Search

The addition of either docetaxel or an androgen receptor signalling pathway inhibitor (ARSi) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has become the standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients. Recent phase III data support even greater survival impact of a triplet regimen with ADT plus docetaxel plus an ARSi (abiraterone or darolutamide) compared to ADT plus docetaxel.To evaluate whether the addition of an ARSi to ADT improves outcomes of mCSPC patients treated with docetaxel.We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ASCO Meeting abstracts for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of ARSi + ADT in mCSPC men who received docetaxel. Data extraction was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Summary hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. The statistical analyses were performed with RevMan software (v.5.2.3).Five RCTs were selected. Triplet therapy improved overall survival (OS) compared to ADT + docetaxel in mCSPC patients (HR = 0.73; p lt; 0.00001). This intensified strategy maintained the OS benefit when the ARSi was administered concomitant to chemotherapy (HR = 0.72; p lt; 0.00001), but no statistical effect was detected if the ARSi was sequential to docetaxel (p = 0.44). Moreover, in the subgroup of men with de novo mCSPC, triplets significantly improved OS (HR = 0.72, p lt; 0.0001). The lack of access to raw data was the main limit of our analysis.Our results support a clear survival advantage of adding an ARSi to ADT in mCSPC patients treated with docetaxel, mainly when the ARSi was administered concomitantly to chemotherapy and in the subgroup of de novo mCSPC.

Background The real-world EPIX study was conducted to gather information about the characteristics of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who survived ≥2 years after treatment with the alpha-emitter radium-223. Methods This retrospective study of electronic health records in the US Flatiron database (NCT04516161) included patients with mCRPC treated with radium-223 between January 2013 and June 2019. Median overall survival (OS) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) from start of radium-223 treatment were the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. Patient characteristics were compared between those who survived ≥2 years versus Results In the 1180 patients identified, median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 12.1–13.7), and 13% of patients with data at 6 months had a PSA response. The survival groups included 775 patients (65.7%) who survived 75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2–4, visceral metastases, prior symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), and prior chemotherapy were independently prognostic of reduced OS. For patients with survival ≥2 years versus Conclusions In this study of men with mCRPC treated in real-world clinical practice, median OS was consistent with that seen in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial. Patients who survived ≥2 years after the start of radium-223 were younger and had better ECOG PS, lower disease burden, and less use of prior chemotherapy than those who survived

Objective To describe the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical literature and trial data extraction, and its applications in uro-oncology. This bridging review, which consolidates information from the diverse applications of AI, highlights how AI users can investigate more sophisticated queries than with traditional methods, leading to synthesis of raw data and complex outputs into more actionable and personalized results, particularly in the field of uro-oncology. Methods Literature and clinical trial searches were performed in PubMed, Dimensions, Embase and Google (1999-2020). The searches focused on the use of AI and its various forms to facilitate literature searches, clinical guidelines development, and clinical trial data extraction in uro-oncology. To illustrate how AI can be applied toaddress questions about optimizing therapeutic decision making and individualizing treatment regimens, the Dimensions-linked information platform was searched for "prostate cancer" keywords (76 publications were identified; 48 were included). Results AI offers the promise of transforming raw data and complex outputs into actionable insights. Literature and clinical trial searches can be automated, enabling clinicians to develop and analyze publications expeditiously on complex issues such as therapeutic sequencing and to obtain updates on documents that evolve at the pace and scope of the landscape. An AI-based platform inclusive of 12 trial databases and >100 scientific literature sources enabled the creation of an interactive visualization. Conclusion As the literature and clinical trial landscape continues to grow in complexity and with increasing speed, the ability to pull the right information at the right time from different search engines and resources while excluding social media bias becomes more challenging. This review demonstrates that by applying natural language processing and machine learning algorithms, validated and optimized AI leads to a speedier, more personalized, efficient and focused search compared with traditional methods.

Lay abstract Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer are often first treated with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) using abiraterone or enzalutamide. To aid decisions about what treatment to use next, we reviewed information about patients who were treated with an alternative NHT (226 patients) or the nuclear medicine radium-223 (120 patients) after the first NHT. Most patients given radium-223 had cancer that had spread to their bones only, whereas many patients given an alternative NHT had cancer in their bones and other parts of their body. Around one in four patients given radium-223 and one in five given an alternative NHT had symptoms related to their bone metastases after starting treatment. Five in every ten patients given radium-223 received further therapy, including chemotherapy in 50% of these patients, while four in every ten patients given an alternative NHT received further therapy, including chemotherapy in 75%. On average, patients lived for almost a year after starting radium-223 or an alternative NHT.

Take Home Message This systematic review and meta-analysis, based on updated individual participant data, demonstrates that cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is a valid option for improving outcomes for muscle-invasive bladder cancer., Context Our prior systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) suggesting a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer was limited by the number and size of included randomised trials. We have updated results to include additional trials, providing the most up-to-date and reliable evidence of the effects of this treatment. Objective To investigate the role of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Evidence acquisition Published and unpublished trials were sought via searches of bibliographic databases, trials registers, conference proceedings, and hand searching. Updated IPD were centrally collected, checked, and analysed. Results from individual randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were combined using a two-stage fixed-effect model. Prespecified analyses explored any variation in effect by trial and participant characteristics. Evidence synthesis Analyses of ten RCTs (1183 participants) demonstrated a benefit of cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70–0.96, p = 0.02). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 6% at 5 yr, from 50% to 56%, and a 9% absolute benefit when adjusted for age, sex, pT stage, and pN category (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65–0.92, p = 0.004). There was no clear evidence that the effect varied by trial or participant characteristics. Adjuvant chemotherapy was also shown to improve recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.60–0.83, p

Purpose: The clinical impact of concurrent corticosteroid use (CCU) on enzalutamide-treated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown. We investigated the association of CCU with overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP) in post-chemotherapy, enzalutamide-treated patients with mCRPC. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of AFFIRM (NCT00974311) with patients (n = 1,199) randomized 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment group, CCU, and known prognostic factors were evaluated for impact on OS, rPFS, and TTPP using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. CCU was defined as “baseline” (use started at baseline) or “on-study” (baseline plus use that was started during the trial). Results: Enzalutamide significantly improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP independent of baseline CCU but was associated with inferior clinical outcomes when compared with no baseline CCU, including a shorter OS [10.8 months vs. not reached (NR); HR for use vs. no use, 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.79–2.54], rPFS (5.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29–1.72], and TTPP (4.6 months vs. 5.7 months; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.25–1.81). These findings held in a multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline prognostic factors wherein baseline CCU was independently associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43–2.04; P < 0.0001) and rPFS (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11–1.48; P = 0.0007). Conclusions: Patients with mCRPC benefited from enzalutamide treatment independent of CCU, but CCU was associated with worse baseline prognostic factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival and overall survival (OS) versus ADT alone in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) with rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The objective of this post hoc analysis of the PROSPER trial is to evaluate OS benefit and safety of enzalutamide in patients across age and regional subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible men with nmCRPC, PSA doubling time ≤10 months and PSA ≥2 ng/mL with continued ADT use were randomised 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo. OS and safety were examined by age (

Background The value of a complete response to immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment for urothelial cancer is well recognised, but less is known about long-term outcomes in patients with a partial response or the benefit of achieving disease stabilisation. Objective To determine clinical outcomes in patients with a partial response or stable disease on atezolizumab therapy for advanced urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). Design, setting, and participants Data were extracted from three prospective trials (IMvigor210 cohort 2, SAUL, and IMvigor211) evaluating single-agent atezolizumab therapy for platinum-pretreated advanced UTC. The analysis population included 604 atezolizumab-treated and 208 chemotherapy-treated patients (229 achieving a partial response and 583 achieving stable disease). Intervention Atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until progression or unacceptable toxicity or single-agent chemotherapy for patients in the control arm of IMvigor211. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, overall survival, duration of disease control. Partial response and stable disease populations were analysed separately. Results and limitations The population of patients with a partial response included more patients with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells than the stable disease population. The median time to best response was 2.1 mo across trials and treatments, regardless of the type of response. Atezolizumab-treated patients with a partial response had sustained disease control (median overall survival not reached); durations of disease control and overall survival were longer with atezolizumab than with chemotherapy. In patients with stable disease, median overall survival was numerically longer with atezolizumab (exceeding 1 yr) than with chemotherapy. Irrespective of treatment, durations of disease control and survival were shorter in patients with stable disease than in those achieving a partial response. These analyses are limited by their post hoc exploratory nature and relatively short follow-up. Conclusions Stable disease and partial response are meaningful clinical outcomes in atezolizumab-treated patients with advanced UTC. Patient summary In this report, we looked at the outcomes in patients whose tumours responded to treatment to some extent, but the tumour did not disappear completely. We aimed to understand whether a modest response to treatment was associated with meaningful long-term outcomes for patients. We found that on average, life expectancy was >1 yr in patients whose disease was stabilised and even longer in those whose tumours showed some shrinkage in response to treatment.

Background Characterization of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been integrated into clinical practice. Although labs have standardized validation procedures to develop single locus tests, the efficacy of on‐site plasma‐based next‐generation sequencing (NGS) assays still needs to be proved. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, we profiled DNA from matched tissue and plasma samples from 75 patients with cancer. We applied an NGS test that detects clinically relevant alterations in 33 genes and microsatellite instability (MSI) to analyze plasma cell‐free DNA (cfDNA). Results The concordance between alterations detected in both tissue and plasma samples was higher in patients with metastatic disease. The NGS test detected 77% of sequence alterations, amplifications, and fusions that were found in metastatic samples compared with 45% of those alterations found in the primary tumor samples (p = .00005). There was 87% agreement on MSI status between the NGS test and tumor tissue results. In three patients, MSI‐high ctDNA correlated with response to immunotherapy. In addition, the NGS test revealed an FGFR2 amplification that was not detected in tumor tissue from a patient with metastatic gastric cancer, emphasizing the importance of profiling plasma samples in patients with advanced cancer. Conclusion Our validation experience of a plasma‐based NGS assay advances current knowledge about translating cfDNA testing into clinical practice and supports the application of plasma assays in the management of oncology patients with metastatic disease. With an in‐house method that minimizes the need for invasive procedures, on‐site cfDNA testing supplements tissue biopsy to guide precision therapy and is entitled to become a routine practice. Implications for Practice This study proposes a solution for decentralized liquid biopsy testing based on validation of a next‐generation sequencing (NGS) test that detects four classes of genomic alterations in blood: sequence mutations (single nucleotide substitutions or insertions and deletions), fusions, amplifications, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Although there are reference labs that perform single‐site comprehensive liquid biopsy testing, the targeted assay this study validated can be established locally in any lab with capacity to offer clinical molecular pathology assays. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report that validates evaluating an on‐site plasma‐based NGS test that detects the MSI status along with common sequence alterations encountered in solid tumors., This report describes the concordance between circulating tumor DNA and matched tumor tissue molecular profiles, discusses interpretation of observed discordant data, and illustrates applications through clinical cases. It is the first known report to evaluate the performance of an on‐site plasma‐based next‐generation sequencing test to detect microsatellite instability status along with common sequence alterations in the context of its clinical utility and therapeutic applications in precision oncology.

Abiraterone acetate; Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; Metformin Acetato de abiraterona; Cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castración; Metformina Acetat d'abiraterona; Càncer de pròstata resistent a la castració metastàtic; Metformina Background The associations of metformin and statins with overall survival (OS) and prostate specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR) in trials in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remain unclear. Objective To determine whether metformin or statins ± abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone (AAP) influence OS and PSA-RR. Design, setting and participant COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302 patients were stratified by metformin and statin use. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazards ratio (HR) stratified by concomitant medications, and a random effects model was used to pool HR. We compared PSA-RR using Chi χ2 test. Results In COU-AA-301-AAP, metformin was associated with improved PSA-RR (41.1% versus 28.6%) but not prolonged OS. In COU-AA-301-placebo-P, there was no association between metformin and prolonged OS or PSA-RR. In COU-AA-302-AAP, metformin was associated with prolonged OS (adjHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48–0.98) and improved PSA-RR (72.7% versus 60.0%). In COU-AA-302-P, metformin was associated with prolonged OS (adjHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.93). In pooled analysis, OS was prolonged among those treated with metformin (pooled HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.95).In COU-AA-301-AAP, statins were associated with an improved OS (adjHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.93), while there was no difference in COU-AA-301-P. There was no association with statins and OS in either COU-AA-302 groups. When pooling HR, OS was prolonged among those treated with statins (pooled HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.88). Conclusion Within the limitations of post-hoc sub-analyses, metformin and statins are associated with a prolonged OS and increased PSA-RR, particularly in combination with AAP.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer; Metformin; Overall survival Càncer de pròstata resistent a la castració; Metformina; Supervivència global Cáncer de próstata resistente a la castración; Metformina; Supervivencia global Background: Statins and metformin are commonly prescribed for patients, including those with prostate cancer. Preclinical and epidemiologic studies of each agent have suggested anti-cancer properties. Methods: Patient data from three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies evaluating enzalutamide (AFFIRM, PREVAIL and PROSPER) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer were included in this analysis. This post hoc, retrospective study examined the association of statin and metformin on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), toxicity and overall survival (OS). After adjusting for available clinical prognostic variables, multivariate analyses were performed on pooled data from AFFIRM and PREVAIL, all three trials pooled, and each trial individually, to assess differential efficacy in these end-points associated with the baseline use of these medications. Results: In the multivariate analysis of the individual trials, OS and rPFS/MFS were not significantly influenced by statin or metformin use in AFFIRM or PROSPER. However, in PREVAIL, OS was significantly influenced by statin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.89) and rPFS was significantly influenced by metformin (HR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.70). In pooled analyses, improved OS was significantly associated with statin use but not metformin use for AFFIRM+PREVAIL trials (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.96) and AFFIRM+PREVAIL+PROSPER (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.85). Conclusions: The association between statin or metformin use and rPFS, MFS and OS was inconsistent across three trials. Analyses of all three trials pooled and AFFIRM+PREVAIL pooled revealed that statin but not metformin use was significantly associated with a reduced risk of death in enzalutamide-treated patients. Additional prospective, controlled studies are warranted. This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA) and Astellas Pharma, Inc. (Northbrook, IL, USA), the co-developers of enzalutamide. Medical writing and editorial support funded by the sponsors were provided by Stephanie Vadasz, PhD, and Dena McWain of Ashfield MedComms (an Ashfield Health company), Lauren Rainer, BSc, and Julie B. Stimmel, PhD, of Onyx (a Prime Global agency).

Aims: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and there is a medical need to improve current treatment options. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival but not overall survival (OS) in platinum-refractory advanced UC (RANGE trial; NCT02426125). Here, we report the exposure-response (ER) of ramucirumab plus docetaxel using data from the RANGE trial. Methods: Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected (cycle 1-3, 5, 9 [day 1] and 30 days from treatment discontinuation), and PK data were analysed using population PK (popPK) analysis. The minimum ramucirumab concentration after first dose administration (Cmin,1, or trough concentration immediately prior to the second dose) was derived by popPK analysis and used as the exposure parameter for ER analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression models and matched case-control analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between Cmin,1 and OS. The Cmin,1 relationship with safety was assessed descriptively. Results: Several poor prognostic factors (ECOG 1, haemoglobin concentration min,1 and OS (P =.0108). Higher exposure quartiles were associated with longer survival and smaller hazard ratios compared to placebo. No new exposure-safety trends were observed within the exposure range (ramucirumab 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). Conclusions: This prespecified ER analyses suggests a positive relationship between efficacy and ramucirumab exposure, with an imbalance associated with disease prognostic factors. Further investigation may elucidate a possible disease-PK relationship.

BACKGROUND: Plasma tumor DNA fraction is prognostic in metastatic cancers. This could improve risk stratification before commencing a new treatment. We hypothesized that a second sample collected after one cycle of treatment could refine outcome prediction of patients identified as poor prognosis based on plasma DNA collected pre-treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Plasma DNA [128 pre-treatment, 134 cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1), and 49 progression] from 151 chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a phase II study of abiraterone acetate (NCT01867710) were subjected to custom targeted next-generation sequencing covering exons of these genes: TP53, AR, RB1, PTEN, PIK3CA, BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, FANCA HDAC2 and PALB2. We also captured 1500 pan-genome regions enriched for single nucleotide polymorphisms to allow detection of tumor DNA using the rolling B-allele method. We tested associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Plasma tumor DNA detection was associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR): 2.89, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.77-4.73, P ≤ 0.0001] and PFS (HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.36-3.11, P < 0.001). Using a multivariable model including plasma tumor DNA, patients who had a TP53, RB1 or PTEN gene alteration pre-treatment and at C2D1 had a significantly shorter OS than patients with no alteration at either time point (TP53: HR 7.13, 95% CI 2.37-21.47, P < 0.001; RB1: HR 6.24, 95% CI 1.97-19.73, P = 0.002; PTEN: HR 11.9, 95% CI 3.6-39.34, P < 0.001). Patients who were positive pre-treatment and converted to undetectable had no evidence of a difference in survival compared with those who were undetectable pre-treatment (P = 0.48, P = 0.43, P = 0.5, respectively). Progression samples harbored AR gain in all patients who had gain pre-treatment (9/49) and de novo AR somatic point mutations were detected in 8/49 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma gene testing after one cycle treatment refines prognostication and could provide an early indication of treatment benefit.

PURPOSE The classification of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) plays a pivotal role in the management of metastatic germ cell tumors but relies on data of patients treated between 1975 and 1990. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data on 9,728 men with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2013 were collected from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Europe, North America, and Australia. Clinical trial and registry data were included. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The survival estimates were updated for the current era. Additionally, a novel prognostic model for PFS was developed in 3,542 patients with complete information on potentially relevant variables. The results were validated in an independent data set. RESULTS Compared with the original IGCCCG publication, 5-year PFS remained similar in patients with good prognosis with 89% (87%-91%) versus 90% (95% CI, 89 to 91), but the 5-year OS increased from 92% (90%-94%) to 96% (95%-96%). In patients with intermediate prognosis, PFS remained similar with 75% (71%-79%) versus 78% (76%-80%) and the OS increased from 80% (76%-84%) to 89% (88%-91%). In patients with poor prognosis, the PFS increased from 41% (95% CI, 35 to 47) to 54% (95% CI, 52 to 56) and the OS from 48% (95% CI, 42 to 54) to 67% (95% CI, 65 to 69). A more granular prognostic model was developed and independently validated. This model identified a new cutoff of lactate dehydrogenase at a 2.5 upper limit of normal and increasing age and presence of lung metastases as additional adverse prognostic factors. An online calculator is provided ( https://www.eortc.org/IGCCCG-Update ). CONCLUSION The IGCCCG Update model improves individual prognostication in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Increasing age and lung metastases add granularity to the original IGCCCG classification as adverse prognostic factors.

In castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), the loss of androgen receptor (AR) dependence leads to clinically aggressive tumors with few therapeutic options. We used ATAC-seq (assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing), RNA-seq, and DNA sequencing to investigate 22 organoids, six patient-derived xenografts, and 12 cell lines. We identified the well-characterized AR-dependent and neuroendocrine subtypes, as well as two AR-negative/low groups: a Wnt-dependent subtype, and a stem cell–like (SCL) subtype driven by activator protein–1 (AP-1) transcription factors. We used transcriptomic signatures to classify 366 patients, which showed that SCL is the second most common subtype of CRPC after AR-dependent. Our data suggest that AP-1 interacts with the YAP/TAZ and TEAD proteins to maintain subtype-specific chromatin accessibility and transcriptomic landscapes in this group. Together, this molecular classification reveals drug targets and can potentially guide therapeutic decisions.

The RANGE study (NCT02426125) evaluated ramucirumab (an anti-VEGFR2 monoclonal antibody) in patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Here, we use programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) and transcriptome analysis to evaluate the association of immune and angiogenesis pathways, and molecular subtypes, with overall survival (OS) in UC. Higher PD-L1 IHC and immune pathway scores, but not angiogenesis scores, are associated with greater ramucirumab OS benefit. Additionally, Basal subtypes, which have higher PD-L1 IHC and immune/angiogenesis pathway scores, show greater ramucirumab OS benefit compared to Luminal subtypes, which have relatively lower scores. Multivariable analysis suggests patients from East Asia as having lower immune/angiogenesis signature scores, which correlates with decreased ramucirumab OS benefit. Our data highlight the utility of multiple biomarkers including PD-L1, molecular subtype, and immune phenotype in identifying patients with UC who might derive the greatest benefit from treatment with ramucirumab.

Despite advances in the screening and treatment of prostate cancer, the therapy options available, particularly for later stages of the disease, remain limited, and the treatment-resistant setting represents a serious unmet medical need. Moreover, disease heterogeneity and disparities in patient access to medical advances result in considerable variability in outcomes across patients. Disease classification based on genomic sequencing is a promising approach for identifying patients whose tumors exhibit actionable targets and for making more informed treatment decisions. Here we discuss how precision oncology can be accelerated to inform broader genomically driven clinical decisions for men with advanced prostate cancer, to inform drug development and, ultimately, to contribute to new treatment paradigms. Beltran and colleagues discuss the challenges in treating metastatic prostate cancer and strategies to accelerate precision oncology and improve therapy and clinical decisions in this setting.

Background Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of several life-prolonging therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, real-world data on their use, survival effect, and safety are limited. Using electronic health record data from the Flatiron Health database, we studied real-world treatment patterns and health outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Patients and Methods We conducted a retrospective, non-interventional cohort analysis of electronic health record data of patients with confirmed mCRPC between January 2013 and September 2017. The primary objective was to describe real-world treatment patterns, including treatment type, duration, and sequencing. Secondary objectives included describing patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Results Of 2559 patients with mCRPC, 1980 (77%) received at least 1 line of life-prolonging therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, or radium-223). Of patients receiving first-line therapy, 49% received second-line therapy, and of these, 43% received third-line therapy. Abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide accounted for 65% of first-line therapies and 54% of second-line therapies. Docetaxel was the most common third-line therapy (24%). Back-to-back use of abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide was common. Radium-223 monotherapy use was 2% in the first-line setting, 3% in the second-line setting, and 8% in the third-line setting. The median overall survival was longer in patients who received life-prolonging therapies (23.7 months; 95% confidence interval: 22.3-25.1 months) than in those who did not (10.1 months; 95% confidence interval: 9.1-11.5 months). Conclusion These real-world insights on over 2500 patients with mCRPC supplement findings from randomized controlled trials and may help to inform clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and clinical decision-making.

Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported.In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha-spending function.As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events.Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.).

Background In this study, we evaluated real-world data on radium-223 plus abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide. Previously, the ERA 223 trial (NCT02043678) demonstrated increased fracture risk with concurrent treatment with radium-223 and abiraterone plus prednisone/prednisolone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods We used the Flatiron Health database to perform a retrospective study of patients with mCRPC treated with radium-223. Treatment with radium-223 plus abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide was defined as concurrent if both drugs started within 30 days of one another, or layered when the second drug started ≥30 days after the first. The index date was defined as the day of the first radium-223 dose. Outcome measures included symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs), overall survival (OS), and patterns of treatments received. Results Of the 625 patients treated with radium-223, 22% received it together with abiraterone/prednisone and 27% with enzalutamide. When these agents were combined, they were often initiated in a layered fashion (73% layered, 23% concurrent). Prior or concomitant bone health agents (BHAs) were received by 67% and 55% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 9 months. Overall, incidence rates for SSEs and pathologic fractures were 0.35 and 0.11 patients per person-year, respectively. Median OS from mCRPC diagnosis was 28.1 months. Conclusions In this real-world setting, combination treatments with radium-223 and abiraterone/prednisone or enzalutamide were common. These agents were more commonly given in a layered than a concurrent fashion. Incidence rates for SSEs were reduced when BHAs were used; however, BHAs were underutilized.

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. Design, setting, and participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naive prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Background Ramucirumab-an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonistplus 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. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p

Primary clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) has been previously characterized, but the genomic landscape of metastatic ccRCC is largely unexplored. Here, we performed whole exome sequencing (WES) in 68 samples from 44 patients with ccRCC, including 52 samples from a metastatic site. SETD2, PBRM1, APC and VHL were the most frequently mutated genes in the metastatic ccRCC cohort. RBM10 and FBXW7 were also among the 10 most frequently mutated genes in metastatic tissues. Recurrent somatic copy number variations (CNV) were observed at the previously identified regions 3p25, 9p21 and 14q25, but also at 6p21 (CDKN1A) and 13q14 (RB1). No statistically significant differences were found between samples from therapy-naïve and pretreated patients. Clonal evolution analyses with multiple samples from 13 patients suggested that early appearance of CNVs at 3p25, 9p21 and 14q25 may be associated with rapid clinical progression. Overall, the genomic landscapes of primary and metastatic ccRCC seem to share frequent CNVs at 3p25, 9p21 and 14q25. Future work will clarify the implication of RBM10 and FBXW7 mutations and 6p21 and 13q14 CNVs in metastatic ccRCC.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., NA

Purpose: In an exploratory analysis, we investigated the association between programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), tumor mutational burden (TMB), T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP), and stromal signature with outcomes of pembrolizumab in urothelial carcinoma (UC). Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced UC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks in the single-arm phase II KEYNOTE-052 trial (NCT02335424) and salvage pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel/vinflunine) in the randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial (NCT02256436). The association of each biomarker (continuous variable) with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using logistic regression (ORR) and Cox PH (PFS, OS), adjusted for ECOG PS; nominal P values were calculated without multiplicity adjustment (one-sided, pembrolizumab; two-sided, chemotherapy). Significance was prespecified at α = 0.05. Results: In KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1, TMB, and TcellinfGEP were significantly associated with improved outcomes; stromal signature was significantly associated with worse outcomes. In KEYNOTE-045, although findings for TMB and TcellinfGEP with pembrolizumab were consistent with those of KEYNOTE-052, PD-L1 was not significantly associated with improved outcomes, nor was stromal signature associated with worse outcomes with pembrolizumab; chemotherapy was not associated with outcomes in a consistent manner for any of the biomarkers. Hazard ratio (HR) estimates at prespecified cutoffs showed an advantage for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 or TMB, with a trend toward lower HRs in the combined positive score ≥10 and the TMB ≥175 mutation/exome subgroup. For TcellinfGEP, PFS and OS HRs were lower in the TcellinfGEP-nonlow subgroup regardless of treatment. Conclusions: Multiple biomarkers characterizing the tumor microenvironment may help predict response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in UC, and potential clinical utility of these biomarkers may be context-dependent.

Background: innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: to present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: the experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: the voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: these voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

Prior durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 agent) studies in platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma evaluated a dose of 10 mg/kg administered every two weeks. The nonrandomised phase 3b STRONG study (NCT03084471) evaluated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose durvalumab at a more convenient dosing schedule in a previously treated patient population, more similar to a real-world clinical setting.867 patients with urothelial or nonurothelial urinary tract carcinoma (UTC) who progressed on or after platinum or nonplatinum chemotherapy were treated with durvalumab 1500 mg every four weeks; 87% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1, and 13% had an ECOG PS of 2. The primary end-point was the incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESIs), including immune-mediated AEs (imAEs). Secondary and exploratory end-points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (at six and 12 months) (DCR).AESIs of any grade were reported in 51% of patients (8% grade ≥ 3). The incidence of imAEs was 11% (2% grade ≥ 3). The median OS was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.4-8.2) and ORR was 18% (95% CI: 14.8-20.6), with complete responses in 5% of patients and a DCR at six months of 19% (95% CI: 16.1-22.1).Fixed-dose durvalumab monotherapy every four weeks has an acceptable safety profile and yields durable clinical activity in previously chemotherapy-treated patients with UTC. Safety and efficacy are consistent with previous durvalumab studies and other anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in this setting. CLINICALTRIALS.NCT03084471https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03084471.

Sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma (SUC) is a rare subtype of urothelial carcinoma (UC) that typically presents at an advanced stage compared to more common variants of UC. Locally advanced and metastatic UC have a poor long-term survival following progression on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Antibodies directed against the programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) are now approved to be used in these scenarios. The need for reliable biomarkers for treatment stratification is still under research. Here, we present a novel case report of the first Imaging Mass Cytometry (IMC) analysis done in SUC to investigate the immune cell repertoire and PD-L1 expression in a patient who presented with metastatic SUC and experienced a prolonged response to the anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab after progression on first-line chemotherapy. This case report provides an important platform for translating these findings to a larger cohort of UC and UC variants.

Background In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. However, some patients received docetaxel or the prior alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor in the metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) setting. Therefore, the CARD results cannot be directly translated to a Japanese population. Methods Patients (N = 255) received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 IV Q3W, prednisone, G-CSF) versus abiraterone (1000 mg PO, prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg PO) after prior docetaxel and progression ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. Patients who received combination therapy for mHSPC were excluded (n = 33) as docetaxel is not approved in this setting in Japan. Results A total of 222 patients (median age 70 years) were included in this subanalysis. Median number of cycles was higher for cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitors (7 versus 4). Clinical outcomes favoured cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide including, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; median 8.2 versus 3.4 months; P, Cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients who had not received combination therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. These data are reflective of a Japanese patient population.

PURPOSE: Atezolizumab is an established treatment option for pretreated urothelial carcinoma, demonstrating efficacy in phase II/III trials. The SAUL study enrolled a broader patient population to determine safety and efficacy in underrepresented subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss of clinical benefit, or patient/physician decision. The primary endpoint was safety. Efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Analyses by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) status, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) and renal impairment were prespecified; post hoc analyses explored outcomes by tumor location. RESULTS: A total of 1,004 patients were enrolled. Subgroup analyses in patients with older age, renal impairment, or upper tract urothelial carcinoma showed safety and efficacy similar to those in patients without these characteristics. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had clinical features typically associated with aggressive disease; median overall survival was 2.3 months versus 10.0 months in patients with ECOG PS0/1. Patients with PD-L1 expression on ≥5% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells tended to have better outcomes than those with

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Next-generation sequencing is becoming more accessible. This review focuses on the clinical application of somatic and germline sequencing to genitourinary oncology. RECENT FINDINGS: Germline variants have been increasingly recognized as contributing to the development of genitourinary malignancies, particularly in patients with advanced disease. A variety of commercial and institutional technologies are in use to detect variants, with newer tools focused on integrating these results into the clinical workflow. SUMMARY: DNA sequencing is becoming a valuable tool in caring for patients with genitourinary malignancies. Performing both somatic and germline sequencing will likely become standard practice. Interpretation and clinical application of these results can be challenging and often requires multidisciplinary expertise.

In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study. In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924. Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p

PURPOSE Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress on platinum-based combination chemotherapy (PLT) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have limited options that offer objective response rates (ORRs) of approximately 10% with a median overall survival (OS) of 7-8 months. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a TROP-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload that has shown preliminary activity in mUC. METHODS TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973 ) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II, registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with locally advanced or unresectable or mUC who had progressed after prior PLT and CPI. Patients received SG 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary outcome was centrally reviewed ORR; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, OS, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS Cohort 1 included 113 patients (78% men; median age, 66 years; 66.4% visceral metastases; median of three [range, 1-8] prior therapies). At a median follow-up of 9.1 months, the ORR was 27% (31 of 113; 95% CI, 19.5 to 36.6); 77% had decrease in measurable disease. Median duration of response was 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.6 months), with median progression-free survival and OS of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 7.2 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 13.8 months), respectively. Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (35%), leukopenia (18%), anemia (14%), diarrhea (10%), and febrile neutropenia (10%), with 6% discontinuing treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION SG is an active drug with a manageable safety profile with most common toxicities of neutropenia and diarrhea. SG has notable efficacy compared with historical controls in pretreated mUC that has progressed on both prior PLT regimens and CPI. The results from this study supported accelerated approval of SG in this population.

Background Fatigue is a multifactorial symptom commonly reported by patients with prostate cancer as a result of disease and treatment. This study assesses the impact enzalutamide has on patient-reported fatigue (“fatigue”) by using patient-reported outcomes from four pivotal, placebo-controlled trials of enzalutamide (ARCHES (NCT02677896), PROSPER (NCT02003924), PREVAIL (NCT01212991), and AFFIRM (NCT00974311)). Methods Fatigue was assessed in the individual studies using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate item GP1 at baseline, weeks 13 or 17, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. Longitudinal changes were assessed using mean scores and mixed-model repeated measures. Results The fatigue rates at baseline were higher in patients with later-stage disease (metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)) and among patients who had already received prior treatment lines; rates ranged between 58% in PROSPER (nonmetastatic CRPC) and 86% in AFFIRM (post-docetaxel metastatic CRPC). Irrespective of disease state, initiation of enzalutamide or placebo resulted in an early increase of fatigue (by weeks 13 or 17), with fatigue levels stabilizing thereafter. At last assessment, ≥55% of patients reported fatigue improvement or stabilization in all trials compared to baseline. More patients reported fatigue worsening by ≥1 or ≥2 units with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) than with placebo plus ADT in ARCHES, PROSPER, and PREVAIL, but the between-group difference was Conclusions The levels of fatigue were greater in mCRPC and lower in earlier states of disease. In all trials, patients reported a small increase in fatigue for the first 13–17 weeks after starting enzalutamide or placebo, with slightly greater fatigue with enzalutamide in all studies except AFFIRM, but fatigue stabilized or improved thereafter. This suggests a role for clinical management of fatigue to help patients cope early in treatment.

PURPOSE The classification of the International Germ-Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) has been a major advance in the management of germ-cell tumors, but relies on data of only 660 patients with seminoma treated between 1975 and 1990. We re-evaluated this classification in a database from a large international consortium. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data on 2,451 men with metastatic seminoma treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2013 were collected from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Australia, Europe, and North America. Clinical trial and registry data were included. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) calculated from day 1 of treatment. Variables at initial presentation were evaluated for their prognostic impact. Results were validated in an independent validation set of 764 additional patients. RESULTS Compared with the initial IGCCCG classification, in our modern series, 5-year PFS improved from 82% to 89% (95% CI, 87 to 90) and 5-year OS from 86% to 95% (95% CI, 94 to 96) in good prognosis, and from 67% to 79% (95% CI, 70 to 85) and 72% to 88% (95% CI, 80 to 93) in intermediate prognosis patients. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) proved to be an additional adverse prognostic factor. Good prognosis patients with LDH above 2.5× upper limit of normal had a 3-year PFS of 80% (95% CI, 75 to 84) and a 3-year OS of 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) versus 92% (95% CI, 90 to 94) and 97% (95% CI, 96 to 98) in the group with lower LDH. CONCLUSION PFS and OS in metastatic seminoma significantly improved in our modern series compared with the original data. The original IGCCCG classification retains its relevance, but can be further refined by adding LDH at a cutoff of 2.5× upper limit of normal as an additional adverse prognostic factor.

Most studies indicate no benefit of adjuvant therapy with VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PROTECT (NCT01235962) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study to evaluate adjuvant pazopanib in patients with locally advanced RCC at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy (pazopanib, n = 769; placebo, n = 769). The results of the primary analysis showed no difference in disease-free survival between pazopanib 600 mg and placebo. Here we report the final overall survival (OS) analysis (median follow-up: pazopanib, 76 mo, interquartile range [IQR] 66-84; placebo, 77 mo, IQR 69-85). There was no significant difference in OS between the pazopanib and placebo arms (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.26; nominal p > 0.9). OS was worse for patients with T4 disease compared to those with less advanced disease and was better for patients with body mass index (BMI) >= 30 kg/m(2) compared to those with lower BMI. OS was significantly better for patients who remained diseasefree at 2 yr after treatment compared with those who relapsed within 2 yr. These findings are consistent with the primary outcomes from PROTECT, indicating that adjuvant pazopanib does not confer a benefit in terms of OS for patients following resection of locally advanced RCC.Patient summary: In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 PROTECT study, overall survival was similar for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of relapse after nephrectomy who received adjuvant therapy with pazopanib or placebo. Pazopanib is not recommended as adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC. (C) 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA(50) responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively (P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION: PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

Background Reliable and affordable prognostic and predictive biomarkers for urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy may allow patients' outcome stratification and drive therapeutic options. The SAUL trial investigated the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in a real-world setting on 1004 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed to one to three prior systemic therapies. Patients and methods Using the SAUL Italian cohort of 267 patients, we investigated the prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and the best performing one of these in combination with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with or without lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Previously reported cut-offs (NLR >3 and NLR >5; SII >1375) in addition to study-defined ones derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used. Results The cut-off values for NLR and SII by the ROC analysis were 3.65 (sensitivity 60.4; specificity 63.0) and 884 (sensitivity 64.4; specificity 67.5), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 months for NLR, Highlights • Reliable biomarkers for immunotherapy may assist in treatment decision making and clinical trial design and interpretation. • Immune-inflammatory biomarkers were investigated for their prognostic role within the Italian SAUL study cohort. • ROC-based cut-offs were 3.65 for NLR and 884 for SII. • Both NLR and SII were prognostic with SII performing slightly better than NLR. • The combination of SII, PD-L1, and LDH stratified OS better than SII + PD-L1; both were independent prognostic factors.

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56–0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1− tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management.

Background The treatment landscape of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) has been transformed by targeted therapies with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and more recently by the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Today, a spectrum of single agent TKI to TKI/ICI and ICI/ICI combinations can be considered and the choice of the best regimen is complex. Materials and methods We performed an updated decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. Each expert provided their treatment strategy and relevant decision criteria in the first line treatment of mccRCC. After the collection of all input a list of unified decision criteria was determined and compatible decision trees were created. We used a methodology based on diagnostic nodes, which allows for an automated cross-comparison of decision trees, to determine the most common treatment recommendations as well as deviations. Results Diverse parameters were considered relevant for treatment selection, various drugs and drug combinations were recommended by the experts. The parameters, chosen by the experts, were performance status, International Metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. The systemic therapies selected for first line treatment were sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib. Conclusion A wide spectrum of treatment recommendations based on multiple decision criteria was demonstrated. Significant inter-expert variations were observed. This demonstrates how data from randomized trials are implemented differently when transferred into daily practice., Highlights • Treatment options for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma have become diverse. • We performed a decision-making analysis among 11 international kidney cancer experts. • Significant inter-expert variations for systemic first line treatments were observed. • Influencing factors were performance status, IMDC risk group, PD-L1 status, zugzwang and contraindication to immunotherapy. • The treatments selected were: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib, ipilimumab/nivolumab or pembrolizumab/axitinib.

In a recent phase 3 randomized trial of 700 patients with advanced urothelial cancer (JAVELIN Bladder 100; NCT02603432), avelumab/best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival relative to BSC alone as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy. Exploratory biomarker analyses were performed to identify biological pathways that might affect survival benefit. Tumor molecular profiling by immunohistochemistry, whole-exome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing revealed that avelumab survival benefit was positively associated with PD-L1 expression by tumor cells, tumor mutational burden, APOBEC mutation signatures, expression of genes underlying innate and adaptive immune activity and the number of alleles encoding high-affinity variants of activating Fc gamma receptors. Pathways connected to tissue growth and angiogenesis might have been associated with reduced survival benefit. Individual biomarkers did not comprehensively identify patients who could benefit from therapy; however, multi-parameter models incorporating genomic alteration, immune responses and tumor growth showed promising predictive utility. These results characterize the complex biologic pathways underlying survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition in advanced urothelial cancer and suggest that multiple biomarkers might be needed to identify patients who would benefit from treatment.

Background: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss. Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238. Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo–abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib–abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0–33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo–abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib–abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9–17·0) in the placebo–abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3–22·1) in the ipatasertib–abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61–0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6–19·1) in the placebo–abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5–22·3) in the ipatasertib–abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71–0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo–abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib–abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo–abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib–abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (

The prevalence and biological consequences of deleterious germline variants in urothelial cancer (UC) are not fully characterized. We performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) of germline DNA and 157 primary and metastatic tumors from 80 UC patients. We developed a computational framework for identifying putative deleterious germline variants (pDGVs) from WES data. Here, we show that UC patients harbor a high prevalence of pDGVs that truncate tumor suppressor proteins. Deepening somatic loss of heterozygosity in serial tumor samples is observed, suggesting a critical role for these pDGVs in tumor progression. Significant intra-patient heterogeneity in germline-somatic variant interactions results in divergent biological pathway alterations between primary and metastatic tumors. Our results characterize the spectrum of germline variants in UC and highlight their roles in shaping the natural history of the disease. These findings could have broad clinical implications for cancer patients., The role of germline variation in human cancers is not fully understood. Here, the authors define the landscape of putative deleterious germline variants that abrogate tumor suppressor proteins in advanced urothelial cancer patients.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance.In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety.Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively.Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

Context Genomic testing is becoming increasingly important in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) and is being incorporated in clinical practice to guide treatment. Objective To review the current understanding of genomic alterations and the status of genomic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC), and the potential use of genomic tests in clinical practice. Evidence acquisition We reviewed recent publications (past 15 yr) from PubMed, proceedings of scientific conferences, and published guidelines. Reports on mCRPC in the following areas were selected: development, testing, and validation of techniques for identifying genomic alterations; molecular characterization; and trials of genetically targeted therapies. Evidence synthesis mCRPC tumors harbor molecular alterations that are possible targets for treatment, and a number of therapies are in development to exploit these alterations (eg, PD-1 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Next-generation sequencing of DNA from tumor tissue can identify somatic alterations that would not be identified by germline testing. Work is ongoing to evaluate the use of less invasive somatic testing methods (eg, sequencing of cell-free circulating tumor DNA). Current international guidelines recommend germline and/or somatic testing for men with advanced and/or high-risk PC regardless of family history to identify those with homologous recombination repair gene mutations or mismatch repair defects/microsatellite instability who may be eligible for treatment with a PARP inhibitor or pembrolizumab, respectively. Conclusions Genomic testing for mCRPC may provide information on prognostic, predictive, and resistance biomarkers. Although the incorporation of testing into clinical practice remains challenging, routine genomic testing of men with advanced PC is recommended to guide management and treatment decisions. Patient summary Similar to many cancers, prostate cancer is caused by defects in the cancer’s DNA, which are called genetic or genomic defects. New treatments targeting these defects are approved for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Specific new tests are under development to detect these potentially treatable genetic defects.

Background The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19. Findings For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%). In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both. Conclusion mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy. CA extern

Renal cell cancer (RCC) is the third most diagnosed genitourinary malignancy in the world. Nearly a half of the diagnoses and 60% of related deaths occur in low-middle income countries (LMs), where prognosis is generally poor. We conducted a systematic research of ClinicalTrials.gov, searching RCC ongoing studies for adult patients. We included 205 trials in the final analysis. The enrolling centers were mainly distributed in high-income settings (88.9%). We estimated 94.6% of the trial population was enrolled in only five countries and none in LMs. Clinical drug development for RCC is driven by early phase studies, mainly assessing small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immunotherapy or the combination. Sixty percent of the trials were industry sponsored. Only a minority of the trials were in the early setting of care, adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. Disparities in drug development in LMs mirror a common underestimation of the value of research among the national priorities in cancer health planning, resulting in poor ethnic diversity and inclusiveness. This commonly results in incomplete knowledge of activity and safety of medicines across different ethnic groups, with consequences on priorities for cancer interventions and estimates of benefit in LMs patients. The use of RCC as a case study for inclusiveness suggests poor inclusion of non- Caucasian populations in the trials, especially trials testing new immunotherapy and targeted agents where RCC drug development is more pronounced, resulting in issues of generalizability in other ethnic groups when these compounds are approved with no ethnic restrictions or specifications.

Background: There is no universally accepted definition for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. However, changes in PSA in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are used to inform treatment decisions. Objective: To determine whether the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG2) definition of PSA progression is adequate to predict radiographic or clinical progression in enzalutamide-treated men with nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC). Design, setting, and participants: A post hoc, retrospective analysis of men with nmCRPC from PROSPER (NCT02003924) was performed. Intervention: Continued androgen deprivation therapy; patients randomized 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/d or placebo. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) in men with and without PSA progression, defined by PCWG2, and PSA at the time of radiographic progression were assessed. Results and limitations: As of June 28, 2017, in enzalutamide-treated patients, the risk of metastasis or death was increased significantly in those with PSA progression versus those without (hazard ratio [HR] 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.95–5.41; p < 0.0001). Median MFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR–NR) in patients without PSA progression and was 22.6 mo (95% CI, 21.9–29.0) in those with PSA progression. In placebo-treated patients, PSA progression was not significantly associated with MFS (HR 1.72; 95% CI, 0.86–3.45; p = 0.1). Median MFS was NR (95% CI, 25.6–NR) in patients without PSA progression and 18.3 mo (95% CI, 14.9–19.4) in those with PSA progression. The median PSA increase from nadir at the time of radiographic progression was 1.4 ng/mL in enzalutamide-treated men and 25.6 ng/mL for the placebo arm. Conclusions: In men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising PSA, radiographic progression often occurred without PCWG2-defined PSA progression, suggesting that any increase in PSA may warrant closer monitoring. While PCWG2-defined PSA progression was associated with radiographic progression in enzalutamide-treated men, our findings argue for prospective re-evaluation of this threshold. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in enzalutamide-treated men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who no longer respond to testosterone-lowering treatment. We found that even very small changes in PSA while on treatment could be an early indication of disease progression and should trigger closer monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Patients with residual muscle-invasive urinary tract cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high risk of recurrence.OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate whether additional adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves outcomes compared with surveillance in patients with significant residual disease despite NAC.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 474 patients who received NAC from the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium database, of whom 129 had adverse residual disease (≥ypT3 and/or ypN+).OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time to relapse (TTR) was the primary endpoint assessed starting from 2mo after surgery to minimize immortal time bias. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), incidence of AC use, and chemotherapy patterns. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models estimated TTR, OS, and associations with AC, adjusting for the type of NAC, age, and pathological stage in multivariable analyses.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 106 patients underwent surveillance, while 23 received AC. Gemcitabine-cisplatin was the most frequent regimen employed in both settings (30.4%), and the majority (82.6%) of the patients switched to a different regimen. Median follow-up was 30mo. Over 50% of patients developed a recurrence. Median TTR was 16mo (range: CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of AC after NAC in patients with high-risk residual disease is not frequent in clinical practice but might reduce the risk of recurrence. Further investigation is needed in this high-risk population to identify optimal therapy and to improve clinical outcomes such as the ongoing adjuvant immunotherapy trials.PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that administering additional chemotherapy in patients who had significant residual disease despite preoperative chemotherapy is not frequent in clinical practice. While it might reduce the risk of recurrence, it did not clearly increase overall survival. We encourage participation in the ongoing immunotherapy trials to see whether we can improve outcomes using a different type of therapy that stimulates the immune system.