Search

Includes supplementary methods, figures, and tables.

Purpose:PI3K–Akt–mTOR and androgen receptor (AR) signaling are commonly aberrantly activated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with PTEN loss associating with poor prognosis. We therefore conducted a phase Ib/II study of the combination of ipatasertib, an Akt inhibitor, with the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone in patients with mCRPC.Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to ipatasertib 400 mg, ipatasertib 200 mg, or placebo, with abiraterone 1,000 mg orally. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intent-to-treat population and in patients with PTEN-loss tumors.Results:rPFS was prolonged in the ipatasertib cohort versus placebo, with similar trends in overall survival and time-to-PSA progression. A larger rPFS prolongation for the combination was demonstrated in PTEN-loss tumors versus those without. The combination was well tolerated, with no treatment-related deaths.Conclusions:In mCRPC, combined blockade with abiraterone and ipatasertib showed superior antitumor activity to abiraterone alone, especially in patients with PTEN-loss tumors.See related commentary by Zhang et al., p. 901

Summary Background PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Methods KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02853305 . Findings Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7–36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5–8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4–7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65–0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5–19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3–16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72–1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1–17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3–16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77–1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6–19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6–23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77–1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. Interpretation The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

LBA441 Background: Two interim OS analyses from IMvigor130 demonstrated non-statistically significant OS benefit with atezo monotherapy (Arm B) vs placebo + platinum (investigator [INV] choice of carboplatin or cisplatin [carbo or cis])/gemcitabine (plt/gem; Arm C) in patients (pts) with PD-L1–high (IC2/3) mUC, as well as a favorable safety profile vs chemo (Galsky Lancet 2020, Davis AACR 2021). Exploratory data showed clinical benefit with atezo monotherapy in cis-ineligible pts with IC2/3 tumors. Here, we report the final OS analysis from IMvigor130 Arms B and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo + plt/gem; not reported here), B or C. Due to the statistical testing hierarchy, no formal comparison of OS (co-primary endpoint) in Arm B vs C was performed in ITT and IC2/3 pts. ORR and DOR, both per INV-assessed RECIST 1.1 (secondary endpoints), and safety were assessed. Subgroup analyses of OS in cis-ineligible pts and disease control rate (DCR, confirmed CR, PR or [SD ≥6 mo]) were exploratory. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022, time since last pt randomly assigned was 49 mo. OS data (Table) did not show benefit for ITT pts, while an HR of 0.56 (0.34, 0.91) was seen in the cis-ineligible IC2/3 subgroup. In the ITT population, the 24-mo OS rates were 34% in Arm B and 32% in Arm C. ORR was 24% (87/359; 38% DCR) in Arm B and 44% (158/356; 59% DCR) in Arm C; median DOR was 29.6 and 8.1 mo, respectively. In cis-ineligible IC2/3 pts, ORR was 40% (20/50) in Arm B and 33% (14/43) in Arm C. Median DOR was not evaluable in Arm B and 6.2 mo in Arm C. Of safety-evaluable pts, 57 of 354 in Arm B (16%) and 312 of 389 in Arm C (80%) had a Gr 3/4 treatment-related AE (TRAE); 3 (1%) and 4 (1%), respectively, had a Gr 5 TRAE. Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest occurred in 36 pts (10%) in Arm B and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: The final OS analysis was consistent with previous data. Atezo monotherapy continued to show better tolerability vs chemo with no new safety concerns. These exploratory data support the benefit-risk ratio of atezo monotherapy vs chemo for first-line cis-ineligible IC2/3 mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . [Table: see text]

22 Background: In preliminary analyses from the randomized phase 2, open-label CheckMate 650 trial, nivolumab (NIVO) 1 mg/kg (N1) plus ipilimumab (IPI) 3 mg/kg (I3) Q3W × 4 doses showed clinical activity in patients (pts) with post-chemotherapy (post-CT) mCRPC, particularly those with high tumor mutational burden (TMB), but early toxicity contributed to treatment discontinuations. Here, we report results from pts with post-CT mCRPC receiving alternative NIVO+IPI dosing regimens vs IPI alone vs cabazitaxel (CABA) in CheckMate 650. Methods: Newly enrolled pts previously treated with docetaxel for mCRPC were randomized 2:2:1:2 to cohorts D1 (NIVO 3 mg/kg [N3] + IPI 1 mg/kg [I1] Q3W × 4 doses then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), D2 (N1 Q3W × 8 doses + I3 Q6W × 4 doses then NIVO 480 mg Q4W), D3 (I3 Q3W × 4 doses), or D4 (CABA 20 or 25 mg/m2 Q3W + prednisone 10 mg × 10 doses). Crossover from cohorts D3 and D4 to cohort D1 was allowed after radiographic progressive disease. Outcomes included safety, objective response rate (ORR), prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR; confirmed PSA decline ≥ 50% from baseline), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR), and overall survival (OS). Associations between efficacy and TMB were assessed. Results: Overall, 259 pts were randomized (D1, n = 73; D2, n = 74; D3, n = 38; D4, n = 74). Median (range) follow-up for OS was 23.3 (6.0–31.5) months. In the NIVO+IPI cohorts (D1 and D2), median duration of therapy was 2.8 and 2.4 months; the median number of IPI doses received was 4 and 2, and 15% and 26% of pts discontinued due to study drug toxicity, respectively. Two pts died due to study drug toxicity (1 each in cohorts D1 and D2). Key safety and efficacy data are shown. Several pts in cohorts D1 and D2 showed notable reductions (75-100%) in tumor size and PSA. Approximately one-third of pts in cohorts D3 and D4 crossed over to D1. Based on preliminary analyses in small numbers of evaluable pts, there was no clear and consistent association between efficacy and tissue or blood TMB in the NIVO+IPI cohorts (D1 and D2). Conclusions: These results further support the clinical activity of NIVO+IPI in select pts with post-CT mCRPC. Detailed evaluations of the characteristics of responders to NIVO+IPI, including more expansive biomarker analyses, are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02985957 . [Table: see text]

LBA440 Background: The IMvigor130 primary analysis demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit with 1L atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) in pts with mUC (Galsky Lancet 2020). Interim data showed improved OS with Arm A vs C but did not cross the pre-specified threshold for significance (Galsky Lancet 2020; Galsky AACR 2021). In exploratory analyses, OS improved when atezo was combined with cisplatin (cis) vs carboplatin (carbo) regardless of PD-L1 status. Here, we report final OS data from Arms A and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo alone) or C. Arm A and C pts received cis or carbo per investigator (INV) choice. Co-primary endpoints were PFS per INV RECIST 1.1 and OS (Arm A vs C), and OS (Arm B vs C), tested hierarchically. Safety, ORR and DOR, disease control rate (DCR; confirmed CR, PR or [SD ≥ 6 mo]) and pre-specified exploratory OS data are also reported. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022 (49 mo since last pt randomly assigned), in ITT pts, OS benefit was not statistically significant; in the cis subgroup, HR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.57, 1.01; Table). In ITT pts, DCR was 65% (290/447) in Arm A and 60% (239/397) in Arm C. 81% of safety-evaluable pts (370/454) in Arm A and 80% (312/389) in Arm C had a Gr 3/4 tx-related AE (TRAE). Gr 5 TRAEs occurred in 9 pts (2%) in Arm A and 4 (1%) in Arm C; Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest were seen in 41 pts (9%) in Arm A and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: In this final analysis, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem did not reach statistical significance in ITT pts with mUC. As seen with prior exploratory data, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem was greater when pts received cis vs carbo. No new safety signals were seen. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . [Table: see text]

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7–36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50–0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The phase 1/2 KEYNOTE-365 study (NCT02861573) previously showed that pembro+olaparib was associated with antitumor activity and acceptable safety in molecularly unselecte...

Sunitinib and pazopanib are standard first-line treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nonetheless, as the number of treatment options increases, there is a need to identify biomarkers that can predict drug efficacy and toxicity. In this prospective study we evaluated a set of biomarkers that had been previously identified within a secretory signature in mRCC patients. This set includes tumor expression of c-Met and serum levels of HGF, IL-6, IL-8, CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11. Our cohort included 60 patients with mRCC from 10 different Spanish hospitals who received sunitinib (n = 51), pazopanib (n = 4) or both (n = 5). Levels of biomarkers were studied in relation to response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). High tumor expression of c-Met and high basal serum levels of HGF, IL-6, CXCL11 and CXCL10 were significantly associated with reduced PFS and/or OS. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, CXCL11 was identified as an independent biomarker predictive of shorter PFS and OS, and HGF was an independent predictor of reduced PFS. Correlation analyses using our cohort of patients and patients from TCGA showed that HGF levels were significantly correlated with those of IL-6, CXCL11 and CXCL10. Bioinformatic protein–protein network analysis revealed a significant interaction between these proteins, all this suggesting a coordinated expression and secretion. We also developed a prognostic index that considers this group of biomarkers, where high values in mRCC patients can predict higher risk of relapse (HR 5.28 [2.32–12.0], p &lt, 0.0001). In conclusion, high plasma HGF, CXCL11, CXCL10 and IL-6 levels are associated with worse outcome in mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or pazopanib. Our findings also suggest that these factors may constitute a secretory cluster that acts coordinately to promote tumor growth and resistance to antiangiogenic therapy.

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men and the ninth most common in women in the Western world. The management of bladder carcinoma requires a multidisciplinary approach. Optimal treatment depends on several factors, including histology, stage, patient status, and possible comorbidities. Here we review recent findings on the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma, advanced urothelial carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, non-urothelial carcinoma, and urologic complications arising from the disease or treatment. In addition, we present the recommendations of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group for the treatment of these diseases, based on a focused analysis of clinical management and the potential of current research, including recent findings on the potential benefit of immunotherapy. In recent years, whole-genome approaches have provided new predictive biomarkers and promising molecular targets that could lead to precision medicine in bladder cancer. Moreover, the involvement of other specialists in addition to urologists will ensure not only appropriate therapeutic decisions but also adequate follow-up for response evaluation and management of complications. It is crucial, however, to apply recent molecular findings and implement clinical guidelines as soon as possible in order to maximize therapeutic gains and improve patient prognosis.

484 Background: Atezolizumab is a monoclonal antibody with proven efficacy in clinical trials for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) after progression to platinum-based chemotherapy. Following EMA marketing authorization and before prizing and reimbursement was granted in Spain, the Spanish Medicines Agency authorized a compassionate use program. We describe the patient characteristics and atezolizumab effectiveness in this compassionate use program. Methods: It was a multicentre cohort study based on the retrospective chart review of patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic UC who received atezolizumab, following progression to platinum-based chemotherapy, under the compassionate use program in Spain. The primary endpoint was their demographic and clinical characterization. Secondary endpoints included the best response to atezolizumab, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 109 evaluable patients were included, with a median age (interquartile range, IQR) of 68.0 years (62.0-75.0), 87 males (79.8%) and 96 Caucasians (88.1%). Median age (IQR) at diagnosis was 64.0 years (58.0-72.0) and 92 (84.4%) had pure urothelial carcinoma. Twenty-four (22.0%) had received BCG, 18 (16.5%) neoadjuvant treatment, 19 (17.4%) adjuvant treatment, and 19 (17.4%) radiotherapy for primary tumour. Regarding prior metastatic treatments, 98 (89.9%) had received first-line chemotherapy, 46 (42.2%) second line, 19 (17.4%) third line, and 5 (4.6%) more lines. When starting atezolizumab, median age (IQR) was 69.0 years (62.0-74.0) and 105 (96.3%) had metastases: 71 (65.1%) in lymph nodes and 64 (58.7%) visceral (skeletal n = 31, lung n = 29, liver n = 26, other n = 13). Atezolizumab was used for a median (IQR) of 2.8 (1.4-8.4) months and 5.0 (3.0-13.0) administered doses. The overall response rate was 23.8%, with 6 patients (5.5%) achieving complete response and 20 (18.3%) partial response. Stable disease was observed in 21 (19.3%), progression in 44 (40.4%) and response was not evaluable in 18 (16.5%). The median PFS (95% CI) was 3.7 months (2.8-5.8), with PFS rates at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 of 57.5%, 38.0%, 30.5% and 26.1%, respectively. The median OS (95% CI) reached 8.5 (6.6-12.6) months, with a 12-month OS of 43.4%. Twenty-three patients (21.1%) reported 26 delays (adverse event n = 16, intercurrent event n = 10) and 2 (1.8%) interruptions (adverse event n = 1, intercurrent event n = 1). Atezolizumab was discontinued in 64 (58.7%) due to disease progression (n = 43, 67.2%), death (n = 13, 20.3%), adverse events (n = 7, 10.9%) and lost to follow-up (n = 1, 1.6%). Conclusions: This study provides real-world evidence on the characteristics of patients with advanced or metastatic UC treated with atezolizumab under the Spanish compassionate use program, supporting its effectiveness in the clinical setting.

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

Current first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma has a limited duration of response. The MAJA study aimed to compare vinflunine (VFL) plus best supportive care (BSC) maintenance therapy versus BSC alone in 88 patients after first-line treatment with cisplatin/gemcitabine. Results demonstrated a progression-free survival benefit and a positive OS trend (with limited power due to the small sample size) with VFL in maintenance therapy with no unexpected long-term adverse effects. Introduction: The MAJA study compared vinflunine (VFL) plus best supportive care (BSC) maintenance therapy versus BSC alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma responsive to first-line chemotherapy. The primary end point of progression-free survival was achieved. We present the final overall survival (OS) and long-term follow-up safety analyses. Patients and Methods: Patients were enrolled, and a subsequent post hoc analysis was performed on the basis of radiologic response or stabilization to first-line cisplatin/gemcitabine (CG) chemotherapy (4-6 cycles), according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). VFL + BSC versus BSC alone were randomly assigned until disease progression. Results: At final analysis, 58 patients (66.7%) had died while 29 (33.3%) had survived; the BSC arm had higher mortality (VFL thorn BSC, n = 26, 59.1% vs. BSC, n = 32, 74.4%). Median follow-up of surviving patients was 38.8 months (interquartile range, 23.8-61.6). Median OS was 16.7 months (95% confidence interval, 0-34.5) in VFL and 13.2 months (95% confidence interval, 6-20.4) in the BSC groups (hazard ratio, 0.736; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.24, P=.182). Post hoc group division did not affect median OS in either study arm. Conclusion: Final analysis supported a benefit of VFL in maintenance therapy in patients with disease control after first-line treatment with CG, with no unexpected long-term adverse effects. The study was insufficiently powered to show a significant OS advantage. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Summary Background Atezolizumab can induce sustained responses in metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We report the results of IMvigor130, a phase 3 trial that compared atezolizumab with or without platinum-based chemotherapy versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Methods In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial, untreated patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, from 221 sites in 35 countries, were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Patients received 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area, administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle), plus either carboplatin (area under the curve of 4·5 mg/mL per min administered intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area administered intravenously) on day 1 of each cycle with either atezolizumab (1200 mg administered intravenously on day 1 of each cycle) or placebo. Group B patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab, administered intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 progression-free survival and overall survival (group A vs group C) and overall survival (group B vs group C), which was to be formally tested only if overall survival was positive for group A versus group C. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02807636 . Findings Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, we enrolled 1213 patients. 451 (37%) were randomly assigned to group A, 362 (30%) to group B, and 400 (33%) to group C. Median follow-up for survival was 11·8 months (IQR 6·1–17·2) for all patients. At the time of final progression-free survival analysis and interim overall survival analysis (May 31, 2019), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·5–8·3) in group A and 6·3 months (6·2–7·0) in group C (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·70–0·96; one-sided p=0·007). Median overall survival was 16·0 months (13·9–18·9) in group A and 13·4 months (12·0–15·2) in group C (0·83, 0·69–1·00; one-sided p=0·027). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (13·1–17·8) for group B and 13·1 months (11·7–15·1) for group C (1·02, 0·83–1·24). Adverse events that led to withdrawal of any agent occurred in 156 (34%) patients in group A, 22 (6%) patients in group B, and 132 (34%) patients in group C. 50 (11%) patients in group A, 21 (6%) patients in group B, and 27 (7%) patients in group C had adverse events that led to discontinuation of atezolizumab or placebo. Interpretation Addition of atezolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment prolonged progression-free survival in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The safety profile of the combination was consistent with that observed with the individual agents. These results support the use of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as a potential first-line treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Aim: To report results from the Spanish subset included in the radium-223 international early access program (iEAP). Patients & methods: Ninety patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases received radium-223 55 kBq/kg every 4 weeks for six cycles. Results: The median time to disease progression was 8 months and to prostate-specific antigen progression was 4 months. The percentage of patients with ≥50% confirmed declines in prostate-specific antigen was 9%. The median overall survival was 14 months. Grade 3 or 4 treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 34% of patients (serious TEAEs 28%, TEAEs leading to discontinuation 27%). Conclusion: Outcomes of the Spanish subset are consistent with the iEAP. Radium-223 was generally well tolerated with no safety concerns.

Aim Cabazitaxel (CBZ), a novel tubulin-binding taxane, improves overall survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that progresses during or after docetaxel treatment. We have designed a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CBZ as a weekly schedule for ‘unfit’ mCRPC patients after docetaxel failure. Methods In this single arm phase II study. CBZ was weekly administered in 1-hour infusion on days 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 5 weeks at 10 mg/m2 to eligible ‘unfit’ patients; oral prednisone (5 mg) was administered twice a day. Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) were also collected. New treatment scheme was considered effective if at least 65% of patients met a clinical benefit criteria based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-progression-free survival (PFS) values at week 12. Results Seventy patients (median age: 73.9 years) were enrolled; overall, 71.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) of 2; and 84%, 16% and 11% had bone, liver and lung metastases, respectively. Objective partial response or stable disease was achieved in 61% of patients, while PSA responses of ≥50% and ≥80% were observed in 34.8% and 10.6%, respectively. The median PSA-PFS was 4.8 months; and 68.6% of patients had no progression at week 12. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (2.8%), leukopenia (5.7%) and thrombocytopaenia (9%); no cases of febrile neutropenia were reported. Early CTC response was significantly correlated with PSA-PFS. Conclusions CBZ/prednisone administered weekly to ‘unfit’ mCRPC patients appears to be as effective as classical standard 3-week scheme (TROPIC study) but with significantly lower toxicities and better tolerance. Early CTC response appears to be valuable as an early end-point of therapeutic efficacy.

Background: The IMvigor130 primary analysis demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and encouraging OS with atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) as first-line mUC treatment, although interim OS results did not cross the pre-specified threshold for significance (Galsky Lancet 2020). Here we report the 2nd interim OS for Arm A vs C, including efficacy by type of chemotherapy (chemo) given. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo monotherapy) or C. Investigators pre-specified the type of chemo pts would receive if assigned to Arms A or C (gem + either cisplatin or carboplatin). Co-primary endpoints (EPs) were RECIST 1.1 PFS and OS (Arm A vs C; ITT) and OS (Arm B vs C; ITT, IC2/3) tested using a hierarchical approach. Safety and secondary efficacy EPs (objective response rate and duration of response) are reported. Exploratory OS analyses by type of chemo were pre-specified. Results: As of data cutoff, June 14, 2020 (median follow-up, 13.3 mo), OS event rates were 67% in Arm A and 70% in Arm C. Efficacy data are shown (Table). Subsequent non-protocol immunotherapy use was 7% in Arm A vs 24% in Arm C. Of pts in the safety population (Arm A: 454; Arm C: 389), 81% and 80%, respectively, had a Gr 3/4 treatment-related AE (TRAE). No new Gr 5 TRAEs occurred since the 1st analysis (Gr 5 TRAEs: 2% in Arm A vs 1% in Arm C). Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest occurred in 9% in Arm A and 4% in Arm C. Conclusions: OS with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem in this updated analysis of IMvigor130 was consistent with the 1st interim analysis (not yet statistically significant). The impact of atezo plus chemo on outcomes may differ based on the specific platinum regimen; these exploratory findings warrant further investigation. OS follow-up is ongoing. Safety profile of atezo + plt/gem was consistent with each agent. IMvigor130 efficacy (second interim OS analysis)Arm A:Arm C:atezo + plt/gemplacebo + plt/gem(n=451)(n=400)OS HR (95% CI)aITT0.84 (0.71, 1.00); P=0.026bCisplatin (n=273)0.73 (0.54, 0.98)PD-L1 IC2/3 (n=69)c0.66 (0.32, 1.36)PD-L1 IC0/1 (n=204)c0.72 (0.52, 1.01)Carboplatin (n=578)0.91 (0.74, 1.10)PD-L1 IC2/3 (n=130)c0.80 (0.52, 1.23)PD-L1 IC0/1 (n=448)c0.94 (0.75, 1.18)Median OS (95% CI), moITT16.1 (14.2, 18.8)13.4 (11.9, 15.2)Cisplatin21.6 (17.5, 25.4)14.6 (11.7, 18.4)Carboplatin14.3 (12.0, 16.5)13.0 (10.6, 15.2)Objective response rate (95% CI), %ITT (n=844)d48 (43, 53)45 (40, 50)Cisplatin (n=271)d49 (40, 57)50 (41, 58)Carboplatin (n=573)d48 (42, 53)42 (36, 48)Complete response rate (95% CI), %ITT (n=844)d13 (10, 17)7 (5, 10)Cisplatin (n=271)d17 (11, 24)9 (5, 15)Carboplatin (n=573)d12 (9, 16)6 (4, 10)Median duration of response (95% CI), moeAll responders (n=391)9.3 (8.0, 10.7)8.2 (6.3, 8.5)Cisplatin (n=133)13.2 (10.4, 22.5)8.3 (6.3, 13.3)Carboplatin (n=258)8.1 (6.5, 10.2)7.1 (6.2, 8.5)IC, tumor-infiltrating immune cells; ITT, intention to treat.aHR for the ITT population is stratified by PD-L1 IC status (IC0 vs IC1 vs IC2/3), Bajorin risk factor score (0, 1, 2 and/or liver metastases), investigator's choice of cisplatin/gemcitabine vs carboplatin/gemcitabine and enrollment stage. HRs for subgroups are stratified by enrollment stage.bOne-sided; not statistically significant (O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary P value 0.014).cPD-L1-expressing IC covering ≥5% (IC2/3) or Citation Format: Matthew D. Galsky, José Ángel Arranz, Enrique Grande, Maria De Santis, Ian D. Davis, Eiji Kikuchi, Xavier Garcia del Muro, Se Hoon Park, Ugo De Giorgi, Boris Alekseev, Marina Mencinger, Kouji Izumi, Javier Puente, Jian-Ri Li, Peter H. O'Donnell, Xiaodong Shen, Chooi Lee, Almut Mecke, Sanjeev Mariathasan, Aristotelis Bamias. Atezolizumab (atezo) + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem) vs placebo + plt/gem in patients (pts) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): Updated overall survival (OS) from the randomized phase III study IMvigor130 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT042.

Background: In the IMvigor130 primary analysis in patients (pts) with untreated locally advanced or mUC, a trend toward favorable OS with atezo (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy (Arm B) vs placebo + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem; Arm C) was seen in pts with PD-L1-expressing immune cells on ≥5% of the tumor area (IC2/3 per VENTANA SP142 IHC assay; Galsky Lancet 2020). We report clinical outcomes in Arm B vs C from the second interim OS analysis, including efficacy in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo + plt/gem [not reported here]), B or C. Co-primary endpoint OS was analyzed via hierarchical statistical testing. Since OS in Arm A vs C was not statistically significant, no formal comparison of Arm B vs C was performed in intention-to-treat (ITT) and IC2/3 pts. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR), both per RECIST 1.1 (secondary endpoints), and safety are reported; additional exploratory subgroup analyses of OS by PD-L1 status in ITT and cisplatin-ineligible pts were also done. Results: Efficacy from the updated OS analysis (June 14, 2020 cutoff; median follow-up, 13.3 mo) is shown in the Table. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that OS for IC2/3 pts may be higher in Arm B vs C. In ITT pts, ORR was higher in Arm C, but median DOR was longer in Arm B. In the safety population, Grade (Gr) 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 16% and 80% of Arm B and C pts, respectively, and Gr 5 TRAEs in 1% of both arms. Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest (AESIs) occurred in 10% and 4%, respectively, and Gr 5 AESIs in Conclusions: These exploratory efficacy data from an updated OS analysis of IMvigor130 support the benefit of atezo monotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1 IC2/3 cisplatin-ineligible mUC. Atezo monotherapy showed a better tolerability profile than chemotherapy. With this longer follow-up, no new safety concerns arose. IMvigor130 efficacy (second interim OS analysis)Efficacy analysis populationArm B: atezoArm C: placebo + chemotherapyaITTOS events/pts (%)241/360 (66.9)246/359 (68.5)Median OS (95% CI), mo15.2 (13.1, 17.7)13.1 (11.7, 15.1)OS HR (95% CI)b0.99 (0.83, 1.19)Responders/ptsc84/359157/356ORR (95% CI), %23.4 (19.1, 28.1)44.1% (38.9, 49.4)Median DOR (95% CI), mod29.6 (15.9, NE)8.1 (6.3, 8.5)PD-L1 IC2/3 populationOS events/pts (%)43/88 (48.9)52/85 (61.2)Median OS (95% CI), mo27.5 (17.7, NE)16.7 (10.0, 26.1)OS HR (95% CI)b0.67 (0.45, 1.02)PD-L1 IC0/1 populationeOS events/pts (%)198/272 (72.8)194/274 (70.8)Median OS (95% CI), mo13.5 (11.1, 16.3)12.8 (11.3, 15.0)OS HR (95% CI)f1.05 (0.86, 1.28)Cisplatin-ineligible pts with PD-L1 IC2/3OS events/pts (%)28/50 (56)30/43 (70)Median OS (95% CI), mo18.6 (14.0, NE)10.0 (7.4, 18.1)OS HR (95% CI)f0.60 (0.36, 1.01)IC, tumor-infiltrating immune cells; NE, not estimable.aConcurrent control arm, which includes pts randomized in Stage 2 when Arm B was added to the study design.bStratified per randomization stratification factors: PD-L1 status (ITT only), Bajorin risk factor score/liver metastases, investigator's choice of platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) before randomization.cPatients with measurable disease at baseline.dIn pts who had a confirmed response.eIC0/1 = PD-L1 IC Citation Format: Ian D. Davis, Matthew D. Galsky, Xavier Garcia del Muro, Se Hoon Park, Ugo De Giorgi, Boris Alekseev, Marina Mencinger, Kouji Izumi, Javier Puente, Jian-Ri Li, José Ángel Arranz, Aristotelis Bamias, Enrique Grande, Eiji Kikuchi, Almut Mecke, Sanjeev Mariathasan, Xiaodong Shen, Hannah (Xinhui) Huang, Maria De Santis. Updated overall survival (OS) analysis of atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy vs chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in IMvigor130 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT040.

Background: IMvigor130 evaluated atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) as 1L mUC treatment, allowing pts with at least SD to continue atezo or placebo “maintenance” after 4-6 cycles of plt/gem. The primary analysis showed statistically significant PFS benefit for Arm A vs C (Galsky Lancet 2020). The 1st interim OS data for Arm A vs C were encouraging but immature. This exploratory analysis used 2nd interim OS data (ITT median follow-up, 13.3 mo) to examine OS outcomes by response during atezo or placebo + chemo “induction” in Arm A vs C. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo monotherapy) or C. In Arms A and C, chemo was gem + investigator's choice of cis or carbo. Co-primary EPs of PFS and OS in Arm A vs C (ITT) and OS in Arm B vs C (ITT and IC2/3) were tested hierarchically. This post hoc analysis evaluated post-induction (post-wk 18) OS in pts who completed 4-6 (but not >6) cycles of chemo without PD during induction (through wk 18), followed by ≥1 dose of atezo or placebo maintenance. Post-PD OS was evaluated in pts with PD during induction. HRs were adjusted to account for potential imbalances in known prognostic factors between arms. Results: Efficacy data are in the Table. Post-induction OS HR (95% CI) for pts with no PD was 0.86 (0.64, 1.16) (cis: 0.60 [0.35, 1.03], carbo: 0.97 [0.67, 1.41]). Post-progression OS HR for pts with PD was 0.74 (0.53, 1.03) (cis: 0.52 [0.28, 0.96], carbo: 0.78 [0.51, 1.18]). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis from IMvigor130, OS benefit with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem in both pts with and without PD during induction was consistent with ITT results from the 1st interim analysis. Preliminary data suggest that cis-treated pts may derive greater OS benefit from adding atezo to chemo than carbo-treated pts, which warrants further investigation. OS follow-up is ongoing. IMvigor130 efficacy (second interim OS analysis)No PD during inductiona (post-induction OS)bPD during induction (post-progression OS)Arm A (n=166)Arm C (n=152)Arm A (n=91)Arm C (n=93)OS events, n (%)ITT97 (58.4)92 (60.5)82 (90.1)84 (90.3)Cisplatinc27/57 (47.4)35/59 (59.3)24/29 (82.8)30/33 (90.9)Carboplatinc70/109 (64.2)57/93 (61.3)58/62 (93.5)54/60 (90.0)Median OS (95% CI), moITT20.5 (17.6, 25.9)18.8 (14.4, 21.9)4.3 (3.5, 5.8)3.3 (2.5, 4.4)Cisplatin28.2 (19.8, NE)19.9 (11.0, 26.5)6.6 (4.8, 10.1)2.5 (1.6, 5.2)Carboplatin18.5 (12.9, 21.6)18.8 (12.9, 22.8)3.8 (3.2, 5.6)3.4 (2.6, 4.5)OS HR (95% CI)dITT0.86 (0.64, 1.16)0.74 (0.53, 1.03)Cisplatin0.60 (0.35, 1.03)0.52 (0.28, 0.96)Carboplatin0.97 (0.67, 1.41)0.78 (0.51, 1.18)Data cutoff: June 14, 2020. 1L, first-line; carbo, carboplatin; chemo, chemotherapy; cis, cisplatin; CR, complete response; EP, endpoint; HR; hazard ratio; ITT, intention to treat; mets, metastases; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. a Pts who achieved at least SD (CR, PR, or SD without PD) during induction. b Post-week 18 OS. c Denominators refer to the number of pts in each chemotherapy subgroup/treatment arm. d Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model stratified by enrollment stage (1/2); adjusted for age, ECOG PS (0, 1, 2), cisplatin ineligibility (Y/N), liver mets (Y/N), lymph node mets only (Y/N), ≥3 metastatic sites (Y/N), renal impairment (Y/N), alkaline phosphatase ≥upper limit of normal (Y/N), glomerular filtration rate ( Citation Format: Enrique Grande, Aristotelis Bamias, Matthew D. Galsky, Eiji Kikuchi, Ian D. Davis, José Ángel Arranz, Arash Rezazadeh Kalebasty, Xavier Garcia del Muro, Se Hoon Park, Ugo De Giorgi, Boris Alekseev, Marina Mencinger, Kouji Izumi, Javier Puente, Jian-Ri Li, Xiaodong Shen, Beiying Ding, Qian Zhu, Jeremy Linsenmeier, Maria De Santis. Overall survival (OS) by response during “induction” from the global, randomized Phase III IMvigor130 study of atezolizumab (atezo) + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem) vs placebo + plt/gem in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT187.

Updated information published up to 2016 regarding major advances in renal cancer, bladder cancer, and prostate cancer is here presented. Based on an ever better understanding of the genetic and molecular alterations that govern the initial pathogenic mechanisms of tumor oncogenesis, an improvement in the characterization and treatment of urologic tumors has been achieved in the past year. According to the Cancer Genome Atlas (ATLAS) project, alterations in the MET pathway are characteristics of type 1 papillary renal cell carcinomas, and activation of NRF2-ARE pathway is associated with the biologically distinct type 2. While sunitinib and pazopanib continue to be the standard first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma of clear cell histology, nivolumab and cabozantinib are now the agents of choice in the second-line setting. In relation to urothelial bladder carcinoma, new potential molecular targets such as FGFR3, PI3K/AKT, RTK/RAS, CDKN2A, ARIDIA, ERBB2 have been identified. Response to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy appears to be related to basal, luminal, and p53-like intrinsic subtypes. A phase II study with eribulin and a maintenance phase II trial with vinflunine have shown promising results. Similarly, the use of the check point inhibitors in advanced disease is likely to revolutionize the management of patients who have progressed after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In prostate cancer, seven mutually exclusive molecular subtypes have been identified by the TCGA project. Chemotherapy has been consolidated as a key treatment for castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, and abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223 remain standard therapeutic options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. All this progress will undoubtedly contribute to the development of new treatments and therapeutic strategies that will improve the survival and quality of life of our patients.

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

The increasing knowledge of prostate cancer is leading to many questions about its natural history and to reconsider conventional therapeutic strategies. Androgen ablation therapy has been the standard therapy in the advanced setting. Although docetaxel has demonstrated increased survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had progressed to hormone treatments, due to its potential toxicity the role of chemotherapy has been relegated to patients who were symptomatic or who had high tumor burden. Several studies have assessed whether docetaxel could have a role in hormone-sensitive disease or even in earlier stages with no distant metastases. In the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, docetaxel provides an unprecedented increase in overall survival (OS). This review summarizes the evidence behind the paradigm shift to strengthening docetaxel as a new standard of treatment that prolongs survival in earlier stages of prostate cancer.

Summary Background Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have a dismal prognosis and few treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. Responses to second-line treatment are uncommon. We assessed nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, for safety and activity in patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma whose disease progressed or recurred despite previous treatment with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Methods In this multicentre, phase 2, single-arm study, patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced urothelial carcinoma, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 0 or 1, and available tumour samples for biomarker analysis received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons. The primary endpoint was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour PD-L1 expression (≥5% and ≥1%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02387996, and is completed. Follow-up is still ongoing. Findings Between March 9, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, 270 patients from 63 sites in 11 countries received nivolumab, and 265 were evaluated for activity. Median follow-up for overall survival was 7·00 months (IQR 2·96–8·77). Confirmed objective response was achieved in 52 (19·6%, 95% CI 15·0–24·9) of 265 patients. Confirmed objective response was achieved in 23 (28·4%, 95% CI 18·9–39·5) of the 81 patients with PD-L1 expression of 5% or greater, 29 (23·8%, 95% CI 16·5–32·3) of the 122 patients with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, and 23 (16·1%, 95% CI 10·5–23·1) of the 143 patients with PD-L1 expression of less than 1%. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48 (18%) of 270 patients—most commonly grade 3 fatigue and diarrhoea, which each occurred in five patients. Three deaths were attributed to treatment (pneumonitis, acute respiratory failure, and cardiovascular failure). Interpretation Nivolumab monotherapy provided meaningful clinical benefit, irrespective of PD-L1 expression, and was associated with an acceptable safety profile in previously treated patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.

BACKGROUND: Angiopoietin 1 and 2 regulate angiogenesis and vascular remodelling by interacting with the tyrosine kinase receptor Tie2, and inhibition of angiogenesis has shown promise in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether trebananib, a peptibody that inhibits binding of angiopoietin 1 and 2 to Tie2, improved progression-free survival when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in a phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: TRINOVA-3, a multicentre, multinational, phase 3, double-blind study, was done at 206 investigational sites (hospitals and cancer centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using a permuted block method (block size of six patients) to receive six cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 or 6) every 3 weeks, plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. Maintenance therapy with trebananib or placebo continued for up to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01493505, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Feb 25, 2014, 1164 patients were screened and 1015 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment (678 to trebananib and 337 to placebo). After a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 17·7-34·2), 626 patients had progression-free survival events (405 [60%] of 678 in the trebananib group and 221 [66%] of 337 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ between the trebananib group (15·9 months [15·0-17·6]) and the placebo group (15·0 months [12·6-16·1]) groups (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·79-1·09]; p=0·36). 512 (76%) of 675 patients in the trebananib group and 237 (71%) of 336 in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events; of which the most common events were neutropenia (trebananib 238 [35%] vs placebo 126 [38%]) anaemia (76 [11%] vs 40 [12%]), and leucopenia (81 [12%] vs 35 [10%]). 269 (40%) patients in the trebananib group and 104 (31%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Two fatal adverse events in the trebananib group were considered related to trebananib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (lung infection and neutropenic colitis); two were considered to be related to paclitaxel and carboplatin (general physical health deterioration and platelet count decreased). No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. The combination of trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not produce new safety signals. These results show that trebananib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is minimally effective in this patient population. FUNDING: Amgen. ispartof: LANCET ONCOLOGY vol:20 issue:6 pages:862-876 ispartof: location:England status: published

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway inhibitors are key drugs for the treatment of many tumor types, however, there are no predictive biomarkers in clinical use. Here, we performed a molecular and immunohistochemical characterization of key mTOR pathway components in a series of 105 renal cell carcinoma patients treated with rapalogs, aimed at identifying markers of treatment response. Mutational analysis in MTOR, TSC1 and TSC2 was performed through targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS), and immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed for PTEN, pAKT, pS6K1, pS6 and p21. Among patients with NGS data, 11 of 87 (13%) had mTOR pathway mutations (8 in MTOR, 1 in TSC1 and 2 in TSC2). When comparing the molecular data to the response of the patients, we found that partial response was more frequent in cases with mTOR pathway mutations than in those without mutations (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.008-0.79, p = 0.030 univariate; p = 0.038 multivariable). Regarding IHC, negative PTEN staining was detected in 58% of the tumors, and it was more frequent in rapalog responder patients (OR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.065-0.86, p = 0.029 univariate; p = 0.029 multivariable). Mutations and PTEN IHC were not mutually exclusive events and its combination improved response prediction (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.04-0.62, p = 0.008 univariate; p = 0.013 multivariable). The staining of other proteins did not show and association with response and no association with PFS was observed in unselected patients. In conclusion, our findings suggest that mTOR pathway mutations, negative PTEN IHC and their combination are potential markers of rapalog response.

Purpose: PI3K–Akt–mTOR and androgen receptor (AR) signaling are commonly aberrantly activated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with PTEN loss associating with poor prognosis. We therefore conducted a phase Ib/II study of the combination of ipatasertib, an Akt inhibitor, with the CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone in patients with mCRPC. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to ipatasertib 400 mg, ipatasertib 200 mg, or placebo, with abiraterone 1,000 mg orally. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intent-to-treat population and in patients with PTEN-loss tumors. Results: rPFS was prolonged in the ipatasertib cohort versus placebo, with similar trends in overall survival and time-to-PSA progression. A larger rPFS prolongation for the combination was demonstrated in PTEN-loss tumors versus those without. The combination was well tolerated, with no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: In mCRPC, combined blockade with abiraterone and ipatasertib showed superior antitumor activity to abiraterone alone, especially in patients with PTEN-loss tumors. See related commentary by Zhang et al., p. 901

Background Plasma androgen receptor (AR) copy number status has been identified as a potential biomarker of response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving docetaxel or the AR-targeted therapies abiraterone or enzalutamide. However, the relevance of plasma AR status in the context of cabazitaxel therapy is unknown. Patients and methods Between September 2011 and January 2018, pretherapy plasma samples were collected from 155 patients treated with second- or third-line cabazitaxel at standard or reduced dose in different biomarker protocols. Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction was used to identify plasma AR gain and normal samples. The primary objective was to evaluate associations of plasma AR status with treatment outcome. In an exploratory analysis, a comparison between plasma AR and treatment type was investigated by incorporating updated data from our prior study of 85 post-docetaxel patients receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide. Results We observed a shorter median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in AR-gained compared to AR-normal patients (OS 10.5 versus 14.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98–2.13, P = 0.064 and PFS 4.0 versus 5.0 months, HR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.05–2.07, P = 0.024). In patients with mCRPC receiving second-line therapies, a significant treatment interaction was observed between plasma AR and cabazitaxel versus AR-directed therapies for OS (P = 0.041) but not PFS (P = 0.244). In an exploratory analysis, AR-gained patients treated with initial reduced dose of cabazitaxel had a significantly shorter median OS (7.3 versus 11.5 months, HR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.13–3.38, P = 0.016) and PFS (2.7 versus 5.0 months, HR = 2.27, 95% CI 1.39–3.71, P = 0.001). Conclusion Plasma AR status has a potential clinical utility in patients being considered for cabazitaxel. Validation of these findings in prospective trials is warranted.

434 Background: Atezo (anti–PD-L1) monotherapy is approved for cis-ineligible pts who have locally advanced or mUC with PD-L1–expressing immune cells on ≥ 5% of the tumor area (IC2/3 per VENTANA SP142 IHC assay). The IMvigor130 primary analysis demonstrated a significant PFS benefit with atezo + platinum/gemcitabine (plt/gem) (arm A) vs placebo (pbo) + plt/gem (arm C) as 1L treatment for mUC (Galsky Lancet 2020); at that time, interim OS data for arm A vs C were encouraging but immature. OS with atezo monotherapy (arm B) could not be formally tested, but favorable efficacy was seen in IC2/3 pts. In this exploratory analysis, we assess outcomes by PD-L1 status in cis-ineligible pts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to arms A, B or C (Galsky Lancet 2020). Evaluation of OS (co-primary EP) was performed via a hierarchical fixed sequence procedure: arm A vs C ITT pts; then, arm B vs C ITT and IC2/3 pts. No formal testing was performed in this exploratory subgroup analyses; OS and RECIST 1.1 ORR (per investigator [secondary EP]) were descriptively evaluated. Results: Efficacy data suggested OS and ORR benefit in atezo-treated cis-ineligible IC2/3 pts (Table). In the overall safety population, all-grade treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) had occurred in 60% and 96% of arm B and C pts, respectively; grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 15% and 81%, respectively. Biomarker data evaluating PD-L1 biology (assessed by SP142) and associated transcriptome analysis in arms B vs C will be presented. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis of IMvigor130 pts with 1L cis–ineligible IC2/3 mUC provides additional evidence for clinical benefit with single-agent atezo, a well-tolerated treatment with a distinct safety profile vs chemo. Analyses with longer OS follow-up are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . Research Sponsor: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd[Table: see text]

Aim: We aimed to identify SNPs associated with cabazitaxel toxicity and response within a Phase II clinical trial using this compound in advanced transitional cell carcinoma after progression to a platinum-based regimen. Patients & methods: Eleven SNPs in CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2C8, ABCB1 and TUBB1 were genotyped in 45 patients. Results: CYP3A5 rs776746 A allele was associated with protection against gastrointestinal toxicity (odds ratio: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.007–0.63, p = 0.018) and with reduced progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 5.1, 95% CI: 1.7–15.1, p = 0.0038, multivariable analysis). ABCB1 SNPs were associated with total number of grade 3–4 toxicity events (p-values of 0.009, 0.041 and 0.043, respectively). Conclusion: Polymorphisms in CYP3A5 and ABCB1 may define a subset of patients with different cabazitaxel toxicity and efficacy and therefore could be used as markers for treatment optimization.

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent male urogenital malignancy. Approximately 30% of patients with prostate cancer will develop advanced disease. Androgen deprivation therapy achieves disease control in about 90% of these patients, but the majority of them will eventually develop progressive disease, a status called castration-resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC). However, in recent years, several new therapy strategies, such as immunotherapy, hormonal manipulations, chemotherapy agents and some bone-targeted therapies, have demonstrated an improvement in terms of overall survival in controlled trials. In 2012, the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGUG) published its recommendations for the treatment of patients with CRPC. Due to the recent appearance of important new data and the complexity of decision-making in this field, SOGUG herein provides updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

5011 Background: Tumor mutational burden (TMB), PD-L1 expression, T-effector gene expression (GE) and a fibroblast TGF-β–response signature (F-TBRS) are associated with clinical outcomes with atezo mono in mUC (Mariathasan, Nature, 2018). Here we explore the potential predictive role of these biomarkers and APOBEC mutagenesis in IMvigor130. Methods: Pts receiving first-line (1L) mUC treatment (tx) were randomized 1:1:1 to atezo + PBC, atezo mono, or placebo + PBC. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were PFS and OS. Planned exploratory biomarker analyses included PD-L1 expression, TMB (FoundationOne), and T-effector GE (RNA-seq). Results: The 851 biomarker-evaluable pts (BEP) were representative of the 1200 ITT pts. Biomarker results are shown in Table. PD-L1 IC2/3 was associated with significantly longer OS for atezo mono vs placebo + PBC and a combination of PD-L1 IC2/3, and high TMB (> 10 muts/Mb) identified a pt subset (≈ 14% of BEP) with particularly favorable outcomes with atezo mono vs placebo + PBC; similar results for PD-L1 and TMB were not seen with atezo + PBC vs placebo + PBC. APOBEC mutagenesis was associated with improved OS with atezo-containing regimens whereas high F-TBRS was associated with inferior OS with atezo mono. Conclusions: These results reinforce the potential predictive nature of biomarkers associated with response/resistance to atezo and highlight potentially distinct biology driving benefit with atezo and atezo + PBC. These findings suggest a possible biomarker-directed approach to 1L mUC tx that warrants mechanistic interrogation and prospective validation. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . [Table: see text]

95 Background: Abiraterone acetate (AA) improves OS and rPFS in first line mCRPC patients (pts). After AA progression D is commonly used as standard second line therapy. However, the value of maintaining AA in combination with D despite progression has not been tested beyond small exploratory studies (Tagawa ST, Eur Urol 2016) ABIDO is a randomized-phase II trial that evaluates efficacy and safety of D + AA vs D after first-line AA progression in mCRPC. Methods: Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC pts with no visceral metastases, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate organ functions were included. The study has two stages: In stage I pts receive AA (1000 mg/d + prednisone (P) 10 mg qd) until radiological or unequivocal clinical progression. In stage II pts were randomized to D 75 mg/m2 q3wk in combination with AA 1000 mg/d (arm A) or without AA (arm B) The primary endpoint was rPFS and the secondary endpoints radiological response (RR), OS, PSA-response, PSA-PFS and safety. Results: 88 pts were randomized, (46 arm A, 42 Arm B). Median age was 69 y/o, 43% had ECOG 0 and 91%/11%/5% had bone, liver and lung metastases. Median rPFS was 11.4 months (m) in arm A vs 10.5 m in ARM B; 12-m rPFS was 43% vs 45%; Median PSA PFS was 6.2 vs 5.5 m and median OS was 17.3 vs 16.9 m. Twenty four pts (52%) in arm A and 19 (46%) in arm B achieve ≥50% PSA response. RR was achieved in 15% vs 7% of pts and disease control rate in 74% in both arms. No statistically significant differences were found in efficacy parameters. Half of pts received 10 cycles of D (median 7 and 8). D median dose intensity was 86% and 90% for each arm and 91% for AA. Eleven pts discontinued treatment due to non-hematological toxicity, 5 in arm A and 6 in arm B. Most frequent G3-4 toxicities per arm (A/B) were: neutropenia (57%/29%; P=0.027), febrile neutropenia (17%/10%), diarrhea (9%/7%), and asthenia (11%/10%). Conclusions: ABIDO trial was unable to demonstrate the significant clinical benefit of maintenance AA approach + D after AA first-line therapy. No differences were observed in RR, PSA PFS, rPFS and OS. In AA + D cohort, more frequent and severe hematological toxicity (neutropenia and febrile neutropenia) were reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02036060.

[Abstract] Background: A pivotal, randomized, phase III trial demonstrated a statistically significant superiority of sunitinib over interferon-α in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced or mRCC in routine clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective pooled analysis of clinical data from three observational and prospective studies carried out between 2007 and 2011 in 33 Spanish hospitals. Tumor response, Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and main sunitinib-related toxicities were registered. Results: 224 patients were analyzed. Median PFS 10.6 months (95% CI: 9.02–12.25), median OS 21.9 months (95% CI: 17.2–26.6). Objective response rate (ORR) 43.8% (95% CI: 36.8–50.7). Median time to PR was 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.86–5.99) and to CR 8.2 months (95% CI: 4.75–9.77). The most common ≥ grade-3 AEs were asthenia/fatigue (18.7%), hand-foot syndrome (6.2%), hypertension (5.8%) and neutropenia (4.8%). Hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea and mucositis were confirmed as independent predictors for PFS and/or OS in a multivariate analysis (p < 0.05) Conclusions: Outcomes with sunitinib in daily clinical practice resemble those obtained in clinical trials. Long-term benefit with sunitinib is possible in advanced RCC patients but the appropriate management of toxicities is mandatory to enable patients to remain on treatment.

Prostate cancer largely affects aged men and as life expectancy continues to increase, it is likely to be a growing burden requiring an adequate management. Aging is a heterogeneous process, thus, to assess the individual state of health when making decisions is essential. Comprehensive geriatric assessment allows a detailed evaluation of the state of health of a specific subject and can modify the therapeutic decision. It is still not commonly used because it is time consuming. Chemotherapy should be administered equally in aged well-fit patients as in the general population as per the SIOG (International society of geriatric oncology) recommendations for geriatric evaluation and treatment in prostate cancer patients. Chemotherapy with docetaxel or cabazitaxel is expected to have an efficacy and toxicity similar to younger patients and they might be considered treatment options for these patients among others. In vulnerable or frail patients, weekly or biweekly docetaxel regimens are acceptable treatment options.

Summary Background Maintenance therapy improves outcomes in various tumour types, but cumulative toxic effects limit the choice of drugs. We investigated whether maintenance therapy with vinflunine would delay disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had achieved disease control with first-line chemotherapy. Methods We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial in 21 Spanish hospitals. Eligible patients had locally advanced, surgically unresectable, or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract, adequate organ function, and disease control after four to six cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine (carboplatin allowed after cycle four). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive vinflunine or best supportive care until disease progression. We initially used block randomisation with a block size of six. Four lists were created for the two stratification factors of starting dose of vinflunine and presence of liver metastases. After a protocol amendment, number of cisplatin and gemcitabine cycles was added as a stratification factor, and eight lists were created, still with a block size of six. Finally, we changed to a minimisation procedure to reduce the risk of imbalance between groups. Vinflunine was given every 21 days as a 20 min intravenous infusion at 320 mg/m 2 or at 280 mg/m 2 in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1, age 75 years or older, previous pelvic radiotherapy, or creatinine clearance lower than 60 mL/min. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival longer than 5·3 months in the vinflunine group, assessed by modified intention to treat. Comparison of progression-free survival between treatment groups was a secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01529411. Findings Between April 12, 2012, and Jan 29, 2015, we enrolled 88 patients, of whom 45 were assigned to receive vinflunine and 43 to receive best supportive care. One patient from the vinflunine group was lost to follow-up immediately after randomisation and was excluded from the analyses. One patient in the best supportive care group became ineligible for the study and did not receive treatment due to a delay in enrolment, but was included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 15·6 months (IQR 8·5–26·0), 29 (66%) of 44 patients in the vinflunine group had disease progression and 24 (55%) had died, compared with 36 (84%) of 43 patients with disease progression and 32 (74%) deaths in the best supportive care group. Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 2·0–11·1) in the vinflunine group and 4·2 months (2·1–6·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·37–0·96, p=0·031). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 in the vinflunine group vs none of 42 in the best supportive care group), asthenia or fatigue (seven [16%] vs one [2%]), and constipation (six [14%] vs none). 18 serious adverse events were reported in the vinflunine group and 14 in the best supportive care group. One patient in the vinflunine group died from pneumonia that was deemed to be treatment related. Interpretation In patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy, progression-free survival exceeded the acceptable threshold with vinflunine maintenance therapy. Moreover, progression-free survival was longer with vinflunine maintenance therapy than with best supportive care. Vinflunine maintenance had an acceptable safety profile. Further studies of the role of vinflunine are warranted. Funding Pierre-Fabre Medicament.

264 Background: Abiraterone (Abi), enzalutamide (Enza) and docetaxel (Doc) are all valid first-line (1L) mCRPC treatment options. Evidence suggests a degree of cross-resistance between agents, which may impact the efficacy of subsequent lines of therapy. Evidence on the optimal treatment sequence is lacking. Methods: We evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) treated with 1L Doc, Abi or Enza in the prospective PROREPAIR-B cohort study. We assessed the impact of 1L treatment option (Doc vs Abi/Enza) on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) to 1L-therapy (PCWG2) and PFS2 (time from initiation of 1L-therapy to progression on second-line [2L] therapy). Uni- (UV) and multivariable (MV) cox-regression models were used. MV model covariates included age (≥75 years), local therapy, Gleason Score, metastases at diagnosis, visceral metastases, ALP (≥ULN), LDH (≥ULN), haemoglobin (≤LNL), albumin (≤LNL) and ECOG PS. Results: 406 pts received 1L-Doce (N=188) or Abi/Enza (N=218). Pts receiving Doc were younger (p=0.002), had higher rates of visceral metastases (17.6 vs 8.7%; p=0.008), ALP (52.1% vs 40.4%; p=0.018), LDH (48.1% vs 31.2%; p

176 Background: Cabazitaxel (CBZ) improves overall survival in mCRPC that progresses during or after docetaxel treatment. CABASEM is a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a weekly schedule of CBZ for 'unfit' (ECOG2, previous neutropenic fever with docetaxel, or radiotherapy to

203 Background: Plasma androgen receptor ( AR) copy number status has been identified as a potential biomarker of response in mCRPC patients receiving docetaxel or the AR-targeted therapies abiraterone or enzalutamide. However, the relevance of plasma AR status in the context of cabazitaxel therapy is unknown. Methods: Between September 2011 and January 2018, pre-therapy plasma samples were collected from 155 patients treated with second or third-line cabazitaxel at standard or reduced dose in different biomarker protocols. Droplet digital PCR was used to identify plasma AR gain and normal samples, with the primary objective to evaluate associations of plasma AR status with treatment outcome. In an exploratory analysis, a comparison between plasma AR status and treatment type was investigated by incorporating updated data from our prior study of 85 post-docetaxel patients receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide. Results: We observed a shorter median overall/progression-free survival (OS/PFS) in AR-gained compared to AR-normal patients (OS 10.5 versus 14.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-2.13, P = 0.064), and (PFS 4.0 versus 5.0 months, HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.05-2.07, P = 0.024). In mCRPC patients receiving second-line therapies, a significant treatment interaction was observed between plasma AR and cabazitaxel versus AR-directed therapies for OS (P = 0.041) but not PFS (P = 0.244). In an exploratory analysis, AR-gained patients treated with initial reduced-dose of cabazitaxel had a significantly shorter median OS (7.3 versus 11.5 months, HR 1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.38, P = 0.016), and PFS (2.7 versus 5.0 months, HR 2.27, 95%CI 1.39-3.71, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Plasma AR status has a potential clinical utility in patients being considered for cabazitaxel. Validation of these findings in prospective trials are warranted.

Background AZD4877 is a potent inhibitor of the mitotic spindle kinesin, Eg5. Early-phase clinical studies in a broad range of cancers showed that AZD4877 is well tolerated. This Phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics (Cmax) of AZD4877 in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00661609). Patients and methods AZD4877 25 mg was administered once-weekly for 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate (RECIST). Recruitment was to be halted if ≤2 of the first 20 evaluable patients achieved an objective tumor response. Cmax was assessed on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1. Results None of the first 20 patients evaluable for efficacy achieved an objective response; enrollment was therefore halted. During this initial analysis, a further 21 patients were recruited. Overall, 39 patients were evaluable for efficacy, including one with confirmed partial response (PR) and seven patients with stable disease for ≥8 weeks (including one unconfirmed PR). The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (22 patients), fatigue (12), leukopenia (7) and constipation (6); the most commonly reported grade ≥3 TRAE was neutropenia (21). Four patients had serious TRAEs. On days 1 and 8, the geometric mean Cmax of AZD4877 was 138 ng/ml (CV = 75 %) and 144 ng/ml (CV = 109 %), respectively. Conclusions AZD4877 was generally tolerable in patients with advanced urothelial cancer. Given the limited clinical efficacy, further development of AZD4877 in urothelial cancer is not planned.

The majority of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in first-line treatment; however, a fraction are refractory to these antiangiogenic drugs. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are regulatory molecules proven to be accurate biomarkers in cancer. Here, we identified miRNAs predictive of progressive disease under TKI treatment through deep sequencing of 74 metastatic clear cell RCC cases uniformly treated with these drugs. Twenty-nine miRNAs were differentially expressed in the tumors of patients who progressed under TKI therapy (P values from 6 × 10-9 to 3 × 10-3). Among 6 miRNAs selected for validation in an independent series, the most relevant associations corresponded to miR-1307-3p, miR-155-5p, and miR-221-3p (P = 4.6 × 10-3, 6.5 × 10-3, and 3.4 × 10-2, respectively). Furthermore, a 2 miRNA-based classifier discriminated individuals with progressive disease upon TKI treatment (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.64-0.85; P = 1.3 × 10-4) with better predictive value than clinicopathological risk factors commonly used. We also identified miRNAs significantly associated with progression-free survival and overall survival (P = 6.8 × 10-8 and 7.8 × 10-7 for top hits, respectively), and 7 overlapped with early progressive disease. In conclusion, this is the first miRNome comprehensive study, to our knowledge, that demonstrates a predictive value of miRNAs for TKI response and provides a new set of relevant markers that can help rationalize metastatic RCC treatment.

Background Markers able to predict the response to antiangiogenics in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) are not available. The development of new treatment options like immunotherapy are reaching the clinic; therefore, predictors of benefit from these different available treatments are increasingly needed. Objective In this study, we prospectively assessed the association of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in peripheral blood with long-term benefit from first-line treatment in ccRCC. Design, setting, and participants A prospective observational study was designed involving 13 institutions of the Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group. Adult patients diagnosed with advanced ccRCC who had achieved response or disease stabilization after 3 mo on first-line therapy were eligible. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis CECs were isolated from peripheral blood, captured with ferrofluids coated with monoclonal antibodies directed against the CD146 antigen, and assessed centrally with an automated standardized system. CECs were defined as 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole+, CD105+, and CD45–. Blood samples were systematically taken every 6 wk for 15 mo or until tumor progression, whichever occurred first. Clinical data were externally monitored at all centers. Results and limitations From August 9, 2011, to January 17, 2013, 75 patients were enrolled in the study. Patients with baseline CECs above the median showed a significantly longer progression-free survival than those with low CECs (22.2 mo vs 12.2 mo) with a hazard ratio of 2.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.2–5.3, p =0.016). There was no difference between CEC levels at baseline and at tumor progression (medians of 50 CECs/4ml and 52 CECs/4ml, respectively). Conclusions Under antiangiogenic treatment, the detection of higher CEC levels is associated with clinical benefit in terms of progression-free survival in ccRCC. Patient summary Antiangiogenics are the cornerstone of treatment in kidney cancer. Since they target endothelial rather than tumor cells, we studied the correlation between levels of circulating endothelial cells in peripheral blood and long-term benefit in patients on antiangiogenic therapy. Higher levels were associated with long-term benefit, suggesting that this determination could help to separate best responders from those who could require a more intensive approach.