Search

Achille Bottiglieri, Pierangela Sepe, Marco Stellato, Chiara Pircher, Giuseppe Fotia, Alberto Giovanni Leone, Valentina Guadalupi, Melanie Claps, Patrizia Giannatempo, Elena Verzoni, Giuseppe Procopio Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, ItalyCorrespondence: Achille Bottiglieri, Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, Milan, Italy, Tel +39 02 2390 2751, Email achille.bottiglieri@istitutotumori.mi.itAbstract: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the fourteenth most common cancer worldwide. In about 55% of cases, it is diagnosed at a localised and/or locally advanced stage and therefore amenable to a curative approach. Although nephrectomy still represents the cornerstone of non-metastatic RCC (nmRCC) treatment, a relapse is observed in about 25– 30% of patients undergoing curative surgery. Prognosis is drastically influenced by lymph nodal involvement. After the first disappointing results with a cytokine-based strategy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were tested as adjuvant agents. Despite their efficacy in the metastatic setting, results in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) are not unequivocal and the overall survival (OS) benefit has not been demonstrated. Moreover, their toxicity profile induced a remarkable percentage of patients to discontinue the treatment. On the contrary, the KEYNOTE-564 trial showed the benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo in terms of DFS with promising results in term of OS. Patients included were at intermediate or high risk of relapse, or patients with no evidence of disease after metastasectomy (M1 NED). The updated analysis presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genito-Urinary (ASCO GU) 2022 confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab versus placebo over time, although OS data are still immature. A longer follow-up and the several ongoing trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) will provide further data about adjuvant immuno-oncology (IO). Furthermore, the patients’ selection based on clinical or biological features will be crucial in order to identify who benefits most from treatments.Keywords: RCC, post-operative, TKIs, immunotherapy, clear cell, pembrolizumab

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fi fth most common malignancy worldwide with approximately 500,000 new cases per year, ranking as the third cause of cancer deaths. Until the very recent past no systemic therapy was available for patients with advanced HCC. However, advances achieved in the understanding of the molecular cancer biology and the subsequent introduction of molecularly targeted agents have disclosed promising and interesting possibilities for the treatment of this highly vascularized tumor in which the inhibition of angiogenesis is likely to represent the main potential therapeutic target. In this regard, sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor endowed with signifi cant activity against several tyrosine-kinase receptors involved in blood vessel development, has shown to be very active in the treatment of advanced HCC. This review makes a survey of pharmacology, mode of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical value and safety of sorafenib when employed in the treatment of advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with disease recurrence after bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) treatment and who are ineligible for/refuse radical cystectomy. FGFR alterations are commonly detected in NMIBC. We evaluated the activity of oral erdafitinib, a selective pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, versus intravesical chemotherapy in patients with high-risk NMIBC and select FGFR3/2 alterations following recurrence after BCG treatment. Patients aged ≥18 years with recurrent, BCG-treated, papillary-only high-risk NMIBC (high-grade Ta/T1) and select FGFR alterations refusing or ineligible for radical cystectomy were randomized to 6 mg daily oral erdafitinib or investigator's choice of intravesical chemotherapy (mitomycin C or gemcitabine). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The key secondary endpoint was safety. Study enrollment was discontinued due to slow accrual. Seventy-three patients were randomized 2 : 1 to erdafitinib (n = 49) and chemotherapy (n = 24). Median follow-up for RFS was 13.4 months for both groups. Median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.9 months-not estimable] and was 11.6 months (95% CI 6.4-20.1 months) for chemotherapy, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.28 (95% CI 0.1-0.6; nominal P value = 0.0008). In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. Erdafitinib prolonged RFS compared with intravesical chemotherapy in patients with papillary-only, high-risk NMIBC harboring FGFR alterations who had disease recurrence after BCG therapy and refused or were ineligible for radical cystectomy. • Erdafitinib prolonged RFS versus intravesical chemotherapy in papillary-only FGFR -altered BCG-treated high-risk NMIBC. • At median follow-up of 13.4 months, median RFS was not reached for erdafitinib and was 11.6 months for chemotherapy. • The observed RFS benefit for erdafitinib was further reflected by the 6- and 12-month RFS rates and subgroups tested. • In this population, safety results were generally consistent with known profiles for erdafitinib and chemotherapy. • These trial results validate FGFR inhibition as a promising treatment approach for NMIBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) develop visceral metastases, which are associated with a poor prognosis., Objectives: Efficacy of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients with measurable metastases, including visceral and/or extra-regional lymph nodes., Methods: In this phase II multicenter study, patients with mCRPC and measurable metastases received enzalutamide as the first line. Primary endpoint: 3-month (mo) disease control rate (DCR) defined as the proportion of patients with complete (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoint: safety. Exploratory endpoint: the association between ARv7 splicing variants in basal circulating tumor cell (CTC)-enriched blood samples and treatment response/resistance using the AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect kit and the AdnaTest ProstateCancer Panel AR-V7., Results: From March 2017 to January 2021, 68 patients were enrolled. One patient never started treatment. Median age: 72 years. A total of 52 patients (78%) received enzalutamide as a first line for mCRPC. The median follow-up was 32 months. At the 3-month assessment, 24 patients presented an SD, 1 patient achieved a CR, and 23 patients had a PR (3-mo-DCR of 72%). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), disease-related death, or disease progression occurred in 9%, 6%, and 48% of patients. All patients reported at least one grade (G) 1-2 AE: the most common were fatigue (49%) and hypertension (33%). Six G3 AEs were reported: two hypertension, one seizure, one fatigue, one diarrhea, and one headache. Basal detection of ARv7 was significantly associated with poor treatment response (p = 0.034) and a nonsignificant association (p = 0.15) was observed between ARv7 detection and response assessments. At month 3, ARv7 was detected in 57%, 25%, and 15% of patients undergoing progressive disease, SD, and PR, respectively., Conclusion: The study met its primary endpoint, showing the efficacy of enzalutamide in men with mCRPC and measurable metastatic lesions in visceral and/or lymph node sites., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03103724. First Posted: 6 April 2017. First patient enrollment: 19 April 2017., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Background: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR -altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear., Methods: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients)., Conclusions: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The prospective multicentre observational INVIDIa-2 study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In this secondary analysis of the original trial, we aimed to assess the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration., Methods: The original study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumours receiving ICI at 82 Italian Oncology Units from Oct 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2020. The trial's primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020, the results of which were reported previously. Secondary endpoints (data cut-off Jan 31, 2022) included the outcomes of patients to immunotherapy based on vaccine administration, for which the final results are reported herein. A propensity score matching by age, sex, performance status, primary tumour site, comorbidities, and smoking habits was planned for the present analysis. Only patients with available data for these variables were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease-control rate (DCR)., Findings: The original study population consisted of 1188 evaluable patients. After a propensity score matching, 1004 patients were considered (502 vaccinated and 502 unvaccinated), and 986 of them were evaluable for overall survival (OS). At the median follow-up of 20 months, the influenza vaccination demonstrated a favourable impact on the outcome receiving ICI in terms of median OS [27.0 months (CI 19.5-34.6) in vaccinated vs. 20.9 months (16.6-25.2) in unvaccinated, p = 0.003], median progression-free survival [12.5 months (CI 10.4-14.6) vs. 9.6 months (CI 7.9-11.4), p = 0.049], and disease-control rate (74.7% vs. 66.5%, p = 0.005). The multivariable analyses confirmed the favourable impact of influenza vaccination in terms of OS (HR 0.75, 95% C.I. 0.62-0.92; p = 0.005) and DCR (OR 1.47, 95% C.I. 1.11-1.96; p = 0.007)., Interpretation: The INVIDIa-2 study results suggest a favourable immunological impact of influenza vaccination on the outcome of cancer patients receiving ICI immunotherapy, further encouraging the vaccine recommendation in this population and supporting translational investigations about the possible synergy between antiviral and antitumour immunity., Funding: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG), Roche S.p.A., and Seqirus., Competing Interests: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study from Roche S.p.A. and Seqirus, and outside the present research from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), and Sanofi. MB received funding for the present study from Roche S.p.A. and Seqirus (through FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the current work: research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (through Institutions); honoraria as a speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by BMS, MSD, IPSEN, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer; as a consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by IPSEN, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre, and Merck; personal fees for copyright transfer by Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Pierre-Fabre, MSD, IPSEN, Pfizer, and Sanofi. AC received speakers fees/grant consultancies from Astrazeneca, BMS, MSD, EISAI, IQVIA, and OncoC4. UDG 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. MDM 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. SB received honoraria as a speaker at scientific events and in advisory role by BMS, Pfizer; MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli-Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis. VS participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker's bureaus for Roche S.p.A. SC declared his role in an international board for Eli Lilly international. AR declares Advisory Board activity for Bristol, Pfizer, Bayer, and Kyowa Kirin, and speaker honorarium from Roche Diagnostics. PAZ reports outside the submitted work personal fees for advisory role, speaker engagements and travel and accommodation expenses from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. MS received honoraria for advisory role from Janssen, and travel and accommodation expenses from Janssen, IPSEN, BMS, Astellas, and Pfizer. ER had a role as consultant for MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Immunocore and Pfizer. FG received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Merck, Takeda, Bayer, Novartis, and AMGEN for consulting activity; from Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, BMS, AMGEN, MSD, Celgene, and Pierre Fabre for speakers bureaus. GG declares speaker and advisory fees from MSD; Travels and Accommodations from AstraZeneca. DaS declares honoraria for advisory board from Astellas, Janssen, Bayer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Roche. FM received personal fees for advisory role by Roche, MSD, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi. RRS received travel grants from AIOM and CIPOMO, and declares memberships in AIOM, CIPOMO, ESMO, ASCO and Rotary Club. SP received honoraria as a speaker from Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, and GSK. DG received honoraria as a speaker from Amgen. MR received honoraria as speaker/consultant by MSD, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-MyersSquibb (BMS), Novartis, and Pfizer. All the cited competing interests were outside the current work and not related to the content of our manuscript if not differently specified. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Purpose of Review: In this review, we analyze the current state of research in development of new biomarkers that may be useful in managing metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) setting., Recent Findings: Combining tumor-based biomarkers (gene expression profile) and blood-based biomarkers (ctDNA, cytokines) would be helpful in acquiring information regarding RCC and might be significant in the decision-making process. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the sixth most frequently diagnosed neoplasm in men and tithe in women, making it responsible for 5% and 3% of all diagnosed cancers respectively. Metastatic stage represents a non-negligible percentage at diagnosis and is characterized by poor prognosis. Despite clinical features and prognostic score could guide clinicians in therapeutic approach of this disease, biomarkers predictive of response to treatment remain an unmet need., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: First-line therapies based on immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly improved survival of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Cabozantinib was shown to target kinases involved in immune-escape and to prolong survival in patients pre-treated with tyrosine-kinase-inhibitors (TKIs). The impact of ICIs combinations in first line on subsequent therapies is still unclear., Methods: This is an open label, multicenter, single arm, phase II study designed to assess activity, safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in mRCC patients progressed after an adjuvant or first line anti-Programmed Death (PD)-1/PD-Ligand (PD-L) 1-based therapy. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety., Results: 31 patients were included in the analysis. After a median (m) follow-up of 11.9 months, mPFS was 8.3 months (90%CI 3.9-17.4) and mOS was 13.8 months (95%CI 7.7-29.0). ORR was 37.9% with an additional 13 patients achieving disease stability. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 47% of patients, including more frequently creatine phosphokinase (CPK) serum level elevation, neutropenia, hyponatremia, diarrhea, hand-food syndrome, oral mucositis and hypertension., Conclusions: The BREAKPOINT trial met its primary endpoint showing that cabozantinib as second line therapy after ICIs was active in mRCC. Safety profile was manageable., Trial Registration Number: NCT03463681 - A Study of CaBozantinib in Patients With Advanced or Unresectable Renal cEll cArcinoma (BREAKPOINT) - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463681.

Objective: To give an updated overview on clinical aspects and survival effects of lutetium-177-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ( 177 Lu-PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT), a novel treatment option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched for relevant articles published up to March 2021. The search was restricted to English-language articles., Results: Current evidence from the literature consistently demonstrated the efficacy, safety, and survival benefit of 177 Lu-PSMA RLT in mCRPC. However, current data rely predominantly on retrospective analyses, showing heterogeneity of patient population and treatment protocols. More recently, results from the first randomized phase II study (TheraP) demonstrated that 177 Lu-PMSA therapy significantly improved prostate-specific antigen response rate (66% vs 37%) and had fewer grade 3/4 adverse events when compared to cabazitaxel in patients with docetaxel-pretreated, progressive mCRPC. This review is intended to provide an updated overview of treatment protocols and responses, toxicity profile, and survival effects of 177 Lu-PSMA RLT., Conclusions: 177 Lu-PSMA RLT has emerged as a promising targeted treatment in mCRPC. It is currently applied in compassionate use programs and following exhaustion of approved therapies. Crucial for establishing this treatment in routine clinical management will be the results of the phase III VISION trial, which may confirm the encouraging patient outcomes reported to date.

Importance: Metastatic collecting duct carcinoma (mCDC) is a rare type of non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ncRCC) with poor prognosis and no standard treatments. Despite retrospective series that have documented the benefit of cabozantinib in ncRCC, no prospective trials have evaluated this treatment in mCDC., Objective: To determine whether cabozantinib is an active treatment in patients with mCDC., Design, Setting, and Participants: The caBozantinib in cOllectiNg ductS Renal Cell cArcInoma (BONSAI) trial was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial carried out between January 2018 and November 2020 at a single academic center with data cut off in September 2021 on behalf of the the Italian Network for Research in Urologic-Oncology (Meet-URO 2). Eligible patients had histologic diagnosis of centrally confirmed mCDC with measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1). In total, 25 patients were screened., Interventions: Patients received cabozantinib, 60 mg orally once daily, until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST, version 1.1., Results: At data cut off, of 25 patients enrolled, 23 started treatment because 2 were excluded after failing the screening process at pathologic review. The median follow-up cannot be estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier estimator. The median time to censoring was 11 months (95% CI, 0-22 months). Median (range) age was 66 (53-74) years. As best overall response, 3 patients presented stable disease, 1 patient achieved a complete response, and 7 a partial response. The ORR was 35% (95% CI, 16%-57%). The median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI, 3-13 months). The median OS was 7 months (95% CI, 3-31 months). All patients reported at least 1 grade (G) 1 to 2 adverse event (AE). The most common G1 to G2 AEs were fatigue (14 [60%]), anorexia (9 [39%]), hand-foot syndrome (7 [30%]), hypothyroidism (7 [30%]), mucositis (7 [30%]), diarrhea (5 [22%]), and hypertension (3 [13%]). Six G3 AEs were reported: 2 arterial hyperthension, 1 pulmonary thromboembolism, 1 bleeding, and 2 fatigue. There were no permanent discontinuations from the study owing to AEs. Four patients (17%) required dose reduction to 40 mg, and 4 (17%) required a transitory interruption to manage toxic effects., Conclusions and Relevance: The study met the ORR primary end point, showing encouraging efficacy of cabozantinib in untreated patients with mCDC. Further investigations to advance the molecular understanding of this tumor are ongoing., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354884.

Although immunotherapy has recently revolutionized standard of care in different cancer types, prostate cancer has generally failed to show dramatic responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors. As in other tumors, the goal in prostate cancer is now to target treatments more precisely on patient's individual characteristics through precision medicine. Defects in mismatch repair, mutations in the exonuclease domain of the DNA polymerase epsilon ( POLE ), high tumor mutational burden and the presence of biallelic loss of CDK12 among others, are predictive biomarkers of response to immunotherapy. In the present review, we summarize the evolving landscape of immunotherapy in prostate cancer, including precision approaches and strategies to define classes of responsive patients and scale up resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors.