Biomarqueurs cellulaires circulants dans les cancers avancés

Les biomarqueurs sanguins peuvent être utilisés pour définir le pronostic des patients ou permettre de déterminer les altérations moléculaires des cancers, et peut-être pouvoir guider les traitements de thérapies ciblées.Les cellules tumorales circulantes sont le reflet de la cascade métastatique et de la progression tumorale. La détection et la caractérisation des CTC est un domaine clé de la recherche dans le cancer. Cependant, il n existe pas de méthode standard pour la détection des CTC, et le premier objectif de notre étude a été de comparer deux systèmes de détection des CTC basé sur l expression de l antigène EpCAM (CellSearch), ou la taille des cellules (ISET). Nos résultats montrent qu il existe une bonne corrélation pour la détection des CTC dans les cancers du sein ou de la prostate, mais pas dans les cancers bronchiques. Ces résultats suggèrent qu il est nécessaire de développer d autres techniques de détection des CTC pour l énumération et la caractérisation pour permettre une médecine de précision.A ce jour il n existe aucun marqueur validé pour prédire l efficacité des antiangiogéniques. Les CEC et CEP sont des marqueurs prometteurs. Dans notre étude, nous avons fait l hypothèse que les CEC et les CEP pouvaient être pronostic de la survie des patients inclus dans les études de phases précoces. Nos résultats montrent qu un taux élevé de CEP est associé à un mauvais pronostic, et que les CEP pourraient permettre de mieux sélectionner les patients. En conclusion, les marqueurs sanguins comme les CTC, les CEC ou les CEP peuvent être utilisés comme des facteurs pronostiques ou permettre une caractérisation moléculaire, et être une partie intégrante des programmes de médecine de précision.Non-inasive biomarkers detected in the blood could be use for risk) stratification or molecular classification in advanced cancer patients, and could be a guide for molecular targeted therapies. Circulating tumor cells reflect the metastatic cascade and the cancer progression. The detection and molecular characterization of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a key area of translational cancer research. However, there is no universal method to detect CTC, and the primary objective of our study was to compare CTC detection systems based on the expression of the EpCAM antigen (CellSearch assay) or on cell size (ISET assay). Our results showed concordant results in CTC detection in breast and prosatet cancer patients, but not in lung cancer patients. These results suggest that we need to develop other CTC-detection techniques CTC for enumeration and characterization in order to to contribute to guiding specific targeted.To date, no biomarker has been validated for the prediction of efficacy of antiangiogenic agents in patients with advanced cancer. CEC and CEP counts have recently emerged as a potential candidate. In our study, we hypothesised that CEC and CEP are prognostic in patients enrolled in phase I. Our results showed that High CEP levels are associated with poor prognostics and could provide a new tool for patient selection in early anticancer drug trials.In conclusion, non invasive biomarkers such as CTC or CEC, CEP detectable in the blood could be used in the clinic as prognostic factors or surrogates for traditional tumor biopsies, and be a major component of precision medicine.PARIS11-SCD-Bib. électronique (914719901) / SudocSudocFranceF

First-line talazoparib with enzalutamide in HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial

Talazoparib; Cáncer de próstata metastásico resistente a la castraciónTalazoparib; Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancerTalazoparib; Càncer de pròstata metastàtic resistent a la castracióPreclinical evidence has suggested an interplay between the androgen receptor, which largely drives the growth of prostate cancer cells, and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. This association provides a rationale for their co-inhibition for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), an area of unmet medical need. The phase 3 TALAPRO-2 study investigated combining the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor talazoparib with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment of mCRPC. Patients were prospectively assessed for tumor alterations in DNA damage response genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Two cohorts were enrolled sequentially: an all-comers cohort that was enrolled first (cohort 1; N = 805 (169 were HRR-deficient)), followed by an HRR-deficient-only cohort (cohort 2; N = 230). We present results from the alpha-controlled primary analysis for the combined HRR-deficient population (N = 399). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to talazoparib or placebo, plus enzalutamide. The primary endpoint, radiographic progression-free survival, was met (median not reached at the time of the analysis for the talazoparib group versus 13.8 months for the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.61; P < 0.0001). Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, are immature but favor talazoparib (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.03; P = 0.07). Common adverse events in the talazoparib group were anemia, fatigue and neutropenia. Combining talazoparib with enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with mCRPC harboring HRR gene alterations, supporting talazoparib plus enzalutamide as a potential first-line treatment for these patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03395197.This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Astellas Pharma Inc. provided enzalutamide. The authors wish to thank L. Yu and the Pfizer Clinical Programming team. Editorial and medical writing support was provided by A. Smith and E. Messina on behalf of CMC Affinity, a division of IPG Health Medical Communications, and was funded by Pfizer

Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial

Olaparib; Castration-resistant prostate cancerOlaparib; Cáncer de próstata resistente a la castraciónOlaparib; Càncer de pròstata resistent a la castracióPurpose Phase III PROfound trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02987543) met its primary and key secondary objectives, demonstrating significantly longer radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) with olaparib monotherapy versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and/or ATM (cohort A) whose disease had progressed on prior next-generation hormonal agent (NHA). We report exploratory post hoc analysis of the subgroup of patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations in PROfound. Methods All patients had an alteration in a homologous recombination repair gene by tumor tissue testing, of which 160 had underlying BRCA alterations. rPFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Confirmed objective response rate and safety were also assessed. Results Olaparib was associated with longer rPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.32]) and OS (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.95]) than control. There was an rPFS benefit with olaparib in all zygosity subgroups (biallelic [n = 88]; HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.16], heterozygous [n = 15] and unknown [n = 57]; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.60]). Patients with BRCA2 homozygous deletions experienced prolonged responses to olaparib (n = 16; median rPFS, 16.6 months [95% CI, 9.3 to not reached]). Some evaluations are limited by small patient numbers. Germline DNA analysis was performed for 112 (70%) patients; risk of disease progression was similar for patients with germline (n = 61; HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.18]) and somatic (n = 51; HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.37]) BRCA alterations. Conclusion In all subgroups assessed, olaparib improved outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide for patients with mCRPC with BRCA alterations whose disease had progressed on previous NHA.Supported by AstraZeneca and is part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Rahway, NJ

Safety and Antitumour Activity of ODM-201 (BAY-1841788) in Chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17 Inhibitor-naïve Patients : Follow-up from the ARADES and ARAFOR Trials

Background: ODM-201, a new androgen receptor antagonist for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), demonstrated antitumour activity and acceptable tolerability in phase 1/2 trials. Objective: To determine the antitumour activity and safety profile of extended treatment with ODM-201 in men with mCRPC. Design, setting, and participants: ARADES and ARAFOR trials with ODM-201 enrolled chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17 inhibitor (CYP17i)-naïve mCRPC patients. Both trials had extended follow-up. Here we report results for chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients from both trials (data cutoff October 2014 for ARADES and April 2015 for ARAFOR) after extended follow-up. Intervention: A total of 41 chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients received oral ODM-201 twice daily (total daily dose of 1200, 1400 or 1800 mg). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Antitumour activity was assessed in terms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) declines and PSA/radiographic progression. Safety was assessed until disease progression and/or drug discontinuation due to any intolerable adverse event (AE). Results and limitations: ODM-201 safety data after a median treatment time of 13.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.7–15.6, interquartile range [IQR] 7.5–22.0) were similar to those reported in the main ARADES and ARAFOR trials. The overall AE incidence was 80.5% (n = 33/41), with 58.5% (n = 24/41) of patients experiencing only grade 1–2 AEs. The most common AEs were fatigue, back pain, diarrhoea, nausea, and pain in extremity. The median times to PSA and radiological progression were 12.4 mo (95% CI 6.3–18.2, IQR 5.5–22.0) and 15.3 mo (95% CI 9.5–not reached [NR], IQR 6.3–NR), respectively. Conclusions: Extended treatment with ODM-201 (1200–1800 mg/d) was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns, and provided evidence of sustained antitumour activity in chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients with mCRPC. Patient summary: Prolonged treatment with high doses of ODM-201 was well tolerated and provided long-lasting disease control in patients with mCRPC. ODM-201 represents a therapeutic treatment option for mCRPC. The ARAFOR trial (including the follow-up stage) and the follow-up component of the ARADES trial are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as trial numbers NCT01784757 and NCT01429064. Extended treatment with ODM-201 was well tolerated and provided long-lasting disease control in chemotherapy- naïve and CYP17 inhibitor-naïve patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). ODM-201 may represent an additional effective treatment option for mCRPC. © 2017 European Association of UrologyPeer reviewe

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

Hormonal treatment; Prostate cancer; Side effectsTratamiento hormonal; Cáncer de próstata; Efectos secundariosTractament hormonal; Càncer de pròstata; Efectes secundarisBackground 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

Efficacy and safety outcomes of darolutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with comorbidities and concomitant medications from the randomised phase 3 ARAMIS trial

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.PURPOSE: In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in the Androgen Receptor Antagonizing Agent for Metastasis-free Survival (ARAMIS) trial, darolutamide significantly improved median metastasis-free survival by nearly 2 years and reduced the risk of death by 31% versus placebo, with a favourable safety/tolerability profile. This post hoc analysis of ARAMIS evaluated efficacy and safety in patients by number of comorbidities and concomitant medications. METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomised 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. Overall survival (OS) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated in subgroups by median numbers of ongoing comorbidities and concomitant medications. HRs were determined from univariate analysis using Cox regression. FINDINGS: Median numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications were 6 and 10, respectively, with 41.6% of patients having >6 comorbidities and 48.8% taking >10 concomitant medications. For patients with ≤ 6 and >6 comorbidities, darolutamide increased OS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65 and 0.73, respectively), and this benefit was consistent for cardiovascular, metabolic, and other comorbidities (HR range: 0.39-0.88). For patients taking ≤ 10 and >10 concomitant medications, increased OS was also observed with darolutamide versus placebo (HR 0.76 and 0.66, respectively), and the benefit was consistent across medication classes (HR range: 0.45-0.80). Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation with darolutamide were similar to placebo across subgroups by numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications. CONCLUSIONS: The OS benefit and safety of darolutamide remained consistent with that observed in the overall ARAMIS population, even in patients with high numbers of comorbidities or concomitant medications. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02200614. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Darolutamide increased overall survival versus placebo, and incidences of most adverse events were similar between treatments in patients with ≤ 6 or >6 comorbidities and those taking ≤ 10 or >10 concomitant medications.Peer reviewe

Bone scan index and progression-free survival data for progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients who received ODM-201 in the ARADES multicentre study

Background: ODM-201, a new-generation androgen receptor inhibitor, has shown clinical efficacy in prostate cancer (PCa). Quantitative methods are needed to accurately assess changes in bone as a measurement of treatment response. The Bone Scan Index (BSI) reflects the percentage of skeletal mass a given tumour affects. Objective: To evaluate the predictive value of the BSI in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) patients undergoing treatment with ODM-201. Design, setting, and participants: From a total of 134 mCRPC patients who participated in the Activity and Safety of ODM-201 in Patients with Progressive Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer clinical trial and received ODM-201, we retrospectively selected all those patients who had bone scan image data of sufficient quality to allow for both baseline and 12-wk follow-up BSI-assessments (n = 47). We used the automated EXINI bone BSI software (EXINI Diagnostics AB, Lund, Sweden) to obtain BSI data. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We used the Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier estimates to investigate the association among BSI, traditional clinical parameters, disease progression, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Results and limitations: In the BSI assessments, at follow-up, patients who had a decrease or at most a 20% increase from BSI baseline had a significantly longer time to progression in bone (median not reached vs 23 wk, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07–0.58; p = 0.003) and rPFS (median: 50 wk vs 14 wk; HR: 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17–0.74; p = 0.006) than those who had a BSI increase &gt;20% during treatment. Conclusions: The on-treatment change in BSI was significantly associated with rPFS in mCRPC patients, and an increase &gt;20% in BSI predicted reduced rPFS. BSI for quantification of bone metastases may be a valuable complementary method for evaluation of treatment response in mCRPC patients. Patient summary: An increase in Bone Scan Index (BSI) was associated with shorter time to disease progression in patients treated with ODM-201. BSI may be a valuable method of complementing treatment response evaluation in patients with advanced prostate cancer

Redefining cancer of unknown primary: Is precision medicine really shifting the paradigm?

The concept of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) has evolved with the advent of medical oncology. CUP can be difficult to diagnose and represents 2 to 5% of new cancers, therefore not exceptionally rare. Within CUPs can be identified a subset of favourable prognosis tumours, however the vast majority of CUP patients belongs to a poor prognosis group. CUP features significant oncological challenges, such as unravelling biological and transversal issues, and most importantly, improving patient\u27s outcomes. In that regard, CUP patients’ outcomes regrettably showed minimal improvement for decades and CUP remains a cancer group of very poor prognosis. The biology of CUP has two main hypotheses. One is that CUP is a subgroup of a given primary cancer, where the primary is present but cannot be seen due to its small size. The other, the “true” CUP hypothesis, states that CUP share features that make them a specific entity, whatever their tissue of origin. A true biological signature has not yet been described, but chromosomal instability is a hallmark of poor prognosis CUP group. Precision oncology, despite achieving identifying the putative origin of the CUP, so far failed to globally improve outcomes of patients. Targeting molecular pathways based on molecular analysis in CUP management is under investigation. Immunotherapy has not shown ground-breaking results, to date. Accrual is also a crucial issue in CUP trials. Herein we review CUP history, biological features and remaining questions in CUP biology, the two main approaches of molecular oncology in CUP management, in order to draw perspectives in the enormous challenge of improving CUP patient outcomes