Search

Background: In preclinical studies, combining M9241 (a novel immunocytokine containing interleukin (IL)-12 heterodimers) with avelumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody) resulted in additive or synergistic antitumor effects. We report dose-escalation and dose-expansion results from the phase Ib JAVELIN IL-12 trial investigating M9241 plus avelumab., Methods: In the dose-escalation part of JAVELIN IL-12 (NCT02994953), eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors; in the dose-expansion part, eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had progressed with first-line therapy. Patients received M9241 at 4, 8, 12, or 16.8 µg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) plus avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W, dose levels (DLs) 1-4) or M9241 16.8 µg/kg Q4W plus avelumab 800 mg once a week for 12 weeks followed by Q2W (DL5/dose expansion). Primary endpoints for the dose-escalation part were adverse events (AEs) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and those for the dose-expansion part were confirmed best overall response (BOR) per investigator (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1) and safety. The dose-expansion part followed a two-stage design; 16 patients were enrolled and treated in stage 1 (single-arm part). A futility analysis based on BOR was planned to determine whether stage 2 (randomized controlled part) would be initiated., Results: At data cut-off, 36 patients had received M9241 plus avelumab in the dose-escalation part. All DLs were well tolerated; one DLT occurred at DL3 (grade 3 autoimmune hepatitis). The maximum-tolerated dose was not reached, and DL5 was declared the recommended phase II dose, considering an observed drug-drug interaction at DL4. Two patients with advanced bladder cancer (DL2 and DL4) had prolonged complete responses. In the dose-expansion part, no objective responses were recorded in the 16 patients with advanced UC; the study failed to meet the criterion (≥3 confirmed objective responses) to initiate stage 2. Any-grade treatment-related AEs occurred in 15 patients (93.8%), including grade ≥3 in 8 (50.0%); no treatment-related deaths occurred. Exposures for avelumab and M9241 concentrations were within expected ranges., Conclusions: M9241 plus avelumab was well tolerated at all DLs, including the dose-expansion part, with no new safety signals. However, the dose-expansion part did not meet the predefined efficacy criterion to proceed to stage 2., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JSt received institutional research funding from Bavarian Nordic, ImmunityBio, Merck, PDS Biotechnology, and Precigen. J-LD received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, and MSD; served as a consultant or advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, and Sanofi; and was a member of a speakers’ bureau for Astellas Pharma. MS served as a consultant or advisor for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Agenus, Alligator Bioscience, Almac Diagnostics, Anaeropharma, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai/Roche, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GI Innovation, Immunocore, Innate Pharma, Lilly, Modulate Pharma, Molecular Partners, Nektar, Newlink Genetics, Numab, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics, SERVIER, Symphogen, Torque, Verastem, and Zelluna; owns stocks in Actym Therapeutics, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amphivena, EvolveImmune Therapeutics, Intensity Therapeutics, Nextcure, and Torque; and had other relationships with CEC Oncology, Dava Oncology, Haymarket Media, and Physican’s Education Resource. AR received institutional research funding from Ipsen, Merck, and Pfizer; served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. MMar served as a consultant or advisor for Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Cilag, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, and Pfizer. RKP received research funding from Exelixis, Janssen Oncology, and Pharmacyclics; served as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dendreon, Genomic Health, Jounce Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi; was a member of a speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, MSD, and Sanofi; and received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from Genentech/Roche. TSG received research funding from Ferring and served as a consultant or advisor for Exelixis, Pfizer, and Merck. MMai received honoraria from Alfasigma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; served as a consultant or advisor for Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; owned patents, royalties, and other intellectual properties for ‘DNA hypomethylating agents for cancer therapy’; received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses from Alfasigma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and owned stock in Theravance. LD had no competing interests. JSc received institutional research funding from Bavarian Nordic, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Merck, NextCure, PDS Biotechnology, and Precigen. RND received institutional research funding from Bavarian Nordic, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Merck, NextCure, PDS Biotechnology, and Precigen. Y-TT received institutional research funding from Bavarian Nordic, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Merck, NextCure, PDS Biotechnology, and Precigen. XW and YV are employed by EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA. FB, JSe, and AS are employed by Merck. SC was employed by Merck at the time of study. JLG received institutional research funding from Bavarian Nordic, ImmunityBio, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, and Merck., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background/aim: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) constitutes approximately 3% of all cancers. More than 60% of RCCs are detected incidentally; one-third of patients present with regional or distant metastases, and another 20-40% of patients develop metastases after radical nephrectomy. RCC can metastasize to any organ. In contrast, metastatic RCC (mRCC) without evidence of a primary tumor is extremely rare, with only a few reported cases., Case Report: We present a case of mRCC that initially presented with multiple liver and lymph node metastases but no primary renal lesion. An impressive response to treatment was achieved with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. A clinical, radiological, and pathological diagnostic strategy, particularly in the context of a multidisciplinary team, are crucial for reaching a definitive diagnosis. This approach allows to select the appropriate treatment, making a huge difference for a mRCC due to its resistance to standard chemotherapy., Conclusion: There are currently no guidelines available for mRCC without primary tumor. Nevertheless, a combination of TKI and immunotherapy could be the optimal first-line treatment if systemic therapy is required., (Copyright © 2023 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic and predictive factors for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with immunotherapy are highly warranted, and the immune tumor microenvironment (I-TME) is under investigation., Methods: The Meet-URO 18 was a multicentric retrospective study assessing the I-TME in mRCC patients treated with ≥2nd-line nivolumab, dichotomized into responders and non-responders according to progression-free survival (≥12 months and ≤3 months, respectively). The primary objective was to identify differential immunohistochemical (IHC) patterns between the two groups. Lymphocyte infiltration and the expressions of different proteins on tumor cells (CD56, CD15, CD68, and ph-mTOR) were analyzed. The expression of PD-L1 was also assessed., Results: A total of 116 tumor tissue samples from 84 patients (59% were primary tumors and 41% were metastases) were evaluated. Samples from responders (N = 55) were significantly associated with lower expression of CD4+ T lymphocytes and higher levels of ph-mTOR and CD56+ compared with samples from non-responders (N = 61). Responders also showed a higher CD3+ expression ( p = 0.059) and CD8+/CD4+ ratio ( p = 0.084). Non-responders were significantly associated with a higher percentage of clear cell histology and grading., Conclusions: Differential IHC patterns between the tumors in patients who were responders and non-responders to nivolumab were identified. Further investigation with genomic analyses is planned.

Background: Talazoparib has shown antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and DNA damage response (DDR)/homologous recombination repair (HRR) alterations., Objective: To evaluate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain in patients who received talazoparib in the TALAPRO-1 study, with a special interest in patients harboring breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations., Design, Setting, and Participants: TALAPRO-1 is a single-arm, phase 2 study in men with mCRPC DDR alterations either directly or indirectly involved in HRR, who previously received one to two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for advanced prostate cancer and whose mCRPC progressed on one or more novel hormonal agents., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Men completed the European Quality-of-life Five-dimension Five-level scale (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at predefined time points during the study. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) population included men who completed a baseline and one or more postbaseline assessments before study end. Longitudinal mixed-effect models assuming an unstructured covariance matrix were used to estimate the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline for pain and general health status measurements among all patients and patients with BRCA1/2 mutations., Results and Limitations: In the 97 men in the PRO population treated with talazoparib (BRCA1/2, n = 56), the mean (95% CI) EQ-5D-5L Index improved (all patients, 0.05 [0.01, 0.08]; BRCA1/2 subset, 0.07 [0.03, 0.10]), as did the EQ-5D VAS scores (all patients, 5.42 [2.65, 8.18]; BRCA1/2 subset, 4.74 [1.07, 8.41]). Improvements in the estimated overall change from baseline (95% CI) in the mean worst pain were observed in all patients (-1.08 [-1.52, -0.65]) and the BRCA1/2 subset (-1.15 [-1.67, -0.62]). The probability of not having had experienced deterioration of worst pain by month 12 was 84% for all patients and 83% for the BRCA1/2 subset., Conclusions: In heavily pretreated men with mCRPC and DDR/HRR alterations, talazoparib was associated with improved HRQoL in all patients and the BRCA1/2 subset. In both patient groups, worst pain improved from baseline and the probability of not experiencing a deterioration in worst pain with talazoparib was high., Patient Summary: We show that talazoparib was associated at least with no change or improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and pain burden in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA damage response/homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the TALAPRO-1 study. These findings in patient-reported HRQoL and pain complement the antitumor activity and tolerability profile of talazoparib., (Copyright © 2022 The Pfizer, The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) represents a heterogeneous histological group which is 20-25% of those with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with nccRCC have limited therapeutic options due to their exclusion from phase III randomized trials. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of pembrolizumabaxitinib combination in chromophobe and papillary metastatic RCC (mRCC) patients enrolled in the I-RARE (Italian Registry on rAre genitor-uRinary nEoplasms) observational ongoing study (Meet-URO 23). Baseline characteristics, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities were retrospectively and prospectively collected from nccRCC patients treated in 14 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, from December 2020 to April 2022. Only patients with chromophobe and papillary histology were considered eligible for the present pre-specified analysis. There were 32 eligible patients who received pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatment, of whom 13 (40%) had chromophobe histology and 19 (60%) were classified as papillary RCC. The DCR was 78.1% whereas ORR was 43.7% (11 patients achieved stable disease and 14 patients obtained partial response: 9/19 papillary, 5/13 chromophobe). Six patients (18.7%) were primary refractory. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95%CI 1.7-11.5). Eleven patients (34.3%) interrupted the full treatment due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs): G3 hepatitis (n = 5), G3 hypophisitis (n = 1), G3 diarrhea (n = 1), G3 pancreatitis (n = 1), G3 asthenia (n = 1). Twelve patients (37.5%) temporarily interrupted axitinib only due to persistent G2 hand-foot syndrome or G2 hypertension. Pembrolizumab-axitinib combination could be an active and feasible first-line treatment option for patients with papillary or chromophobe mRCC.

A concomitant drug-based score was developed by our group and externally validated for prognostic and predictive purposes in patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The model considers the use of three classes of drugs within a month before initiating ICI, assigning score 1 for each between proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic administration until a month before immunotherapy initiation and score 2 in case of corticosteroid intake. In the present analysis, the drug score was validated in a prospective population of 305 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in the first-line setting. The value of the model in predicting overall survival and progression-free survival was statistically significant and clinically meaningful, with an overall survival rate at 12 months of 73% vs. 44% (P<0.0001), and median progression-free survival of 11.6 (95% CI: 9.1-14.1) months versus 4.8 (95% CI: 2.7-7.0) months (P=0.002), respectively, for patients belonging to the favorable group (score 0-1) versus the unfavorable (score 2-4). Further development will be represented by the gut microbiome analysis according to the drug-based model classification and to the outcome of patients to ICI therapy to demonstrate the link between drug exposure and immune sensitivity., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common solid tumor in young adults. 95% of patients are cured, but they may experience late adverse effects (anxiety, fear of recurrence, and sexual dysfunction) with an impact on daily life. We attempted to assess Patient Reported Outcomes (PROMs), long-term sexual disorders, and difficulties in achieving fatherhood in a cohort of TC survivors, as well as their possible correlation with previous cancer treatments., Methods: Different questionnaires, such as the Impact of Cancer (IOC) and the Body Image Scale (BIS), were used to investigate the distinct areas of the PROMs. International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF15) and the Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT) focused on sexuality and fertility. Patients were prospectively recruited between February 2020 and February 2022., Results: 144 participants completed all the questionnaires. Results showed a good QoL, a moderate fear of TC recurrence, a good satisfaction with their personal body image, low incidence of premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction. 19.5% of patients who had a testicular implant reported general dissatisfaction. Only 18% of patients had unsuccessfully attempted fatherhood, while the majority had not yet tried, and 23.4% succeeded. A low percentage of patients used procedures assisted reproduction and adoption., Conclusion: This trial supports the use of various questionnaires as a multifactorial tool capable of investigating all the aspects of long-term cancer survivorship. The assessment of medical and psychosocial sequelae is an essential part of patient care and is important for the development of a comprehensive care plan for TC survivors., Competing Interests: Dr Francesco Pierantoni reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, travel fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2022 Bimbatti et al.)

Background: The RCC treatment landscape has evolved dramatically over the past decade. The purpose of this study is to present a real-world data estimation of RCC's cost-of-illness for this tumour's clinical pathway., Methods: This investigation is a population-based cohort study using real-world data, which considers all RCC incident cases diagnosed in Local Unit 6 of the Province of Padua in 2016 and 2017 as registered by the Veneto Cancer Registry. Data on drug prescriptions, the use of medical devices, hospital admissions, and visits to outpatient clinics and emergency departments were collected by means of administrative databases. We evaluated the costs of all healthcare procedures performed in the 2 years of follow-up post-RCC diagnosis. The overall and annual average real-world costs per patient, both as a whole and by single item, were calculated and stratified by stage of disease at diagnosis., Results: The analysis involved a population of 148 patients with a median age of 65.8 years, 66.22% of whom were male. Two years after diagnosis, the average total costs amounted to €21,429 per patient. There is a steady increment in costs with increasing stage at diagnosis, with a total amount of €41,494 spent 2 years after diagnosis for stage IV patients, which is 2.44 times higher than the expenditure for stage I patients (€17,037). In the first year, hospitalization appeared to be the most expensive item for both early and advanced disease. In the second year, however, outpatient procedures were the main cost driver in the earlier stages, whereas anticancer drugs accounted for the highest costs in the advanced stages., Conclusions: This observational study provides real-world and valuable estimates of RCC's cost-of-illness, which could enable policymakers to construct dynamic economic cost-effectiveness evaluation models based on real world costs' evaluation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors for prostate cancer (PC) impose the burden of self-administration on older patients overwhelmed by the requirement of many other concomitant medications., Patients and Methods: This study evaluated the proportion of non-adherence in a 12-month follow-up period and the first 3 months to abiraterone (ABI) or enzalutamide (ENZ). In a prospective multicenter observational cohort study, patients with metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) aged ≥70 years receiving ABI or ENZ pre- or post-docetaxel were enrolled. Treatment monitoring included pill counting, a self-assessment questionnaire, and clinical diaries at each clinical visit. Non-adherence rates were based on proportions of missed/prescribed pills ratios by pill counting., Results: Overall, 234 patients were recruited with median age of 78 years (range, 73-82); 86 (37%) were treated with ABI, and 148 (63%) with ENZ. The median follow-up for adherence was seven monthly cycles (IQR: 4-12). The two cohorts were well balanced for baseline characteristics. The percentage of non-adherence by pill counting was slightly higher for ABI than ENZ (5.2% vs. 4.2%, P < .001). By self-reporting, patients on ENZ tended to report more frequently than those with ABI forgetfulness as the reason for missing events (42% vs. 17%, P < .001). A lower Geriatric G8 score correlated with non-adherence (P = .004). Overall survival (OS) was 48.8 months. Patients on ABI had radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) of 28.4 [24.2-32.5], while for ENZ patients, we reported a median rPFS of 23.1 [18.2-28.1] months., Conclusion: Physicians tend to treat older mCRPC patients with ENZ. Non-adherence rate is relatively low overall but can be higher with ABI than with ENZ and correlates with the Geriatric G8 score. Forgetfulness is a potential barrier for ENZ., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The Meet-URO score allowed a more accurate prognostication than the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) for patients with pre-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by adding the pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and presence of bone metastases., Materials and Methods: A post hoc analysis was carried out to validate the Meet-URO score on the overall survival (OS) of patients with IMDC intermediate-poor-risk mRCC treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab within the prospective Italian Expanded Access Programme (EAP). We additionally considered progression-free survival (PFS) and disease response rates. Harrell's c-index was calculated to compare the accuracy of survival prediction., Results: Overall the EAP included 306 patients, with a median follow-up of 12.2 months, median OS was not reached, 1-year OS was 66.8% and median PFS was 7.9 months. By univariable analysis, both the IMDC score and the two additional variables of the Meet-URO score were associated with either OS or PFS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The four Meet-URO risk groups (G) had 1-year OS of 92%, 72%, 50% and 21% for G2 (29.1% of patients), G3 (28.8%), G4 (33.0%) and G5 (9.1%), respectively. OS was significantly shorter in each consecutive G (P = 0.001 for G3, P < 0.001 for both G4 and G5 compared to G2). Similarly, Meet-URO Gs 2-5 showed decreasing median PFS and response rates. The Meet-URO score showed the highest c-index for both OS (0.73) and PFS (0.67). Limitations include the post hoc nature of this analysis and the lack of a comparative arm to assess predictive value., Conclusion: The Meet-URO score appeared to show better prognostic classification than the IMDC alone in patients with mRCC at IMDC intermediate-poor risk treated with first-line nivolumab and ipilimumab., Competing Interests: Disclosure SER received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and travel accommodation from Amgen, GSK, BMS, MSD. SB received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis. GLB reported personal fees from Astellas and AstraZeneca. MM reports personal fees from BMS, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Astellas, Janssen, MSD. UDG served as an advisory/board member of Astellas, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, received research grant/funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi and travel/accommodations/expenses from BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, Pfizer. GP served as a consultant and/or a speaker for Bayer, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen, Ipsen, Boehringer. FC has received consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology and Pfizer. GC works as responsible for research and development at Kerubin Digital Therapeutic. CP served as a consultant and/or a speaker for Ipsen, BMS, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, EUSA and General Electrics, as an expert testimony for both Pfizer and EUSA and is a protocol steering committee member for BMS, EUSA and Eisai. PR served as an advisory board for MSD and Astra Zeneca Italy. GF served as an advisory board member for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, Merck and received travel accommodation from Astellas, Janssen, Bayer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to examine the physical and mental Quality of Life (QoL) trajectories in prostate cancer (PCa) patients participating in the Pros-IT CNR study. QoL was assessed using the Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of Short-Form Health Survey upon diagnosis and two years later. Growth mixture models were applied on 1158 patients and 3 trajectories over time were identified for MCS: 75% of patients had constantly high scores, 13% had permanently low scores and 12% starting with low scores had a recovery; the predictors that differentiated the trajectories were age, comorbidities, a family history of PCa, and the bowel, urinary and sexual functional scores at diagnosis. In the physical domain, 2 trajectories were defined: 85% of patients had constantly high scores, while 15% started with low scores and had a further slight decrease. Two years after diagnosis, the psychological and physical status was moderately compromised in more than 10% of PCa patients. For mental health, the trajectory analysis suggested that following the compromised patients at diagnosis until treatment could allow identification of those more vulnerable, for which a level 2 intervention with support from a non-oncology team supervised by a clinical psychologist could be of help.

Introduction: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) have been increasingly offered to older patients with prostate cancer (PC). However, prognostic factors relevant to their outcome with ARPIs are still little investigated. Methods and Materials: The Meet-URO network ADHERE was a prospective multicentre observational cohort study evaluating and monitoring adherence to ARPIs metastatic castrate-resistant PC (mCRPC) patients aged ≥70. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses for radiographic progression-free (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were performed. Unsupervised median values and literature-based thresholds where available were used as cut-offs for quantitative variables. Results: Overall, 234 patients were enrolled with a median age of 78 years (73-82); 86 were treated with abiraterone (ABI) and 148 with enzalutamide (ENZ). With a median follow-up of 15.4 months (mo.), the median rPFS was 26.0 mo. (95% CI, 22.8-29.3) and OS 48.8 mo. (95% CI, 36.8-60.8). At the MVA, independent prognostic factors for both worse rPFS and OS were Geriatric G8 assessment ≤ 14 ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and PSA decline ≥50% ( p < 0.001 for both); time to castration resistance ≥ 31 mo. and setting of treatment (i.e., post-ABI/ENZ) for rPFS only ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively); age ≥78 years for OS only ( p = 0.008). Conclusions: Baseline G8 screening is recommended for mCRPC patients aged ≥70 to optimise ARPIs in vulnerable individuals, including early introduction of palliative care.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations have become the first-line standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but their activity on the primary tumor is still one of the most debated issues., Patients and Methods: The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the primary tumor's response to first-line therapy with cabozantinib or nivolumab+ipilimumab, and its correlation with metastatic response and with patient outcomes., Results: Sixty-seven mRCC patients met the criteria for inclusion in the final analysis (30 treated with cabozantinib and 37 with nivolumab+ipilimumab). In the overall population, the primary tumor control rate (PTCR) was 90.9%; no complete responses (CR) were achieved. A significant correlation was found between the baseline size of the primary tumor's longest diameter and its response according to RECIST v1.1 criteria at the time of the second radiological assessment (rs = -0.351; P = .049). Moreover, a significant correlation between the type of primary tumor response and the response of the metastases was observed in the overall population (rs = 0.50; two-sided P < 0.001). There was also a significant correlation between primary tumor response and 1-year survival rate (P = .002), even when adjusted for the IMDC prognostic group and type of therapy (HR = 8.70; 95%CI, 2.52-30.05; P = .001)., Conclusion: Extension of the primary tumor did not affect patient survival, while its response was significantly related to the response on metastatic disease and survival. No significant differences in terms of primary tumor shrinkage were identified between treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab or cabozantinib in this cohort., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. RI served as consultant for Astellas, BMS, Ipsen; Janssen, Merk, MSD, Novartis; Pfizer; Sanofi and received research grant from Pfizer. SS served as consultant for Astellas, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme. EV served as consultant for Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer. Astellas, Novartis. CC served as consultant for Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Janssen. SB served as consultant for Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Roche, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Bayer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Merck, AstraZeneca. Travel accommodation from Pfizer, BMS, Roche, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, AstraZeneca. UDG served as consultant for Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Ipsen, Janssen and Pfizer; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche and Sanofi (Inst). UB served as consultant for Advisory board BMS, MSD, Janssen. He received speaker's fees BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Astellas. GT served as consultant for BMS and MSD. GP served as consultant for Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi. CC, MM. AF, LG, FM, AC, MGM, DB, FMD, MD, FP, FR declared not conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), some of which may achieve long-term responses. Herein, we report clinical and pathological characteristics of patients who achieved long-term responses during first-line TKI treatment. Methods: Patients receiving TKI as first-line therapy from January 2010 to December 2017 in seven Italian Oncology Centers were reviewed. Sixty-six patients were considered as long-term responders, as they remained progression-free for 36 months or more during TKI treatment. A logistic regression model was performed to evaluate the effect of each clinical-pathological variable on the probability of responding long-term. Results: A total of 335 patients with a median age of 66 years were included in the analysis. The median PFS and overall survival among the long-term responders was 70 and 106 months, respectively. At a landmark PFS analysis performed 36 months after the start of treatment, the median PFS was 34 months. Multivariate analysis from all patients identified previous nephrectomy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) < 1, and lack of liver metastasis as favorable prognostic factors for long-term response. Female gender and lack of liver metastasis positively correlated with long-term responses in favorable-risk-score population, as well as ECOG PS < 1 in intermediate-poor risk score population. Patients Summary: Previous surgery, clinical condition, and lack of liver metastasis may predict long-term responses to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Conclusions: TKIs can lead to a long-term response in a subset of patients with metastatic RCC. Previous nephrectomy, optimal performance status (ECOG PS = 0), and lack of liver metastasis may predict long-term responses.

Background: Nephrectomy is considered the backbone of managing patients with localized and selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic role of nephrectomy has been widely investigated with cytokines and targeted therapy, but it is still unclear in the immunotherapy era., Methods: We investigated the Meet-URO-15 study dataset of 571 pretreated mRCC patients receiving nivolumab as second or further lines about the prognostic role of the previous nephrectomy (received in either the localized or metastatic setting) in the overall population and according to the Meet-URO score groups., Results: Patients who underwent nephrectomy showed a significantly reduced risk of death (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32-0.60, p < 0.001) with a longer median overall survival (OS) (35.9 months vs 12.1 months), 1-year OS of 71.6% vs 50.5% and 2-years OS of 56.5% vs 22.0% compared to those who did not. No significant interaction between nephrectomy and the overall five Meet-URO score risk groups was observed (p = 0.17). It was statistically significant when merging group 1 with 2 and 3 and group 4 with 5 (p = 0.038) and associated with a longer OS for the first three prognostic groups (p < 0.001), but not for groups 4 and 5 (p = 0.54)., Conclusions: Our study suggests an overall positive impact of the previous nephrectomy on the outcome of pretreated mRCC patients receiving immunotherapy. The clinical relevance of cytoreductive nephrectomy, optimal timing and patient selection deserves further investigation, especially for patients with Meet-URO scores of 1 to 3, who are the once deriving benefit in our analyses. However, that benefit is not evident for IMDC poor-risk patients (including the Meet-URO score groups 4 and 5) and a subgroup of IMDC intermediate-risk patients defined as group 4 by the Meet-URO score., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Treatment choice for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients is still based on baseline clinical and laboratory factors., Methods: By a pre-specified analysis of the Meet-URO 15 multicentric retrospective study enrolling 571 pretreated mRCC patients receiving nivolumab, baseline and early dynamic variations (Δ) of neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet absolute cell counts (ACC) and their inflammatory ratios (IR) were evaluated alongside their association with the best disease response and overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Multivariable analyses on OS and PFS between baseline and Δ ACC and IR values were investigated with receiving operating curves-based cut-offs., Results: The analysis included 422 mRCC patients. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increased over time due to consistent neutrophil increase (p < 0.001). Higher baseline platelets (p = 0.044) and lower lymphocytes (p = 0.018), increasing neutrophil Δ (p for time-group interaction <0.001), higher baseline IR values (NLR: p = 0.012, SII: p = 0.003, PLR: p = 0.003), increasing NLR and systemic immune-inflammatory index (SII) (i.e., NLR x platelets) Δ (p for interaction time-group = 0.0053 and 0.0435, respectively) were associated with disease progression. OS and PFS were significantly shorter in patients with baseline lower lymphocytes (p < 0.001 for both) and higher platelets (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively) alongside early neutrophils Δ (p = 0.046 and p = 0.033, respectively). Early neutrophils and NLR Δ were independent prognostic factors for both OS (p = 0.014 and p = 0.011, respectively) and PFS (p = 0.023 and p = 0.001, respectively), alongside baseline NLR (p < 0.001 for both) and other known prognostic variables., Conclusions: Early neutrophils and NLR Δ may represent new dynamic prognostic factors with clinical utility for on-treatment decisions., Competing Interests: SR received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and travel accommodation from Amgen, GSK, BMS, and MSD. GB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and non-financial support from BMS, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Pierre Fabre, and IPSEN. GF services advisory boards for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, and Merck and received travel accommodation from Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer. SB received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, and Novartis. DS received honoraria for the advisory board from Amgen, Jansen, MSD, BMS, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Novartis, and Merck. UG serves as advisory/board member of Astellas, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received research grant/funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi and travel/accommodations/expenses from BMS, IPSEN, Janssen, and Pfizer. PZ services advisory boards/consulting for Pfizer, BMS, MSD, IPSEN, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, and Astellas. GPro received a personal fee for consulting or advisory role AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer and a research grant from Astellas, Ipsen, Novartis. MSo received honoraria as consultant or advisory role from Janssen; grants for participation at scientific events from Ipsen, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Roche, and Novartis; and research funding from Roche, Merck, Janssen. ACo receives speaker fees/grant consultancies from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, and Astellas. FMo received grants from MSD and Pfizer. GR received honoraria for advisory boards or invited speaker fees from BMS, Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Rebuzzi, Signori, Stellato, Santini, Maruzzo, De Giorgi, Pedrazzoli, Galli, Zucali, Fantinel, Carella, Procopio, Milella, Boccardo, Fratino, Sabbatini, Ricotta, Panni, Massari, Sorarù, Santoni, Cortellini, Prati, Soto Parra, Atzori, Di Napoli, Caffo, Messina, Morelli, Prati, Nolè, Vignani, Cavo, Roviello, Llaja Obispo, Porta, Buti, Fornarini and Banna.)

Background: Although serum sodium concentration, particularly hyponatremia, has been shown to be a prognostic marker of survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), the impact of normal sodium levels has not been investigated. Herein, we investigate the influence of normonatremia in mRCC patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)., Materials and Methods: For this retrospective study, the clinical and biochemical data of patients treated with first-line TKIs for mRCC were available from seven Italian cancer centers. We collected natremia levels at baseline and first evaluation after treatment excluding patients with sodium levels outside the normal range (<135 or >145 mEq/L). The remaining patients were subdivided into two groups according to the median sodium value: natremia patients with <140 mEq/L ( n  = 132) and baseline natremia patients with ≥140 mEq/L ( n  = 185). Subsequently, we analyzed the impact of sodium levels on response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were estimated through the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences between groups were examined by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were applied to evaluate the prognostic factors for PFS and OS., Results: Of the 368 patients, 317 were included in the analysis, 73.1% were men, and the median age was 67 years (range 36-89). When comparing patients with baseline natremia ≥140 mEq/L ( n  = 185) to patients with natremia <140 mEq/L ( n  = 132), the PFS was 15 vs. 10 months ( p  < 0.01) and the OS was 63 vs. 36 months, respectively ( p  = 0.02). On the first evaluation, patients with serum sodium ≥140 mEq/L had longer PFS (15 vs. 10 months, p  < 0.01) and OS (70 vs. 32 months, p  < 0.01) than patients with levels <140 mEq/L. Moreover, clinical outcomes showed a significant improvement in patients with natremia ≥140 mEq/L compared with patients with levels <140 mEq/L both at baseline and first evaluation: PFS was 19 vs. 11 months ( p  < 0.01) and OS was 70 vs. 36 months ( p  < 0.01), respectively., Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of normonatremia in mRCC. We found that serum sodium levels <140 mEq/L at baseline and first assessment are independently associated with worse PFS and OS in mRCC patients treated with TKIs in the first-line setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Roviello, Catalano, De Giorgi, Maruzzo, Buti, Gambale, Procopio, Ottanelli, Caliman, Isella, Sepe, Brighi, Santoni, Galli, Conca, Doni and Antonuzzo.)

Introduction: Immunotherapy with nivolumab (a monoclonal antibody that targets the programmed cell death protein 1, PD1) has become the standard treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after progression to single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. However, the optimal duration of immunotherapy in this setting has not yet been established., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated with nivolumab at our institution from January 2014 to December 2021 and identified those who discontinued treatment for reasons other than disease progression (PD). We then associated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival following treatment cessation with baseline clinical data., Results: Fourteen patients were found to have discontinued treatment. Four patients (28.6%) ceased treatment due to G3/G4 toxicities, whereas the remaining ten (71.4%) opted to discontinue treatment in agreement with their referring clinicians. The median duration of the initial treatment with nivolumab was 21.7 months (7.5-37.3); during treatment, two patients (14.3%) achieved stable disease as the best response, and the remaining twelve (85.7%) a partial response. At a median follow-up time of 24.2 months after treatment discontinuation, 7 patients (50%) were still progression-free. The median PFS from the date of discontinuation was 19.8 months (15.2 - not reached); a radiological objective response according to RECIST and treatment duration of more than 12 months were associated with a longer PFS. Three patients were re-treated with Nivolumab after disease progression, all of whom achieved subsequent radiological stability., Conclusion: In our experience, the majority of patients who discontinued treatment in the absence of PD were still progression-free more than 18 months after discontinuation. Patients whose initial treatment duration was less than 12 months or who did not achieve a radiological objective response had a greater risk of progression. Immunotherapy rechallenge is safe and seems capable of achieving disease control., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Bimbatti, Dionese, Lai, Cavasin, Basso, Mattana, Pierantoni, Zagonel and Maruzzo.)

Background: Second- or third-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have dramatically changed in the last few years. There are no criteria for the choice between nivolumab and cabozantinib, which both demonstrated overall survival (OS) gain in pivotal trials., Objective: We conducted an analysis of oncological outcomes in patients treated in the Veneto Region (Italy), studying different sequences of TKI-nivolumab-cabozantinib or TKI-cabozantinib-nivolumab in a publicly funded healthcare system., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, real-world analysis of all consecutive patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in 2017-2018 at 19 Oncology Units in the Veneto Region., Results: We identified 170 patients, 73 % males, median age 68.4 years. All patients started second-line treatment, 59 % received a third-line therapy. Patients with NLR > 3 had a shorter OS (p < 0.0001). In the second-line treatment, nivolumab was administered to 108 patients (63 %), cabozantinib to 29 (17 %); in the third-line treatment nivolumab was administered to 42 patients (25 %), cabozantinib to 49 (29 %). Median OS and PFS in second line treatment were 28.4 and 6.6 months for nivolumab, 16.8 and 6.6 months for cabozantinib. Median OS and PFS in third-line treatment were 27 and 5.2 months for nivolumab, 16.6 and 7.5 months for cabozantinib. Median OS for nivolumab>cabozantinib sequence versus cabozantinib > nivolumab was 28.8 versus 19.9 months (p = 0.2); median PFS for both the sequences were similar at 5.7 months. A cost effectiveness per month of survival of the two sequences analysis was performed: the cost per month for the nivolumab > cabozantinib sequence was 1738.60whereas the cost for the other one was €1624.80., Conclusions: In our real-world cohort, most patients received nivolumab as second-line treatment. Outcomes of single drugs are superimposable with those in the published literature. Both the sequences of nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to be viable, effective strategies from an OS and cost-effective perspective., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) is usually categorized as high- or low-volume disease. This is relevant because low- and high-volume metastatic disease are associated with different outcomes, and thus management of the two forms should differ. Although some definitions have been reported, the concept of oligometastatic disease is not so clearly defined, giving rise to further variability in the choice of treatment, mainly between systemic agents and radiotherapy, especially in the era of metastasis-directed therapy. With the aim of providing clinicians with guidance on best practice, a group of medical and radiation oncologists, experts in prostate cancer, used the round robin method to generate a series of consensus statements on management of low-volume mHSPC. Consensus was obtained on three major areas of controversy: (1) with regard to clinical definitions of mHSPC, it was held that oligometastatic and low-volume disease refer to different concepts and should not be used interchangeably; (2) regarding therapy of de novo low-volume metastatic disease, androgen deprivation therapy alone can be considered undertreatment, and all patients should be evaluated for systemic treatment combinations; local therapy should not be denied in patients with mHSPC, regardless of the intensity of systemic therapy, and metastasis-directed therapy can be proposed in selected cases; (3) with regard to treatment of metachronous metastatic disease, patients should be evaluated for systemic treatment combinations. Metastasis-directed therapy can be proposed to delay systemic treatment in selected cases, especially if prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography staging has been performed and when indolent disease occurs. It is hoped that clinicians treating patients with mHSPC in daily practice will find this expert opinion of value.

Benefits of early palliative care referral in oncology are well-validated. At the Veneto Institute of Oncology-IRCCS, a simultaneous-care outpatient clinic (SCOC) has been active since 2014, where patients with advanced cancer are evaluated by an oncologist together with a palliative care team. We prospectively assessed SCOC patients’ characteristics and SCOC outcomes through internal procedure indicators. Data were retrieved from the SCOC prospectively maintained database. There were 753 eligible patients. The median age was 68 years; primary tumor sites were gastrointestinal (75.2%), genitourinary (15.0%) and other sites (9.8%). Predominant symptoms were psychological issues (69.4%), appetite loss (67.5%) and pain (65.9%). Dyspnea was reported in 53 patients (7%) in the referral form, while it was detected in 226 patients (34.2%) during SCOC visits (p < 0.0001). Median survival of patients after the SCOC visit was 7.3 months. Survival estimates by the referring oncologist were significantly different from the actual survival. Psychological intervention was deemed necessary and undertaken in 34.6% of patients, and nutritional support was undertaken in 37.9% of patients. Activation of palliative care services was prompted for 77.7% of patients. Out of 357 patients whose place of death is known, 69.2% died at home, in hospice or residential care. With regard to indicators’ assessment, the threshold was reached for 9 out of 11 parameters (81.8%) requested by the procedure. This study confirmed the importance of close collaboration between oncologists and palliative care teams in responding properly to cancer patients’ needs. The introduction of a procedure with indicators allowed punctual assessment of a team’s performance.

Introduction: We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and Sars-Cov-2 infection from the Veneto Oncology Network registry across two pandemic time periods., Materials and Methods: 761 patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection were included., Results: 198 patients were diagnosed during the first pandemic time period (TP1; February 2020 September 2020), 494 during TP2 before the vaccination campaign (TP2/pre-vaccination; September 2020-21 February 2021) and 69 in TP2/post-vaccination (22 February 2021-15 May 2021). TP2 vs TP1 patients were younger (p = 0.004), showed more frequently a good performance status (p < 0.001) and <2 comorbidities (p = 0.002), were more likely to be on active anticancer therapy (p = 0.006). Significantly fewer patients in TP2 (3-4%) vs TP1 (22%) had an in-hospital potential source of infection (p < 0.001). TP2 patients were more frequently asymptomatic (p = 0.003). Significantly fewer patients from TP2 were hospitalized (p < 0.001) or admitted to intensive care unit (p = 0.006). All-cause mortality decreased from 30.3% in TP1, to 8.9% and 8.7% in the two TP2 periods (p < 0.001), reflected by a significant reduction in Sars-Cov-2-related mortality (15.2%, 7.5% and 5.8% in the three consecutive time periods, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Differences in clinical characteristics and features of Sars-Cov-2 infection between TP1 and TP2 reflect the effects of protective measures and increased testing capacity. The lower mortality in TP2 is in line with a less frail population. However, the vast majority of death events in TP2 were related to COVID-19, reinforcing the priority to protect cancer patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to overcome intratumoral heterogeneity in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (clearRCC). One hundred cases of clearRCC were sampled. First, usual standard sampling was applied (1 block/cm of tumor); second, the whole tumor was sampled, and 0.6 mm cores were taken from each block to construct a tissue microarray; third, the residual tissue, mapped by taking pieces 0.5 × 0.5 cm, reconstructed the entire tumor mass. Precisely, six randomly derived pieces of tissues were placed in each cassette, with the number of cassettes being based on the diameter of the tumor (called multisite 3D fusion). Angiogenic and immune markers were tested. Routine 5231 tissue blocks were obtained. Multisite 3D fusion sections showed pattern A, homogeneous high vascular density (10%), pattern B, homogeneous low vascular density (8%) and pattern C, heterogeneous angiogenic signatures (82%). PD-L1 expression was seen as diffuse (7%), low (33%) and absent (60%). Tumor-infiltrating CD8 scored high in 25% (pattern hot), low in 65% (pattern weak) and zero in 10% of cases (pattern desert). Grading was upgraded in 26% of cases (G3-G4), necrosis and sarcomatoid/rhabdoid characters were observed in, respectively, 11 and 7% of cases after 3D fusion ( p = 0.03). CD8 and PD-L1 immune expressions were higher in the undifferentiated G4/rhabdoid/sarcomatoid clearRCC subtypes ( p = 0.03). Again, 22% of cases were set to intermediate to high risk of clinical recurrence due to new morphological findings of all aggressive G4, sarcomatoid/rhabdoid features by using 3D fusion compared to standard methods ( p = 0.04). In conclusion, we propose an easy-to-apply multisite 3D fusion sampling that negates bias due to tumor heterogeneity.

Background: Considerable numbers of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) develop bone metastases (BoM). Their impact on the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not yet investigated., Methods: Between July 2014 and August 2020 data on pts treated with single-agent ICIs after failure of at least 1 previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease, were retrospectively collected across 14 Italian centers. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was performed evaluating potential prognostic factors for OS and PFS. Each factor was evaluated in univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA)., Results: A total of 208 evaluable patients treated with ICIs were identified, including 122 (59%) without BoM (BoM-) and 86 (41%) with bone metastases (BoM+). After a median follow-up of 22.3 months, BoM+ patients showed shorter OS (median 3.9 vs 7.8 months, HR 1.59 [95%CI, 1.15-2.20], P = .005) and shorter PFS (median 2.0 vs 2.6 months, HR 1.76 [95%CI, 1.31-2.37], P < .001). Probability of being alive was 62% vs 40% after 6 months, 38% vs 23% after 1 year and 24% vs 13% after 2 years, in BoM- and BoM+ respectively. Within each Bellmunt score, OS and PFS of BoM+ patients were shorter. Both presence of BoM and higher Bellmunt risk score were significantly associated with shorter OS and PFS in UVA and MVA., Conclusion: Patients treated with single-agent ICIs for BoM+ mUC have a dismal prognosis compared to BoM-. Further research is needed to understand the mechanism behind these outcomes., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The addition of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and bone metastases to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score (by the Meet-URO score) has been shown to better stratify pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. This study aimed to validate the Meet-URO score in patients receiving cabozantinib to assess its predictivity and prognostic role., Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated mRCC patients receiving ⩾second-line cabozantinib. NLR, IMDC score and bone metastases were assessed before the start of cabozantinib. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Harrell's c -index was calculated to compare the accuracy of the prediction of the two scores., Results: Overall, 174 mRCC patients received cabozantinib as second and third line (51.7% and 48.3%, respectively) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months. A shorter median overall survival (mOS) was observed for the IMDC poor-risk group, NLR ⩾3.2 and the presence of bone metastases, while the IMDC intermediate-risk group had a similar mOS to the favourable-risk one. Applying the Meet-URO score, three risk groups were identified: group 1 (55.2% of patients) with a score of 0-3, group 2 (38.5%) with a score of 4-8 and group 3 (6.3%) with a score of 9. Compared to group 1 (mOS: 39.4 months), a statistically significant worse mOS was observed in group 2 (11.2 months) and group 3 (3.2 months) patients, respectively. The Meet-URO c -index score was 0.640, showing a higher discriminative ability than the IMDC score ( c -index: 0.568)., Conclusion: This analysis showed that the Meet-URO score provides a more accurate prognostic stratification than the IMDC score in mRCC patients treated with ⩾second-line cabozantinib besides nivolumab. Moreover, it is an easy-to-use tool with no additional costs for clinical practice (web-calculator is available at: https://proviso.shinyapps.io/Meet-URO15&#95;score/). Future investigations will include the application of the Meet-URO score to the first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: S.E.R. received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Astellas. U.D.G. serves as advisory/board member of Astellas, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi; received research grant/funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche and Sanofi; and received travel/accommodations/expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen and Pfizer. G.P. serves as advisory boards/consulting for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, IPSEN, Merk, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. G.L.B. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Pierre Fabre and IPSEN, outside the submitted work. S.B. received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre and Novartis. G.F. serves as advisory boards for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD and Merck and received travel accommodation from Astellas, Janssen and Bayer. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Purpose: The SARS-CoV-2 spread has impacted Healthcare systems. COVID-19 pandemic has had consequences for patients with cancer, being associated with delays in diagnosis, in treatment And follow-up care, increase in overall infection rates and higher mortality. A survey on COVID-19 and a vaccination-questionnaire were developed at different times of the outbreak, to evaluate cancer patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) on the policies implemented to reduce the infection from SARS-CoV-2 and on the timing and methods of COVID-19 vaccination., Patients and Methods: The survey was distributed to all patients accessing the Institute during the "first-wave" Of the pandemic, evaluating patients' concerns about the pandemic, the pandemics' consequences on their cancer care, and their perception Of the measures adopted to limit the infection spread. The vaccination-questionnaire was proposed to 10% of the first 5297 cancer patients vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTechCOVID-19 vaccine. This questionnaire aimed at assessing the degree Of satisfaction with the Institutional vaccination campaign and vaccination-related adverse events., Results: From May 18th 2020 to June 15th 2020 the survey was completed by 3238 patients. Most of the responders expressed concern on the pandemic yet acknowledging their oncological disease as a priority. Measures implemented were appreciated by patients. Telemedicine was positively evaluated and the absence of the caregiver during the visit did not determine discomfort for two thirds of patients. From March 6th 2021 to May 8th 2021 the vaccination-questionnaire was completed by 357 patients. The 98.8% were satisfied with the vaccination campaign. No serious vaccination-correlated adverse events were reported. No patient had to delay/discontinue chemotherapy due to vaccination., Conclusion: PREMs during COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccination can provide important information to help reorganization of the health care systems for cancer care. Patients' feedback on the organizational changes implemented in the emergency period are essential for healthcare improvement and to help informed choices that are consistent with patients' needs., Competing Interests: Dr Sara Lonardi reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, Merck Serono Roche, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Bayer, and personal fees from Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Servier, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, and GSK, outside the submitted work. Dr Antonella Brunello reports personal fees and travel expenses from and advisory board for Pharmamar, and personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest for this work., (© 2022 Caccese et al.)

Background: Few data are available regarding the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients. Methods: To provide a real-world experience with anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy in UTUC patients, we involved an Italian network in a multicenter retrospective analysis. Results: A total of 78 UTUC patients were enrolled. The median follow-up was 25.1 months. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 2.2 months (95% CI 1.8-2.6), and the median OS (mOS) was 6.0 months (95% CI 3.6-8.4). The Sonpavde score (including performance status > 0, hemoglobin < 10 g/dl, liver metastases, time from prior chemotherapy ≥ 3 months) split the patients into three groups (0 vs 1 vs 2-4 factors), efficiently predicting the OS and PFS outcome at the multivariate analyses (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The prognosis of unselected UTUC patients is still unsatisfactory. The Sonpavde score was validated for the first time in an UTUC population, as a useful tool for the treatment decision-making process.

Background: This study analyzes patient health-related quality of life (QoL) 24-month after prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis within the PROState cancer monitoring in ITaly from the National Research Council (Pros-IT CNR) study., Methods: Pros-IT CNR is an ongoing, longitudinal and observational study, considering a convenience sample of patients enrolled at PCa diagnosis and followed at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months from the diagnosis. Patients were grouped according to the treatment received: nerve sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP), non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy (NNSRP), radiotherapy (RT), RT plus androgen deprivation (RT plus ADT) and active surveillance (AS). QoL was measured through the Italian versions of SF-12 and UCLA-PCI questionnaires at diagnosis and at 6-12 and 24-month. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as half a standard deviation of the baseline domain., Results: Overall, 1537 patients were included in the study. The decline in urinary function exceeded the MCID at each timepoint only in the NSRP and NNSRP groups (at 24 months -14.7, P<0.001 and -19.7, P<0.001, respectively). The decline in bowel function exceeded the MCID only in the RT (-9.1, P=0.02) and RT plus ADT groups at 12 months (-10.3, P=0.001); after 24 months, most patients seem to recover their bowel complaints. The decline in sexual function exceeded the MCID at each timepoint in the NNSRP, NSRP and RT plus ADT groups (at 6 months -28.7, P<0.001, -37.8, P<0.001, -20.4, P<0.001, respectively)., Conclusions: Although all the treatments were relatively well-tolerated over the 24 month period following PCa diagnosis, each had a different impact on QoL.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to a significant change in the treatment of urological tumors where several agents are currently approved. Yet, most patients discontinue treatment due to disease progression or after the onset of severe immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). Following promising results in melanoma patients, retreatment with an ICI is receiving increasing attention as an attractive option for selected patients. We performed a literature review focusing on the feasibility, safety, timing and activity of ICI rechallenge in genitourinary cancers where very little information is available. We classified the different ICI retreatment strategies into three main clinical scenarios: retreatment after terminating a prior course of ICI while still on response; retreatment after interruption due to IRAEs; retreatment after progression while on ICI therapy. The pros and cons of these options in the field of urological tumors are then discussed, and critical suggestions proffered for the design of future clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outcomes of castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) have improved owing to new therapies and early treatment, previously reserved for castration-resistant disease (CRPC). Prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) remains the most used marker to follow-up patients under treatment, but only limited data are available about the prognostic role of its changes over time and the impact of response to subsequent therapies. This analysis aims to assess the prognostic role of the magnitude and velocity of PSA response in CSPC and describe how this may affect the outcome to subsequent treatment outcomes in CRPC., Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with de novo CSPC referring to six oncology centers in Italy. Clinical and pathological features were recorded. PSA response (PSA50), defined as a decrease > 50% compared to baseline, PSA velocity (PSAv), defined as any decrease in PSA levels over time and the deep and fast PSA response (4mPSA50), defined as the PSA response reached within the threshold of 4 months from the beginning of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have been evaluated for their impact on survival. Survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared across groups using the log-rank test. Cox proportional-hazard models, stratified according to baseline characteristics, were used to estimate hazard ratios for overall survival (OS)., Results: A totals of 94.4% of patients had PSA50, which was correlated to longer OS compared to patients without PSA50 (56.0 vs. 14.8 months; p<0.001). The median PSAv was 6.9 (ng/dl)/month, which was predictive for longer OS: Each decrease of 1 (ng/dl)/month was able to improve OS by 0.2% (HR=0.998, 95%CI=0.997-1.000; p=0.008). A total of 47.9% of patients reached 4mPSA50, with a median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) to ADT-based therapy of 101.0 and 23.4 months compared to 41.9 and 11.0 months for those who did not (p<0.001), respectively. The independent prognostic role of 4mPSA50 was retained even when evaluated in multivariable analysis adjusted for other baseline characteristics and early docetaxel for CSPC. In CRPC, 4mPSA50 evaluated during CSPC retains its prognostic role even if it does not predict a different outcome between patients treated with abiraterone/enzalutamide or taxanes., Conclusion: Achieving a deep and fast PSA response correlates with a better outcome in patients with de novo mCSPC, also positively influencing the prognosis of the subsequent first-line therapy for CRPC disease., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence for the choice of second line, standard vs high dose chemotherapy, (SDCT, HDCT) for patients with relapsed germ cell tumors (GCTs) comes mainly from retrospective studies., Material and Methods: relevant literature was reviewed, considering as endpoints both survival and long term quality of life (QoL). Patients with metastatic GCT progressing after first-line treatment at our Institution were retrospectively evaluated., Results: HDCT seems to achieve a higher rate of long-term remissions. QoL data for this group of patients are lacking. Our experience on 29 patients was in line with these results. Two-year OS for the 18 patients treated with one or two HDCT/PBSCT procedures was 47.5 %, while 2-year PFS was 44 %. For the 11 receiving SDCT 2-year OS was 36.4 %, and 2-year PFS was 32.7 %., Conclusions: HDCT/PBSCT confirmed to be effective in treating patients with relapsed GCT, but prospective studies are needed., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent the standard of care as first- or second-line treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and are known to affect gut microbiota, which is gaining interest in its association with outcomes for patients on ICIs., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of PPIs on outcomes in RCC patients receiving immunotherapy., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively collected data from patients with metastatic RCC who received the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for first-line treatment (Cohort 1) or single-agent nivolumab for second-line or third-line treatment (Cohort 2) from five international centers with expertise in the treatment of RCC. Data about clinicopathological characteristics, PPI use, and outcome on ICIs were collected. Endpoints of the study were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Two hundred and eighteen patients (71% male, median age 61 years) were included in the analysis, 62 in Cohort 1 (including 25 patients receiving PPIs) and 156 in Cohort 2 (including 88 patients receiving PPIs), and were followed up for a median of 42 months. In Cohort 1, no difference was observed in ORR (48% vs 57%; p = 0.203), PFS (12.2 vs 8.5 months; p = 0.928), or OS (not reached [NR] vs 27.3 months; p = 0.84). In Cohort 2, no difference was observed in ORR (32% vs 28%; p = 0.538), PFS (6.7 vs 9.0 months; p = 0.799), or OS (16.0 vs 26.0 months; p = 0.324)., Conclusions: In patients with RCC, concomitant PPI use did not seem to affect survival outcomes on ICIs, either as combination therapy or monotherapy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Thyroid hormone impairment, represented as an alteration in levels of thyroid hormones and a lower fT3/fT4 ratio, has been correlated with a worse prognosis for both cancer and non-cancer patients. The role of baseline thyroid function in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) however, has not been studied yet., Materials and Methods: We recorded clinical data, baseline biochemical results, and oncological outcomes from 10 Oncology Units in Italy. We stratified patients into three groups according to the fT3/fT4 ratio value and subsequently analyzed differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the three groups. We also performed univariate and multivariate analyses to find prognostic factors for PFS and OS., Results: We analyzed 134 patients treated with systemic treatment for mRCC. Median PFS in the low, intermediate, and high fT3/fT4 ratio group were 7.5, 12.1, and 21.7 months respectively (p<0.001); median OS in the three groups were 36.5, 48.6, and 70.5 months respectively (p =0.006). The low fT3/fT4 ratio maintained its prognostic role at the multivariate analysis independently from IMDC and other well-established prognostic factors. The development of iatrogenic hypothyroidism was not associated with a better outcome., Conclusion: We found that baseline thyroid hormone impairment, represented by a low fT3/fT4 ratio, is a strong prognostic factor in patients treated for mRCC in first line setting and is independent of other parameters currently used in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Maruzzo, Verzoni, Vitale, Dionese, Buti, Galli, Zivi, Watutantrige-Fernando, Zielli, Zanardi, Sabbatini, Basso, Zagonel and Procopio.)

Purpose of Review: Therapeutic alternatives to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are increasing, and combination therapies, including antiangiogenic agents and tyrosine kinase/mTOR/immune checkpoint inhibitors, are identified as the gold standard driven by the results of recent clinical studies. Nevertheless, the real-world RCC population is very heterogeneous, with categories of patients not represented in the enrolled trial population who may not benefit more from these treatments. The purpose of this expert review is to assess the rationale on which tyrosine kinase alone may still be a viable first-line treatment option for some subgroups of patients with mRCC., Recent Findings: The first-line treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy can still be considered an effective tool for addressing selected mRCCs, as highlighted by the successful outcome in a range of subjects such as favorable-risk patients, the ones suffering from autoimmune diseases, those with pancreatic or lung metastases, or previously undergoing organ transplantation and elderly subjects. Some selected categories of patients may still benefit from monotherapy with TKI, and smart sequential therapies can also be considered instead of a combination strategy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors can also act as immune modulator agents, boosting the immune response to facilitate and potentiate the therapeutic effectiveness of subsequent immunotherapy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background/aim: Distinguishing true oligometastatic disease from early polymetastatic disease is vital in patients with soft tissue sarcoma as contemporary treatment strategies differ significantly. Clinical factors such as tumour biology, organ involved, number of lesions, and patient fitness influence clinical decisions., Patients and Methods: A retrospective search of a prospective database identified patients with new distant relapse, treated between 2009 and 2012., Results: A total of 223 patients were included, and oligometastases were diagnosed in 81 (36%) patients, which were pulmonary in just over half of cases. These were treated with local therapy in 66 of 89 cases, and 7 patients received subsequent treatment for additional oligometastases. Metastasectomy was the most common treatment modality. A total of 16/66 patients (24%) underwent active surveillance for >6 months prior to local therapy., Conclusion: Patients with oligometastatic disease can experience durable disease control with timely multimodality treatment approaches for evolving metastatic disease, where disease biology allows., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) correlate with adverse prognosis in patients with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Little data are available for renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Materials and Methods: We designed a multicenter prospective observational study to assess the correlation between CTC counts and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic RCC treated with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor as a first-line regimen; overall survival (OS) and response were secondary objectives. CTC counts were enumerated by the CellSearch system at four time points: day 0 of treatment, day 28, day 56 and then at progression, or at 12 months in the absence of progression., Results: One hundred ninety-five eligible patients with a median age of 69 years were treated with sunitinib (77.5%) or pazopanib (21%). At baseline, 46.7% of patients had one or more CTCs per milliliter (range, 1 to 263). Thirty patients had at least three CTCs, with a median PFS of 5.8 versus 15 months in the remaining patients (p = .002; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99), independently of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-3.14). Patients with at least three CTCs had a shorter estimated OS of 13.8 months versus 52.8 months in those with fewer than three CTCs (p = .003; HR, 1.99; multivariate analysis HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95-2.93). Baseline CTC counts did not correlate with response; neither did having CTC sequencing counts greater than or equal to one, two, three, four, or five., Conclusion: We provide prospective evidence that the presence of three or more CTCs at baseline is associated with a significantly shorter PFS and OS in patients with metastatic RCC., Implications for Practice: This prospective study evaluated whether the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the peripheral blood correlates with activity of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study demonstrated that almost half of patients with metastatic RCC have at least one CTC in their blood and that those patients with at least three CTCs are at increased risk of early progressive disease and early death due to RCC. Studies incorporating CTC counts in the prognostic algorithms of metastatic RCC are warranted., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Pre-clinical data suggest that docetaxel and enzalutamide interfere with androgen receptor translocation and signalling. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of their concurrent administration in the first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase II trial, previously untreated mCRPC patients were randomised 1:1 to receive eight 21-d courses of docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 , oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily and oral enzalutamide 160 mg/d (arm DE), or the same treatment without enzalutamide (arm D). The primary end-point was the percentage of patients without investigator-assessed disease progression 6 months after the first docetaxel administration., Results: The 246 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel, prednisone and enzalutamide (n = 120) or docetaxel and prednisone (n = 126). The 6-month progression rate was 12.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.1-20.6) in arm DE and 27.8% (95% CI 22.8-39.4) in arm D (chi-squared test 10.01; P = 0.002). The most frequent grade III-IV adverse events were fatigue (12.5% in arm DE versus 5.6% in arm D), febrile neutropenia (9.3% versus 4.0%) and neutropenia (7.6% versus 5.6%)., Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and docetaxel appears to be more clinically beneficial than docetaxel alone in previously untreated mCRPC patients, although serious adverse events were more frequent. Our findings suggest that first-line treatment with this combination could lead to an additional clinical benefit when prompt and prolonged disease control is simultaneously required. Clearly, these results should be considered cautiously because of the study's phase II design and the absence of an overall survival benefit., Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT 2014-000175-43 - NCT02453009., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Orazio Caffo is an advisor to Janssen, MSD and Bayer, and a speaker for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Sanofi. Cinzia Ortega is an advisor to Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Novartis and MSD, and a speaker for MSD, BMS and Sanofi. Donatello Gasparro is a speaker for and an advisor to Sanofi and Astellas. Vittorina Zagonel is an advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai and Italfarmaco, and a speaker for Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Servier, AstraZeneca, MSD, Janssen and Ipsen. Roberto Iacovelli is an advisor to Pfizer, Ipsen, Janssen, Astellas, MSD and BMS. Ugo De Giorgi is a consultant of Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. Elena Verri is an advisor to Astellas, Bayer, Janssen and Sanofi. Sebastiano Buti is a speaker for and advisor to BMS, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis. Marco Maruzzo is an advisor to Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono and Ipsen. Giovanni Pappagallo is a counsellor and trainer for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Servier and Teva. Massimo Aglietta is an advisor to Bayer, BMS, Merck and Novartis, and has received travel support from BMS, Merck and Tesaro. Maurizio Nicodemo is a speaker for and an advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Molteni and Janssen. Roberto Sabbatini is an advisor to Janssen, and a speaker for Astellas, Janssen and Sanofi. Franco Morelli is a speaker for MSD and Pfizer. Francesco Carrozza is a speaker for Janssen. Camillo Porta is a consultant of and speaker for Angelini, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, EUSA, General Electric, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer; an expert witness for EUSA and Pfizer; a member of the Protocol Steering Committee of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai and EUSA and has received travel support from Roche. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to be declared, (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs) develop in 10-27% of patients treated with Immune-Oncology (IO) [Powles (Lancet 391:748-757, 2018); Galsky (Lancet 395:1547-1557, 2020); Haanen (Ann Oncol 28:119-142, 2017)]. The aim of our study was to evaluate efficacy and clinical outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who stopped Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) due to early Grade (G) 3-G4 irAEs., Methods: We retrospectively collected data from 204 mRCC patients treated with ICIs in 6 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro group, between February 2017 and January 2020. To properly weight the results, patients who did not report early G3-G4 toxicities have been included as control group. Primary endpoint was to evaluate 6 months Progression Free Survival (PFS) after early treatment interruption for Grade (G) 3-4 toxicities compared to the control group. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) in both groups. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 19.00, SPSS, Chicago)., Results: 18/204 (8.8%) patients had early treatment interruption for serious (G3-G4) irAEs. Early was defined as interruption of IO after only one or two administrations. Immune related nephritis and pancreatitis were the most common irAE that lead to treatment interruption. 6/18 patients received IO-IO combination whereas 12/18 patients antiPD1. In the study group, 12/18 (66.6%) were free from progression at 6 months since IO interruption, TTF was 1.6 months (95% CI 1.6-2.1), mPFS was 7.4 months (95% CI 3.16-11.6) and mOS was 15.5 months (5.1-25.8). In the control group 111/184 (60.3%) patients were free from progression at 6 months, TTF was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.5-5.6), mPFS was 4.6 months (95% CI 3.5-5.6) and mOS was 19.6 months (95% CI 15.1-24.0). In the overall population, mPFS was 5.0 months (95% CI 4.0-5.9) and mOS was 19.6 months (95% CI 15.1-24.0)., Conclusions: ICIs seem to maintain efficacy even after early interruption due to severe irAE., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Immune-Oncology (IO) improves Overall Survival (OS) in metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic impact of previous Cytoreductive Nephrectomy (CN) and radical nephrectomy (RN), with curative intent, in patients treated with IO is not well defined. The aim of our paper is to evaluate the impact of previous nephrectomy on outcome of mRCC patients treated with IO., Methods: 287 eligible patients were retrospectively collected from 16 Italian referral centers adhering to the MeetUro association. Patients treated with IO as second and third line were included, whereas patients treated with IO as first line were excluded. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were performed to compare Progression Free Survival (PFS) and OS between groups. In our analysis, both CN and RN were included. The association between nephrectomy and other variables was analyzed in univariate and multivariate setting using the Cox proportional hazard model., Results: 246/287 (85.7%) patients had nephrectomy before IO treatment. Median PFS in patients who underwent nephrectomy (246/287) was 4.8 months (95%CI 3.9-5.7) vs 3.7 months (95%CI 1.9-5.5) in patients who did not it (HR log rank 0.78; 95%CI 0.53 to 1.15; p = 0.186). Median OS in patients who had previous nephrectomy (246/287) was 20.9 months (95%CI 17.6-24.1) vs 13 months (95%CI 7.7-18.2) in patients who did not it (HR log rank 0.504; 95%CI 0.337 to 0.755; p = 0.001). In the multivariate model, nephrectomy showed a significant association with OS (HR log rank 0.638; 95%CI 0.416 to 0.980), whereas gland metastases were still associated with better outcome in terms of both OS (HR log rank 0.487; 95%CI 0.279 to 0.852) and PFS (HR log rank 0.646; 95%CI 0.435 to 0.958)., Conclusions: IO treatment, in patients who had previously undergone nephrectomy, was associated with a better outcome in terms of OS. Further prospective trials would assess this issue in order to guide clinicians in real word practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Stellato, Santini, Verzoni, De Giorgi, Pantano, Casadei, Fornarini, Maruzzo, Sbrana, Di Lorenzo, Soraru, Naglieri, Buti, De Vivo, Napolitano, Vignani, Mucciarini, Grillone, Roviello, Di Napoli and Procopio.)

Background: Despite the survival advantage, not all metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients achieve a long-term benefit from immunotherapy. Moreover, the identification of prognostic biomarkers is still an unmet clinical need., Methods: This multicenter retrospective study investigated the prognostic role of peripheral-blood inflammatory indices and clinical factors to develop a novel prognostic score in mRCC patients receiving at least second-line nivolumab. The complete blood count before the first cycle of therapy was assessed by calculating neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived NLR (dNLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammation index (SII), and systemic inflammation response index (SIRI). Clinical factors included pre-treatment International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) score, line of therapy, and metastatic sites., Results: From October 2015 to November 2019, 571 mRCC patients received nivolumab as second- and further-line treatment in 69% and 31% of cases. In univariable and multivariable analyses all inflammatory indices, IMDC score, and bone metastases significantly correlated with overall survival (OS). The multivariable model with NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had the highest c-index (0.697) and was chosen for the developing of the score (Schneeweiss scoring system). After internal validation (bootstrap re-sampling), the final index (Meet-URO score) composed by NLR, IMDC score, and bone metastases had a c-index of 0.691. It identified five categories with distinctive OSs: group 1 (median OS - mOS = not reached), group 2 (mOS = 43.9 months), group 3 (mOS = 22.4 months), group 4 (mOS = 10.3 months), and group 5 (mOS = 3.2 months). Moreover, the Meet-URO score allowed for a fine risk-stratification across all three IMDC groups., Conclusion: The Meet-URO score allowed for the accurate stratification of pretreated mRCC patients receiving nivolumab and is easily applicable for clinical practice at no additional cost. Future steps include its external validation, the assessment of its predictivity, and its application to first-line combinations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: Dr Fornarini services advisory boards for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, and Merck, and received travel accommodation from Astellas, Janssen, and Bayer. Dr Buti received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and in an advisory role by BMS, Pfizer; MSD, Ipsen, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis. Dr Banna reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Pierre Fabre, IPSEN, outside the submitted work. Dr De Giorgi services as an advisory/board member of Astellas, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi, received research grant/funding to the institution from AstraZeneca, Roche, Sanofi, and travel/accommodations/expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Janssen, and Pfizer. Dr Zucali services advisory boards/consulting for Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, IPSEN, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Janssen, and Astellas. Dr Masini received personal fees as a speaker from Astellas, as a consultant from IPSEN, MSD, and Janssen, and for travel accommodation from BMS, Pfizer, Astellas, Janssen, and IPSEN. Dr Procopio services advisory boards/consulting for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, IPSEN, Merk, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Cortellini receives speaker fees/grant consultancies from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, and Astellas. Dr Morelli received grants from MSD and Pfizer. Dr Bersanelli received research funding to the institution from Roche, Pfizer, Seqirus UK, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Sanofi, and received personal fees for advisory role, copyright transfer, consultancies, and as speaker at scientific events from Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, and Pfizer. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Background: Until now, no robust data supported the efficacy, safety and recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: The prospective multicenter observational INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2) study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs, enrolled in 82 Italian centers from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020. Secondary endpoints regarded ILI severity and vaccine safety., Results: The study enrolled 1279 patients; 1188 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint analysis. Of them, 48.9% (581) received influenza vaccination. The overall ILI incidence was 8.2% (98 patients). Vaccinated patients were significantly more frequently elderly (p<0.0001), males (p=0.004), with poor European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p=0.009), affected by lung cancer (p=0.01), and by other non-cancer comorbidities (p<0.0001) when compared with unvaccinated. ILI incidence was not different basing on influenza vaccination: the time-to-ILI was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (p=0.62). ILI complications were significantly less frequent for patients receiving the vaccination (11.8% vs 38.3% in unvaccinated, p=0.002). ILI-related intravenous therapies were significantly less frequent in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated (11.8% vs 29.8%, p=0.027). ILI lethality was, respectively, 0% in vaccinated and 4.3% in unvaccinated patients. Vaccine-related adverse events were rare and mild (1.5%, grades 1-2)., Conclusion: The INVIDIa-2 study results support a positive recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A.; also received funding outside the present study by Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi.Melissa Bersanelli received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A. (FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the present work, research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (Institution); honoraria as a speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis and Pfizer; as consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by Novartis, BMS and Pfizer; for copyright transfer by Sciclone Pharmaceuticals.Ugo De Giorgi has served as a consultant for Astellas, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Pharmamar; he received research funding from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sanofi; and received travel funds from BMS, Ipsen, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche during the conduct of the study.Massimo Di Maio reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharp MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis.Vieri Scotti participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus for Roche S.p.A. Saverio Cinieri declared international board for Eli Lilly international. Paolo Andrea Zucali acts in a consultant or advisory role for Sanofi, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Novartis, all outside the scope of work. Marcello Tiseo received speakers’ and consultants’ fee from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, and institutional research grants from Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4-5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Androgen Receptor-Targeted Agents (ARTA) have dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape of metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), but 20-40% of these patients progress early after start of ARTA treatment. The present study investigated the potential utility of plasma cell-free microRNAs (cfmiRNAs) as prognostic markers by analyzing a prospective cohort of 31 mCRCP patients treated with abiraterone ( N = 10) or enzalutamide ( N = 21). Additional potential prognostic factors were extracted from clinical records and outcome was evaluated as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). cfmiRNAs were measured in plasma samples using quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Linear correlation among clinical factors and cfmiRNAs was assessed using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The association with survival was studied using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Continuous variables were dichotomized with the cut points corresponding to the most significant relation with the outcome. Univariate analysis indicated that plasma levels of miR-21-5p, miR-141-3p and miR-223-3p, time to development of castration-resistance (tCRPC), and blood hemoglobin (Hb) levels strongly correlated with both PFS and OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that low plasma levels of miR-21, shorter tCRPC, and lower Hb values were independent factors predicting reduced PFS and OS. These findings suggest that the integrated analysis of cfmiRNAs, tCRPC, and Hb may provide a promising, non-invasive tool for the prognostic stratification of mCRPC patients treated with ARTA., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Sharova, Maruzzo, Del Bianco, Cavallari, Pierantoni, Basso, Ciminale and Zagonel.)

Background: There is poor data on the prognostic role of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in older patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs)., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of mRCC patients older than 70 years treated at our Institute with first-line Sunitinib or Pazopanib for at least 6 months. Every patient received a CGA at baseline and was identified as fit, vulnerable or frail according to Balducci's Criteria. We then assessed the impact of CGA category on survival, disease control and tolerability of TKIs., Results: We identified 86 eligible patients. Median age: 74.5 years, 56% males; 45.4% were fit, 37.2% vulnerable and 17.4% frail at CGA. There were no significant differences in the rate of Grade (G)1-2 and G3-4 toxicities, dose reduction rates, PFS and OS between Sunitinib and Pazopanib. Fit, vulnerable and frail patients achieved significantly different median PFS (18.9 vs 11.2 vs 5.1 months; p < 0.001) and OS (35.5 vs 14.6 vs 10.9 months; p < 0.001). Patients categorized as fit had higher chance of receiving a second-line treatment (66.6% vs 28.9% in vulnerable/frail; p = 0.002). The incidence of G3/4 events was significantly lower in the fit subgroup (19% vs 45% in vulnerable/frail; p = 0.0025)., Conclusions: In our retrospective single-center experience, CGA could accurately discriminate patients with higher risk of experiencing G3/4 toxicities, shorter PFS, and lower chance of receiving a second line treatment. CGA strongly impacted on OS, independently from International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) classification., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest UB declares the following COIs: advisory role for Janssen-Cilag, Incyte, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, MSD; research funding from Ipsen; and receiving speaker's fee from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Janseen-Cilag and Novartis. AB declares the following COIs: advisory role for Eisai, Eli Lilly, Roche; travel or accommodations expenses from Pharmamar and Ipsen. VZ declares the following COIs: advisory role for Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Merck; speaker's fees from Bayer, Roche, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Servier, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly; travel and accommodations expenses from Bayer, Roche and Servier. The other authors do not declare relevant conflicts of interest concerning the topic of this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of our study was to collect data about of the outcome of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who progressed after immune checkpoint inhibitors in order to enhance data about efficacy and safety of treatment beyond immune-oncology (IO)., Materials and Methods: A total of 162 eligible patients, progressing to IO, were enrolled from 16 Italian referral centers adhering to the Meet-Uro association. Baseline characteristics, outcome data and toxicities were retrospectively collected. Descriptive analysis was made using median values and ranges. Kaplan-Meier method and Mantel-Haenszel log-rank test were performed to compare differences between groups., Results: A total of 111 patients (68.5%) were treated after IO progression. In all, 51 patients (31.5%) did not receive further treatment for clinical deterioration. Median IO progression free survival (PFS) was 4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1-4.8). IO-PFS tends to be longer in patients reporting adverse events (AE) of any grade (5.03 [95% CI: 3.8-6.1] vs. 2.99 [95% CI: 2.4-3.5] months P=0.004). Subsequent therapies included cabozantinib (n=79, 48%), everolimus (n=11, 6.7%), and others (n=21, 12.9%).Median PFS post-IO was 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.1-7.8). Cabozantinib showed longer PFS compared with everolimus (7.6 mo [95% CI: 5.2-10.1] vs. 3.2 mo [95% CI: 1.8-4.5]) (hazard ratio: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1026-0.7968) and other drugs (4.3 mo [95% CI: 1.3-7.4]) (hazard ratio: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.35-1.23). All grade AE were reported in 83 patients (74%) and G3 to G4 AE in 39 patients (35%). Target therapies post-IO showed median overall survival of 14.7 months (95% CI: 0.3-21.4)., Conclusions: In our real world experience after progression to IO, vascular endotelial groth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, given to patients, proved to be active and safe choices. Cabozantinib was associated with a better outcome in terms of median PFS., Competing Interests: E.V. reports personal fees from BMS, outside the submitted work. G.P. reports personal fees from Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the past few years, the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab has become standard of care in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing after antiangiogenic agents. To date, neither expression of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) nor any other biomarker can be used to predict responses to ICIs, although intermediate-poor International Metastatic Database of Renal Carcinoma (IMDC) risk patients and those with sarcomatoid tumors appear to achieve superior benefit from immunotherapy. Paradoxically, ICIs may sometimes increase the speed of tumor growth. This rare phenomenon, called hyperprogression, has first been described in patients with melanoma and lung cancer treated with ICIs and is associated with poor survival. Here, we present the case of a patient affected by an intermediate IMDC risk mRCC with diffuse sarcomatoid features who achieved long disease control with first-line sunitinib and then started a second-line treatment with nivolumab. Unexpectedly, he experienced a dramatic acceleration of tumor growth and died soon after the third infusion of nivolumab. Then, we review the frequency of hyperprogression in mRCC and discuss the biological peculiarity of sarcomatoid RCC in terms of different responses to ICIs and antiangiogenic agents., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This prospective, multicentre, observational INVIDIa-2 study is investigating the clinical efficacy of influenza vaccination in advanced-cancer patients receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), enrolled in 82 Italian centres, from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until 30 April 2020. All the ILI episodes, laboratory tests, complications, hospitalizations and pneumonitis were recorded. Therefore, the study prospectively recorded all the COVID-19 ILI events., Patients and Methods: Patients were included in this non-prespecified COVID-19 analysis, if alive on 31 January 2020, when the Italian government declared the national emergency. The prevalence of confirmed COVID-19 cases was detected as ILI episode with laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2. Cases with clinical-radiological diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-like ILIs), were also reported., Results: Out of 1257 enrolled patients, 955 matched the inclusion criteria for this unplanned analysis. From 31 January to 30 April 2020, 66 patients had ILI: 9 of 955 cases were confirmed COVID-19 ILIs, with prevalence of 0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-2.4], a hospitalization rate of 100% and a mortality rate of 77.8%. Including 5 COVID-like ILIs, the overall COVID-19 prevalence was 1.5% (95% CI: 0.5-3.1), with 100% hospitalization and 64% mortality. The presence of elderly, males and comorbidities was significantly higher among patients vaccinated against influenza versus unvaccinated ( p =  0.009, p <  0.0001, p <  0.0001). Overall COVID-19 prevalence was 1.2% for vaccinated (six of 482 cases, all confirmed) and 1.7% for unvaccinated (8 of 473, 3 confirmed COVID-19 and 5 COVID-like), p =  0.52. The difference remained non-significant, considering confirmed COVID-19 only ( p =  0.33)., Conclusion: COVID-19 has a meaningful clinical impact on the cancer-patient population receiving ICIs, with high prevalence, hospitalization and an alarming mortality rate among symptomatic cases. Influenza vaccination does not protect from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A.; the Federation also received funding during the conduct of the present study by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi. Melissa Bersanelli received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A. (FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the present work, research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (Institution), honoraria as speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis and Pfizer; as consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by Novartis, BMS and Pfizer. Ugo De Giorgi received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, Clovis, Incyte and research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer. Dr Di Maio reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Takeda, grants from Tesaro GSK, outside the submitted work. Sebastiano Buti received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer; MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis. Marcello Tiseo received honoraria (personal fees) by MSD, BMS, Boehringer (BI), Takeda, AstraZeneca, and research funding by AstraZeneca (Institution). Vieri Scotti participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus for Roche S.p.A. Dr Cortellini reports grants from AstraZeneca, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Roche, during the conduct of the study; grants from AstraZeneca, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Roche, grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Saverio Cinieri declared international board for Eli Lilly international. Paolo Andrea Zucali acts in a consultant or advisory role for Sanofi, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Novartis, all outside the scope of work. Sergio Bracarda declares to have acted as advisory board member (uncompensated) for: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, AAA, Ipsen, Bayer, Roche/Genentech. Francesco Carozza declared personal fees from Janssen. Sara Pilotto reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merk & Co, Roche, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s), 2020.)

Background: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of complicated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is still unclear if the risk of mortality is influenced by cancer type or ongoing anti-cancer treatments. An interesting debate concerning the potential relationship between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been opened in the case of prostate cancer (PC), and the aim of this multi-centre cohort study was to investigate the incidence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostrate cancer (mCRPC)., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of patients with mCRPC who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and recorded their baseline clinical characteristics, their history of PC and SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their oncological status and treatment at the time of infection. The primary study end point was the death rate and the possible impact of the patients' PC-related history and treatments on mortality., Results: Thirty-four of the 1433 patients with mCRPC attending the participating centres (2.3%) developed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 22 (64.7%) of whom were hospitalised. Most of the patients were symptomatic, the most frequent symptoms being fever (70.6%), dyspnoea (61.8%), cough (52.9%) and fatigue (38.2%). After a median follow-up of 21 days (interquartile range: 13-41), 13 patients had died (38.2%), 17 recovered (50.0%) and four (11.7%) were still infected. The number of treatments previously administered for mCRPC had a significant impact on mortality (p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Our findings contribute additional data to the current debate concerning the postulated protective role of ADT, which seems to be less in patients with metastatic PC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement O. C. reports receiving honoraria as speaker or advisor for Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Janssen and Pfizer. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to be declared., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)