Search

BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P=0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: CheckMate 914 is a two-part, randomized phase III trial evaluating adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (part A) or adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (part B) versus placebo in mutually exclusive populations of patients with localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence. Part A showed no disease-free survival (DFS) benefit for adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. We report results from part B., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses), placebo, or nivolumab (240 mg once every 2 weeks for up to 12 doses) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks for up to four doses). The planned treatment duration was 24 weeks (approximately 5.5 months). The primary end point was DFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) for nivolumab versus placebo; safety was a secondary end point., Results: Overall, 825 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (n = 411), placebo (n = 208), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 206). With a median follow-up of 27.0 months (range, 18.0-42.4), the primary end point of improved DFS per BICR with nivolumab versus placebo was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.21]; P = .40); the median DFS was not reached in either arm, and 18-month DFS rates were 78.4% versus 75.4%. The HR for DFS per investigator was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12; P = .19). Grade 3-4 all-cause adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17.2%, 15.0%, and 28.9% of patients with nivolumab, placebo, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation in 9.6%, 1.0%, and 28.4%, respectively., Conclusion: Part B of CheckMate 914 did not meet the primary end point of improved DFS for nivolumab versus placebo in patients with localized RCC at high risk of postnephrectomy recurrence.

Objectives: To document the management of advanced prostate cancer including diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and care, in real-world practice in Asia using the United in Fight against prOstate cancer (UFO) registry., Patients and Methods: We established a multi-national, longitudinal, observational registry of patients with prostate cancer presenting to participating tertiary care hospitals in eight Asian countries. A total of 3636 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRL), non-metastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (M0), or metastatic prostate cancer (M1), were consecutively enrolled and are being followed-up for 5 years. Patient history, demographic and disease characteristics, treatment and treatment decisions, were collected at first prostate cancer diagnosis and at enrolment. Patient-reported quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Quality of Life-five Dimensions, five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Prostate Cancer questionnaires. In the present study, we report the first interim analysis of 2063 patients enrolled from study start (15 September 2015) until 18 May 2017., Results: Of the 2063 enrolled patients, 357 (17%), 378 (19%), and 1328 (64%) had HRL, M0 or M1 prostate cancer, respectively. The mean age at first diagnosis was similar in each group, 56% of all patients had extracapsular extension of their tumour, 28% had regional lymph node metastasis, and 53% had distant metastases. At enrolment, 62% of patients had at least one co-morbidity (mainly cardiovascular disease or diabetes), 91.8% of M1 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of <2 and the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue score was 74.6-79.6 across cohorts. Treatment of M1 patients was primarily with combined androgen blockade (58%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (either orchidectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) (32%). Decisions to start therapy were mainly driven by treatment guidelines and disease progression. Decision to discontinue therapy was most often due to disease progression (hormonal drug therapy) or completion of therapy (chemotherapy)., Conclusion: In the UFO registry of advanced prostate cancer in Asia, regional differences exist in prostate cancer treatment patterns that will be explored more deeply during the follow-up period; prospective follow-up is ongoing. The UFO registry will provide valuable descriptive data on current disease characteristics and treatment landscape amongst patients with prostate cancer in Asia., (© 2019 The Authors BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: The incidence of prostate cancer (PC) in Asian countries is increasing for reasons that are not clear. Data describing how PC is diagnosed and treated are fragmented across Asia, with marked intercountry and intracountry differences in outcome and knowledge gaps in clinical diagnostic and treatment practices. To address these knowledge gaps, we have established a PC disease registry with the aim of providing a comprehensive picture of PC diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and outcome, population characteristics, and comorbidities in real-world clinical practice in Asia., Methods: This is a multinational, multicenter, longitudinal, and observational registry of PC patients presenting to participating tertiary-care hospitals in eight Asian countries (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02546908. Registry Identifier: NOPRODPCR4001). Approximately 3500-4000 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localized PC (cohort 1), nonmetastatic biochemically recurrent PC (cohort 2), or metastatic PC (cohort 3) will be consecutively enrolled and followed-up for 5 years. An enrollment cap of 600 patients each will be applied to cohorts 1 and 2. Disease status is collected at enrollment, and outcome variables captured at 3-monthly intervals include diagnostic/staging, treatments including reason for change, laboratory results, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Treatments and survival outcomes will be captured real time until study end. Patient-reported quality-of-life will be measured every 6 months, and medical resource utilization summarized at study end. Data analysis will include exploratory analyses of potential associations between multiple risk factors and socioeconomic variables with disease progression and evaluation of various treatments for PC including novel therapies on clinical outcome and health-related quality-of-life outcomes., Results: 3636 men with PC were enrolled until July 2018; 416 in cohort 1, 399 in cohort 2 and 2821 in cohort 3., Discussion: A total of 3636 patients were enrolled until July 2018. The prospective disease registry will provide comprehensive and wide-ranging real-world information on how PC is diagnosed and treated in Asia. Such information can be used to inform policy development for best practice and direct clinical study design evaluating new treatments.

Efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based consolidation following ASCT were investigated in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients from Australia, Korea, and China. Patients received three cycles of bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone induction followed by high-dose therapy/ASCT, then were randomized (1:1) to consolidation with TP (thalidomide 100 mg/d for ≤12 months/until disease progression; prednisolone 50 mg on alternate days indefinitely/until disease progression; n  = 100) or VTP (subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks for 32 weeks, plus TP; n  = 103). The hypothesized difference in CR + VGPR rate (after ≤12 months consolidation therapy) was not met. The rate of CR + VGPR was numerically higher with VTP versus TP; however, this was not statistically significant (85.7% versus 77.1%; rate difference 8.6%; 95% confidence interval -2.3%-19.5%; p  = .122). Secondary efficacy outcomes were similar between treatment arms. Addition of bortezomib to TP consolidation was associated with limited additional toxicity but did not significantly improve efficacy versus TP.