Search

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a rapidly emerging field of oncology that has revolutionized the metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment. Four recent treatment regimens Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Cabozantinib, and Pembrolizumab-Lenvatinib—have demonstrated improved clinical endpoints compared to standard of care and are endorsed by NCCN (2021). However, data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients receiving these regimens are limited. We conducted a comparative assessment of the quality and standardization of PROs endpoints and data reported for these randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically identified all RCTs evaluating combination ICB for ccRCC. PROs-specific data were abstracted from the final version of 4 RCT protocols, as well as clinical and PROs specific manuscripts published between April 2018 and April 2021. We used 3 previously published guides standardizing PROs research to objectively score the data: i) 24-point PROEAS; ii) 12-point SPIRIT-PRO; and iii) 14-point CONSORT-PRO. RESULTS: The CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, CheckMate 9ER, and CLEAR studies had PROEAS scores of 88% (21/24), 37% (9/24), 83% (20/24), and 16% (4/24), respectively, and SPIRIT-PRO scores of 50% (6/12), 75% (9/12), 66% (8/12), and 41% (5/12) respectively. The CONSORT-PRO scores were 86% (12/14) for CheckMate 214 and 43% (6/14) for CheckMate 9ER, but scores were not available for the CLEAR and KEYNOTE 426 studies because of a lack of sufficient data. The average SPIRIT-PRO score across the 4 RCTs was 58%, indicating a reasonable adoption of PROs research in data management and analysis. The CheckMate 214 trial had the longest follow-up and most comprehensive published PROs data. CONCLUSION: Our analysis identified the limitations of current PROs data in combination ICB approved for mRCC. This analysis will enable clinicians to better interpret the current PROs results and emphasize the importance of better incorporation of PROs endpoints in future mRCC trial design.

Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) is a rare cancer, with approximately 2000 new cases in the United States and 35,000 globally every year. Multiple risk factors are involved in PSCC, but most importantly, the high-risk human papillomavirus infection is thought to be present in approximately 50% of cases. Penile squamous cell carcinoma presents as localized or locally advanced disease. Multiple prognostic markers have been explored over the past 3 decades, but lymph node status remains the strongest predictor of clinical outcomes. Surgical decisions are based on the primary tumor pathologic findings, nodal clinical examination, and imaging results. Most patients with high-risk advanced PSCC benefit from a multimodal treatment approach combining chemotherapy with consolidation surgical treatment. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiation therapy has not been well explored in PSCC. Prospective clinical studies, like the International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial, have been launched to provide high-level evidence for multimodal treatment. The International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial is the first randomized clinical trial among patients with PSCC and is currently accruing, with the expectation to generate results in 2023. Unfortunately, most patients with high-risk locally advanced PSCC will have relapsed or refractory cancer after cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. These patients have dismal outcomes with salvage chemotherapy, highlighting the major unmet need to expand our knowledge of the disease's biology and develop clinical trials that use novel systemic agents. This narrative review synthesizes relevant publications retrieved from PubMed. Our aim is to discuss current approaches in the management of PSCC, summarize ongoing efforts to improve care, and identify future areas for enhancing our understanding of the disease.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States (U.S.), particularly among men aged 45 years and older. Early-detection screening remains a key method of decreasing CRC-related deaths, yet socioeconomic barriers exist to planning and completing CRC screening. While accumulating evidence shows income disparities in CRC screening prevalence, a dearth of research has investigated wealth disparities. This study aimed to determine whether household wealth was associated with CRC screening uptake and future screening intent. In February 2022, we sent an online survey to potential participants; U.S. men aged 45-75 years were eligible to participate. We examined four CRC screening behaviors as outcomes: ever completing a stool-based or exam-based screening test, current screening status, and future screening intent. Household net wealth, determined by self-reported household wealth and debt, was the primary predictor. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Of the study participants (

Background ICI and VEGFR-targeted therapies are the primary treatments for mRCC. Len plus Eve is currently approved based on improved progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with progressive disease after one prior VEGFR-targeted therapy. However, its efficacy beyond second-line, and after ICI, is not well defined. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of pts with mRCC who were treated with Len alone, or in combination with Eve, after at least 2 prior lines of therapy, including ICI and VEGFR-TKI. We report clinical benefit (CB), defined as partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD), PFS, overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE). Results Between 11/2016 and 2/2019, we identified 40 pts with mRCC who were treated with Len +/- Eve. Median age was 59 years (range, 34-76); 62.5% were male; 52.5% had ECOG PS 1 and 35% had ECOG PS 2; 77.5% had clear cell histology; 85% had prior nephrectomy and 95% had metastatic disease in >/= 3 sites; 2.5% had IMDC favorable-risk, 87.5% intermediate-risk, and 10% poor-risk disease. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range, 2-10); 70% received Len+Eve and 62.5% were treated with Len +/- Eve as 5th-line or later. All pts had prior ICI exposure, primarily nivolumab monotherapy (70%), and 87.5% received >/= 2 prior VEGFR-TKIs. CB was achieved in 67.5% (30% PR + 37.5% SD). At a median follow up of 8.5 months (mo), median PFS was 4.2 mo (95% CI, 3.4-6.5), with a 6-mo PFS probability of 34% (95% CI, 21%-54%). Median OS was 10.8 mo (95% CI, 5.4-13.3), with a 1-year OS probability of 37% (95% CI, 21%-65%). Twenty-three pts (57.5%) have died, and of those only 4 received further therapies after Len +/- Eve. Dose reduction was required in 45% of pts, and the most common grade 3 or 4 AEs were proteinuria (17.5%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). Treatment was discontinued in 4 pts (10%) because of toxicity. Conclusions Len alone and in combination with Eve demonstrated clinical benefit, with an overall response rate of 30%, and was well tolerated in heavily pretreated pts with mRCC after prior ICI and VEGFR-targeted therapies, supporting its use in this patient population. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure Z. Lim: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Exelixis. M.T. Campbell: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), non-branded educational programs: EMD Serono; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), non-branded educational programs: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Apricity Health; Research grant / Funding (self): Exelixis; Research grant / Funding (self): Janssen; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, non-branded educational programs: Bristol-Meyers Squibb; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, non-branded educational programs: Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, non-branded educational programs: Merck. A.Y. Shah: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Eisai; Honoraria (self): Oncology Information Group; Honoraria (self): Roche; Research grant / Funding (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (self): EMD Serono. A. Zurita Saavedra: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: McKesson Specialty Health; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen-Cilag, S.A.DEC.V.; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer. E. Jonasch: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Exelixis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self): Peloton; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche. N.M. Tannir: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Exelixis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Nektar; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Calithera Biosciences Inc.; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eisai Medical Research; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ono Pharmaceutical; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Oncorena; Research grant / Funding (self): Epizyme; Research grant / Funding (self): Mirati Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.