First line avelumab in PD-L1+ve metastatic or locally advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) patients unfit for cisplatin (cis): The ARIES trial

Background: Avelumab (ave) was approved as maintenance therapy after platinum-based first line (1L) therapy for patients (pts) with aUC based on ph. 3 Javelin Bladder 100 study (NCT02603432), showing significant overall survival (OS) improvement. Here we tested the activity of ave as 1L of therapy in cis-unfit pts with aUC and PD-L1+ve expression. Methods: ARIES is a single-arm, multi-site, open-label phase II trial. Enrolled pts had aUC, were cis-unfit (at least one of: ECOG-PS = 2, CrCl < 60 mL/min, grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy/hearing loss, progression within 6-mos before the end of neo/adj chemo), had not previously received chemo for aUC and PD-L1≥5% (SP263) centrally assessed. Pts received ave 10 mg/Kg IV Q2W until progression, unacceptable toxicity and withdrawal, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was the 1-year OS. Key secondary endpoints were median-OS, -PFS, ORR and safety. Results: A total of 198 eligible cis-unfit pts have been tested for PD-L1 and 71 (35.6%) have been found positive. Among enrolled patients (N = 71), median age was 75 y, 35 (49.3%) had visceral disease, and 22 (31.0%) had ECOG-PS = 2; 50 (70.4%) had CrCl < 60 mL/min and 9 (12.7%) progressed within 6-mos from the end of neo/adj chemo. At the cut-off data (Oct 7, 2021), median follow up was 9.0 mo and 13 patients are still on treatment. The median OS was 10.0 mos (95% CI, 5.7-14.3), and 40.8% of patients were alive at 1-year. The ORR for all patients was 22.5%; complete response, 1.4% (n = 1); partial response, 21.1% (n = 15). Clinical benefit was 43.6% (n = 31). Median PFS was 2.0 mos (95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Among the 56 pts who received at least 3 cycles (29 days) of therapy the median OS was 16.0 vs 1.0 mos. Five (7.0%) grade 3 ave-related adverse events, and no treatment-related death were reported. Conclusions: Ave is active and safe in pts with cis-unfit, PD-L1+ve aUC and poor baseline characteristics

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet‐Uro 19BEYOND study

Background Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. Methods In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. Results After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2–4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1–6 vs. 2–5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). Conclusion After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC

The prognostic value of the previous nephrectomy in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving immunotherapy: a sub-analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

Nephrectomy is considered the backbone of managing patients with localized and selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic role of nephrectomy has been widely investigated with cytokines and targeted therapy, but it is still unclear in the immunotherapy era

Safety of a 3-weekly schedule of carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as first line chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer: preliminary results of the MITO-2 randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The MITO-2 (Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian cancer) study is a randomized phase III trial comparing carboplatin plus paclitaxel to carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in first-line chemotherapy of patients with ovarian cancer. Due to the paucity of published phase I data on the 3-weekly experimental schedule used, an early safety analysis was planned. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (stage Ic-IV), aged < 75 years, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, were randomized to carboplatin AUC 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks. Treatment was planned for 6 cycles. Toxicity was coded according to the NCI-CTC version 2.0. RESULTS: The pre-planned safety analysis was performed in July 2004. Data from the first 50 patients treated with carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin were evaluated. Median age was 60 years (range 34–75). Forty-three patients (86%) completed 6 cycles. Two thirds of the patients had at least one cycle delayed due to toxicity, but 63% of the cycles were administered on time. In most cases the reason for chemotherapy delay was neutropenia or other hematological toxicity. No delay due to palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was recorded. No toxic death was recorded. Reported hematological toxicities were: grade (G) 3 anemia 16%, G3/G4 neutropenia 36% and 10% respectively, G3/4 thrombocytopenia 22% and 4% respectively. Non-haematological toxicity was infrequent: pulmonary G1 6%, heart rhythm G1 4%, liver toxicity G1 6%, G2 4% and G3 2%. Complete hair loss was reported in 6% of patients, and G1 neuropathy in 2%. PPE was recorded in 14% of the cases (G1 10%, G2 2%, G3 2%). CONCLUSION: This safety analysis shows that the adopted schedule of carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin given every 3 weeks is feasible as first line treatment in ovarian cancer patients, although 37% of the cycles were delayed due to haematological toxicity. Toxicities that are common with standard combination of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (neurotoxicity and hair loss) are infrequent with this experimental schedule, and skin toxicity appears manageable

Biological Pathways Involved in Tumor Angiogenesis and Bevacizumab Based Anti-Angiogenic Therapy with Special References to Ovarian Cancer

The creation of new blood vessels from existing ones, which is a mechanism called "angiogenesis", is essential in cancer to supply cancerous growth. Moreover, the development and the progression of the tumor and its metastases are the result of an efficient vascular response. Cancer cells release and activate different angiogenic growth factors and their receptors in the tumor microenvironment to promote the angiogenic process. The most important pro-angiogenic factor is the "Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor" (VEGF) because of its mitogen activity on vascular endothelium. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that obstructs the binding of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor to its receptors and has been approved for the treatment of primary and recurrent ovarian cancer but also for many other solid tumors

An Italian, multicenter, real-world, retrospective study of first-line pazopanib in unselected metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients: the 'Pamerit' study

Objective: Despite the current immunotherapy era, VEGFR inhibitors maintain effectiveness in metastatic renal cell cancer. Real-world data concerning pazopanib are limited. The aim of this study is to add information about efficacy and safety of pazopanib as first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer patients not enrolled into clinical trials. Methods: Retrospective analysis (the PAMERIT study) of first-line pazopanib in real-world metastatic renal cell cancer patients among 39 Centers in Italy. Outcomes were progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate and treatment-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test and multivariable Cox's models were used and adjusted for age, histology, previous renal surgery, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score and pazopanib initial dose. Results: Among 474 patients, 87.3% had clear cell metastatic renal cell cancer histology. Most of them (84.6%) had upfront renal surgery. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 15.8 and 34.4 months, respectively, significantly correlating with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's good prognosis (P &lt; 0.001), ECOG PS 0 (P &lt; 0.001), age (&lt;75 years, P = 0.005), surgery (P &lt; 0.001) and response to pazopanib (P &lt; 0.001). After 3 months of pazopanib, overall disease control rate have been observed in 76.6% patients. Among International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's favorable group patients, 57/121 (47%) showed complete/partial response. No unexpected AEs emerged. Conclusions: In this real-world study, metastatic renal cell cancer patients treated with first-line pazopanib reached greater progression-free survival and overall survival than in pivotal studies and had high response rates when belonging to International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's favorable group, without new toxicities. Pazopanib has been confirmed a valid first-line option for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium's good prognosis metastatic renal cell cancer patients who cannot be submitted to immunotherapy

An Italian, multicenter, real-world, retrospective study of first-line pazopanib in unselected metastatic renal-cell carcinoma patients: the 'Pamerit' study

Despite the current immunotherapy era, VEGFR inhibitors maintain effectiveness in metastatic renal cell cancer. Real-world data concerning pazopanib are limited. The aim of this study is to add information about efficacy and safety of pazopanib as first-line treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer patients not enrolled into clinical trials