Search

Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of maintaining or withdrawing abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had experienced cancer progression to this treatment and were beginning a docetaxel-based therapy., Patients and Methods: Phase II, randomised, open-label study conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. After open-label treatment with AAP, patients who had experienced cancer progression to AAP were randomised to 75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel plus AAP or to receive 75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel plus 10 mg of prednisone orally daily. The primary outcome was the radiographic progression-free survival rate at 12 months as evaluated by the investigators in all randomised patients., Results: A total of 148 patients were included in open-label treatment with AAP, and of them, 94 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel plus AAP (intervention group; n = 47) or docetaxel plus prednisone (control group; n = 47). The 12-month radiographic progression-free survival rates did not differ between the intervention group (34.9%; 95% CI 20.7-49.2) and the control group (33.9%; 95% CI 19.5-48.3). There were no significant differences in the time to radiographic progression and the overall survival between the intervention and control groups. Grade 3-5 neutropenia with the combination of docetaxel plus prednisone and AA was more frequent than with docetaxel plus prednisone (59.6% versus 27.7%)., Conclusion: Our results indicate that the therapeutic strategy of maintaining AAP added to docetaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients who have experienced cancer progression to AAP treatment should not be further evaluated and should be avoided in clinical practice., Clinical Trials: NCT02036060 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036060., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M-AC: advisory role from BMS, MSD, Bayer, EUSA, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Janssen, Ipsen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca; has received honoraria from Ipsen, Astella, Janssen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, EUSA, AstraZeneca. AF: research grants from Astra-Zeneca, Pierre-Fabre; consulting honorarium from Astellas; advisory honorarium from Janssen, Eusa, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, Astra-Zeneca; and travel grants from Roche, Sanofi, Astellas. ID: Astellas, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in compensated educational activities for this company in the last two years. ASTELLAS, Advisory Board, Personal, I have participated in different compensated advisory boards over the last two years. Bristol Myers Squibb, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. Bristol Myers Squibb, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by this company over the last two years. EUSA PHARMA, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by this company in the last two years. Immunomedics, Inc., Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor for this company over the last two years. IPSEN, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by this company over the last two years. Ipsen, Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor in different occasions over the last two years. Jansen, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by Jansen over the last two years. Merck, Advisory Board, Personal, I have collaborated as an advisor for this company in the last two year. MSD, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. MSD, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by this company in the last two years. Novartis, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in educational activities sponsored by Novartis in the last 2 years. PFIZER, Invited Speaker, Personal, I have participated in different compensated educational activities sponsored by Pfizer over the last two years. Roche Genentech, Advisory Board, Personal, I have served as an advisor for this company in the last two years. Astra Zeneca, Research Grant, Personal and Institutional, Financial interest, AZ has funded research conducted in my institution related to a project where I am the PI. Immunomedics, Inc., Steering Committee Member, Personal, Financial interest, I serve as a member of a SC for a trial sponsored by this company. ROCHE GENENTECH, Research Grant, Personal and Institutional, Financial interest, Roche has funded research in my institution to projects under my coordination. Non-Financial Interests ASEICA, Member of Board of Directors, I belong as a external advisor to the board of directors of the Spanish Association of cancer research since 2021. GO NORTE, Leadership Role, I am the president of an independent cooperative group of GU Oncologist from the north of Spain. JP: Honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory roles or continuous medical education: Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD, Bayer, Pfizer, Eisai, Ipsen, Sanofi, Roche, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Merck; Research Funding: Astellas, Pfizer; Consultant: Astellas, Roche. MJM-V: Invited speaker from Janssen-Cilag, Bayer healthcare, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Medivation, Roche, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD; Advisory role from Janssen-Cilag, Bayer healthcare, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Medivation, Roche, Ipsen, EISAI, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD; Travel support from Roche, Ipsen. JAAA: Advisory board: Janssen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Astellas; Speaker Honoraria: Merck, Pfizer, BMS; Travel accommodation: Merck, MSD, Janssen, Astellas. AG-D-A: has received research funding from Astellas, travel grants from Astellas, Jansen, Sanofi, BMS, Roche, Pfizer and Ipsen and honoraria for speaker engagements, advisory boards and continuous medical education from Janssen, Astellas, Sanofi, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Eusa Pharma, Eisai and Astra Zeneca. AS-H: Honoraria from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis; Consulting or advisory accommodations and expenses from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis; Speakers’ bureau from BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Lilly and Novartis. MJJF: Advisory member from Janssen, BMS; Speaker honorarium from Janssen, Sanofi, BMS, GPPharm, Pierre-Fabre; Advisory honorarium from Novartis, Janssen, BMS. TA-G: Scientific Consultancy Role (speaker and advisory role) and travel grant: IPSEN, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Eisai, Adacap, Lilly, Novartis, BMS; Research grants: Roche, Pfizer, IPSEN. BMG: Speakers’ Bureau: Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ipsen; Research Funding: Roche, Bayer and Janssen. PM: Research grant from Roche, Bayer; Speaker honorarium from Janssen; Advisory honorarium from Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, Pfizer, BMS. ML-Q: Consultant or Advisory Role: BMS, MSD, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Roche, Ipsen, Astra-Zéneca, Boehringer, Pierre-Fabré, Bayer; Speaking: Roche, Ipsen, Lilly, Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Boehringer, BMS; Grant or travel support: MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Astellas, Pierre-Fabré; Participation in clinical trials: Merck, Astellas, Pfizer, Ipsen, Roche, Mirati. JC-E: Advisory board member for ASTELLAS, JANSSEN, ASTRAZÉNECA, BRISTOL-MYERS, MSD; Speaker honorarium from ASTELLAS, JANSSEN, ASTRAZÉNECA, BRISTOL-MYERS, MSD IPSEN, PFIZER. BP-V: Consultancy from Astellas Parma; honoraria from Pierre Fabre; travel/accommodations expenses covered or reimbursed from Janssen-Cilag and Pfizer. CG: Speaker honorarium from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Astellas, Bayer; Consulting honorarium from Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Astellas, Bayer; Advisory honorarium from Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Sanofi, Roche; Travel grants from Pfizer, Roche. DC: ASTELLAS, Advisory Board, Personal; ASTRA ZENECA, Advisory Board, Personal; BMS, Advisory Board, Personal; GSK, Advisory Board, Personal; IPSEN, Advisory Board, Personal; JANSSEN, Advisory Board, Personal; MSD, Advisory Board, Personal; NOVARTIS, Advisory Board, Personal; Pfizer, Advisory Board, Personal; ROCHE, Advisory Board, Personal. ASTELLAS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; ASTRA ZENECA, Local PI, institutional, No financial interest; BAYER, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; BMS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; CLOVIS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; EISAI, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; EXELISIS, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; GSK, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; IPSEN, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; JANSSEN, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest. LILLY, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; MSD, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; PFIZER, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; QED Therapeutics, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest; ROCHE, Local PI, Institutional, No financial interest. MIS, CSL and EE report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: CheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib., Methods: CheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1-2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Outcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2 -positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9-21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8-35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 11.9% (5.9-20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2-32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2-72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7-5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7-8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8-15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4-15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4-18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0-not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9-30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7-49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5-70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA 50 -RR: 27.3% (17.0-39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5-60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6-98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6-10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7-12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6-12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1-22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1-not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1-not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT03338790., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KF reports advisory board fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Sanofi, CureVac, and Orion. MR reports research grants (all institutional) from Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche. DPP reports consulting fees from Ada Cap, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lilly, Mirati, Monopteros, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and UroGen; stock ownership in Bellicum Pharmaceuticals and Tyme; payment for expert testimony from Sanofi and Celgene; research grants from Ada Cap, Agensys, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Endocyte, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Innocrin, Lilly, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seattle Genetics; local principal investigator (PI) nonfinancial interests (all institutional) in Ada Cap, Agensys, Inc., Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Innocrin, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer; medical writing support from Bioscript; study funding from Astellas; and editing support from Complete HealthVizion. JCG reports consulting fees from Eisai; honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, and MSD Australia, advisory board fees from BMS and Janssen (J&J); and stock ownership in ICON Cancer Care. JP-G reports research funding (all institutional) from BMS, Amgen, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; travel expenses from Roche, BMS, and MSD; and advisory board fees from BMS, Roche, Ipsen, Seattle Genetics, and MSD. LL reports local PI nonfinancial (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Myovant, Pfizer, Sanofi and Telix. SZ reports research grants (institutional) from Eisai; speakers bureau fees from Eisai (personal) and Merck (institutional); honoraria for educational events from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer; travel expenses from Celgene (institutional); advisory board fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Sanofi (personal), and Astellas, BMS, EUSA, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche, (all institutional); receipt of drugs (institutional) from KURA; local PI nonfinancial interests from Astellas, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Sanofi/Aventis, and SEAGEN; and coordinating PI nonfinancial interests from AVEO Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech; and speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD Oncology, and Roche/Genentech. HM reports travel expenses from Pfizer and Roche, advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. GG reports research funding (institutional) from BMS; speakers bureau fees (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, and Sanofi/Aventis; travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and advisory board fees (all institutional) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Aventis. DAB reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, and Roche; and advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen. SLM reports speakers bureau fees from BMS; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from BMS, Merck, and Roche/Genentech. JCVL reports employment from Hospital Civil de Guadalajara 'Fray Antonio Alcalde'; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all personal and institutional) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Europharma, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. EMK reports speakers bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, Ipsen, and Janssen; writing engagement fees from Research Review; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer. DC reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca Spain, BMS, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding (institutional) from Janssen. AF reports honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis; and travel expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi/Aventis. FS reports research grants (all institutional) from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, and Pfizer; and local PI nonfinancial interests (all institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M-OG reports trial funding and medical writing funding from BMS, research funding (institutional) from BMS and Intuitive Surgical; consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, and Takeda; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel expenses from BMS and Merck Serono. DRS has no competing interest to report. AJA reports research funding and writing grant (institutional) from BMS; consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, Exelixis, Forma, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon, Merck, Myovant, Novartis/AAA, and Pfizer; local PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Amgen, Bayer, BeiGene, Merck, Forma, and AstraZeneca; coordinating PI nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Astellas, BMS, Janssen, and Pfizer; and steering committee member nonfinancial interests (institutional) from Dendreon. PB reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. NPA reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. KU-K reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study. KU-K is now employed by BioNTech US. XW reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS at the time of the study, and stock ownership in AstraZeneca. XW is no longer employed by BMS. JL reports employment from and stock ownership in BMS. AL reports employment from and stock ownership in Clovis Oncology. RKP reports research funding (institutional) from Janssen and Pharmacyclics; speakers bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi; advisory board fees from Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Genomic Health, Janssen, Jounce, and Pfizer; PI nonfinancial interests from BMS, ESSA, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer/EMD Serono; steering committee member nonfinancial interests from BMS; and licensed technology to Tempus Labs., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Docetaxel has immunostimulatory effects that may promote an immunoresponsive prostate tumour microenvironment, providing a rationale for combination with nivolumab (programmed death-1 inhibitor) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: In the non-randomised, multicohort, global phase II CheckMate 9KD trial, 84 patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (NHTs) received nivolumab 360 mg and docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks with prednisone 5 mg twice daily (≤10 cycles) and then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks (≤2 years). The co-primary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA 50 -RR; ≥50% decrease from baseline)., Results: The confirmed ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 40.0% (25.7-55.7), and the confirmed PSA 50 -RR (95% CI) was 46.9% (35.7-58.3). The median (95% CI) radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.0 (8.0-11.6) and 18.2 (14.6-20.7) months, respectively. In subpopulations with versus without prior NHT, the ORR was 38.7% versus 42.9%, the PSA 50 -RR was 39.6% versus 60.7%, the median rPFS was 8.5 versus 12.0 months and the median OS was 16.2 months versus not reached. Homologous recombination deficiency status or tumour mutational burden did not appear to impact efficacy. The most common any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (39.3%) and neutropenia (16.7%), respectively. Three treatment-related deaths occurred (1 pneumonitis related to nivolumab; 2 pneumonias related to docetaxel)., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus docetaxel has clinical activity in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Safety was consistent with the individual components. These results support further investigation in the ongoing phase III CheckMate 7DX trial. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Registration: NCT03338790., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: COSMIC-021 is evaluating cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in patients with solid tumors. We report results from patients with advanced clear cell (cc) and non-clear cell (ncc) renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Methods: This phase Ib study (NCT03170960) enrolled patients age ≥ 18 years with advanced RCC. A dose-escalation stage was followed by expansion cohorts. For cohort expansion, prior systemic therapy was not permitted for ccRCC but allowed for nccRCC. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg once a day (ccRCC and nccRCC) or 60 mg once a day (ccRCC only) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg intravenously, once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1; the secondary end point was safety., Results: A total of 102 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 25.8, 15.3, and 13.3 months for the 40-mg ccRCC, 60-mg ccRCC, and nccRCC groups, respectively. ORR was 53% (80% CI, 41 to 65) in the 40-mg ccRCC group (n = 34) and 58% (80% CI, 46 to 70) in the 60-mg ccRCC group (n = 36), 3% and 11%, respectively, with complete response; median progression-free survival (exploratory end point) was 19.5 and 15.1 months, respectively. In nccRCC (n = 32), ORR was 31% (80% CI, 20 to 44), all partial responses; median progression-free survival was 9.5 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by 71% of patients in the 40-mg ccRCC group, 67% in the 60-mg ccRCC group, and 38% in the nccRCC group; TRAEs leading to discontinuation of both agents occurred in 15%, 6%, and 3% of patients, respectively. There were no grade 5 TRAEs., Conclusion: The novel combination of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with advanced ccRCC and nccRCC. Disease control was observed across dose levels and histologic subtypes., Competing Interests: Sumanta K. PalConsulting or Advisory Role: F. Hoffmann LaRocheResearch Funding: Eisai, Genentech, Roche, Exelixis, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech, Seattle Genetics Bradley McGregorConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Genentech/Roche, Nextar, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Dendreon, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Calithera Biosciences, Seattle Genetics/Astellas Cristina SuárezConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Sanofi, Pfizer, EUSA Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, EisaiSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & DohmeResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen Oncology, Calithera Biosciences, AB Science, Arog, AVEO, Bayer, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Blueprint Medicines, Clovis Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cougar Biotechnology, Deciphera, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MedImmune, Nanobiotix, Millennium, Puma Biotechnology, TevaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Ipsen Che-Kai TsaoConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Clovis Oncology, MerckResearch Funding: Exelixis William KellyHonoraria: Janssen Oncology, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & DohmeResearch Funding: Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Exelixis, Seattle Genetics, Endocyte, Amgen, BioClin Therapeutics, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ulka VaishampayanConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Exelixis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Merck Serono, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Alkermes, Helsinn TherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer, Bayer, ExelixisResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA Lance PagliaroResearch Funding: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Exelixis, Merck Sharp & DohmeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Benjamin L. MaughanConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Exelixis, Tempus, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Bayer, AVEO, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Peloton TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Clovis Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bavarian Nordic, ExelixisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Exelixis Yohann LoriotHonoraria: Sanofi, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunomedics, Taiho PharmaceuticalResearch Funding: Sanofi, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Pfizer, Oncogenex, Medivation, CureVac, NektarTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma, Janssen Oncology, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics Daniel CastellanoConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Boehringer IngelheimResearch Funding: Janssen OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca Spain Sandy SrinivasConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Exelixis, Eisai, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics/AstellasOther Relationship: Pfizer Rana R. McKayConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus Robert DreicerConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Eisai, Merck, EMD Serono, Propella Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, Bayer, Tavanta Therapeutics, Veru, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer/AstellasResearch Funding: Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Novartis Thomas HutsonEmployment: Texas OncologyHonoraria: Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Eisai, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer/OnyxConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer/Onyx, Pfizer, Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, ExelixisSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Eisai, Exelixis, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Exelixis, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb Sarita DubeyEmployment: Genentech/RocheStock and Other Ownership Interests: Genentech/Roche Scott WernekeEmployment: ExelixisStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exelixis Ashok PanneerselvamEmployment: ExelixisStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exelixis Dominic CurranEmployment: Exelixis, Syneos Health (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: ExelixisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Exelixis Christian ScheffoldEmployment: ExelixisStock and Other Ownership Interests: ExelixisPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent Toni K. ChoueiriEmployment: Dana Farber Cancer HospitalLeadership: Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, NCCN, KidneyCan, ASCOStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pionyr, Tempest TherapeuticsHonoraria: NCCN, UpToDate, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, ASCO, Harborside Press, Analysis Group, AstraZeneca, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Foundation Medicine, Eisai, PlatformQ Health, Clinical Care Options, Navinata Health, Kidney Cancer Association, Exelixis, Prometheus, Lpath, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, Cerulean Pharma, Alligent, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, Janssen Oncology, IQvia, Aveo, NCI GU Steering CommitteeConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, Peloton Therapeutics, UpToDate, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Navinata Health, Harborside Press, ASCO, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMO, NiKang Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, AraviveResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Exelixis, TRACON Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Peloton Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, Celldex, Agensys, Eisai, Takeda, Prometheus, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Cerulean Pharma, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Bayer, Foundation Medicine, Roche, Calithera Biosciences, Analysis Group, NCI, Gateway for Cancer Research, Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (DOD)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/058430, titled Biomarkers of Clinical Response and Benefit to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy, International Patent Application No. PCT/US2018/12209, titled PBRM1 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-Immune Checkpoint ResponseTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Cerulean Pharma, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Prometheus, Alligent, Ipsen, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lpath, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, UpToDate, Peloton Therapeutics, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Analysis Group, Kidney Cancer Association, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ Health, Harborside Press, Navinata Health, The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet Oncology, EMD Serono, HERON, Lilly, ESMOOther Relationship: Medical writing and editorial assistance support may have been funded by Communications companies funded by pharmaceutical companies such as ClinicalThinking, Health Interactions, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Parexel Neeraj AgarwalConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, ArvinasNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy has revolutionized the natural history of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) providing better survival outcomes, higher rates of complete responses (CR) and durable remissions. Along with these advances, new challenges have emerged. RECIST and new immune-response criteria may be equivocal identifying complete responses. How to define a durable response and what is the optimal treatment duration remains unclear. Furthermore, the real value of a complete and deep response, whether or not it can be considered curation and whether or not immunotherapy discontinuation should be considered after complete response, are questions that remain open. The present article reviews the current evidence regarding the impact and challenges of managing complete and durable responses in mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment., Methods: We conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively)., Conclusions: Enfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The choice of first-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) is based on cisplatin-eligibility and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. For patients with mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin and with low PD-L1 expression, chemotherapy-based regimens are the only approved first-line option. In a Phase I/II trial of the chemotherapy-free regimen, bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214) plus nivolumab, patients with locally advanced or mUC experienced tumor responses regardless of baseline PD-L1 expression (objective response rates: 50 and 45% in patients with PD-L1-positive and -negative tumors, respectively). The Phase II PIVOT-10 study (NCT03785925), evaluates efficacy and safety of first-line BEMPEG plus nivolumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or mUC. Most patients will have low PD-L1 expression. Primary end point: objective response rates (including complete response).

Background: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma., Methods: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24., Findings: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury)., Interpretation: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus., Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus., Conclusions: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC., Lay Summary: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist-plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (60 mg/m 2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues., Findings: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5-13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3-4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6-2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573-0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9-11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0-9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724-1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group., Interpretation: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Metastatic germ cell tumor (mGCT) patients receiving chemotherapy have increased risk of life-threatening venous thromboembolism (VTE). Identifying VTE risk factors may guide thromboprophylaxis in this highly curable population., Methods: Data were collected from mGCT patients receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy at 22 centers. Predefined variables included International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) risk classification, long-axis diameter of largest retroperitoneal lymph node (RPLN), Khorana score, and use of indwelling vascular access device (VAD). VTE occurring at baseline, during chemotherapy and within 90 days, was analyzed., Results: Data from 1135 patients were collected. Median age was 31 years (range 10-74). IGCCCG risk was 64% good, 20% intermediate, and 16% poor. VTE occurred in 150 (13%) patients. RPLN >3.5 cm demonstrated highest discriminatory accuracy for VTE (AUC 0.632, P < .001) and was associated with significantly higher risk of VTE in univariable analysis (22% vs 8%, OR 3.0, P < .001) and multivariable analysis (OR 1.8, P = .02). Other significant risk factors included, Khorana score ≥3 (OR 2.6, P = .008) and VAD use (OR 2.7, P < .001)., Conclusions: Large RPLN and VAD use are independent risk factors for VTE in mGCT patients receiving chemotherapy. VAD use should be minimized in this population and thromboprophylaxis might be considered for large RPLN., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear., Methods: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed., Results: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Vinflunine (VFL) is approved in Europe as second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer after failure of platinum-containing therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world data (RWD) to assess utilization, efficacy and safety of VFL., Methods: We performed a MEDLINE search for the period of 1/1/2000-31/8/2017. Full-length articles providing post-marketing RWD on VFL in patients failing previous chemotherapy were eligible. Interventional clinical trials were excluded., Results: Ten studies with 797 patients were identified. According to pooled REs analysis, overall response rate was 19%, most frequent, all-grade toxicities were fatigue (41%), constipation (39%), nausea/vomiting (25%), and most prevalent Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (13%), anaemia (9%), fatigue (8%). Median OS was comparable to results reported in recent randomized studies., Conclusion: Our findings confirm the efficacy and safety of VFL in an unselected population and support the use of VFL in the changing treatment paradigm of relapsed mUC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα) is expressed in primary prostate adenocarcinoma and in associated skeletal metastases. Olaratumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds PDGFRα and blocks downstream signalling. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of olaratumab in combination with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M/P) versus M/P alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who progressed after docetaxel., Methods: Patients were randomised to receive 21-d cycles of olaratumab (15 mg/kg, Days 1 and 8) plus mitoxantrone (12 mg/m 2 , Day 1) and prednisone (5 mg, twice daily) or M/P alone. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), safety, and circulating tumour cell (CTC) counts., Results: A total of 123 patients were randomised, 63 to olaratumab + M/P and 60 to M/P. Median PFS was 2.3 months for olaratumab + M/P and 2.4 months for M/P (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-1.90). Median OS was 14.2 months for olaratumab + M/P and 12.8 months for M/P (HR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.72-1.61). Both treatment arms had similar toxicity profiles; neutropenia (24% versus 15%), anaemia (13% versus 14%) and fatigue (11% versus 9%) (olaratumab + M/P versus M/P, respectively) were the most common grade ≥3 events. High CTC count was associated with poorer OS in both arms. Patients with very high cell counts (>37 cells/7.5 ml) exhibited improved OS with olaratumab + M/P (interaction P = 0.043)., Conclusions: Olaratumab + M/P had an acceptable safety profile but did not improve the efficacy of M/P chemotherapy. Further study with selected patient populations and earlier in the disease course might be considered., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma., Methods: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk., Results: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups., Conclusions: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Aim: Cabazitaxel (CBZ), a novel tubulin-binding taxane, improves overall survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that progresses during or after docetaxel treatment. We have designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBZ as a weekly schedule for 'unfit' mCRPC patients after docetaxel failure., Methods: In this single arm phase II study. CBZ was weekly administered in 1-hour infusion on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 5 weeks at 10 mg/m 2 to eligible 'unfit' patients; oral prednisone (5 mg) was administered twice a day. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) were also collected. New treatment scheme was considered effective if at least 65% of patients met a clinical benefit criteria based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-progression-free survival (PFS) values at week 12., Results: Seventy patients (median age: 73.9 years) were enrolled; overall, 71.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 2; and 84%, 16% and 11% had bone, liver and lung metastases, respectively. Objective partial response or stable disease was achieved in 61% of patients, while PSA responses of ≥50% and ≥80% were observed in 34.8% and 10.6%, respectively. The median PSA-PFS was 4.8 months; and 68.6% of patients had no progression at week 12. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (2.8%), leukopenia (5.7%) and thrombocytopaenia (9%); no cases of febrile neutropenia were reported. Early CTC response was significantly correlated with PSA-PFS., Conclusions: CBZ/prednisone administered weekly to 'unfit' mCRPC patients appears to be as effective as classical standard 3-week scheme (TROPIC study) but with significantly lower toxicities and better tolerance. Early CTC response appears to be valuable as an early end-point of therapeutic efficacy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Five-year survival of patients with inoperable, advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with the first-line chemotherapy is 5%-15%. We assessed whether the Hsp27 inhibitor apatorsen combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) could improve overall survival (OS) in these patients., Patients and Methods: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II trial randomized 183 untreated urothelial carcinoma patients (North America and Europe) to receive GC plus either placebo (N = 62), 600 mg apatorsen (N = 60), or 1000 mg apatorsen (N = 61). In the experimental arm, treatment included loading doses of apatorsen followed by up to six cycles of apatorsen plus GC. Patients receiving at least four cycles could continue apatorsen monotherapy as maintenance until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was OS., Results: OS was not significantly improved in the single or combined 600- or 1000-mg apatorsen arms versus placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86 and 0.90, respectively]. Exploratory study of specific statistical modeling showed a trend for improved survival in patients with baseline poor prognostic features treated with 600 mg apatorsen compared with placebo (HR = 0.72). Landmark analysis of serum Hsp27 (sHsp27) levels showed a trend toward survival benefit for poor-prognosis patients in 600- and 1000-mg apatorsen arms who achieved lower area under the curve sHsp27 levels, compared with the placebo arm (HR = 0.45 and 0.62, respectively). Higher baseline circulating tumor cells (≥5 cells/7.5 ml) was observed in patients with poor prognosis in correlation with poor survival. Treatment-emergent adverse events were manageable and more common in both apatorsen-treatment arms., Conclusions: Even though apatorsen combined with standard chemotherapy did not demonstrate a survival benefit in the overall study population, patients with poor prognostic features might benefit from this combination. Serum Hsp27 levels may act as a biomarker to predict treatment outcome. Further exploration of apatorsen in poor-risk patients is warranted., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) signalling axis and androgen receptor (AR) pathways exhibit reciprocal feedback regulation in phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN)-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in preclinical models. This phase Ib study evaluated the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) and the dual pan-PI3K/ mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor dactolisib (BEZ235) in combination with abiraterone acetate (AA) in patients with CRPC., Materials and Methods: Patients with CRPC who had progressed on AA therapy received escalating doses of either buparlisib or dactolisib, along with fixed doses of AA (1000 mg once daily (qd)) and prednisone (5 mg twice daily (bid)). The primary objective was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA. Secondary objectives included safety, antitumour activity (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG2) criteria; 30% of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline at ≥week 12) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile., Results: In buparlisib + AA arm, 25 patients received buparlisib + AA (median age, 67 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0/1/2 for 7/17/1 patients, respectively). At 100 mg qd; two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grade 2 asthenia), and this was the maximum buparlisib dose explored. Buparlisib + AA showed a 26% lower median area under the curve from time zero to 24°h (AUC 0-24 ) and 48% lower median maximum serum concentration (Cmax) versus the single-agent buparlisib assessed in first-in-human study. No objective response and few PSA decreases were reported. In dactolisib + AA arm, 18 patients (median age, 71 years; ECOG PS of 0/1 for 6/12 patients, respectively) received dactolisib + AA at the first dose level (200 mg bid). Five patients had 9 DLTs (grades 2&3 stomatitis; grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grades 2& 3 diarrhoea; grades 1& 2 pyrexia, grade 2 vomiting, and grade 2 chills)., Conclusions: Based on the assessment of available pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy data, no further study is planned for either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA in CRPC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) has been studied in several clinical scenarios in advanced germ cell cancer (GCC)., Objective: To establish a clinical practice guideline for HDCT use in the treatment of GCC patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: An expert panel reviewed information available from the literature. The panel addressed relevant issues concerning and related to HDCT. The guideline was externally reviewed by two international experts., Results and Limitations: The efficacy of HDCT has been demonstrated in selected GCC patients. The most conclusive evidence comes from retrospective analyses that need to be interpreted with caution. HDCT can cure a significant proportion of heavily treated GCC patients. When indicated, sequential HDCT with regimens containing carboplatin and etoposide, as well as peripheral stem-cell support, is recommended. There is no conclusive evidence to recommend HDCT as first-line therapy. According to a multinational retrospective pooled analysis, HDCT might be superior to conventional CT as first salvage treatment in selected patients. There is an urgent need for prospective clinical trials addressing the value of HDCT in GCC patients who experience failure on first-line cisplatin-based CT. In patients who progress on conventional-dose salvage CT, HDCT should be considered. Treatment of these patients at experienced centers is strongly recommended., Conclusions: It has been demonstrated that HDCT cures selected GCC patients who experience disease progression on conventional rescue regimens. The panel recommends the inclusion of GCC patients in randomized clinical trials including HDCT., Patient Summary: This consensus establishes clinical practice guidelines for the use and study of high-dose chemotherapy in patients with germ cell cancer., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on the TROPIC study results, cabazitaxel was approved for the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing on or after docetaxel., Methods: This multi-centre program provided early access to cabazitaxel to patients with mCRPC before its commercialization. Safety data from 153 Spanish patients receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) i.v. Q3W, plus oral prednisone/prednisolone 10 mg daily, are reported., Results: Median age of patients was 70 years (26.8% ≥ 75 years), 94.1 and 26.8% had bone and visceral metastasis, respectively. Most had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤ 1 (88.9%) and had received a median of 8.0 cycles of last docetaxel treatment. The median of cabazitaxel cycles and cumulative dose were 6.0 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 4.0; 8.0) and 148.9 (IQR: 98.2; 201.4) mg/m(2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) possibly related to cabazitaxel occurred in 143 (93.5%) patients. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (n = 25, 16.3%) and asthenia (n = 17, 11.1%). Febrile neutropenia and grade ≥ 3 diarrhea occurred in 5.2% of the patients each. There were five (3.3%) possibly treatment-related deaths, mainly infection-related. G-CSFs were used in 114 (74.5%) patients, generally as prophylaxis (n = 107; 69.9%). Grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy and nail disorders were uncommon., Conclusions: Cabazitaxel administration, in a real-world setting, is tolerated by Spanish patients with mCRPC, and the AEs are manageable.

Purpose: We evaluated angiogenesis-targeted sunitinib therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: Men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/d continuously or placebo. Patients also received oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Two interim analyses were planned., Results: Overall, 873 patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289). The independent data monitoring committee stopped the study for futility after the second interim analysis. After a median overall follow-up of 8.7 months, median OS was 13.1 months and 11.8 months for sunitinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.914; 95% CI, 0.762 to 1.097; stratified log-rank test, P = .168). PFS was significantly improved in the sunitinib arm (median 5.6 v 4.1 months; HR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.890; stratified log-rank test, P < .001). Toxicity and rates of discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs; 27% v 7%) were greater with sunitinib than placebo. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (9% v 1%), asthenia (8% v 2%), and hand-foot syndrome (7% v 0%). Frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities were lymphopenia (20% v 11%), anemia (9% v 8%), and neutropenia (6% v < 1%)., Conclusion: The addition of sunitinib to prednisone did not improve OS compared with placebo in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. The role of antiangiogenic therapy in mCRPC remains investigational.

Background: Sorafenib and bevacizumab as single agents have shown efficacy and acceptable toxicity in NETs phase II trials. Sorafenib and bevacizumab combination has shown manageable toxicity in phase I trials in solid tumours. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours., Methods: Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial., Eligibility Criteria: age ≥18 years, histologically confirmed measurable advanced NETs; 1 prior chemotherapy allowed; ECOG-PS 0-2. Patients were treated during 6 months and followed up for an additional 6 months., Treatment: sorafenib 200mg bid (days 1-5 of each week) and bevacizumab 5mg/kg once every 2 weeks (day 1, week 1). Tumour response was performed according to RECIST (v1.0) every 2 months during the treatment period. Adverse events were graded according to CTCAE (v3.0)., Findings: 44 Patients enrolled, 59.1% men, median age 60 years (range 32-76). 70.5% carcinoid tumours, 29.5% pancreatic tumour. Baseline target lesions mainly in the liver (86.4%). Global PFSR was 90.9% (91.7% carcinoid tumours and 88.9% pancreatic tumours). Median PFS was 12.4 months, median TTP was 14.5 months, ORR was 9.4% and DCR was 95.1%. Most common grade 3-4 toxicities: asthenia (11.4%) and hand-foot skin reaction (15.9%)., Interpretation: Sorafenib and bevacizumab combination showed clinical benefit but unfavourable safety results compared with drugs in monotherapy. Further development of this combination is not warranted and a sequential approach is recommended instead., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This open-label, randomized phase III trial evaluated larotaxel/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for locally advanced (T4b) or metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized to larotaxel 50 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (larotaxel/cisplatin) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 with cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (gemcitabine/cisplatin). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: The trial was prematurely closed following the sponsor's decision to stop clinical development of larotaxel (n = 337 randomized). The larotaxel dose was reduced to 40 mg/m(2) and cisplatin to 60 mg/m(2) following a data monitoring committee safety review of the first 97 patients. At the time of analysis, the median OS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-17.1] with larotaxel/cisplatin and 14.3 months (95% CI 10.5 to not reached) with gemcitabine/cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21; 95% CI 0.83-1.76; p = 0.33]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI 4.1-6.2) with larotaxel/cisplatin and 7.6 months (95% CI 6.6-9.1) with gemcitabine/cisplatin (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.24-2.25). More myelosuppression was observed with gemcitabine/cisplatin., Conclusion: There was no difference in OS. Although the trial was closed prematurely, PFS appeared worse with larotaxel/cisplatin, suggesting that larotaxel/cisplatin does not improve outcomes versus cisplatin/gemcitabine., (© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: To determine efficacy and toxicity of two pemetrexed-based regimens in chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer., Experimental Design: Patients were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 120 mg/m(2) (PemOx) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin AUC6 (PemCb). All drugs were given on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for up to six cycles. Folic acid and vitamin B(12) were given to all patients to minimize pemetrexed-related toxicities., Results: Forty-one patients received PemOx and 39 received PemCb. Objective tumor response rates were 26.8% for PemOx patients (95% confidence interval, 14.2-42.9) and 31.6% for PemCb patients (95% confidence interval, 17.5-48.7). Median time to progression was 5.5 and 5.7 months, respectively, for PemOx and PemCb. Median overall survival times were 10.5 months for both treatment groups (range, <1 to >20 months). The 1-year survival rate was 49.9% for PemOx patients and 43.9% for PemCb patients. Common toxicity criteria grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities among PemOx patients were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (7.3%), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (2.4%), and grade 3 anemia (2.4%). PemCb patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (25.6%), grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (17.9%), and grade 3 anemia (7.7%). Grade 3 vomiting occurred in three PemOx patients and grade 3 fatigue occurred in three PemCb patients. One grade 3 neurosensory toxicity occurred in the PemOx group. Three patients (PemOx 1 and PemCb 2) experienced febrile neutropenia., Conclusions: Efficacy measures for both regimens seem similar to the most effective chemotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (platinum combinations) with less hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. Comparing either of these two regimens to platinum-based therapies in a large randomized trial is warranted.

Background: The current study evaluated the feasibility and clinical activity of a combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin administered on a biweekly schedule to patients with recurrent or unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC)., Methods: Patients with recurrent or unresectable HNSCC were eligible if they had received a previous regimen of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, or no previous systemic therapy. Patients received paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 on Day 1), cisplatin (35 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 2), leucovorin (200 mg/m2 on Day 1), and 5-FU (1000 mg/m2 per day as a 48-hour continuous intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. Patients received subcutaneous filgrastim (300 microg per day) on Days 3-9 of each cycle. Treatment was administered on an outpatient basis for a maximum of six cycles., Results: Thirty-five patients received a combined total of 194 treatment cycles. Eighteen complete responses (51%) and 12 partial responses (34%) were documented, for an overall response rate of 86% (30 of 35 patients). The median progression-free survival duration was 14 months, and the median overall survival duration was 18 months. Two toxicity-related deaths were documented (one due to neutropenic sepsis and the other due to catheter-related pulmonary embolism). Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in one patient. Other severe (Grade 3 or 4) toxic effects included mucositis (14%), anemia (6%), thrombosis (6%), thrombocytopenia (3%), and neuropathy (3%)., Conclusions: The current dose-dense, four-agent, taxane-containing biweekly schedule was feasible and effective in patients with recurrent or unresectable HNSCC. However, given the single-center nature of the current study and the highly selected study population, further validation of these findings is recommended., (Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose of a combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine administered on a biweekly schedule in patients with advanced solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced or refractory solid tumors included in this phase I study were treated with vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine. Vinorelbine was given intravenously over 10 min, and gemcitabine was given intravenously at an fixed-dose infusion rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min. Six dose levels of vinorelbine/gemcitabine were explored: 20/2000, 25/2500, 25/3000, 30/3000, 30/3500 and 30/2500 mg/m(2)., Results: Nineteen patients were included in the study. Fourteen patients were pretreated with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. A total of 123 cycles of chemotherapy were administered. DLTs were neutropenic fever and grade 3 asthenia at dose level 5 (30/3500 mg/m(2)); at dose level 4 (30/3000 mg/m(2)) they were grade 3 asthenia, and a radiation-recall reaction and pneumonitis. Sixteen patients were evaluable for efficacy. Five patients had an objective response (one complete response and four partial responses), for an overall response rate of 31%., Conclusions: The recommended dose for phase II study is vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 2500 mg/m(2) administered once every 2 weeks. This regimen is feasible and well-tolerated at this dose, and shows a good clinical activity in all levels explored.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of paclitaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PPF) as induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)., Methods: Seventy patients with previously untreated stage III-IV SCCHN were included in this phase II trial. Induction treatment consisted of a maximum of three outpatient courses of paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-h infusion on day 1, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 500-750 mg/m(2)/day as a 24-h continuous infusion on days 2-6, repeated every 3 weeks. The 5-FU dose was reduced from 750 mg/m(2)/day to 500 mg/m(2)/day due to the excessive toxicity observed in the first 14 patients enrolled. Local treatment consisted of radiotherapy and/or surgery., Results: Two-hundred-and-one cycles were administered to 70 patients. The main toxicities of PPF were neutropenia (grade 4, 14%; febrile neutropenia, 4%), peripheral neuropathy (grade 2-3, 14%) and catheter-associated venous thrombosis (7%). There were three early deaths (two from neutropenic sepsis and one from pulmonary embolism), and 13 patients required hospitalization due to toxicity. Other side effects included mucositis, anorexia, diarrhea, myalgias and alopecia. The overall response rate to PPF was 88%, including 59% complete responses (CR) and 29% partial responses. The CR rates at the primary tumor and neck lymph nodes were 74% and 62%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 51 months (range 40-63 months), the estimated 5-year time-to-disease progression and overall survival rates were 56% and 44%, respectively., Conclusions: The PPF regimen has major antitumor activity and is associated with manageable toxicity as induction treatment in SCCHN patients. The high complete response rate and favorable long-term outcome justify further evaluation of this chemotherapy combination.

Purpose: To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and efficacy of gemcitabine combined with fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with pancreatic cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with measurable, locally advanced, nonresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were candidates for the study. 5-FU was given via protracted venous infusion (PVI) at a fixed dosage of 200 mg/m2/d, and gemcitabine was administered weekly for 3 consecutive weeks every 4 weeks. The initial dose of gemcitabine was 700 mg/m2 and was escalated in increments of 100 mg/m2/wk until the appearance of severe toxicity. Measurements of efficacy included the following: response rate; clinical benefit response, which is a composite measurement of pain, performance status, and weight loss; time to disease progression; and survival., Results: Twenty-six patients received a total of 109 courses. Dose-limiting toxicity, which consisted of grade 4 neutropenia with fever (one patient) and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (one patient), was observed in two of three patients treated with 1,100 mg/m2/wk of gemcitabine. On the basis of these results, the MTD of gemcitabine with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2. Sixteen patients developed grade 3-4 neutropenia, and three patients developed grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity consisted of diarrhea (two patients) and cutaneous toxicity, asthenia, edema, mucositis, and nausea and vomiting (one patient each). The delivered dose-intensity of gemcitabine was similar at the 1,000 mg/m2 dose level (599 mg/m2/wk) as at the 900 mg/m2 (601 mg/m2/wk) dose level. For this reason, the recommended dose of gemcitabine for phase II evaluation on this schedule was 900 mg/m2. Five patients had objective responses (one complete response and four partial responses; response rate, 19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 39.3), and 10 patients had improvement of disease-related symptoms (45%; 95% CI, 24 to 67). After a median follow-up of 17.7 months (range, 7.8 to 24.8 months), the median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 11.4) and 10.3 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 12.5), respectively., Conclusion: The MTD of gemcitabine when combined with 5-FU via PVI on this schedule was 1,000 mg/m2/ wk; however, on the basis of administered dose-intensity, the recommended dose for additional investigation is 900 mg/m2. This combination chemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and showed promising antitumor activity in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Background: To evaluate the toxicity profile and efficacy of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine in patients with irresectable locally recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck., Patients and Methods: Gemcitabine was given at a dose of 800 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15, plus cisplatin at a dose of 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; every four weeks., Results: Twenty-four patients with a median age of 59 years (range 42-74) were included. All patients were evaluable for toxicity and 22 patients were assessable for response. Eleven cases had advanced recurrent locoregional disease while 13 patients had metastatic disease. One CR (4.7%) and four PR (18%) were observed, for an overall response rate of 22.7% (95% CI: 8%-42%). The main toxicity was hematological: neutropenia grade 3-4 in 28% of the cycles and thrombocytopenia grade 3-4 in 16%. The most significant non-hematological toxicity was asthenia grade 2-3 in 24% of the cycles., Conclusions: This cisplatin plus gemcitabine combination schedule has a favourable toxicity profile with a discrete activity in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Background: The purpose of this study was to analyze whether the addition of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to platinum-based combination chemotherapy could increase platinum dose intensity and response rates and decrease hematologic toxicity in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma., Methods: Patients with untreated advanced ovarian carcinoma (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] Stage IIC-IV) were treated after maximum debulking surgery with cyclophosphamide, 750 mg/m2, and carboplatin, 350 mg/m2, on Day 1 plus cisplatin, 75 mg/m2, on Day 14 when clinically indicated (adequate bone marrow and renal function). Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy supported with G-CSF (5 microg/kg subcutaneously on Days 2-13; Arm B)., Results: Between November 1993 and April 1995, 80 patients were included. Seventy-eight patients were evaluable for dose intensity calculations. Both groups were well matched with regard to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histopathologic subtype, tumor grade, FIGO stage, and residual tumor after surgery. The dose intensities calculated in mg/m2/week for cyclophosphamide and carboplatin were similar in both groups; however, the dose intensity of cisplatin was higher in Arm B (5.7 mg/m2 vs. 10.3 mg/m2). The occurrence of Common Toxicity Criteria Grade 3-4 neutropenia was less common in the G-CSF arm (55% vs. 7.7%). Response rates (52% vs. 68%) and pathologic complete responses (32% vs. 25%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS; The addition of G-CSF to this platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma resulted in a modest increment in platinum dose intensity and appeared to reduce the incidence of Grade 3-4 neutropenia.

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical activity and toxicity of a novel chemotherapy combination regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, administered every three weeks, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Twenty-six previously untreated stages III (14) and IV (12) patients were included. Gemcitabine was administered on days 1 and 8 at a dose of 1250 mg/m2 and cisplatin was administered at a dose of 100 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days., Results: Twenty-five patients were evaluable for response. One patient achieved a complete response, and 16 patients partial responses. The overall response rate was 65.3% (95% CI: 45%-82%). The main toxicity was hematological: neutropenia NCIC-CTC grade 3-4 in 54% of the patients, and thrombocytopenia grade 3-4 in 23%. The non-hematological toxicity was mild and tolerable. Only 13% of gemcitabine injections were dose-reduced or omitted due to toxicity. The actual dose-intensity of gemcitabine was 715 mg/m2/week, and 31 mg/m2/week for cisplatin. These figures represent the 86% and 93% of the theoretical dose intensity of both drugs, respectively. With a median follow-up of 10 months (range 7-13), 17 patients are still alive and nine have died. The median overall survival is 12 months., Conclusion: This novel combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin administered every three weeks is well tolerated and induces a remarkably high response rate. The regimen proves more interesting than the four-week schedules, particularly regarding patients who are candidates for local therapy.