Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals

Overall Survival by Response to First-line Induction Treatment with Atezolizumab plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy or Placebo plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours. Patient summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx. The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint

Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise. Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. Intervention: Cabozantinib 60 mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 every 3 wk plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily orally. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power. Results and limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate any survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N =61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N = 58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15%versus 17%,a −2%difference(95%confidenceinterval:−16%to11%, p = 0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing. Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation. Patient summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases

Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations

Treatment approaches for urachal cancer: Use of immunotherapy and targeted therapies

Urachal cancer is a rare genitourinary malignancy that arises from the embryologic remnant of the urachus. The malignancy is considered to be aggressive, with no clear consensus on appropriate management for advanced disease. Although traditionally considered to be related to bladder cancer given its embryologic origin, several next generation sequencing studies have revealed the genomic profile of this genitourinary malignancy most closely resembles colorectal cancer. Moreover, these studies have identified potentially actionable mutations including EGFR, KRAS and MET. In addition, recent data suggests that immunotherapy may benefit some patients with advanced urachal cancer. Nonetheless, continued research is warranted to better understand how to treat this rare genitourinary cancer

A remnant never forgotten: the utility of circulating tumor DNA in treatment guidance of urachal cancer

Urachal cancer is a rare malignancy of the urachus that is treated with surgical resection if localized and systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a single-stranded or double-stranded DNA released by tumor cells into the blood and harbored the mutations of the original tumor, shedding new light on molecular diagnosis and monitoring of cancer. We report a case of resected localized urachal cancer with clear surgical margins and negative lymph node dissection but elevated ctDNA that progressed to metastatic disease. We also highlight the possibility of using ctDNA levels to assist in adjuvant therapy

A comparative study of spinal cord compression management in metastatic prostate cancer: Teaching versus non‐teaching hospitals in the United States

Abstract Background Spinal cord compression (SCC) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is a critical complication and multiple factors influence the optimal therapeutic strategy. We investigated the differences in practice patterns between teaching hospitals (TH) and non‐teaching hospitals (NTH) across the United States. Method Using the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS), we performed a retrospective study on hospitalizations with MPC and SCC between 2016 and 2020 in US. We compared demographic factors, comorbidities, treatment modalities, duration of hospitalization, financial expenditures, and mortality between TH and NTH. We also examined the patients' characteristics and outcomes in TH and NTH based on their chosen therapeutic strategy. Results We identified 11,380 admissions with metastatic prostate cancer and SCC; 9610 in TH and 1770 in NTH. The median cost of hospitalization was $21,922 in TH and$15,141 in NTH. Although the median age and Charlson comorbidity score did not differ between two groups, patients in TH were more likely to receive intervention (radiation or surgery) compared to NTH (Surgery: 28.2% in TH vs. 23.0% in NTH & Radiation: 12.1% in TH vs. 8.2% in NTH). Mortality was lower in TH than NTH (4.5% vs. 7.9%). In both TH and NTH, a higher proportion of patients with private insurance underwent surgery (TH: Surgery 25.1% vs. Radiation 18.8% & NTH: Surgery 27.0% vs. 6.9%). Black patients were more likely to receive radiation than surgery in TH (34.2% vs. 26.8%). Conclusion This study showed a greater percentage of patients underwent surgical intervention at TH compared to NTH. Additionally, the type of insurance and racial background were associated with distinctive treatment approaches