A phase II study of retifanlimab, a humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with solid tumors (POD1UM-203)

Background: POD1UM-203, an open-label, multicenter, phase II study, evaluated retifanlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) in patients with selected solid tumors where immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have previously shown efficacy. Patients and methods: Eligible patients (≥18 years) had measurable disease and included unresectable or metastatic melanoma, treatment-naive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score ≥50%), cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) with PD-L1 expression (combined positive score ≥10%), or treatment-naive locally advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Retifanlimab 500 mg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks as a 30-min infusion. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate. Results: Overall, 121 patients (35 melanoma, 23 NSCLC, 29 UC, 34 RCC) were enrolled and treated. The overall response rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 40.0% (23.9-57.9) in the melanoma cohort, 34.8% (16.4-57.3) in the NSCLC cohort, 37.9% (20.7-57.7) in the UC cohort, and 23.5% (10.7-41.2) in the RCC cohort. Median duration of response was 11.5 months (95% CI 2.2-not reached) in the UC cohort, and was not reached in the other cohorts. Retifanlimab safety was consistent with previous experience for PD-(L)1 inhibitors. Conclusions: Retifanlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with melanoma, NSCLC, UC, or RCC. The efficacy and safety of retifanlimab were as expected for a PD-(L)1 inhibitor. These data support further study of retifanlimab in solid tumors

Building a circular supply chain:Achieving resilient operations with the circular economy

This paper highlights the fundamental contribution that supply chain professionals can make to the transition to a circular economy. It aims to provide a general understanding of how the circular economy and supply chain management fields are related to one another. By exploring the concept of a circular supply chain, the paper illustrates the role of supply chain professionals in operationalising circular economy initiatives within their organisations, as well as the opportunities and challenges they may encounter along the way. The paper also provides initialrecommendations for and examples of companies overcoming some of these challenges, based on the experiences of supply chain professionals involved in the research

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE). RESULTS: IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct

Gene expression profiling revealed novel mechanism of action of Taxotere and Furtulon in prostate cancer cells

BACKGROUND: Both Taxotere and Capecitabine have shown anti-cancer activity against various cancers including prostate cancer. In combination, Taxotere plus Capecitabine has demonstrated higher anti-cancer activity in advanced breast cancers. However, the molecular mechanisms of action of Taxotere and Capecitabine have not been fully elucidated in prostate cancer. METHODS: The total RNA from PC3 and LNCaP prostate cells untreated and treated with 2 nM Taxotere, 110 μM Furtulon (active metabolite of Capecitabine), or 1 nM Taxotere plus 50 μM Furtulon for 6, 36, and 72 hours, was subjected to Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array analysis. Real-time PCR and Western Blot analysis were conducted to confirm microarray data. RESULTS: Taxotere and Furtulon down-regulated some genes critical for cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, transcription factor, cell signaling, and oncogenesis, and up-regulated some genes related to the induction of apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, and differentiation in both cell lines. Taxotere and Furtulon also up-regulated some genes responsible for chemotherapeutic resistance, suggesting the induction of cancer cell resistance to these agents. CONCLUSIONS: Taxotere and Furtulon caused the alternation of a large number of genes, many of which may contribute to the molecular mechanisms by which Taxotere and Furtulon inhibit the growth of prostate cancer cells. This information could be utilized for further mechanistic research and for devising optimized therapeutic strategies against prostate cancer

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC)

Background and objective: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. Methods: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members (“panellists”). Key findings and limitations: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. Conclusions and clinical implications: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials

Metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A Renal Cross Channel Group study

Background: Treatment of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial despite several recent prospective studies of targeted therapies (TT). Often Vascular Endothelial growth Factor (VEGF) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used, extrapolating the data from use of these agents in clear cell RCC. Methods: We performed a retrospective data analysis within the Renal Cross Channel Group to determine metastatic chromophobe RCC (mChRCC) outcomes in the TT era. The end-points were overall response, overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). The two latter were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: 91 mChRCC patients from 26 centres were included. Median follow-up from the date of first metastasis was 6.1 years (range: 0–13.9). Median OS was 37.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.4–46.8) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Among the 61 patients who received TT, 50 (82%) were treated with anti-angiogenic (AA) and 11 with mTOR inhibitors. Median TTF and OS in patients receiving a first line of AA was 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–10.9) and 22.9 months (95% CI: 17.8–49.2) versus 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.0–6.0) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.3–not evaluable) with mTOR inhibitors, respectively. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare AA and mTOR inhibitors TT, while controlling the effect of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF (p = 0.26) or for OS (p = 0.55). Conclusion: We report the largest retrospective cohort of patients with mChRCC treated with TT and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF and OS