SAUL, a single-arm study of atezolizumab for chemotherapy-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the urinary tract: outcomes by key baseline factors, PD-L1 expression and prior platinum therapy

Background The impact of pretreatment factors on immune checkpoint inhibition in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) deserves further evaluation. The aim was to study the association of Bellmunt risk factors, time from last chemotherapy (TFLC), previous therapy and PD-L1 expression with atezolizumab efficacy in platinum-refractory aUC. Patients and methods This was a post-hoc analysis of patients who had received prior cisplatin or carboplatin in the prospective, single-arm, phase IIIb SAUL study (NCT02928406). Patients were treated with 3-weekly atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Relationships were analysed using Cox regression and long-rank test. Results Of 997 patients in SAUL, 969 were eligible for this analysis. The number of Bellmunt risk factors was associated with OS (P 6 months, 7.75 versus 11.6 months for PD-L1 expression on <1% of tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) (IC0)/expression on 1% to <5% of tumour-infiltrating ICs (IC1) versus expression on ≥5% of tumour-infiltrating ICs (IC2/3) and 10.2 versus 7.8 months for prior versus no prior perioperative chemotherapy, respectively. The type of platinum compound and number of previous treatment lines were not associated with outcomes. Conclusions Post-platinum atezolizumab is active in aUC, irrespective of previous platinum compound and lines of therapy. Bellmunt risk stratification, PD-L1 expression, TFLC and perioperative chemotherapy were identified as prognostic factors for OS with second-line atezolizumab, indicating the need for novel prognostic signatures for immunotherapy-treated patients with aUC

Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Pain and Fatigue in the Phase 3 TITAN Study

PURPOSE: We performed an exploratory analysis of prostate cancer-related pain and fatigue on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide (240 mg/day) or placebo, with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled TITAN trial (NCT02489318). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes for pain and fatigue were evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory. Time to deterioration (TTD) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method; hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. General estimating equations for logistic regression estimated treatment-related differences in the likelihood of worsening pain or fatigue. RESULTS: Compliance for completing the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory was high (96% to 97%) in the first year. Median followup times were similar between treatments (19 to 22 months). Median pain TTD was longer with apalutamide than placebo for "pain at its least in the last 24 hours" (28.7 vs 21.8 months, respectively; p=0.0146), "pain interfered with mood" (not estimable vs 22.4 months; p=0.0017), "pain interfered with walking ability" (28.7 vs 20.2 months; p=0.0027), "pain interfered with relations" (not estimable vs 23.0 months; p=0.0139) and "pain interfered with sleep" (28.7 vs 20.9 months; p=0.0167). Likelihood for fatigue and worsening fatigue were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide plus ADT vs placebo plus ADT reported consistently favorable TTD of pain. No difference for change in fatigue was observed with apalutamide vs placebo

Health-related quality of life after apalutamide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (TITAN): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study

Background: In the phase 3 TITAN study, the addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved the primary endpoints of overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We aimed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in TITAN, including pain and fatigue. Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study, patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (defined as not receiving ADT at the time of metastatic disease progression) aged 18 years and older, receiving continuous ADT (selected at the investigator's discretion), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system, to receive oral apalutamide (four 60 mg tablets, once daily) or matching placebo. Previous localised disease treatment or previous docetaxel for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer were allowed. Randomisation was stratified by Gleason score at diagnosis, region, and previous docetaxel treatment. Randomisation was done using randomly permuted blocks (block size of four). Investigators, research staff, sponsor study team, and patients were masked to the identities of test and control treatments. Patient-reported outcomes were prespecified exploratory endpoints and were the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), and EuroQoL 5D questionnaire 5 level (EQ-5D-5L). BPI and BFI were completed for 7 consecutive days (days −6 to 1 inclusive of each cycle visit), then at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. FACT-P and EQ-5D-5L were completed during cycles 1–7, then every other cycle until the end of treatment, and at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Missing patient-reported outcome assessments were calculated as the expected number of assessments for a visit minus the actual number of assessments received for that visit. For time-to-event endpoints, when median values could not be calculated because less than 50% of patients had degradation, 25th percentiles were compared. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02489318, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 9, 2015, and July 25, 2017, 1052 eligible patients were enrolled randomly assigned to apalutamide (n=525) or placebo (n=527). Data cutoff for this analysis of patient-reported outcomes was Nov 23, 2018. Median follow-up for time to pain-related endpoints ranged from 19·4 to 22·1 months. Patients were mostly asymptomatic at baseline: on the BPI-SF pain severity scale of 0–10, median pain scores (indicating worst pain in the past 24 h) were 1·14 (IQR 0–3·17) in the apalutamide group and 1·00 (0–2·86) in the placebo group, and median worst fatigue scores on the BFI were 1·29 (IQR 0–3·29) in the apalutamide group and 1·43 (0·14–3·14) in the placebo group. Patient experience of pain and fatigue (intensity and interference) did not differ between the groups for the duration of treatment. Median time to worst pain intensity progression was 19·09 months (95% CI 11·04–not reached) in the apalutamide group versus 11·99 months (8·28–18·46) in the placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·75–1·06]; p=0·20). Median time to pain interference progression was not reached in either group (95% CI 28·58–not reached in the apalutamide group; not reached–not reached in the placebo group). 25th percentiles for time to pain interference progression were 9·17 months (5·55–11·96) in the apalutamide group and 6·24 months (4·63–7·43) in the placebo group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·73–1·10]; p=0·29). FACT-P total scores and EQ-5D-5L data showed preservation of HRQOL in both groups. The median time to deterioration as determined by FACT-P total score was 8·87 months (95% CI 4·70–11·10) in the apalutamide group and 9·23 months (7·39–12·91) in the placebo group (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·85–1·22]; p=0·85). Interpretation: Apalutamide with ADT is a well-tolerated and effective option for men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The combination significantly improves survival outcomes compared with ADT alone while maintaining HRQOL despite additive androgen blockade. Funding: Janssen Research & Development

Enzalutamide in European and North American men participating in the AFFIRM trial

Objective To explore any differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between European (EU) (n = 684) and North American (NA) (n = 395) patients in the AFFIRM trial (NCT00974311).Patients and Methods Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational AFFIRM trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in a post hoc analysis.Results Enzalutamide significantly improved OS compared with placebo in both EU and NA patients. The median OS in EU patients was longer than NA patients in both treatment groups. However, the relative treatment effect, expressed as hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, was similar in both regions: 0.64 (0.50, 0.82) for EU and 0.63 (0.47, 0.83) for NA. Significant improvements in other end points further confirmed the benefit of enzalutamide over placebo in patients from both regions. The tolerability profile of enzalutamide was comparable between EU and NA patients, with fatigue and nausea the most common adverse events. Four EU patients (4/461 enzalutamide-treated, 0.87%) and one NA patient (1/263 enzalutamide-treated, 0.38%) had seizures. The difference in median OS was related in part to the timing of development of mCRPC and baseline demographics on study entry.Conclusion This post hoc exploratory analysis of the AFFIRM trial showed a consistent OS benefit for enzalutamide in men with mCRPC who had previously progressed on docetaxel in both NA- and EU-treated patients, although the median OS was higher in EU relative to NA patients. Efficacy benefits were consistent across end points, with a comparable safety profile in both regions. © 2014 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International

Renal cell carcinoma guideline.

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guideline Group for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) prepared this guideline to help urologists assess the evidence-based management of RCC and to incorporate the guideline recommendations into their clinical practice. METHODS: The recommendations provided in the current guideline are based on a systematic literature search using MedLine, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and publications and review articles. RESULTS: A limited number of prospective randomised studies are available with high-level evidence. Most publications concerning RCC are based on retrospective analyses, including some larger multicentre validation studies and well-designed controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: It must be stressed that the current guideline contains information for the treatment of an individual patient according to a standardised general approach. Updated recommendations concerning diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up can improve the clinical handling of patients with RCC