The impact of prior platinum therapy on survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer receiving vinflunine

Background: A phase III trial demonstrated an overall survival advantage with the addition of vinflunine to best supportive care (BSC) in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. We subsequently examined the impact of an additional 2 years of survival follow-up and evaluated the influence of first-line platinum therapy on survival. Methods: The 357 eligible patients from the phase III study were categorised into two cohorts depending on prior cisplatin treatment: cisplatin or non-cisplatin. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: The majority had received prior cisplatin (70.3%). Survival was higher in the cisplatin group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) irrespective of treatment arm. Multivariate analysis including known prognostic factors (liver involvement, haemoglobin, performance status) and prior platinum administration did not show an independent effect of cisplatin. Vinflunine reduced the risk of death by 24% in the cisplatin-group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) and by 35% in non-cisplatin patients (HR: 0.65; CI 95% 0.41–1.04; P=0.07). Interpretation: Differences in prognostic factors between patients who can receive prior cisplatin and those who cannot may explain the survival differences in patients who undergo second line therapy. Prior cisplatin administration did not diminish the subsequent benefit of vinflunine over BSC

Risk of infections in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and non-RCC patients treated with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors

Background: Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used in a variety of malignancies. Infections have been reported with these drugs. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to further characterise the risk of infections in cancer patients treated with these agents. Methods: Pubmed and oncology conferences' proceedings were searched for studies from January 1966 to June 2012. Studies were limited to phase II and III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of everolimus or temsirolimus reporting on cancer patients with adequate safety profiles. Summary incidences, relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 3180 patients were included. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade infections due to mTOR inhibitors was 33.1% (95% CI, 24.5–43.0%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 3.8–8.3%), respectively. Compared with controls, the RR of all-grade and high-grade infections due to mTOR inhibitors was 2.00 (95% CI, 1.76–2.28, P<0.001) and 2.60 (95% CI, 1.54–4.41, P<0.001), respectively. Subgroup analysis found no difference in incidences or risks between everolimus and temsirolimus or between different tumour types (renal cell carcinoma (RCC) vs non-RCC). Infections included respiratory tract (61.7%), genitourinary (29.4%), skin/soft tissue (4.2%), and others (4.9%). Conclusion: Treatment with mTOR inhibitors is associated with a significant increase in risk of infections. Close monitoring for any signs of infections is warranted

COMPARZ Post Hoc Analysis: Characterizing Pazopanib Responders With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: The phase III COMPARZ study showed noninferior efficacy of pazopanib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this COMPARZ post hoc analysis we characterized pazopanib responders, patient subgroups with better outcomes, and the effect of dose modification on efficacy and safety. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to pazopanib 800 mg/d (n = 557) or sunitinib 50 mg/d, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (n = 553). Secondary end points included time to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR); the proportion of patients with CR/PR ≥10 months and progression-free survival (PFS) ≥10 months; efficacy in patients with baseline metastasis; and logistic regression analyses of patient characteristics associated with CR/PR ≥10 months. Median PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety were evaluated in patients with or without dose reductions or interruptions lasting ≥7 days. Results: Median time to response was numerically shorter for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib (11.9 vs. 17.4 weeks). Similar percentages of pazopanib and sunitinib patients had CR/PR ≥10 months (14% and 13%, respectively), and PFS ≥10 months (31% and 34%, respectively). For patients without versus with adverse event (AE)-related dose reductions, median PFS, median overall survival, and ORR were 7.3 versus 12.5 months, 21.7 versus 36.8 months, and 22% versus 42% (all P &lt;.0001) for pazopanib, and 5.5 versus 13.8 months, 18.1 versus 38.0 months, and 16% versus 34% (all P &lt;.0001) for sunitinib; results were similar for dose interruptions. Conclusion: Dose modifications when required because of AEs were associated with improved efficacy, suggesting that AEs might be used as a surrogate marker of adequate dosing for individual patients

Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by &gt;3-12 mo, &gt;1-2 yr, &gt;2-7 yr, and &gt;7 yr intervals). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status &lt;80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals &gt;3-12 mo, &gt;1-2 yr, &gt;2-7 yr, and &gt;7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p &lt;  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p &lt;  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p &lt;  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p &lt;  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome

Evaluation of Clear Cell, Papillary, and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasis Sites and Association with Survival

Importance: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse. Objective: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020. Exposures: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases. Results: A total of 10105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site. Conclusions and Relevance: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged

Mutations in TSC1, TSC2, and MTOR are associated with response to rapalogs in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Purpose: We examined the hypothesis that mutations in mTOR pathway genes are associated with response to rapalogs in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Experimental Design: We studied a cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with mTOR inhibitors with distinct clinical outcomes. Tumor DNA from 79 subjects was successfully analyzed for mutations using targeted next-generation sequencing of 560 cancer genes. Responders were defined as those with partial response (PR) by RECIST v1.0 or stable disease with any tumor shrinkage for 6 months or longer. Nonresponders were defined as those with disease progression during the first 3 months of therapy. Fisher exact test assessed the association between mutation status in mTOR pathway genes and treatment response. Results: Mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in responders, 12 (28%) of 43, than nonresponders, 4 (11%) of 36 (P = 0.06). Mutations in TSC1 or TSC2 alone were also more common in responders, 9 (21%), than nonresponders, 2(6%), (P = 0.05). Furthermore, 5 (42%) of 12 subjects with PR had mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 compared with 4 (11%) of 36 nonresponders (P = 0.03). Eight additional non-mTOR pathway genes were found to be mutated in at least 4 of 79 tumors (5%); none were associated positively with response. Conclusions: In this cohort of mRCC patients, mutations in MTOR, TSC1, or TSC2 were more common in patients who experienced clinical benefit from rapalogs than in those who progressed. However, a substantial fraction of responders (24 of 43, 56%) had no mTOR pathway mutation identified

Association of immunotherapy and immunosuppression with severe COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer

Background: Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality. Patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) and those with immunosuppression may have higher rates of cytokine storm due to immune dysregulation. We sought to evaluate the association of IO and immunosuppression with COVID-19 outcomes and cytokine storm occurrence among patients with cancer and COVID-19, based on data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19). Methods: A registry-based retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients reported to the CCC19 registry from March 2020 to September 2021. The primary outcome was defined as an ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of a cytokine storm using CCC19 variables, defined as biological and clinical evidence of severe inflammation, with end-organ dysfunction (Fajgenbaum D.C. et al., N Engl J Med., 2020). The association of IO or immunosuppression with the outcomes of interest were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression balanced for covariate distributions through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: A total of 10,214 patients were included, among which 482 (4.7%) received IO, 3,715 (36.4%) received non-IO systemic therapies, and 6,017 (58.9%) were untreated in the 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. No difference in COVID-19 severity or the development of a cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared to the untreated group (aOR: 0.77; 95%CI:0.45-1.32, and aOR: 1.06; 95%CI:0.42-2.67, respectively). On multivariable analysis, baseline immunosuppression was associated with worse outcomes both in relation to COVID-19 severity (aOR: 1.89; 95%CI:1.51-2.35) and the presence of a cytokine storm (aOR: 1.75; 95%CI:1.30-2.35). Conclusions: Administration of IO was not associated with severe outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19, whereas pre-existing baseline immunosuppression appears to be independently associated with worse clinical outcomes including cytokine storm

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

This randomised phase III trial compared standard of care Everolimus with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody Nivolumab in previously treated patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic clear cell renal cancer. 810 patients were randomised to receive either Everolimus 10 mg orally daily or 3 mg/kg of Nivolumab intravenously every two weeks. Patients were treated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients could be treated beyond progression if the investigator believed that the patient was gaining clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 25 months for Nivolumab and 19.8 months for Everolimus (p=0.002). The objective response rate was higher for Nivolumab (25 versus 5%; p=&#60;0.001).The median progression free survivals were 4.6 & 4.4 months (p=0.11). Grade 3 & 4 treatment related toxicities were observed in 19 & 37% of patients on Nivolumab or Everolimus respectively. In patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma Nivolumab produced superior survival and more tolerable treatment than Everolimus

Detecting Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer Through Tissue-Informed Cell-Free DNA Methylation Analysis

Purpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is a resistance phenotype that emerges in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate adenocarcinoma (CR-PRAD) and has important clinical implications, but is challenging to detect in practice. Herein, we report a novel tissue-informed epigenetic approach to noninvasively detect NEPC. Experimental Design: We first performed methylated immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing (MeDIP-seq) on a training set of tumors, identified differentially methylated regions between NEPC and CR-PRAD, and built a model to predict the presence of NEPC (termed NEPC Risk Score). We then performed MeDIP-seq on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from two independent cohorts of men with NEPC or CR-PRAD and assessed the accuracy of the model to predict the presence NEPC. Results: The test cohort comprised cfDNA samples from 48 men, 9 with NEPC and 39 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 4.3 × 10-7) and discriminated between NEPC and CR-PRAD with high accuracy (AUROC 0.96). The optimal NEPC Risk Score cutoff demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity for detecting NEPC. The independent, multi-institutional validation cohort included cfDNA from 53 men, including 12 with NEPC and 41 with CR-PRAD. NEPC Risk Scores were significantly higher in men with NEPC than CR-PRAD (P = 7.5×10-12) and perfectly discriminated NEPC from CR-PRAD (AUROC 1.0). Applying the predefined NEPC Risk Score cutoff to the validation cohort resulted in 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity for detecting NEPC. Conclusions: Tissue-informed cfDNA methylation analysis is a promising approach for noninvasive detection of NEPC in men with advanced prostate cancer

Anti-VEGF therapy in mRCC: differences between Asian and non-Asian patients

Background: Several reports suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may be more toxic in Asian vs non-Asian populations. Comparative efficacy of these agents with respect to ethnicity is not well characterised. Methods: A multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using Asian and non-Asian centres which collected data on ethnicity, dose reductions and outcomes using the International mRCC Database Consortium. Results: This study included 1024 (464 Asian, 560 non-Asian) patients with a 29.4 months median follow-up. The percentage of dose modifications/reductions between non-Asians and Asians was similar (55% vs 61% P=0.1197). When adjusted for risk groups, there was no difference in overall or progression-free survival between non-Asians and Asians. Patients with dose reductions due to toxicity had longer treatment durations and overall survival than those who did not in both non-Asian (10.6 vs 5.0 months, P<0.0001; 22.6 vs 16.1 months, P=0.0016, respectively) and Asian populations (8.9 vs 5.4 months, P=0.0028; 28.0 vs 18.7 months, P=0.0069, respectively). Conclusions: Adjusting for risk groups, there appears to be no difference in outcome between Asian vs non-Asian patients with mRCC treated with VEGF-targeted therapy. Judicious dose reductions may allow for better outcomes in both populations due to longer treatment durations, but direct comparisons are needed