Final Results from SAUL, a Single-arm International Study of Atezolizumab in Unselected Patients with Pretreated Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urinary Tract Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data. METHODS: The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities. PATIENT SUMMARY: The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years.

Real-World Impact of Upfront Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations or Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (A Sub-Analysis from the ARON-1 Retrospective Study).

BACKGROUND: About 20% of patients with renal cell carcinoma present with non-clear cell histology (nccRCC), encompassing various histological types. While surgery remains pivotal for localized-stage nccRCC, the role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in metastatic nccRCC is contentious. Limited data exist on the role of CN in metastatic nccRCC under current standard of care. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study focused on the impact of upfront CN on metastatic nccRCC outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (IO) combinations or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. METHODS: The study included 221 patients with nccRCC and synchronous metastatic disease, treated with IO combinations or TKI monotherapy in the first line. Baseline clinical characteristics, systemic therapy, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis involved the Fisher exact test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: Median OS for patients undergoing upfront CN was 36.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.9-71.3) versus 20.8 (95% CI 12.6-24.8) months for those without CN (p = 0.005). Upfront CN was significantly associated with OS in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio 0.47 [95% CI 0.31-0.72], p < 0.001). In patients without CN, the median OS and PFS was 24.5 (95% CI 18.1-40.5) and 13.0 months (95% CI 6.6-23.5) for patients treated with IO+TKI versus 7.5 (95% CI 4.3-22.4) and 4.9 months (95% CI 3.0-8.1) for those receiving the IO+IO combination (p = 0.059 and p = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the survival benefits of upfront CN compared with systemic therapy without CN. The study suggests that the use of IO+TKI combination or, eventually, TKI monotherapy might be a better choice than IO+IO combination for patients who are not candidates for CN regardless of IO eligibility. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and refine the role of CN in current mRCC management.

Comprehensive 3DCRT Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Schedule for Localized Prostate Adenocarcinoma in the Era of IMRT: Dosimetric and Endoscopic Analysis.

Background: Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT) has emerged as the preferred treatment modality for localized prostate cancer based on randomized controlled studies regarding efficacy and toxicity using contemporary radiotherapy techniques. In the setting of MHRT, available data on dosimetric parameters and late rectal toxicity are limited. Aim: To present the effects of MHRT on late rectal toxicity while conducting an extensive dosimetric analysis in conjunction with rectoscopy results. Methods: This is a prospective study including patients with intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma. All patients were treated with MHRT 44 Gy in 16 fractions to the seminal vesicles and to the prostate, followed by a sequential boost to the prostate alone of 16.5 Gy in 6 fractions delivered with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Acute and late toxicity were assessed. Endoscopy was performed at baseline, every 3 months post-therapy for the first year, and every 6 months for the year after. The Vienna Rectoscopy Score (VRS) was used to assess rectal mucosal injury related to radiotherapy. Dosimetric analysis for the rectum, rectal wall, and its subsegments (upper, mid, and low 1/3) was performed. Results: Between September 2015 and December 2019, 20 patients enrolled. Grade 1 late gastrointestinal toxicity occurred in 10% of the patients, whereas 5% had a grade ≥2. Twelve months post radiotherapy: 4 (20%) patients had VRS 1; 2 (10%) patients had VRS 2; 1(5%) patient had VRS 3. 24 months post radiotherapy, VRS 1 was observed in 4 patients (20%) and VRS 2 in 3 (15%) patients. The dosimetric analysis demonstrated noticeable variations between the rectum, rectal wall, and rectal wall subsegments. The dosimetric analysis of the rectum, rectal wall, and its mid and low segments with respect to rectoscopy findings showed that the higher dose endpoints V52.17Gy and V56.52Gy are associated with rectal mucosal injury. Conclusions: A thorough delineation of the rectal wall and its subsegments, together with the dosimetric analysis of these structures, may reduce late rectal toxicity. Dosimetric parameters such as V52.17Gy and V56.52Gy were identified to have a significant impact on rectal mucosal injury; additional dose endpoint validation and its relation to late GI toxicity is needed.

Chemotherapy response score as a predictor of survival in ovarian cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The chemotherapy response score (CRS) has been widely adopted as a predictive tool for ovarian cancer survival. In the present study, we seek to define differences in survival rates among patients grouped in the traditionally established three-tiered system and those who have not been offered debulking surgery. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a retrospective cohort study involving women treated with chemotherapy and offered interval or late debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. Twenty-eight women were not considered for a debulking procedure for various reasons. Of the 89 women who were finally offered interval debulking or late debulking surgery, 28 had a CRS 1 score, 34 had a CRS 2 score and 27 had a CRS 3 score. RESULTS: Significant differences were noted in the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients based on the CRS stratification, although survival rates were considerably longer for all three groups compared to those of patients who were not offered surgery. Cox regression univariate analysis revealed that suboptimal debulking and CRS 1 or no surgery had a significant negative impact on PFS and OS rates. The binary stratification of CRS (CRS 1-2 vs CRS 3) revealed comparable differences in the PFS and OS to those in the groups that were stratified as platinum resistant and platinum sensitive. CONCLUSION: The chemotherapy response score is a significant determinant of ovarian cancer survival that helps evaluate the risk of early disease relapse and death and may soon be useful in guiding patient-tailored treatment.

Immunomodulatory effects and improved outcomes with cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy plus atezolizumab in urothelial cancer.

In metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), cisplatin versus carboplatin leads to durable disease control in a subset of patients. The IMvigor130 trial reveals more favorable effects with atezolizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) versus gemcitabine and carboplatin (GemCarbo). This study investigates the immunomodulatory effects of cisplatin as a potential explanation for these observations. Our findings indicate that improved outcomes with GemCis versus GemCarbo are primarily observed in patients with pretreatment tumors exhibiting features of restrained adaptive immunity. In addition, GemCis versus GemCarbo ± atezolizumab induces transcriptional changes in circulating immune cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation and T cell activation programs. In vitro experiments demonstrate that cisplatin, compared with carboplatin, exerts direct immunomodulatory effects on cancer cells, promoting dendritic cell activation and antigen-specific T cell killing. These results underscore the key role of immune modulation in cisplatin's efficacy in mUC and highlight the importance of specific chemotherapy backbones in immunotherapy combination regimens.

Real-world Outcome of Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma and Intermediate- or Poor-risk International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Criteria Treated by Immune-oncology Combinations: Differential Effectiveness by Risk Group?

BACKGROUND: Renal c carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most common urinary cancers worldwide, with a predicted increase in incidence in the coming years. Immunotherapy, as a single agent, in doublets, or in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), has rapidly become a cornerstone of the RCC therapeutic scenario, but no head-to-head comparisons have been made. In this setting, real-world evidence emerges as a cornerstone to guide clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the outcome of patients treated with first-line immune combinations or immune oncology (IO)-TKIs for advanced RCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 930 patients, 654 intermediate risk and 276 poor risk, were collected retrospectively from 58 centers in 20 countries. Special data such as sarcomatoid differentiation, body mass index, prior nephrectomy, and metastatic localization, in addition to biochemical data such as hemoglobin, platelets, calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophils, and radiological response by investigator's criteria, were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The median follow-up was calculated by the inverse Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up time was 18.7 mo. In the 654 intermediate-risk patients, the median OS and PFS were significantly longer in patients with the intermediate than in those with the poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria (38.9 vs 17.3 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] p < 0.001, and 17.3 vs 11.6 mo, 95% CI p < 0.001, respectively). In the intermediate-risk subgroup, the OS was 55.7 mo (95% CI 31.4-55.7) and 40.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p = 0.047). PFS was 30.7 mo (95% CI 16.5-55.7) and 13.2 mo (95% CI 29.6-51.6) in intermediate-risk patients treated with IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations, respectively (p < 0.001). In the poor-risk subgroup, the median OS and PFS did not show a statistically significant difference between IO + IO and IO + TKI. Our study presents several limitations, mainly due to its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed differences between the IO + TKI and IO + IO combinations in intermediate-risk patients. A clear association with longer PFS and OS in favor of patients who received the IO + TKI combinations compared with the IO-IO combination was observed. Instead, in the poor-risk group, we observed no significant difference in PFS or OS between patients who received different combinations. PATIENT SUMMARY: Renal cancer is one of the most frequent genitourinary tumors. Treatment is currently based on immunotherapy combinations or immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but there are no comparisons between these.In this study, we have analyzed the clinical course of 930 patients from 58 centers in 20 countries around the world. We aimed to analyze the differences between the two main treatment strategies, combination of two immunotherapies versus immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy, and found in real-life data that intermediate-risk patients (approximately 60% of patients with metastatic renal cancer) seem to benefit more from the combination of immunotherapy + antiangiogenic therapy than from double immunotherapy. No such differences were found in poor-risk patients. This may have important implications in daily practice decision-making for these patients.

Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index in Patients Treated With First-Line Immune Combinations for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Insights From the ARON-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Systemic treatment with immune combinations is the gold standard for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) worldwide. The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is a prognostic marker for several types of malignant neoplasms, including mRCC, in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Data regarding the prognostic value of the SII in patients with mRCC treated with immunotherapy are scarce and controversial.  METHODS: We retrospectively collected the data of patients with mRCC from 56 centers in 18 countries. SII (Platelet × Neutrophil/Lymphocyte count) was calculated prior to the first systemic treatment and cut-off was defined by a survival receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The primary objective of our retrospective study was to assess the outcomes of patients treated with first-line immunotherapy.  RESULTS: Data from 1034 mRCC patients was collected and included in this analysis. The SII cut-off value was 1265. After a follow-up of 26.7 months, and the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 39.8 and 15.7 months, respectively. According to SII (low vs. high), patients with low-SII had longer OS (55.7 vs. 22.2 months, P < .001), better PFS (20.8 vs. 8.5 months, P < .001), and higher overall response rate (52 vs. 37%, P = .033). CONCLUSION: A high SII is associated with poor oncological outcomes in patients with mRCC. SII could be an easily accessible prognostic indicator for use in clinical practice.

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of IMvigor130 showed a significant progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. However, this finding did not translate into significant overall survival benefit for group A versus group C at the final analysis, precluding formal statistical testing of outcomes with atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) versus group C. Here we report the final overall survival results for group B versus group C; this report is descriptive and should be considered exploratory due to the study's statistical design. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) who had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer previously untreated in the metastatic setting and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab alone (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo in group A and group C; atezolizumab monotherapy in group B was open label. For groups B and C, atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Chemotherapy involved 21-day cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 body surface area on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle) plus the investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under the curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 body surface area), administered intravenously. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in group A versus group C, and overall survival in group B versus group C, tested hierarchically, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and then the populations with high PD-L1 tumour expression (immune cell [IC] expression score of IC2/3) if the results from group A versus group C were significant. Here, we report the co-primary endpoint of overall survival for group B versus group C in the ITT and IC2/3 populations. The ITT population for this analysis comprised concurrently enrolled patients in groups B and C who were randomly assigned to treatment. For the safety analysis, all patients enrolled in group B and group C who received any study treatment were included. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 362 patients were assigned to group B and 400 to group C, of whom 360 and 359, respectively, were enrolled concurrently (ITT population). 543 (76%) of 719 patients were male, 176 (24%) were female, and 534 (74%) were White. As of data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow-up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·1-17·7; 271 deaths) in group B and 13·3 months (11·9-15·6; 275 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·82-1·16]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (two [1%] in patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy vs 133 [34%] in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (one [<1%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (0 vs 95 [24%]), and decreased platelet count (one [<1%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 163 (46%) patients versus 196 (50%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (1%; n=1 each, pneumonia, interstitial lung disease, large intestinal obstruction) patients who received atezolizumab monotherapy and four (1%; n=1 each, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, unexplained death, toxic hepatitis) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: The final analysis from IMvigor130 did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with first-line atezolizumab monotherapy compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the intention-to-treat population. The safety profile of atezolizumab monotherapy remained acceptable after extended follow-up, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Inflammation and Immunity Gene Expression Patterns and Machine Learning Approaches in Association with Response to Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors-Based Treatments in Clear-Cell Renal Carcinoma.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common renal cancer. Despite the rapid evolution of targeted therapies, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibition (ICI) as well as combination therapies, the cure of metastatic ccRCC (mccRCC) is infrequent, while the optimal use of the various novel agents has not been fully clarified. With the different treatment options, there is an essential need to identify biomarkers to predict therapeutic efficacy and thus optimize therapeutic approaches. This study seeks to explore the diversity in mRNA expression profiles of inflammation and immunity-related circulating genes for the development of biomarkers that could predict the effectiveness of immunotherapy-based treatments using ICIs for individuals with mccRCC. Gene mRNA expression was tested by the RT2 profiler PCR Array on a human cancer inflammation and immunity crosstalk kit and analyzed for differential gene expression along with a machine learning approach for sample classification. A number of mRNAs were found to be differentially expressed in mccRCC with a clinical benefit from treatment compared to those who progressed. Our results indicate that gene expression can classify these samples with high accuracy and specificity.

Overall Survival by Response to First-line Induction Treatment with Atezolizumab plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy or Placebo plus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Standard-of-care first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) is platinum-based chemotherapy (CTx). Maintenance immunotherapy is a treatment option for patients without progressive disease (PD) after induction CTx. IMvigor130 was a randomised, phase 3 study evaluating atezolizumab plus platinum-based CTx (arm A), atezolizumab monotherapy (arm B), or placebo plus platinum-based CTx (arm C) as first-line treatment for mUC. The primary progression-free survival (PFS) analysis showed a statistically significant PFS benefit favouring arm A versus arm C, which did not translate into overall survival (OS) benefit at the final OS analysis. We report exploratory analyses based on response to combination induction treatment (arm A vs arm C) using final OS data. Post-induction OS was analysed for patients without PD during induction (4-6 CTx cycles) who received at least one dose of single-agent atezolizumab/placebo maintenance treatment. Post-progression OS was analysed for patients with PD during induction CTx. Addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not impact OS outcomes, regardless of response to induction CTx, with hazard ratios of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.10) for patients without PD and 0.75 (95% CI 0.54-1.05) for those with PD during induction CTx. Treatment effects appeared to be greatest for patients treated with cisplatin and for those with PD-L1-high tumours. Patient summary: The IMvigor130 trial showed that addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy (CTx) did not improve survival over CTx alone in patients with bladder cancer. Overall, patients whose cancer did not progress during initial treatment tended to live longer than patients whose cancer did progress, but addition of atezolizumab to CTx did not help either group live longer in comparison to CTx alone. However, the results suggest that patients who received a certain CTx drug (cisplatin) or who had high levels of a marker called PD-L1 in their tumour may get the most improvement from addition of atezolizumab to CTx.The IMvigor130 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02807636.

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Dietary Approach of Patients with Hormone-Related Cancer Based on the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load Estimates.

Hormone-related cancers, namely breast, endometrial, cervical, prostate, testicular, and thyroid, constitute a specific group of cancers dependent on hormone levels that play an essential role in cancer growth. In addition to the traditional risk factors, diet seems to be an important environmental factor that partially explains the steadily increased prevalence of this group of cancer. The composition of food, the dietary patterns, the endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and the way of food processing and preparation related to dietary advanced glycation end-product formation are all related to cancer. However, it remains unclear which specific dietary components mediate this relationship. Carbohydrates seem to be a risk factor for cancer in general and hormone-related cancers, in particular, with a difference between simple and complex carbohydrates. Glycemic index and glycemic load estimates reflect the effect of dietary carbohydrates on postprandial glucose concentrations. Several studies have investigated the relationship between the dietary glycemic index and glycemic load estimates with the natural course of cancer and, more specifically, hormone-related cancers. High glycemic index and glycemic load diets are associated with cancer development and worse prognosis, partially explained by the adverse effects on insulin metabolism, causing hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, and also by inflammation and oxidative stress induction. Herein, we review the existing data on the effect of diets focusing on the glycemic index and glycemic load estimates on hormone-related cancers.

Defining Oligometastatic Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Context: Unlike other cancers, the concept of oligometastatic disease (OMD) in bladder cancer (BC) has not been systematically investigated. There is therefore a need to develop universally accepted definitions and guidelines for the management of oligometastatic BC (OMBC). Objective: To conduct a systematic review to assist a European consensus group in producing a definition of OMBC and to provide recommendations on staging and local therapies. Evidence acquisition: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Abstracts for articles focused on BC that addressed the issue of OMBC and provided a definition of oligometastatic status were selected. We collected data on the number of metastases, the number of metastases per organ, the number of organs involved, and metastatic sites that were excluded. Evidence synthesis: Sixteen eligible articles were retrieved (9 retrospective series involving 330 patients, 4 reviews, 1 consensus statement, 1 guideline paper, and 1 ongoing prospective phase 2 trial). A maximum of three to five metastatic lesions were compatible with the definition of OMBC. The number of organs involved and lesion size were not universally included in the OMBC definitions. OMD categories studied included synchronous OMBC, oligorecurrence, and oligoprogression. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography was used in addition to conventional imaging for OMD detection. Surgery and radiotherapy were both used. Systemic chemotherapy was also used in all studies. Conclusions: There is little information on OMBC in the literature. Our systematic review revealed that only three to five metastatic sites amenable to surgery or radiotherapy that respond to systemic therapy is the setting most frequently chosen for a combination of systemic treatment and metastases-directed therapy. This setting could represent a basis for future prospective studies on OMBC. Patient summary: Oligometastatic bladder cancer is a disease state in which favorable outcomes can be expected after a treatment combination of systemic therapy, plus surgery and/or radiotherapy for sites of bladder cancer metastasis. Our systematic review showed a lack of meaningful evidence to define this disease state. There is an urgent need to develop organized research in this field.

Geographical differences in the management of metastatic de novo renal cell carcinoma in the era of immune-combinations.

BACKGROUND: The upfront treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been revolutionized by the introduction of immune-based combinations. The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in these patients is still debated. The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally analyze real-world data of mRCC patients receiving first-line immuno-oncology combinations. This sub-analysis is focused on the role of upfront or delayed partial or radical CN in three geographical areas (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, America/Asia). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in mRCC patients treated with first-line immune combinations from 55 centers in 19 countries. From 1152 patients in the ARON-1 dataset, we selected 651 patients with de novo mRCC. 255 patients (39%) had undergone CN, partial in 14% and radical in 86% of cases; 396 patients (61%) received first-line immune-combinations without previous nephrectomy. RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) from the diagnosis of de novo mRCC was 41.6 months and not reached (NR) in the CN subgroup and 24.0 months in the no CN subgroup, respectively (P<0.001). Median OS from the start of first-line therapy was NR in patients who underwent CN and 22.4 months in the no CN subgroup (P<0.001). Patients who underwent CN reported longer OS compared to no CN in all the three geographical areas. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in terms of patients' outcome seem to clearly emerge, even if the rate CN and the choice of the type of first-line immune-based combination varies across the different Cancer Centers participating in the ARON-1 project.

Atezolizumab plus Magrolimab, Niraparib, or Tocilizumab versus Atezolizumab Monotherapy in Platinum-Refractory Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Phase Ib/II Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized Umbrella Study (MORPHEUS Urothelial Carcinoma).

PURPOSE: The MORPHEUS platform was designed to identify early efficacy signals and evaluate the safety of novel immunotherapy combinations across cancer types. The phase Ib/II MORPHEUS-UC trial (NCT03869190) is evaluating atezolizumab plus magrolimab, niraparib, or tocilizumab in platinum-refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). Additional treatment combinations were evaluated and will be reported separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had locally advanced or mUC that progressed during or following treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Safety and exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were randomized to receive either atezolizumab plus magrolimab (n = 16), atezolizumab plus niraparib (n = 15), atezolizumab plus tocilizumab (n = 15), or atezolizumab monotherapy (control; n = 30). No additive benefit in ORR, PFS, or OS was seen in the treatment arms versus the control. The best confirmed ORR was 26.7% with atezolizumab plus magrolimab, 6.7% with atezolizumab plus niraparib, 20.0% with atezolizumab plus tocilizumab, and 27.6% with atezolizumab monotherapy. Overall, the treatment combinations were tolerable, and adverse events were consistent with each agent's known safety profile. Trends were observed for shrinkage of programmed death-ligand 1-positive tumors (atezolizumab, atezolizumab plus magrolimab, atezolizumab plus tocilizumab), inflamed tumors, or tumors with high mutational burden (atezolizumab), and immune excluded tumors (atezolizumab plus magrolimab). CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated regimens in MORPHEUS-UC were tolerable. However, response rates for the combinations did not meet the criteria for further development in platinum-experienced locally advanced or mUC.

Response and Outcomes of Maintenance Avelumab After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy (PBC) in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (aUC): "Real World" Experience.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) followed by avelumab switch maintenance in nonprogressors is standard first line (1L) treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC). We describe clinical features and outcomes in a "real-world' cohort treated with avelumab maintenance for aUC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) who received 1L switch maintenance avelumab after no progression on PBC for aUC. We calculated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initiation of maintenance avelumab. We also described OS and PFS for specific subsets using Cox regression and observed response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 108 pts with aUC from 14 sites treated with maintenance avelumab were included. There was a median of 6 weeks1-30 from end of PBC to avelumab initiation; median follow-up time from avelumab initiation was 8.8 months (1-42.7). Median [m]PFS was 9.6 months (95%CI 7.5-12.1) and estimated 1-year OS was 72.5%. CR/PR (vs. SD) to 1L PBC (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.87) and ECOG PS 0 (vs. ≥1), (HR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.47) were associated with longer OS. The presence of liver metastases was associated with shorter PFS (HR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.17-4.59). ORR with avelumab maintenance was 28.7% (complete response 17.6%, partial response 11.1%), 29.6% stable disease, 26.9% progressive disease as best response (14.8% best response unknown). CONCLUSIONS: Results seem relatively consistent with findings from JAVELIN Bladder100 trial and recent "real world" studies. Prior response to platinum-based chemotherapy, ECOG PS 0, and absence of liver metastases were favorable prognostic factors. Limitations include the retrospective design, lack of randomization and central scan review, and possible selection/confounding biases.

Global Real-World Outcomes of Patients Receiving Immuno-Oncology Combinations for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: The ARON-1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-oncology combinations have achieved survival benefits in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). OBJECTIVE: The ARON-1 study (NCT05287464) was designed to globally collect real-world data on the use of immuno-combinations as first-line therapy for mRCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a cytologically and/or histologically confirmed diagnosis of mRCC treated with first-line immuno-combination therapies were retrospectively included from 47 International Institutions from 16 countries. Patients were assessed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall clinical benefit (OCB). RESULTS: A total of 729 patients were included; tumor histology was clear-cell RCC in 86% of cases; 313 patients received dual immuno-oncology (IO + IO) therapy while 416 were treated with IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO + TKI) combinations. In the overall study population, the median OS and PFS were 36.5 and 15.0 months, respectively. The median OS was longer with IO+TKI compared with IO+IO therapy in the 616 patients with intermediate/poor International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk criteria (55.7 vs 29.7 months; p = 0.045). OCB was 84% for IO+TKI and 72% for IO + IO combination (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study may suggest that immuno-oncology combinations are effective as first-line therapy in the mRCC real-world context, showing outcome differences between IO + IO and IO + TKI combinations in mRCC subpopulations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05287464.

Definition and Diagnosis of Oligometastatic Bladder Cancer: A Delphi Consensus Study Endorsed by the European Association of Urology, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and European Society of Medical Oncology Genitourinary Faculty.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to other cancers, the concept of oligometastatic disease (OMD) has not been investigated in bladder cancer (BC). OBJECTIVE: To develop an acceptable definition, classification, and staging recommendations for oligometastatic BC (OMBC) spanning the issues of patient selection and the roles of systemic therapy and ablative local therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A European consensus group of 29 experts, led by the European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and including members from all other relevant European societies, was established. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A modified Delphi method was used. A systematic review was used to build consensus questions. Consensus statements were extracted from two consecutive surveys. The statements were formulated during two consensus meetings. Agreement levels were measured to determine if consensus was achieved (≥75% agreement). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The first survey included 14 questions and the second survey had 12. Owing to a considerable lack of evidence, which was the major limitation, definition was limited in the context of de novo OMBC, which was further classified as synchronous OMD, oligorecurrence, and oligoprogression. A maximum of three metastatic sites, all resectable or amenable to stereotactic therapy, was proposed as the definition of OMBC. Pelvic lymph nodes represented the only "organ" not included in the definition of OMBC. For staging, no consensus on the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was reached. A favourable response to systemic treatment was proposed as the criterion for selection of patients for metastasis-directed therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus statement on the definition and staging of OMBC has been formulated. This statement will help to standardise inclusion criteria in future trials, potentiate research on aspects of OMBC for which consensus was not achieved, and hopefully will lead to the development of guidelines on optimal management of OMBC. PATIENT SUMMARY: As an intermediate state between localised cancer and disease with extensive metastasis, oligometastatic bladder cancer (OMBC) might benefit from a combination of systemic treatment and local therapy. We report the first consensus statements on OMBC drawn up by an international expert group. These statements can provide a basis for standardisation of future research, which will lead to high-quality evidence in the field.