Search

Background and Objective: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration., Key Findings and Limitations: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301., Patient Summary: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Interim results from IMvigor010 showed an overall survival (OS) benefit for adjuvant atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) versus observation in patients with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-positive muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC)., Objective: To report updated OS and safety by ctDNA status., Design, Setting, and Participants: This ad hoc analysis from a global, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02450331) included intention-to-treat (ITT) population with evaluable cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) ctDNA samples., Intervention: Atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 wk) or observation for ≤1 yr., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: OS, relapse rates, and safety by ctDNA status were assessed., Results and Limitations: Among 581 of 809 ITT patients included, 214 (37%) were ctDNA positive. Atezolizumab did not improve OS versus observation in ITT patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.73-1.13]; median follow-up 46.8 mo [interquartile range, 36.1-53.6]). In the observation arm, ctDNA positivity versus negativity was associated with shorter OS (HR 6.3 [95% CI 4.3-9.3]). The ctDNA positivity identified patients with an OS benefit favoring atezolizumab versus observation (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.42-0.83]). A greater reduction in ctDNA levels with atezolizumab (C3D1) was associated with longer OS (100% clearance, 60.0 mo [95% CI 35.5-not estimable]; 50-99% reduction, 34.3 mo [95% CI 15.2-not estimable]; <50% reduction, 19.9 mo [95% CI 16.4-32.2]). The ctDNA positivity at C1D1 + C3D1 was associated with relapse with greater sensitivity than C1D1 alone (68% vs 57%). Adverse events were more frequent with atezolizumab than with observation, regardless of ctDNA status. A study limitation was its exploratory design., Conclusions: Evidence suggests that ctDNA positivity in MIUC predicts a benefit with atezolizumab. An in-progress prospective study will further evaluate these findings., Patient Summary: Among patients with urothelial cancer after surgery, survival was poorer if tumor-derived DNA was detected in their bloodstream; these patients' survival was longer with atezolizumab versus observation. Bloodstream tumor-derived DNA may identify patients who benefit from atezolizumab., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration., Objective: To present the final data from TRITON2., Design, Setting, and Participants: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint., Results and Limitations: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively., Conclusions: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene., Patient Summary: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management., Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022., Design, Setting, and Participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement., Results and Limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis., Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials., Patient Summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutated (BRCA+) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BRCA reversion mutations are a known mechanism of acquired resistance to PARP inhibitors in multiple cancer types, although their impact and prevalence in mCRPC remain unknown., Objective: To examine the prevalence of BRCA reversion mutations in the plasma of patients with BRCA+ mCRPC after progression on rucaparib., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men with BRCA+ mCRPC enrolled in Trial of Rucaparib in Prostate Indications 2 (TRITON2) were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected at the end of treatment after confirmed progression before May 5, 2020, was queried for BRCA reversion mutations using next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The association of clinical efficacy and postprogression genomics was measured in 100 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib., Results and Limitations: No baseline BRCA reversion mutations were observed in 100 BRCA+ patients. NGS identified somatic BRCA reversion mutations in 39% (39/100) of patients after progression. Reversion rates were similar for BRCA2 and BRCA1, irrespective of germline or somatic status, but higher in samples with a high tumor DNA fraction. Most patients with reversions (74%, 29/39) had two or more reversion mutations occurring subclonally at lower allele frequencies than the original BRCA mutations. The incidence of BRCA reversion mutations increased with the duration of rucaparib treatment. The frequency of reversion mutations was higher in patients with an objective (58%) or a prostate-specific antigen (69%) response compared with those without either (39% and 29%, respectively)., Conclusions: These findings suggest that BRCA reversion mutations are a significant mechanism of acquired resistance to rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC, with evidence of subclonal convergence promoting systemic resistance., Patient Summary: Men with BRCA mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in TRITON2 were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected after radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression before May 5, 2020, was analyzed by next-generation sequencing and queried for BRCA reversion mutations., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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: Neoadjuvant immunotherapies hold promise in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)., Objective: To report on 2-yr disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival including novel tissue-based biomarkers and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the ABACUS trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: ABACUS was a multicenter, single-arm, neoadjuvant, phase 2 trial, including patients with MIBC (T2-4aN0M0) who were ineligible for or refused neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Intervention: Two cycles of atezolizumab were given prior to radical cystectomy. Serial tissue and blood samples were collected., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoints of pathological complete response (pCR) rate and dynamic changes to T-cell biomarkers were published previously. Secondary outcomes were 2-yr DFS and OS. A biomarker analysis correlated with relapse-free survival (RFS) was performed, which includes FOXP3, major histocompatibility complex class I, CD8/CD39, and sequential ctDNA measurements., Results and Limitations: The median follow-up time was 25 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 25-26). Ninety-five patients received at least one cycle of atezolizumab. Eight patients did not undergo cystectomy (only one due to disease progression). The pCR rate was 31% (27/88; 95% CI 21-41). Two-year DFS and OS were 68% (95% CI 58-76) and 77% (95% CI 68-85), respectively. Two-year DFS in patients achieving a pCR was 85% (95% CI 65-94). Baseline PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden did not correlate with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60 [95% CI 0.24-1.5], p = 0.26, and 0.72 [95% CI 0.31-1.7], p = 0.46, respectively). RFS correlated with high baseline stromal CD8+ (HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.09-0.68], p = 0.007) and high post-treatment fibroblast activation protein (HR 4.1 [95% CI 1.3-13], p = 0.01). Circulating tumor DNA positivity values at baseline, after neoadjuvant therapy, and after surgery were 63% (25/40), 47% (14/30), and 14% (five/36), respectively. The ctDNA status was highly prognostic at all time points. No relapses were observed in ctDNA-negative patients at baseline and after neoadjuvant therapy. The lack of randomization and exploratory nature of the biomarker analysis are limitations of this work., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in MIBC is associated with clinical responses and high DFS. CD8+ expression and serial ctDNA levels correlated with outcomes, and may contribute to personalized therapy in the future., Patient Summary: We showed that bladder cancer patients receiving immunotherapy followed by cystectomy have good long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we found that certain biological features can predict patients who might have particular benefit from this therapy., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We present an exploratory post hoc analysis from the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in a subgroup of 108 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, a population under-represented in clinical trials. Patients with clear cell aRCC were randomized to NIVO+IPI every 3 wk for four doses followed by NIVO monotherapy, or sunitinib every day for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and primary tumor shrinkage were assessed. PFS and ORR were assessed per independent radiology review committee using RECIST version 1.1. With minimum study follow-up of 4 yr for intent-to-treat patients, OS favored NIVO+IPI (n = 53) over sunitinib (n = 55; hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.0) among patients without prior nephrectomy. ORR was higher (34% vs 15%; p = 0.0041) and median duration of response was longer with NIVO+IPI versus sunitinib (20.5 vs 14.1 mo); the best overall response was partial response in either arm. A ≥30% reduction in the diameter of intact target renal tumors was achieved in 35% of patients with NIVO+IPI versus 20% with sunitinib. Safety was consistent with the global study population. In conclusion, in patients with aRCC without prior nephrectomy and with an evaluable primary tumor, NIVO+IPI showed survival benefits and renal tumor reduction versus sunitinib. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02231749. PATIENT SUMMARY: In an exploratory analysis of a large global trial (CheckMate 214), we observed positive outcomes (both survival and tumor response to treatment) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in a subgroup of patients with advanced kidney cancer who did not undergo removal of their primary kidney tumor. This subset of patients represents a population that has not been studied in clinical trials and for whom outcomes with new immunotherapy combination regimens are not yet known. We conclude that treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab offers these patients a survival benefit versus sunitinib, consistent with that observed in the overall study, as well as a notable kidney tumor reduction., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide)., Objective: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m 2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests., Results and Limitations: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups., Patient Summary: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for first-line (cisplatin unfit, PD-L1+) and platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). Still, most patients experience progressive disease (PD) as the best response. Although higher response rates to subsequent systemic treatment (SST) have been described, post-PD outcome data are scarce., Objective: To examine the outcome of UC patients who received SST and no SST after progressing to ICIs., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis of UC patients progressing to frontline or later-line anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in 10 European institutions was conducted between March 2013 and September 2017., Intervention: Post-PD management as per standard practice., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier model. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MV). Impact of SST on OS was examined with a time-varying covariate model., Results and Limitations: A total of 270 UC patients with PD to ICIs (69 frontline, 201 later line) were analyzed. Of the patients, 57% of frontline-ICI-PD and 34% of later-line-ICI-PD patients received SST, and SST had an impact on OS in MV (frontline: hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.51, p <  0.001; later line: HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.36, p <  0.001). In the frontline-ICI-PD group, median OS with and without SST was 6.8 mo (95% CI 5.0-8.6) and 1.9 mo (95% CI 0.9-3.0), respectively. High disease burden (three or more metastatic sites: HR 2.49, p =  0.03; simultaneous liver/bone metastases: HR 3.93, p =  0.03) predicted worse survival. In later-line-ICI-PD group, response to ICIs (HR 0.37, p =  0.03), longer exposure to ICIs (HR 0.89, p =  0.002), and bone metastasis (HR 2.42, p <  0.001) predicted survival. The retrospective nature of this study and a lack of certain parameters limit the interpretation of our analysis., Conclusions: Patients progressing to frontline ICIs are at risk of early death, excluding them from experiencing potential benefit from chemotherapy PATIENT SUMMARY: Our analysis suggests that outcomes after failing immunotherapy are poor, particularly in UC patients who received no prior chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial., Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management., Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference., Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference., Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease., Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach., Patient Summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atezolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, is approved for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma. SAUL evaluated atezolizumab in a broader, pretreated population, including patients ineligible for the pivotal IMvigor211 phase 3 trial of atezolizumab., Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in an international real-world setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between November 2016 and March 2018 (median follow-up 12.7mo), 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma who experienced progression during or after one to three prior therapies for inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease were enrolled. Patients with renal impairment, treated central nervous system metastases, or stable controlled autoimmune disease were eligible; 10% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 and 98% were platinum pretreated (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02928406)., Intervention: Atezolizumab 1200mg every 3wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results and Limitations: The median treatment duration was 2.8mo (range 0-19); 22% remained on treatment and 8% discontinued because of toxicity. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 45% of patients. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, asthenia, colitis, and hypertension (each in 1%). Median OS was 8.7mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8-9.9). The 6-mo OS rate was 60% (95% CI 57-63%), median PFS was 2.2mo (95% CI 2.1-2.4), and the ORR was 13% (95% CI 11-16%; 3% complete responses). Among IMvigor211-like patients (excluding ECOG PS 2 and other IMvigor211 exclusion criteria), median OS was 10.0mo (95% CI 8.8-11.9) and 6-mo OS was 65% (95% CI 61-69%)., Conclusions: SAUL confirms the tolerability of atezolizumab in a real-world pretreated population with urinary tract carcinoma. Efficacy overall and in the IMvigor211-like subgroup is consistent with previous pivotal anti-PD-L1/PD-1 urothelial carcinoma trials. These results support the use of atezolizumab in urinary tract carcinoma, including patients with limited treatment options., Patient Summary: In this international study we investigated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab treatment for advanced urinary tract cancer in a large population of pretreated patients, including those who would not normally be candidates for clinical trials. Patients tolerated the treatment well, even if they had autoimmune disease, were being treated with corticosteroids, or had disease that had spread to their brain. Life expectancy in this study for patients typical of everyday clinical practice was similar to that seen in trials that enrolled only selected fitter patients., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics., Objective: To present the report of APCCC 2017., Design, Setting, and Participants: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process., Results and Limitations: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data., Conclusions: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them., Patient Summary: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 025 study of nivolumab (n=410) versus everolimus (n=411) in previously treated adults (75% male; 88% white) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR)., Objective: To investigate which baseline factors were associated with OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus., Design, Setting, and Participants: Subgroup OS analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model., Intervention: Nivolumab 3mg/kg every 2 wk or everolimus 10mg once daily., Results and Limitations: The minimum follow-up was 14 mo. Baseline subgroup distributions were balanced between nivolumab and everolimus arms. Nivolumab demonstrated an OS improvement versus everolimus across subgroups, including Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups; age <65 and ≥65 yr; one and two or more sites of metastases; bone, liver, and lung metastases; number of prior therapies; duration of prior therapy; and prior sunitinib, pazopanib, or interleukin-2 therapy. The benefit with nivolumab versus everolimus was noteworthy for patients with poor MSKCC risk (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.70). The mortality rate at 12 mo for all subgroups was lower with nivolumab compared with everolimus. ORR also favored nivolumab. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events across subgroups was lower with nivolumab. Limitations include the post hoc analysis and differing sample sizes between groups., Conclusion: The trend for OS and ORR benefit with nivolumab for multiple subgroups, without notable safety concerns, may help to guide treatment decisions, and further supports nivolumab as the standard of care in previously treated patients with aRCC., Patient Summary: We investigated the impact of demographic and pretreatment features on survival benefit and tumor response with nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Survival benefit and response were observed for multiple subgroups, supporting the use of nivolumab as a new standard of care across a broad range of patients with previously treated aRCC. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01668784., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In our exploratory studies, we associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes with the efficacy and toxicities of sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Objective: To see whether previously reported associations of SNPs with sunitinib-induced toxicities and efficacy in mRCC can be confirmed in a large cohort of patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: The mRCC patients treated with sunitinib and a DNA sample available were pooled from three exploratory studies conducted in the United States, Spain, and the Netherlands. A total of 22 SNPs and 6 haplotypes in 10 candidate genes related to the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sunitinib were selected for association testing., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: SNPs and haplotypes were tested for associations with toxicity, dose reductions, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and best objective response., Results and Limitations: A total of 333 patients were included. We confirmed 2 of the 22 previously reported SNP associations. The presence of CYP3A5*1 was associated with dose reductions (odds ratio: 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-4.0, p=0.039). The presence of CGT in the ABCB1 haplotype was associated with an increased PFS (hazard ratio: 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; p<0.001) and remained significant after Bonferroni correction. These associations are consistent with prior observations., Conclusions: The confirmation of previously reported associations between polymorphisms in CYP3A5 and ABCB1 with sunitinib toxicity and efficacy, respectively, indicates that genotyping of these genetic variants will be useful for guiding sunitinib treatment. A prospective validation study is needed to confirm our findings on ABCB1 and CYP3A5 genetic polymorphisms., Patient Summary: We confirmed that variants in genes involved in processing sunitinib through the body have an effect on sunitinib treatment outcome. These findings confirm the potential of testing for these genetic variants to improve individual patient care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib., (Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Context: Phase 3 trials have made major contributions to advances in prostate cancer (PCa). However, funding limitations and excess bureaucracy are now making it difficult to conduct trials., Objective: To describe the collaborative groups in Europe and their academic phase 3 PCa trials., Evidence Acquisition: Leaders of collaborative groups from Scandinavia, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Ireland were asked to provide information., Evidence Synthesis: Approximately 40 academic European phase 3 trials focussing on PCa have been completed, and about 10 are accruing patients. Cross-border trials have been successfully conducted led by EORTC (11), Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group (9), European Association of Urology (1), Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficiency (STAMPEDE) (1), and the French Genito-Urinary Tumor Group (1). Among these studies were practise-changing trials showing the superiority of prostatectomy over watchful waiting in patients <65 yr of age, the benefits of combining androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiation therapy (RXT) in high-risk localised disease, the superiority of long-term versus short-term ADT, the benefit of RXT in men treated with ADT, and the role of adjuvant RXT. To bridge the numbers gap for phase 3 studies, the Prostate Cancer Consortium in Europe (PEACE) is a recently established initiative that aims to favour cross-border networks of investigators. PEACE 1 is testing the addition of abiraterone and that of RXT directed at the primary cancer in patients with de novo metastatic PCa treated with ADT. PEACE 2 is testing the addition of cabazitaxel and that of pelvic irradiation in patients with at least two criteria for high-risk localised PCa., Conclusions: European academic phase 3 trials have contributed to establishing the current standard treatment of PCa. The PEACE consortium was recently tasked with the goal of addressing unanswered questions and specific biology-related issues more efficiently., Patient Summary: The Prostate Cancer Consortium in Europe was established to conduct comparative trials aiming at assessing new treatments for prostate cancer patients., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is partially characterised by overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins, such as survivin. In this phase 2 study, patients with metastatic CRPC (n=154) were randomly assigned (1:2 ratio) to receive standard first-line docetaxel/prednisone (control arm) or the combination of LY2181308 with docetaxel/prednisone (experimental arm). The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) for LY2181308 plus docetaxel. Secondary efficacy measures included overall survival (OS), several predefined prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-derived end points, and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scores. The median PFS of treated patients for the experimental arm (n=98) was 8.64 mo (90% confidence interval [CI], 7.39-10.45) versus 9.00 mo (90% CI, 7.00-10.09) in the control arm (n=51; p=0.755). The median OS for the experimental arm was 27.04 mo (90% CI, 19.94-33.41) compared with 29.04 mo (90% CI, 20.11-39.26; p=0.838). The PSA responses (≥ 50% PSA reduction), BPI, and FACT-P scores were similar in both arms. In the experimental arm, patients had a numerically higher incidence of grades 3-4 neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and sensory neuropathy. In conclusion, this study failed to detect a difference in efficacy between the two treatment groups., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)