Search

Purpose: Bevacizumab is a VEGF-specific angiogenesis inhibitor indicated as an adjunct to chemotherapy for the treatment of multiple cancers. Hypertension is commonly observed during bevacizumab treatment, and high-grade toxicity can limit therapy or lead to cardiovascular complications. The factors that contribute to interindividual variability in blood pressure rise during bevacizumab treatment are not well understood.Experimental Design: To identify genomic regions associated with bevacizumab-induced hypertension risk, sequencing of candidate genes and flanking regulatory regions was performed on 61 patients treated with bevacizumab (19 cases developed early-onset grade 3 hypertension and 42 controls had no reported hypertension in the first six cycles of treatment). SNP-based tests for common variant associations and gene-based tests for rare variant associations were performed in 174 candidate genes.Results: Four common variants in independent linkage disequilibrium blocks between SLC29A1 and HSP90AB1 were among the top associations. Validation in larger bevacizumab-treated cohorts supported association between rs9381299 with early grade 3+ hypertension (P = 0.01; OR, 2.4) and systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg (P = 0.02; OR, 2.1). rs834576 was associated with early grade 3+ hypertension in CALGB 40502 (P = 0.03; OR, 2.9). These SNP regions are enriched for regulatory elements that may potentially increase gene expression. In vitro overexpression of SLC29A1 in human endothelial cells disrupted adenosine signaling and reduced nitric oxide levels that were further lowered upon bevacizumab exposure.Conclusions: The genomic region between SLC29A1 and HSP90AB1 and its role in regulating adenosine signaling are key targets for further investigation into the pathogenesis of bevacizumab-induced hypertension. Clin Cancer Res; 24(19); 4734-44. ©2018 AACR.

ImportanceIn cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials.ObjectiveTo examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014.ResultsOf the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ

PurposeDiscovery of SNPs that predict a patient's risk of docetaxel-induced neuropathy would enable treatment individualization to maximize efficacy and avoid unnecessary toxicity. The objectives of this analysis were to discover SNPs associated with docetaxel-induced neuropathy and mechanistically validate these associations in preclinical models of drug-induced neuropathy.Experimental designA genome-wide association study was conducted in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone and randomized to bevacizumab or placebo on CALGB 90401. SNPs were genotyped on the Illumina HumanHap610-Quad platform followed by rigorous quality control. The inference was conducted on the cumulative dose at occurrence of grade 3+ sensory neuropathy using a cause-specific hazard model that accounted for early treatment discontinuation. Genes with SNPs significantly associated with neuropathy were knocked down in cellular and mouse models of drug-induced neuropathy.ResultsA total of 498,081 SNPs were analyzed in 623 Caucasian patients, 50 (8%) of whom experienced grade 3+ neuropathy. The 1,000 SNPs most associated with neuropathy clustered in relevant pathways including neuropathic pain and axonal guidance. An SNP in VAC14 (rs875858) surpassed genome-wide significance (P = 2.12 × 10-8, adjusted P = 5.88 × 10-7). siRNA knockdown of VAC14 in stem cell-derived peripheral neuronal cells increased docetaxel sensitivity as measured by decreased neurite processes (P = 0.0015) and branches (P < 0.0001). Prior to docetaxel treatment, VAC14 heterozygous mice had greater nociceptive sensitivity than wild-type litter mate controls (P = 0.001).ConclusionsVAC14 should be prioritized for further validation of its potential role as a predictor of docetaxel-induced neuropathy and biomarker for treatment individualization. Clin Cancer Res; 22(19); 4890-900. ©2016 AACR.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was –0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, –∞ to 2.54; P =.01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted. TARGET: A randomized, noninferiority trial of a pretest, patient-driven genetic education webtool vs. genetic counseling for #prostatecancer germline testing by @LoebStacy @vedangiri et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPreliminary data suggest a potential decreased benefit of docetaxel in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who previously received abiraterone acetate, a novel androgen synthesis inhibitor (ASI). Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial 90401 (Alliance), a phase 3 trial in patients with mCRPC who received docetaxel-based chemotherapy, offered the opportunity to evaluate effect of prior ketoconazole, an earlier generation ASI, on clinical outcomes after docetaxel.MethodsIn CALGB trial 90401, 1050 men with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC were randomized to receive treatment with docetaxel and prednisone that included either bevacizumab or placebo. In total, 1005 men (96%) had data available regarding prior ketoconazole therapy. The observed effects of prior ketoconazole on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, and the objective response rate (ORR) were assessed using proportional hazards and Poisson regression methods adjusted for validated prognostic factors and treatment arm.ResultsBaseline characteristics between patients who did (N=277) and did not (N=728) receive prior ketoconazole therapy were similar. There were no statistically significant differences between patients who did and those who did not receive prior ketoconazole therapy with respect to OS (median OS, 21.1 months vs 22.3 months, respectively; stratified log-rank P=.635), PFS (median PFS, 8.1 months vs 8.6 months, respectively; stratified log-rank P=.342), the proportion achieving a decline ≥ 50% in PSA (61% vs 66%, respectively; relative risk, 1.09; adjusted P=.129), or ORR (39% vs 43%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; adjusted P=.366).ConclusionsAs measured by OS, PFS, PSA, and the ORR, there was no evidence that prior treatment with ketoconazole had an impact on the clinical outcomes of patients with mCRPC who received subsequent docetaxel-based therapy. The current results highlight the need for prospective studies to assess for potential cross-resistance with novel ASIs and to define the optimal sequence of therapy in mCRPC.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men in the United States. The treatment paradigm for prostate cancer has evolved with the emergence of a variety of novel therapies which have improved survival; however, treatment-related toxicities are abundant and durable responses remain rare. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown modest activity in a small subset of patients with prostate cancer and have not had an impact on most men with advanced disease. The discovery of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and the understanding of its specificity to prostate cancer has identified it as an ideal tumor-associated antigen and has revived the enthusiasm for immunotherapeutics in prostate cancer. T-cell immunotherapy in the form of bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have shown exceptional success in treating various hematologic malignancies, and are now being tested in patients with prostate cancer with drug design centered on various target ligands including not just PSMA, but others as well including six-transmembrane epithelial antigen of the prostate 1 (STEAP1) and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA). This summative review will focus on the data surrounding PSMA-targeting T-cell therapies. Early clinical studies with both classes of T-cell redirecting therapies have demonstrated antitumor activity; however, there are multiple challenges with this class of agents, including dose-limiting toxicity, ‘on-target, off-tumor’ immune-related toxicity, and difficulty in maintaining sustained immune responses within a complex and overtly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Reflecting on experiences from recent trials has been key toward understanding mechanisms of immune escape and limitations in developing these drugs in prostate cancer. Newer generation BiTE and CAR T-cell constructs, either alone or as part of combination therapy, are currently under investigation with modifications in drug design to overcome these barriers. Ongoing innovation in drug development will likely foster successful implementation of T-cell immunotherapy bringing transformational change to the treatment of prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are commonly employed in prostate cancer therapy in an interchangeable manner. These drugs are highly efficacious in androgen antagonism to improve patient outcomes, but they also carry noteworthy risk of adverse effects. Common toxicities vary amongst the two drugs and may have differential interactions with patient co-morbidities, but these patterns are unclear as co-morbidities typically serve as exclusion criteria in clinical trials. Hence, there is no existing guidance on how clinicians may tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors. Analysis of differential patient outcomes between these two drugs can inform future systematic reviews, new clinical studies, and clinical decision making. Method and analysis: The framework for this methodology was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening will be performed by two independent researchers to create an initial study inventory. This will be followed by full-text screening for study inclusion. Population-based studies describing patient outcomes, common toxicities, and associations with patient co-morbidities following abiraterone or enzalutamide therapy will be included. After data is extracted, it will be summarized for presentation. Ethics and dissemination: The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform future studies on patient-specific factors informing treatment choice between abiraterone and enzalutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer. All data are from published openly accessible sources, and therefore, no ethical clearance is necessary. The protocol is also registered at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19149227. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are novel therapies used in advanced prostate cancer. However, their outcomes and toxicities may differ based on patient–specific factors. Understanding these differences may allow clinicians to make personalized treatment decisions based on individual patients. Because clinical trials do not represent the real-world population, this study used a formal protocol to review and collate smaller, real-world samples, aiming to explain the differences in outcomes following administration of these two drugs. We found that enzalutamide typically has improved cancer response and overall survival. Enzalutamide more commonly causes neurological side effects and fatigue, while abiraterone acetate has cardiovascular complications. Abiraterone acetate leads to increased costs and healthcare needs, including hospitalizations and emergency room visits. Ultimately, this study demonstrates significant differences in patient experiences and outcomes following abiraterone acetate versus enzalutamide. Clinicians may use this information to inform their treatment choice on a patient-specific basis. Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are commonly used for metastatic prostate cancer. It is unclear how their outcomes and toxicities vary with patient-specific factors because clinical trials typically exclude patients with significant comorbidities. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap and facilitate informed treatment decision making. A registered protocol utilizing PRISMA scoping review methodology was utilized to identify real-world studies. Of 433 non-duplicated publications, 23 were selected by three independent reviewers. ENZ offered a faster and more frequent biochemical response (30–50% vs. 70–75%), slowed progression (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50–0.88), and improved overall survival versus AA. ENZ was associated with more fatigue and neurological adverse effects. Conversely, AA increased risk of cardiovascular- (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.09–3.05) and heart failure-related (HR 2.88; 95% CI 1.09–7.63) hospitalizations. Ultimately, AA was associated with increased length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.04–1.53). Accordingly, total costs were higher for AA, although pharmacy costs alone were higher for ENZ. Existing data suggest that AA and ENZ have important differences in outcomes including toxicities, response, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, adherence, healthcare utilization, and costs differ. Further investigation is warranted to inform treatment decisions which optimize patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are few data regarding disparities in overall survival (OS) between Asian and white men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We compared OS of Asian and white mCRPC men treated in phase III clinical trials with docetaxel and prednisone (DP) or a DP-containing regimen. Individual participant data from 8820 men with mCRPC randomly assigned on nine phase III trials to receive DP or a DP-containing regimen were combined. Men enrolled in these trials had a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma. The median overall survival was 18.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.4 to 22.1 months) and 21.2 months (95% CI = 20.8 to 21.7 months) for Asian and white men, respectively. The pooled hazard ratio for death for Asian men compared with white men, adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.84 to 1.09), indicating that Asian men were not at increased risk of death. This large analysis showed that Asian men did not have shorter OS duration than white men treated with docetaxel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]