Final Results From a Phase I Trial and Expansion Cohorts of Cabozantinib and Nivolumab Alone or With Ipilimumab for Advanced/Metastatic Genitourinary Tumors.

PURPOSE: Cabozantinib and nivolumab (CaboNivo) alone or with ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi) have shown promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and rare genitourinary (GU) tumors in a dose-escalation phase I study. We report the final data analysis of the safety, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of the phase I patients and seven expansion cohorts. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase I trial. CaboNivo doublet expansion cohorts included (1) mUC, (2) mRCC, and (3) adenocarcinoma of the bladder/urachal; CaboNivoIpi triplet expansion cohorts included (1) mUC, (2) mRCC, (3) penile cancer, and (4) squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder and other rare GU tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02496208). RESULTS: The study enrolled 120 patients treated with CaboNivo (n = 64) or CaboNivoIpi (n = 56), with a median follow-up of 49.2 months. In 108 evaluable patients (CaboNivo n = 59; CaboNivoIpi n = 49), the ORR was 38% (complete response rate 11%) and the median duration of response was 20 months. The ORR was 42.4% for mUC, 62.5% for mRCC (n = 16), 85.7% for squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder (n = 7), 44.4% for penile cancer (n = 9), and 50.0% for renal medullary carcinoma (n = 2). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 84% of CaboNivo patients and 80% of CaboNivoIpi patients. CONCLUSION: CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi demonstrated clinical activity and safety in patients with multiple GU malignancies, especially clear cell RCC, urothelial carcinoma, and rare GU tumors such as squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder, small cell carcinoma of the bladder, adenocarcinoma of the bladder, renal medullary carcinoma, and penile cancer.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Stand and Perspectives.

Hepatocellular carcinoma often develops in the context of chronic liver disease. It is the sixth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Although the mainstay of therapy is surgical resection, most patients are not eligible because of liver dysfunction or tumor extent. Sorafenib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor that improved the overall survival of patients who failed to respond to local therapies or had advanced disease, and for many years, it was the only treatment approved for the first-line setting. However, in recent years, trials have demonstrated an improvement in survival with treatments based on immunotherapy and new targeting agents, thereby extending the treatment options. A phase III trial showed that a combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, improved survival in the first-line setting, and is now considered the new standard of care. Other agents and combinations are being tested, including the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and tremelimumab plus durvalumab, and they reportedly have clinical benefits. The aim of this manuscript is to review the latest approved therapeutic options in first- and second-line settings for advanced HCC and discuss future perspectives.

Systemic therapy issues: Immunotherapy in nonmetastatic urothelial cancer.

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is one of the most common malignancies. Patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk disease can be treated with intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, a vaccine against tuberculosis. However, many of these patients will experience tumor recurrence, despite appropriate treatment. 1 The standard of care in these patients is radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion. 2 Patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) have traditionally faced 2 main treatment options: RC and urinary diversion, as in Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-unresponsive Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, or alternatively, trimodal therapy comprising maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor plus chemoradiation. 3 For patients with MIBC and clinical (c)T2-T4a, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) preceding RC is supported by Level 1 evidence with a modest 5-year overall survival benefit of 5% with cisplatin-based regimens. 4-9 A number of factors preclude MIBC patients from standard treatment options. For example, patients with serious comorbidities might be unable to tolerate general anesthesia, while others might be unwilling to adapt to the lifestyle changes after RC. 10-12 Likewise, patients with extensive carcinoma in situ or poor bladder function might not be optimal candidates for trimodal therapy or be prepared for the ongoing risk that salvage RC might be ultimately required. Reasons for the underuse of NAC range from the fear of delaying potentially curative surgery in nonresponders to patient ineligibility to cisplatin-based NAC. 13,14 Despite best efforts, in both surgical and bladder-sparing approaches, the 5-year overall survival in treated patients with MIBC is only 35% to 50%. 3,15 Strategies to improve overall prognosis as well as to reduce the indications of RC are desperately needed. Trial results have demonstrated the unprecedented ability of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to induce durable remissions in some patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. 16-20 Furthermore, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have shown to be better tolerated than traditional chemotherapy. 16 These successful results have spearheaded the research on these agents in earlier curative settings, with the shared goal of improving overall outcomes, and potentially avoid surgery in patients who show complete response (pT0). Strategies to enhance the immune response by combining immunotherapy with immune sensitizers such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy or radiation are on the rise.

Systemic therapy in bladder preservation.

Bladder cancer is an aggressive and lethal disease. Even when presenting as localized muscle-invasive disease, the 5-year survival rate is about 70%, and the recurrence rate after radical cystectomy is approximately 50%. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has the potential to downstage the primary tumor and treat micrometastases, leading to a decrease in recurrence rates and an increase in cure rates. There is level 1 evidence in favor of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy. However, data from clinical trials evaluating NAC for patients undergoing bladder-sparing treatments are less robust, so this strategy remains controversial. The response to NAC is prognostic and patients with favorable pathological response have better overall survival. Strategies to select patients based on molecular biomarkers have the potential to guide treatment decisions and even de-intensify treatment, avoiding local treatment for those with complete responses to systemic therapy. This review outlines the current literature on the use of NAC in the context of bladder preservation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, highlights neoadjuvant studies in patients ineligible for cisplatin-based NAC, and discusses novel bladder-preservation strategies, including multimodality combinations and biomarker-driven studies of definitive chemotherapy.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab Phase I Expansion Study in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Refractory to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of cabozantinib plus nivolumab (CaboNivo) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) that progressed on checkpoint inhibition (CPI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase I expansion cohort of patients with mUC who received prior CPI was treated with cabozantinib 40 mg/day and nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary goal was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v.1.1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 30 patients enrolled were evaluable for efficacy. Median follow-up was 22.2 months. Most patients (86.7%) received prior chemotherapy and all patients received prior CPI (median seven cycles). ORR was 16.0%, with one complete response and three partial responses (PR). Among 4 responders, 2 were primary refractory, 1 had a PR, and 1 had stable disease on prior CPI. Median DoR was 33.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.7-33.5], median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.5), and median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 5.8-19.5). CaboNivo decreased immunosuppressive subsets such as regulatory T cells (Tregs) and increased potential antitumor immune subsets such as nonclassical monocytes and effector T cells. A lower percentage of monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (M-MDSC) and polymorphonuclear MDSCs, lower CTLA-4 and TIM-3 expression on Tregs, and higher effector CD4+ T cells at baseline were associated with better PFS and/or OS. CONCLUSIONS: CaboNivo was clinically active, well tolerated, and favorably modulated peripheral blood immune subsets in patients with mUC refractory to CPI.

Phase I Study of Cabozantinib and Nivolumab Alone or With Ipilimumab for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma and Other Genitourinary Tumors.

PURPOSE: We assessed the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib and nivolumab (CaboNivo) and CaboNivo plus ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) and other genitourinary (GU) malignances. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received escalating doses of CaboNivo or CaboNivoIpi. The primary objective was to establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DoR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled at eight dose levels with a median follow-up time of 44.6 months; data cutoff was January 20, 2020. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 75% and 87% of patients treated with CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi, respectively, and included fatigue (17% and 10%, respectively), diarrhea (4% and 7%, respectively), and hypertension (21% and 10%, respectively); grade 3 or 4 immune-related AEs included hepatitis (0% and 13%, respectively) and colitis (0% and 7%, respectively). The RP2D was cabozantinib 40 mg/d plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg for CaboNivo and cabozantinib 40 mg/d, nivolumab 3 mg/kg, and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg for CaboNivoIpi. ORR was 30.6% (95% CI, 20.0% to 47.5%) for all patients and 38.5% (95% CI, 13.9% to 68.4%) for patients with mUC. Median DoR was 21.0 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 24.1 months) for all patients and not reached for patients with mUC. Median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.9 months) for all patients and 12.8 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 24.1 months) for patients with mUC. Median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 18.8 months) for all patients and 25.4 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 41.6 months) for patients with mUC. CONCLUSION: CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi demonstrated manageable toxicities with durable responses and encouraging survival in patients with mUC and other GU tumors. Multiple phase II and III trials are ongoing for these combinations.

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Literature Review and Treatment Perspectives.

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is a prevalent and potentially aggressive disease. For more than a decade, treatment with sorafenib has been the only approved therapeutic approach. Moreover, no agent has been proven to prolong survival following the progression of disease after sorafenib treatment. However, in recent years, this scenario has changed substantially with several trials being conducted to examine the effects of immunotherapy and novel targeting agents. Several immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising results in early-stage clinical trials. Moreover, phase III trials with large cohorts have demonstrated remarkable improvement in survival with the use of new targeted therapies in second-line treatment. Treatment regimens involving the combination of two immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenic targeted therapies have shown potential to act synergistically in clinical trials. Recently, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab evaluated in a phase III clinical trial has demonstrated survival superiority in the first-line treatment; it is the new considered standard of care. In this manuscript, we aimed to review the latest advances in the systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma focusing on immunotherapy and targeted therapies.

Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Is There a Role for Gemcitabine?

PURPOSE: Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is an aggressive disease that has poor prognosis and frequently interferes with patient's quality of life. There has been progress in first-line regimens; however, there is no standard second-line regimen. The aim of this study is to analyze second-line gemcitabine after first-line fluorouracil (FU) + leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) regimen. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with advanced PA treated at Hospital Sirio-Libanês from 2011 to 2016. The patients received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment and upon progression, received gemcitabine alone. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were evaluated. Most patients were male (61.1%) and most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 prior to the beginning of second-line treatment (66.6%). The mean number of gemcitabine cycles was 3.4. Most patients had disease progression as the best response to treatment (75.9%), 11.1% had stable disease, and 9.3% experienced a partial response. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months, and the median overall survival was 6.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine alone did not show meaningful clinical benefit as second-line treatment after FOLFIRINOX.

Clinical benefit and radiological response with BRAF inhibitor in a patient with recurrent ameloblastoma harboring V600E mutation.

BACKGROUND: Ameloblastoma is a slow-growing neoplasm of the jaw, for which the standard treatment is surgical removal of the lesion with high recurrence rates and elevated morbidity. Systemic therapy is not established in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 29-year-old woman diagnosed with an ameloblastoma of the left mandible who had been subjected to several surgical procedures over twenty years due to multiple local recurrences. Molecular testing revealed a BRAF V600E mutation, and vemurafenib was started. She experienced complete resolution of symptoms related to the disease, and image scans evidenced continuous shrinkage of the neoplastic lesion after eleven months of therapy. CONCLUSION: This is the first report showing clinical benefit and radiological response with vemrafenib for recurrent ameloblastoma. Targeted therapy addressing BRAF V600E mutation has the potential to change clinical practice of this rare disease.

Chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for localized gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of localized gastric cancer (LGC) consists of surgical resection followed by adjuvant treatment. Both chemoradiation (CRT) and chemotherapy (CT) regimens have shown benefit in survival outcomes versus observation. However, there are few data comparing these approaches. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with LGC treated at Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo (ICESP) from 2012 to 2015. CRT was based on the INT-0116 regimen and CT consisted of a platinum and fluoropyrimidine doublet. Treatment choice was based on physician preference. Toxicity was evaluated for every cycle. Overall survival (OS) analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients were evaluated, 227 in CRT group and 82 in CT group. The most prevalent grade 3/4 toxicities in CRT and CT groups were: nausea/vomiting (9.25 vs 4.9%), fatigue (9.3% vs 2.4%), mucositis (4.4% vs 1.2%), neutropenia (37.8% vs 20.9%), febrile neutropenia (3.9% vs 0%), anemia (4.3% vs 6.1%), thrombocytopenia (2.6% vs 4.9%), neuropathy (0 vs 2.4%) and hand-foot syndrome (0.4% vs 2.4%). Two grade 5 toxicities (febrile neutropenia and anemia) occurred in CRT group. There was no difference in the pattern of recurrence. After a median follow-up of 23.5 months (CRT) and 20.6 months (CT), there was no difference in OS between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CT and CRT present similar efficacy and tolerability as adjuvant treatment for LGC.

Next-generation Sequencing-based genomic profiling: Fostering innovation in cancer care?

OBJECTIVES: With the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, DNA sequencing has been increasingly utilized in clinical practice. Our goal was to investigate the impact of genomic evaluation on treatment decisions for heavily pretreated patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: We analyzed metastatic cancer patients from a single institution whose cancers had progressed after all available standard-of-care therapies and whose tumors underwent next-generation sequencing analysis. We determined the percentage of patients who received any therapy directed by the test, and its efficacy. RESULTS: From July 2013 to December 2015, 185 consecutive patients were tested using a commercially available next-generation sequencing-based test, and 157 patients were eligible. Sixty-six patients (42.0%) were female, and 91 (58.0%) were male. The mean age at diagnosis was 52.2 years, and the mean number of pre-test lines of systemic treatment was 2.7. One hundred and seventy-seven patients (95.6%) had at least one identified gene alteration. Twenty-four patients (15.2%) underwent systemic treatment directed by the test result. Of these, one patient had a complete response, four (16.7%) had partial responses, two (8.3%) had stable disease, and 17 (70.8%) had disease progression as the best result. The median progression-free survival time with matched therapy was 1.6 months, and the median overall survival was 10 months. CONCLUSION: We identified a high prevalence of gene alterations using an next-generation sequencing test. Although some benefit was associated with the matched therapy, most of the patients had disease progression as the best response, indicating the limited biological potential and unclear clinical relevance of this practice.

Next-generation Sequencing-based genomic profiling: Fostering innovation in cancer care?

OBJECTIVES: With the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, DNA sequencing has been increasingly utilized in clinical practice. Our goal was to investigate the impact of genomic evaluation on treatment decisions for heavily pretreated patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: We analyzed metastatic cancer patients from a single institution whose cancers had progressed after all available standard-of-care therapies and whose tumors underwent next-generation sequencing analysis. We determined the percentage of patients who received any therapy directed by the test, and its efficacy. RESULTS: From July 2013 to December 2015, 185 consecutive patients were tested using a commercially available next-generation sequencing-based test, and 157 patients were eligible. Sixty-six patients (42.0%) were female, and 91 (58.0%) were male. The mean age at diagnosis was 52.2 years, and the mean number of pre-test lines of systemic treatment was 2.7. One hundred and seventy-seven patients (95.6%) had at least one identified gene alteration. Twenty-four patients (15.2%) underwent systemic treatment directed by the test result. Of these, one patient had a complete response, four (16.7%) had partial responses, two (8.3%) had stable disease, and 17 (70.8%) had disease progression as the best result. The median progression-free survival time with matched therapy was 1.6 months, and the median overall survival was 10 months. CONCLUSION: We identified a high prevalence of gene alterations using an next-generation sequencing test. Although some benefit was associated with the matched therapy, most of the patients had disease progression as the best response, indicating the limited biological potential and unclear clinical relevance of this practice.

Unraveling molecular pathways of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas of the gastroenteropancreatic system: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are rare and aggressive tumors. Their molecular pathogenesis is still largely unknown, and consequently, the best therapeutic management also remains to be determined. We conducted a systematic review on molecular alterations found in gastroenteropancreatic NECs (GEP-NECs) and discuss potential applications of targeted therapies in setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of studies about molecular features in tumor tissues of patients with GEP-NECs. The Medline, Lilacs, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Opengrey databases were sought, without time, study design or language restrictions. RESULTS: Of the 1.564 studies retrieved, 41 were eligible: 33 were retrospective studies and eight were case reports. The studies spanned the years 1997-2017 and involved mostly colorectal, stomach and pancreas primary tumors. Molecular alterations in the TP53 gene and the p53 protein expression were the most commonly observed, regardless of the primary site. Other consistently found molecular alterations were microsatellite instability (MSI) in approximately 10% of gastric and colorectal NEC, and altered signaling cascades of p16/Rb/cyclin D1, Hedgehog and Notch pathways, and somatic mutations in KRAS, BRAF, RB1 and Bcl2. In studies of mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinomas (MANECs) the molecular features of GEP-NEC largely resemble their carcinoma/adenocarcinomas tumor counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of data about the molecular drivers associated with GEP-NEC, some alterations may be potentially targeted with new cancer-directed therapies. Collaborative clinical trials for patients with advanced GEP-NEC are urgently needed.