Core shell lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles with combined docetaxel and molecular targeted therapy for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

Many prostate cancers relapse after initial chemotherapy treatment. Combining molecular and chemotherapy together with encapsulation of drugs in nanocarriers provides effective drug delivery and toxicity reduction. We developed core shell lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles (CSLPHNPs) with poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) core and lipid layer containing docetaxel and clinically used inhibitor of sphingosine kinase 1 (SK1) FTY720 (fingolimod). We show for the first time that FTY720 (both free and in CSLPHNPs) re-sensitizes castrate resistant prostate cancer cells and tumors to docetaxel, allowing a four-fold reduction in effective dose. Our CSLPHNPs showed high serum stability and a long shelf life. CSLPHNPs demonstrated a steady uptake by tumor cells, sustained intracellular drug release and in vitro efficacy superior to free therapies. In a mouse model of human prostate cancer, CSLPHNPs showed excellent tumor targeting and significantly lower side effects compared to free drugs, importantly, reversing lymphopenia induced by FTY720. Overall, we demonstrate that nanoparticle encapsulation can improve targeting, provide low off-target toxicity and most importantly reduce FTY720-induced lymphopenia, suggesting its potential use in clinical cancer treatment

Gene expression profiling revealed novel mechanism of action of Taxotere and Furtulon in prostate cancer cells

BACKGROUND: Both Taxotere and Capecitabine have shown anti-cancer activity against various cancers including prostate cancer. In combination, Taxotere plus Capecitabine has demonstrated higher anti-cancer activity in advanced breast cancers. However, the molecular mechanisms of action of Taxotere and Capecitabine have not been fully elucidated in prostate cancer. METHODS: The total RNA from PC3 and LNCaP prostate cells untreated and treated with 2 nM Taxotere, 110 μM Furtulon (active metabolite of Capecitabine), or 1 nM Taxotere plus 50 μM Furtulon for 6, 36, and 72 hours, was subjected to Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array analysis. Real-time PCR and Western Blot analysis were conducted to confirm microarray data. RESULTS: Taxotere and Furtulon down-regulated some genes critical for cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, transcription factor, cell signaling, and oncogenesis, and up-regulated some genes related to the induction of apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, and differentiation in both cell lines. Taxotere and Furtulon also up-regulated some genes responsible for chemotherapeutic resistance, suggesting the induction of cancer cell resistance to these agents. CONCLUSIONS: Taxotere and Furtulon caused the alternation of a large number of genes, many of which may contribute to the molecular mechanisms by which Taxotere and Furtulon inhibit the growth of prostate cancer cells. This information could be utilized for further mechanistic research and for devising optimized therapeutic strategies against prostate cancer

СОРАФЕНИБ У БОЛЬНЫХ СТАРЧЕСКОГО ВОЗРАСТА, СТРАДАЮЩИХ ПОЧЕЧНО-КЛЕТОЧНЫМ РАКОМ: АНАЛИЗ ПОДГРУППЫ РАНДОМИЗИРОВАННОГО ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

Background. The perception that older cancer patients may be at higher risk than younger patients of toxic effects from cancer therapy but may obtain less clinical benefit from it may be based on the underrepresentation of older patients in clinical trials and the known toxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. It is not known how older patients respond to targeted therapy.Methods.  This retrospective subgroup analysis of data from the phase 3, randomized Treatment Approach in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial examined the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in older (age ≥ 70 years, n = 115) and younger patients (age <70 years, n = 787) who received treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patient demographics and progression-free survival were recorded. Best tumor response, clinical benefit rate (defined as complete response plus partial response plus stable disease), time to self-reported health status deterioration, and toxic effects were assessed by descriptive statistics. Health-related quality of life was assessed with a Cox proportion- al hazards model. Kaplan - Meier analyses were used to summarize time-to-event data.Results. Median progression-free survival was similar in sorafenib-treated younger patients (23.9 weeks; hazard ratio [HR] for progression compared with placebo = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.66) and older patients (26.3 weeks; HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.69). Clinical benefit rates among younger and older sorafenib-treated patients were also similar (83.5% and 84.3%, respectively) and were superior to those of younger and older placebo-treated patients (53.8% and 62.2%, respectively). Adverse events were predictable and manageable regardless of age. Sorafenib treatment delayed the time to self-reported health status deterioration among both older patients (121 days with sorafenib vs 85 days with placebo; HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.03) and younger patients (90 days with sorafenib vs 52 days with placebo; HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.81) and improved quality of life over that time. Conclusions. Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving sorafenib treatment, outcomes of older ( ≥ 70 years) and younger (<70 years) patients were similar. Введение. В основе предположения о том, что онкологические больные старческого возраста подвергаются большему риску токсического воз- действия при лечении рака, но могут получить меньшую клиническую пользу, лежат, возможно, недостаточная представленность клинических исследований больных старческого возраста, а также данные о токсических эффектах цитотоксической химиотерапии. Неизвестна степень реакции пожилых людей на целенаправленную терапию.  Методы исследования. Представлен ретроспективный анализ данных, полученных при проведении III фазы рандомизированного исследования по всесторонней оценке методов лечения рака почки у 115 больных старческого возраста (≥ 70 лет) и 787 больных моложе 70 лет, прошедших лечение по поводу запущенного почечно-клеточного рака. Регистрировали демографические характеристики больных и случаи выживаемости без прогрессирования заболевания. С помощью методов описательной статистики оценивали наилучший канцерогенный эффект, показатель клинической эффективности (полная ответная реакция + частичная реакция + стойкое заболевание), период времени до наступления ухудшения состояния, определяемого самим больным, а также токсические эффекты. Связанное со здоровьем качество жизни оценивалось с помощью модели пропорциональных вредных факторов Кокса. Проводили анализы по методу Каплана—Майэра для обобщения данных о периоде времени, предшествующем возникновению симптомов.  Результаты. Медианный показатель выживаемости без прогрессирования заболевания оказался одинаковым у лечившихся сорафенибом больных более молодого (23,9 нед; отношение рисков — ОР прогрессирования по сравнению с больными, получавшими плацебо, 0,55; 95% доверительный интервал — ДИ 0,47—0,66) и старческого возрастов (26,3 нед; ОР 0,43; 95% ДИ 0,26—0,69). Показатели клинической эффективности среди получавших сорафениб у более молодых больных и лиц старческого возраста были также идентичны (53,8 и 62,2% соответственно). Независимо от возраста побочные явления были предсказуемы и контролируемы. Лечение сорафенибом отсрочивало начало отмечаемого больными ухудшения состояния их здоровья как среди больных старческого возраста (на 121 день у лечившихся сорафенибом и на 85 дней у получавших плацебо; ОР 0,66; 95% ДИ 0,43—1,03) и моложе (на 90 дней в группе, получавшей сорафениб, и на 52 — в группе плацебо; ОР 0,69; 95% ДИ 0,59— 0,81), а также улучшало качество жизни в данный период времени.  Заключение. Среди больных, страдающих запущенной формой почечно-клеточного рака и получавших лечение сорафенибом, исход заболевания одинаков как у больных старческого возраста (≥ 70 лет), так и у более молодых пациентов (< 70 лет).

Efficacy and correlative analyses of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Background Among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), those with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have the poorest prognosis. This analysis assessed the efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced sRCC. Methods The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib following standard doses and schedules. Assessments in this post hoc analysis of patients with sRCC included efficacy (including progression-free survival) and biomarker analyses. Results A total of 108 patients had sarcomatoid histology and were included in this post hoc analysis; 47 patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 61 in the sunitinib arm. Patients in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved progression-free survival [stratified hazard ratio, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.325-1.003)] and a higher objective response rate (46.8% versus 21.3%; complete response in 4.3% versus 0%) versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative gene expression analyses of patients with sRCC showed enrichment of gene pathway scores for cancer-associated fibroblasts and regulatory T cells, CD274 and CD8A expression, and tumors with The Cancer Genome Atlas m3 classification. Conclusions In this subgroup analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101, patients with sRCC in the avelumab plus axitinib arm had improved efficacy outcomes versus those in the sunitinib arm. Correlative analyses provide insight into this subtype of RCC and suggest that avelumab plus axitinib may increase the chance of overcoming the aggressive features of sRCC

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed. Results: We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68–0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62–0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66–0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75–1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79–1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability). Conclusions: Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development

Metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A Renal Cross Channel Group study

$\textbf{Background}$ Treatment of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial despite several recent prospective studies of targeted therapies (TT). Often Vascular Endothelial growth Factor (VEGF) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used, extrapolating the data from use of these agents in clear cell RCC. $\textbf{Methods}$ We performed a retrospective data analysis within the Renal Cross Channel Group to determine metastatic chromophobe RCC (mChRCC) outcomes in the TT era. The end-points were overall response, overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). The two latter were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. $\textbf{Results}$ 91 mChRCC patients from 26 centres were included. Median follow-up from the date of first metastasis was 6.1 years (range: 0–13.9). Median OS was 37.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.4–46.8) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Among the 61 patients who received TT, 50 (82%) were treated with anti-angiogenic (AA) and 11 with mTOR inhibitors. Median TTF and OS in patients receiving a first line of AA was 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–10.9) and 22.9 months (95% CI: 17.8–49.2) versus 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.0–6.0) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.3–not evaluable) with mTOR inhibitors, respectively. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare AA and mTOR inhibitors TT, while controlling the effect of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF (p = 0.26) or for OS (p = 0.55). $\textbf{Conclusion}$ We report the largest retrospective cohort of patients with mChRCC treated with TT and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF and OS

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions