Quality of Life During Treatment With Chemohormonal Therapy: Analysis of E3805 Chemohormonal Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial in Prostate Cancer

Purpose Chemohormonal therapy with docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT+D) for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves overall survival as compared with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. We compared the quality of life (QOL) between patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who were treated with ADT+D and those who were treated with ADT alone. Methods Men were randomly assigned to ADT+ D (six cycles) or to ADT alone. QOL was assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), FACT-Taxane, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to examine changes over time. Mixed-effect models compared the QOL between arms at each time point. Results Seven hundred ninety men were randomly assigned (ADT+D [n = 397] and ADT[ n = 393]) and completed FACT-P (90% at baseline, 86% at 3 months, 83% at 6 months, 78% at 9 months, and 77% at 12 months). ADT+D patients reported a statistically significant decline in FACT-P at 3 months (P \u3c .001) but FACT-P did not differ significantly between baseline and 12 months (P = .38). ADT+D FACT-P scores were significantly lower at 3 months (P = .02) but significantly higher at 12 months (P = .04) when compared with ADT FACT-P scores. Differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference at any time point. ADT+D patients reported significantly lower Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores at 3 months than did ADT patients (P \u3c .001). Over time, both arms reported significantly poorer FACT-Taxane scores (P \u3c .001) when compared with baseline. Brief Pain Inventory scores were similar between arms. Conclusion Although ADT+D was associated with statistically worse QOL at 3 months, QOL was better at 12 months for ADT+D patients than for ADT patients. Both arms reported a similar minimally changed QOL over time, suggesting that ADT+D is not associated with a greater long-term negative impact on QOL

Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase III E3805 CHAARTED Trial

Purpose Docetaxel added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increases the longevity of some patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Herein, we present the outcomes of the CHAARTED (Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) trial with more mature follow-up and focus on tumor volume. Patients and Methods In this phase III study, 790 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were equally randomly assigned to receive either ADT in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/mm2 for up to six cycles or ADT alone. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Additional analyses of the prospectively defined low- and high-volume disease subgroups were performed. High-volume disease was defined as presence of visceral metastases and/or ≥ four bone metastases with at least one outside of the vertebral column and pelvis. Results At a median follow-up of 53.7 months, the median OS was 57.6 months for the chemohormonal therapy arm versus 47.2months for ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P = .0018). For patients with high-volume disease (n = 513), the median OS was 51.2 months with chemohormonal therapy versus 34.4 months with ADT alone (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P \u3c .001). For those with low-volume disease (n = 277), no OS benefit was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.55; P = .86). Conclusion The clinical benefit from chemohormonal therapy in prolonging OS was confirmed for patients with high-volume disease; however, for patients with low-volume disease, no OS benefit was discerned

Phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort B)

Background To determine the efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) and the efficacy of nivolumab/ipilimumab salvage therapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to initial nivolumab monotherapy.Methods Eligible patients with treatment-naive nccRCC received nivolumab until progressive disease (PD), toxicity, or completion of 96 weeks of treatment (Part A). Patients with PD prior to, or stable disease (SD) at 48 weeks (prolonged SD) were potentially eligible to receive salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B). Patients were required to submit tissue from a metastatic lesion obtained within 12 months prior to study entry and prior to Part B for correlative studies.Results 35 patients with nccRCC were enrolled: 19 (54%) had papillary, 6 (17%) had chromophobe and 10 (29%) had unclassified histology. At median follow-up of 22.9 months, RECIST-defined objective response rate (ORR) was 5 of 35 (14.3% 95% CI 4.8% to 30.3%) (complete response (CR) 2 (5.7%) and partial response (PR) 3 (8.6%)). ORR by histology was: papillary-1/19 (5%); chromophobe-1/6 (17%); and unclassified-3/10 (30%). Nine patients (26%) had tumors with sarcomatoid features with 3 (33%) (2 unclassified and 1 papillary) responding. ORR was 0/18, 3/11 (27%) and 2/6 (33%) for patients with tumor progammed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of = 5% or not measured, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.0 (2.7-4.3) months. Two of five responders have progressed. Thirty-two patients had PD or prolonged SD and therefore, were potentially eligible for salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab (Part B), but 15 patients did not enroll due to grade 2-3 toxicity (6) on nivolumab, symptomatic disease progression (5), or other reasons including no biopsy tissue (4). In the 17 Part B patients, there was one PR (6%) (unclassified/non-sarcomatoid). Grade >3 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 7/35 (20%) on nivolumab and 7/17 (41%) on salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab with one patient experiencing sudden death.Conclusions Nivolumab monotherapy has limited activity in treatment-naive nccRCC with most responses (4 of 5) seen in patients with sarcomatoid and/or unclassified tumors. Toxicity is consistent with prior nivolumab studies. Salvage treatment with nivolumab/ipilimumab was provided in half of these patients with minimal activity

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=<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

Health-related Quality of Life Analysis from KEYNOTE-426: Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma

Micropapillary bladder cancer: Current treatment patterns and review of the literature

No guidelines exist for management of micropapillary bladder cancer (MPBC) and the majority of reports of this variant of urothelial carcinoma (UC) are case series comprised of small numbers of patients. We sought to determine current practice patterns for MPBC using a survey sent to the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) and to present those results in the setting of a comprehensive review of the existing literature

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Methods In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatmentnaive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intentionto-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. Findings Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2–34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3–not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55–0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7–18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1–12·5]; 0·71 [0·60–0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatmentrelated grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. Interpretation With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-426

The randomized, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331) demonstrated that pembrolizumab (pembro) + axitinib (axi) significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced RCC (aRCC) at the first pre-planned interim analysis (minimum study follow-up of 7 mo). Updated analyses are presented here

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426

https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.450