a rechallenge setting between 2017 and 2022. Median age at diagnosis was 54 years, 78% were male, 90% had clear cell mRCC, and 92% had prior nephrectomy. 15 patients (29%) were rechallenged after a pause in treatment, whereas 36 (70.6%) had ≥1 other treatment lines between first cabozantinib exposure (CABO-1) and rechallenge (CABO-2). Median PFS was 15.1 months (mo, 95% Confidence interval 11.2-22.1) at CABO-1 and 14.4mo (95%CI 9.8-NR) at CABO-2. Median overall survival was 67.6mo for CABO-1 (95% CI 52.2-NR) and 27.4mo for CABO-2 (95%CI 17.2-NR); objective response rate was 70.6% for CABO-1 and 60% for CABO-2. CABO-2 PFS was higher for patients with CABO-1 PFS > 12 months, and for those who discontinued CABO-1 because of toxicity, without statistical significance. There were no unexpected adverse events., Conclusions: Cabozantinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Laurence Albiges received funding from Amgen, Astellas-Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Natacha Naoun received funding from Merck. Edouard Auclin is on the advisory boards of Amgen and Sanofi. Philippe Barthélémy is on the advisory boards of Bristol. Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche, and received honoraria from Astellas, EUSA Pharma and Sanofi. Lionnel Geoffrois received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck Serono and MSD. Constance Thibault received funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Merck, Janssen, Astellas, MSD. Manon de Vries received funding from AAA, Pfizer, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb. Delphine Borchiellini received research funding from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AVEO, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Taiho Oncology, and other funding from Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer. Lucia Carril-Ajuria received funding from Ipsen. Emeline Colomba received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Merck and Pfizer. Alice Bernard-Tessier received honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, and funding from Bayer and Orion Clinical. Ronan Flippot received honoraria from Bayer, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Pfizer, MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb. Bernard Escudier received funding from Aveo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. Denis Maillet, Carolina Saldana, Laure Hirsch, Charles Vauchier and Edwige Baudry declare no conflict of interest relating to the submitted work., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent studies suggest improvements in response to salvage chemotherapy (CT) after immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in several types of cancer. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI, compared with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC)., Methods: In this multicentre retrospective study, we included all patients with la/mUC initiating second or third-line chemotherapy from January 2015 to June 2020. We compared patients treated with second-line chemotherapy without previous ICI (CT2) and patients treated with third-line chemotherapy after ICI (CT3). The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR) in CT3 compared with CT2. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities., Results: Overall, 553 patients were included. ORRs were 31.0% (95% CI, 26.5 to 35.5) and 29.2% (95% CI, 21.9 to 36.6), respectively, in CT2 and CT3, with no statistically significant differences (P = 0.62). In subgroup analyses, no differences in ORR were observed by Bellmunt risk group, type of chemotherapy (platinum or taxanes), duration of response to first-platinum-based chemotherapy (< or ≥ 12 months) or FGFR-status. Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.1) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.5) in CT2 and CT3, respectively, and grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 35.0% and 22.4% of patients., Conclusion: This large multicentre retrospective study provides clinically relevant real-world data. Chemotherapy re-challenge after ICI in la/mUC achieves ORR and PFS comparable with those obtained in CT2 with an acceptable safety profile. These updated results offer more promising outcomes than historically reported with second-line chemotherapy data., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/objectives: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), induced by Checkpoint Inhibitors therapies (CPI-induced AKI), is an uncommon but severe Immune-Related Adverse Event (IRAE). The aim was to describe the epidemiology, risks factors, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of these renal adverse events (AEs) in a real-life cohort treatment., Design/participants: Consecutive patients undergoing a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy at the Hôpital Lyon Sud from January 2015 to July 2017 were included. A systematic retrospective analysis of medical files was performed, monthly serum creatinine levels, associated treatments, and occurrence of other IRAEs data were collected. AKI episodes explained by classic AKI aetiologies (prerenal, obstructive, septic) were excluded from the analysis., Results: CPI-induced AKI incidence was 3.7% (13/352) and appeared to be time-dependent (7.7% (11/143) for patients with >3 months of CPI exposure), ranging from 1 to 16 months. All cases with available histology were acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN), with poor urinary sediment. The severity of AKI was mild (stage 1 in 50% of cases), with no need for renal-replacement therapy. Although CPI-induced AKI patients had more frequently other IRAEs (77% versus 39%), this was not associated with a greater risk of AKI. Pre-existing chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min) was not associated with a greater risk of CPI-induced AKI. Treatments of CPI-induced AKI were heterogeneous, with discontinuation of CPIs, and inconstant systemic corticosteroid therapy., Conclusion: The monitoring of renal function and early identification of AKI during CPIs treatment is essential. The optimal management of CPI-induced AKI remains unclear and requires a close collaboration between the oncology and nephrology departments., Clinical Relevancy Statement: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have dramatically improved patient outcomes in different malignant contexts such as melanoma, non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and urologic cancers. Usually well-tolerated, CPIs are however associated with immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Among them, acute kidney injury (AKI) is uncommon, and not well-described. Following the exponential increase in the prescription of CPIs, previously uncommon cases of IRAEs (such as AKI) have become common occurrence in referral centres. Data regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, or management of CPI-induced AKI are currently lacking or can be discordant. Data regarding CPI-induced AKI, in a large real-life cohort were reported herein., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Statement All the authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of immune-related adverse events (irAE) on survival outcomes after single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association between irAEs and ICI efficacy in various malignancies., Methods: All patients treated with a single-agent ICI for any advanced cancer were included in this retrospective multicentric series. The primary objective was to assess the impact of all type grade ≥II irAEs on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). IrAEs were first considered as a fixed covariate and included in Cox-regression models. In addition, as irAEs are time-related events and can occur at any point during follow-up, we analysed the occurrence of irAEs as a time-varying covariate., Results: In this cohort of 410 patients, the majority of patients (70%) were treated for non-small cell lung cancer. The ICI was an anti-PD(L)1 for 356 patients (82%) and an anti-CTLA4 for 79 patients (18%). In total 126 (29%) of the patients presented at least one grade ≥II irAEs. The first occurrence of a grade ≥II irAE had a positive impact on PFS and OS when considered as a fixed or as a time-varying covariate (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.81; P = 0.00022; HR for OS = 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.74, P < 0.0001). This overall finding was confirmed in patients treated with an anti-PD(L)1 and among patients with lung cancer., Conclusion: In this pooled multi-institutional cohort, the incidence of irAEs was associated with better long-term survival across different malignancies treated with ICI monotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age-related immune dysfunction might impair the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in older patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age on clinical outcomes and tolerance of ICIs in a real-life setting., Methods: All patients receiving a single-agent ICI (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 [CTLA-4] or programmed death(ligand)1 [PD(L)-1] inhibitors) for the standard treatment of a locally advanced or metastatic cancer were included in this retrospective multicentric series. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were secondary end-points. The impact of age was assessed using the threshold of 70 years., Results: A total of 410 patients were included, for 435 lines of treatment, including 150 lines (34%) given to patients aged 70 years or older. The primary tumour types were lung cancer (n = 304, 74%), melanoma (n = 79, 19%) and urologic cancer (n = 27, 7%). Most of the administered treatments were PD(L)-1 inhibitors (n = 356, 82%). Median follow-up reached 46 months in the CTLA-4 cohort, and 20 months in the PD(L)-1 cohort. In both treatment cohorts, age did not impact OS (respectively, HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.5-1.4; log-rank P = 0.49 and HR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1; log-rank P = 0.27) or PFS (HR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-1.1; log-rank P = 0.13 and HR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.1; log-rank P = 0.19). Grade 3-4 irAEs rates were not statistically different between older and younger patients (11% vs 12%, P = 0.87)., Conclusion: In a large real-world series of patients treated by ICI monotherapy, the long-term clinical outcomes were not statistically different between older or younger patients, with no increased immune-related toxicity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Determining the optimal biological dose (OBD) has been described as an alternative strategy to the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) for identifying the recommended phase II trial doses (RP2Ds) of phase I anti-cancer therapies. However, the clinical relevance is still unknown. An extensive review was performed to assess if the OBDs defined in early-phase trials were useful for subsequent drug development and approvals., Methods: All the molecular targeted therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in solid oncology or in haematological malignancies before July 2018 were listed through the National Cancer Institute Database. The early-phase trial publications investigating these drugs as single agents were retrieved and analysed to identify the drugs for which OBDs were reported. The publications of subsequent pivotal efficacy clinical trials leading to the approvals were retrieved, and OBDs compared with the final labelled doses and dosing schedules., Results: A total of 87 early-phase trial publications were analysed, corresponding to 81 FDA-approved targeted therapies. OBDs were reported for 40% (32/81) of these drugs (19 small molecules, 13 monoclonal antibodies). MTDs were not identified for 59% (19/32) of molecules. When the OBDs were selected as the RP2Ds (18/32 molecules), the final FDA-approved doses were consistent with the OBDs for 83% of the drugs, which is much higher than the previously reported 58% rate when MTDs were chosen as the RP2Ds., Conclusion: Although still poorly investigated, the OBD may be a relevant and complementary end-point for early-phase trials of targeted therapies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a major source of information on treatment-related adverse events (AEs). In this study, we reviewed the use and the reporting methods of aggregated-AEs (A-AEs) outcomes in RCTs reports published in oncology and compared that to the expectations of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) membership., Methods: RCTs reports published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed regarding the reporting of A-AEs-outcomes. A-AEs were defined as summary outcome combining several related AEs, usually grouped by organ system e.g. cardiac-AEs, dermatologic-AEs. Trial characteristics associated with the use of A-AEs outcomes were investigated. The expectation of EORTC members concerning A-AEs utilisation was queried through a survey., Results: Among 325 RCTs published between 2007 and 2011, 94 (29%) included one or more A-AE outcomes. A clear description of the nature of AEs included in such aggregations was provided in 19 articles (20%). No description of A-AEs was conversely provided in the other 75 articles (80%). The most commonly used A-AEs-outcomes were dermatologic-AEs (45%) and cardiac-AEs (33%). In multivariate analysis, the use of A-AEs outcomes was more frequent when trials were conducted in Europe (p = 0.038) and in trials performed on colon/rectal cancers (p = 0.016). Finally, there is no consensus of EORTC members regarding the utilisation of A-AEs but a majority of them (88%) felt that a clear description of A-AEs should systematically be reported., Conclusions: The use of A-AEs is infrequent in oncology RCT manuscripts although their use is accepted by most clinicians. However, a clear definition of A-AEs is strongly recommended if they are to be used in order to avoid a loss of important details about drug toxicities that is useful to clinicians., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) flare occurs in about 15% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients receiving docetaxel. This flare has no standard definition. Its impact on treatment efficacy is unclear. We sought to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of PSA flare on cabazitaxel, and its impact on survival., Methods: Multicentre retrospective review of consecutive patients treated with cabazitaxel second-line chemotherapy for mCRPC. Collection of baseline characteristics, disease history and PSA levels before and during cabazitaxel therapy. Overall survival (OS) and radiological/clinical progression-free survival (PFS) for patient groups corresponding to different definitions of PSA flare estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test., Results: Overall, 125 patients were included. Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 13.3 months, respectively. Depending upon the definition used, flare incidence ranged from 8.3% to 30.6%. The flare lasted <2.6 months. A PSA flare followed by a ⩾ 50% decrease was associated with a median PFS and OS of 11.2 and 25.2 months, respectively. Median PFS and OS for a ⩾ 30% rather than ⩾ 5 0% decrease were 10.4 and 16.5 months. These outcomes were not significantly different from those in patients with immediate PSA decreases of ⩾ 50% or ⩾ 30% from baseline, but were significantly better than in patients experiencing no PSA decrease (p = 0.006 and 0.015, respectively, for OS)., Conclusion: The PSA response to cabazitaxel, with or without initial flare, was associated with a strong survival benefit. The taxane-induced flare during the first 12 weeks of therapy can be ignored when evaluating PSA response., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)