A plain language summary of the TROPHY-U-01 study: sacituzumab govitecan use in people with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Sacituzumab govitecan (brand name: TRODELVY®) is a new treatment being studied for people with a type of bladder cancer, called urothelial cancer, that has progressed to a locally advanced or metastatic stage. Locally advanced and metastatic urothelial cancer are usually treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Metastatic urothelial cancer is also treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are few treatment options for people whose cancer gets worse after receiving these treatments. Sacituzumab govitecan is a suitable treatment option for most people with urothelial cancer because it aims to deliver an anti-cancer drug directly to the cancer in an attempt to limit the potential harmful side effects on healthy cells. This is a summary of a clinical study called TROPHY-U-01, focusing on the first group of participants, referred to as Cohort 1. All participants in Cohort 1 received sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: All participants received previous treatments for their metastatic urothelial cancer, including a platinum-based chemotherapy and a checkpoint inhibitor. The tumor in 31 of 113 participants became significantly smaller or could not be seen on scans after sacituzumab govitecan treatment; an effect that lasted for a median of 7.2 months. Half of the participants were still alive 5.4 months after starting treatment, without their tumor getting bigger or spreading further. Half of them were still alive 10.9 months after starting treatment regardless of tumor size changes. Most participants experienced side effects. These side effects included lower levels of certain types of blood cells, sometimes with a fever, and loose or watery stools (diarrhea). Side effects led 7 of 113 participants to stop taking sacituzumab govitecan. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study showed that sacituzumab govitecan had significant anti-cancer activity. Though most participants who received sacituzumab govitecan experienced side effects, these did not usually stop participants from continuing sacituzumab govitecan. Doctors can help control these side effects using treatment guidelines, but these side effects can be serious.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03547973 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (TROPHY-U-1).

Therapy With Metronomic Cyclophosphamide (mCyc) for Previously-Treated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the introduction of various novel therapies for management of metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in recent decades, available treatment options are finite and remain limited. Multiple historical studies have demonstrated activity and a favorable toxicity profile of oral metronomic cyclophosphamide (mCyc) in prostate cancer (PCa). Unlike the cytotoxic immunosuppressive effects of high-dose intravenously-administered cyclophosphamide, continuous low doses of oral mCyc have a unique immune-stimulatory mechanism of action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, multi-institution study of men with 43 patients with mCRPC treated mCyc. Patient demographic information as well as clinical, pathologic, and genomic characteristics of their PCa were extracted. The primary endpoint was the rate of PSA decline by ≥ 50% (ie, PSA50). Additional efficacy and toxicity data as well as cost analysis compared to other commonly used agents in mCRPC was obtained. RESULTS: PSA50 was noted in 20.9% of patients, while an additional 25.6% patients achieved < PSA50 and 6.9% reported improvement in prostate cancer-related symptoms without any PSA reduction. Meanwhile, 9.3% of patients required mCyc dose reduction, 11.6% needed dose interruption due to toxicity, and no treatment discontinuations due to toxicity were observed. mCyc was also cost effective compared to other agents commonly used in mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small sample size and retrospective nature of this dataset, mCyc demonstrated promising rapid activity and a tolerable toxicity profile in a heavily pretreated mCRPC population with aggressive clinical, pathologic, and genomic disease features.

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.

A Phase 2 Study of Sitravatinib in Combination with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) has demonstrated survival benefits in urothelial carcinoma (UC); however, not all patients benefit from CPI due to resistance. Combining sitravatinib, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor of TYRO3, AXL, and MERTK (TAM) receptors and VEGFR2, with CPI may improve antitumor responses. Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC. METHODS: The 516-003 trial (NCT03606174) is an open-label, multicohort phase 2 study evaluating sitravatinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic UC enrolled in eight cohorts depending on prior treatment with CPI, platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), or antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). Overall, 244 patients were enrolled and treated with sitravatinib plus nivolumab (median follow-up 14.1-38.2 mo). Sitravatinib (free-base capsules 120 mg once daily [QD] or malate capsule 100 mg QD) plus nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk/480 mg every 4 wk intravenously). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. The Predictive probability design and confidence interval methods were used. Among patients previously treated with PBC, ORR, and median PFS were 32.1% and 3.9 mo in CPI-naïve patients (n = 53), 14.9% and 3.9 mo in CPI-refractory patients (n = 67), and 5.4% and 3.7 mo in CPI- and ADC-refractory patients (n = 56), respectively. Across all cohorts, grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 51.2% patients and grade 4 in 3.3%, with one treatment-related death (cardiac failure). Immune-related adverse events occurred in 50.4% patients. TRAEs led to sitravatinib/nivolumab discontinuation in 6.1% patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Sitravatinib plus nivolumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile but did not result in clinically meaningful ORRs in patients with advanced/metastatic UC in the eight cohorts studied. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, the combination of two anticancer drugs, sitravatinib and nivolumab, resulted in manageable side effects but no meaningful responses in patients with bladder cancer.

A comparative study of spinal cord compression management in metastatic prostate cancer: Teaching versus non-teaching hospitals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord compression (SCC) in metastatic prostate cancer (MPC) is a critical complication and multiple factors influence the optimal therapeutic strategy. We investigated the differences in practice patterns between teaching hospitals (TH) and non-teaching hospitals (NTH) across the United States. METHOD: Using the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS), we performed a retrospective study on hospitalizations with MPC and SCC between 2016 and 2020 in US. We compared demographic factors, comorbidities, treatment modalities, duration of hospitalization, financial expenditures, and mortality between TH and NTH. We also examined the patients' characteristics and outcomes in TH and NTH based on their chosen therapeutic strategy. RESULTS: We identified 11,380 admissions with metastatic prostate cancer and SCC; 9610 in TH and 1770 in NTH. The median cost of hospitalization was $21,922 in TH and $15,141 in NTH. Although the median age and Charlson comorbidity score did not differ between two groups, patients in TH were more likely to receive intervention (radiation or surgery) compared to NTH (Surgery: 28.2% in TH vs. 23.0% in NTH & Radiation: 12.1% in TH vs. 8.2% in NTH). Mortality was lower in TH than NTH (4.5% vs. 7.9%). In both TH and NTH, a higher proportion of patients with private insurance underwent surgery (TH: Surgery 25.1% vs. Radiation 18.8% & NTH: Surgery 27.0% vs. 6.9%). Black patients were more likely to receive radiation than surgery in TH (34.2% vs. 26.8%). CONCLUSION: This study showed a greater percentage of patients underwent surgical intervention at TH compared to NTH. Additionally, the type of insurance and racial background were associated with distinctive treatment approaches.

Drug extravasation with Enfortumab vedotin.

INTRODUCTION: Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody drug conjugate approved for management of pretreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, which is associated with a rare risk of drug extravasation and soft tissue reactions. CASE REPORT: We report two cases of EV extravasation with subsequent development of bullae and cellulitis. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: They were both treated for cellulitis and had conservative management without surgical intervention and were able to resume treatment with Enfortumab vedotin without subsequent adverse events. DISCUSSION: We propose that EV acts as a vesicant upon extravasation, highlight measures to prevent extravasation events, and encourage appropriate measures when dealing such as attempt of aspiration, removal of catheter, application of compresses, and thorough documentation with photographic evidence.

Treatment approaches for urachal cancer: Use of immunotherapy and targeted therapies.

Urachal cancer is a rare genitourinary malignancy that arises from the embryologic remnant of the urachus. The malignancy is considered to be aggressive, with no clear consensus on appropriate management for advanced disease. Although traditionally considered to be related to bladder cancer given its embryologic origin, several next generation sequencing studies have revealed the genomic profile of this genitourinary malignancy most closely resembles colorectal cancer. Moreover, these studies have identified potentially actionable mutations including EGFR, KRAS and MET. In addition, recent data suggests that immunotherapy may benefit some patients with advanced urachal cancer. Nonetheless, continued research is warranted to better understand how to treat this rare genitourinary cancer.

Darolutamide Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Disease Volume and Risk Subgroups in the Phase III ARASENS Trial.

PURPOSE: For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups by disease volume and risk. METHODS: Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned to darolutamide or placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. High-volume disease was defined as visceral metastases and/or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 beyond the vertebral column/pelvis. High-risk disease was defined as ≥ 2 risk factors: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions, and presence of measurable visceral metastases. RESULTS: Of 1,305 patients, 1,005 (77%) had high-volume disease and 912 (70%) had high-risk disease. Darolutamide increased overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with high-volume (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82), high-risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86), and low-risk disease (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90), and in the smaller low-volume subgroup, the results were also suggestive of survival benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.13). Darolutamide improved clinically relevant secondary end points of time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy versus placebo in all disease volume and risk subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 64.9% of darolutamide patients versus 64.2% of placebo patients in the high-volume subgroup and 70.1% versus 61.1% in the low-volume subgroup. Among the most common AEs, many were known toxicities related to docetaxel. CONCLUSION: In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, treatment intensification with darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel increased OS with a similar AE profile in the subgroups, consistent with the overall population.[Media: see text].

Association of Sociodemographic Characteristics With Survival Among Patients With Urachal Cancer in California From 1988 to 2019.

This cohort study evaluates the sociodemographic characteristics of patients with urachal cancer, cancer treatments, and the association of patient characteristics with overall survival.

Telaglenastat plus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II ENTRATA Trial.

PURPOSE: Glutaminase is a key enzyme, which supports elevated dependency of tumors on glutamine-dependent biosynthesis of metabolic intermediates. Dual targeting of glucose and glutamine metabolism by the mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus the oral glutaminase inhibitor telaglenastat showed preclinical synergistic anticancer effects, which translated to encouraging safety and efficacy findings in a phase I trial of 2L+ renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study evaluated telaglenastat plus everolimus (TelaE) versus placebo plus everolimus (PboE) in patients with advanced/metastatic RCC (mRCC) in the 3L+ setting (NCT03163667). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with mRCC, previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy [including ≥1 VEGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)] were randomized 2:1 to receive E, plus Tela or Pbo, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided α <0.2). RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized (46 TelaE, 23 PboE). Patients had a median three prior lines of therapy, including TKIs (100%) and checkpoint inhibitors (88%). At median follow-up of 7.5 months, median PFS was 3.8 months for TelaE versus 1.9 months for PboE [HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.20; one-sided P = 0.079]. One TelaE patient had a partial response and 26 had stable disease (SD). Eleven patients on PboE had SD. Treatment-emergent adverse events included fatigue, anemia, cough, dyspnea, elevated serum creatinine, and diarrhea; grade 3 to 4 events occurred in 74% TelaE patients versus 61% PboE. CONCLUSIONS: TelaE was well tolerated and improved PFS versus PboE in patients with mRCC previously treated with TKIs and checkpoint inhibitors.

Use of immunotherapy in clinical management of genitourinary cancers - a review.

Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 have revolutionized oncologic care delivery, including clinical management of genitourinary malignancies. Despite significant associated improvement in patient outcomes, molecular heterogeneity of tumors, variable tumor engagement with the immune response, and unique patient factors likely account for different clinical responses to immunotherapy agents. A search for predictive biomarkers of treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors is underway and several candidates, although imperfect, have been identified. Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received approval as monotherapies or in combination with other agents in genitourinary cancers and clinical trial data continues to rapidly evolve. This review summarizes key published evidence involving use of checkpoint inhibitors in management of urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, prostate adenocarcinoma, and penile squamous cell carcinoma. This review aims to help oncology practitioners develop an up-to-date, evidence-based approach to using these agents when managing patients with genitourinary cancers in clinical practice.

Dual checkpoint targeting of B7-H3 and PD-1 with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors: interim results from a multicenter phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)-targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. METHODS: In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3-15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]-naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02475213.

Adjuvant pembrolizumab in genomically selected high-risk patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer post neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy with pathologic advanced disease (ypT3, ypT4, ypN+) at radical cystectomy have a significantly worse five-year overall survival. There is currently no preferred adjuvant therapy to reduce risk of cancer recurrence in this high-risk patient cohort and surveillance remains the standard-of-care. CASE REPORT: We present a case series of two patients who received cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had pathologic node-positive urothelial carcinoma at the time of radical cystectomy. Tumor next generation sequencing revealed high mutational burden in both patients and positive PD-L1 in one patient.Management and outcome: Patients were treated with adjuvant pembrolizumab and experienced long-term disease free intervals. DISCUSSION: Use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients post neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy with pathologic advanced disease at the time of radical cystectomy at high-risk of cancer recurrence sounds appealing. Careful patient selection based on tumor-specific genomic alterations may be key. Large trials addressing this question are ongoing.

Avelumab first-line maintenance in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Applying clinical trial findings to clinical practice.

Although urothelial carcinoma (UC) is considered a chemotherapy-sensitive tumor, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) are typically short following standard first-line (1L) platinum-containing chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have antitumor activity in UC and favorable safety profiles compared with chemotherapy; however, trials of 1L ICI monotherapy or chemotherapy + ICI combinations have not yet shown improved OS vs chemotherapy alone. In addition to direct cytotoxicity, chemotherapy has potential immunogenic effects, providing a rationale for assessing ICIs as switch-maintenance therapy. In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, avelumab administered as 1L maintenance with best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged OS vs BSC alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 1L platinum-containing chemotherapy (median OS, 21.4 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; P = 0.001). Efficacy benefits were seen across various subgroups, including recipients of 1L cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, patients with PD-L1+ or PD-L1- tumors, and patients with diverse characteristics. Results from JAVELIN Bladder 100 led to the approval of avelumab as 1L maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC that has not progressed with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Avelumab 1L maintenance is also included as a standard of care in treatment guidelines for advanced UC with level 1 evidence. This review summarizes the data that supported these developments and discusses practical considerations for administering avelumab maintenance in clinical practice, including patient selection and treatment management.

TROPHY-U-01: A Phase II Open-Label Study of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Progressing After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy and Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress on platinum-based combination chemotherapy (PLT) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have limited options that offer objective response rates (ORRs) of approximately 10% with a median overall survival (OS) of 7-8 months. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a TROP-2-directed antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload that has shown preliminary activity in mUC. METHODS: TROPHY-U-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03547973) is a multicohort, open-label, phase II, registrational study. Cohort 1 includes patients with locally advanced or unresectable or mUC who had progressed after prior PLT and CPI. Patients received SG 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. The primary outcome was centrally reviewed ORR; secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, OS, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: Cohort 1 included 113 patients (78% men; median age, 66 years; 66.4% visceral metastases; median of three [range, 1-8] prior therapies). At a median follow-up of 9.1 months, the ORR was 27% (31 of 113; 95% CI, 19.5 to 36.6); 77% had decrease in measurable disease. Median duration of response was 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.6 months), with median progression-free survival and OS of 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 7.2 months) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 13.8 months), respectively. Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (35%), leukopenia (18%), anemia (14%), diarrhea (10%), and febrile neutropenia (10%), with 6% discontinuing treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: SG is an active drug with a manageable safety profile with most common toxicities of neutropenia and diarrhea. SG has notable efficacy compared with historical controls in pretreated mUC that has progressed on both prior PLT regimens and CPI. The results from this study supported accelerated approval of SG in this population.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. METHOD: In the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2-4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2-29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9-24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2-24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer in Clinical Practice: Real-World Answers to Challenging Dilemmas.

Advanced prostate cancer is a continuum of states distinguished by the presence or absence of metastasis and sensitivity or resistance to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Therapeutic options for this disease continue to rapidly evolve, making it a challenge to apply results of clinical trial data to daily patient management. One question relevant to providers is whether molecular biomarkers predictive of response or resistance to therapies are available to guide clinical treatment decisions. Other salient topics include the timing of therapy initiation in patients with biochemical recurrence, treatment approach in low-volume versus high-volume metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer, types of agents available beyond ADT, and timing of their use in men with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer as well as whether sequencing of therapies in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer matters. Additionally, familiarity with emerging treatment strategies is important. This review addresses the gray areas and challenging questions in advanced prostate cancer management that frequently arise in clinical practice.

Concurrent renal cell carcinoma and hematologic malignancies: Nine case reports.

BACKGROUND: The presence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hematologic malignancies (HM) in the same patient is rarely observed. Three primary findings have been described in these patients, including male gender and lymphoid malignancy predominance, and the HM are usually diagnosed before or simultaneously with the RCC. There is a lack of evidence about clinical outcomes in this setting. We report the common characteristics of 9 patients diagnosed with concurrent RCC and HM and their clinical course and response to treatment. CASE SUMMARY: Four (44%) patients were diagnosed with RCC prior to the HM, the diagnosis was simultaneous in 4 (44%) patients, and 1 (11%) patient was diagnosed with the HM prior to the RCC. No patients were treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or radiation between the diagnosis of RCC and HM. Several unique features were seen in our case series, such as 3 simultaneous cancers in 1 (11%) patient, a splenectomy leading to remission of diffuse large B cell lymphoma without the use of chemotherapy in 1 (11%) patient, chemotherapy and rituximab for lymphoma resulting in a complete response in primary RCC in 1 (11%) patient, and immunotherapy providing an excellent response for primary renal leiomyosarcoma in 1 (11%) patient. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the potential role of immune system dysregulation in patients with the diagnosis of RCC and HM whereby the first malignancy predisposes to the second through an immunomodulatory effect. HM have the potential of being confused with lymph node metastasis from kidney cancer. Lymph node biopsy may be necessary at the time of initial diagnosis or in cases of mixed response to therapy. Long-term medical surveillance is warranted when a patient is diagnosed with RCC or HM. Clinicians should be aware of the higher prevalence of male gender and lymphoid malignancy with concurrent RCC and HM and that either of these conditions may be diagnosed first or they may be diagnosed simultaneously.

Personalized chemotherapy in clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra is a rare type of aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. Clear cell carcinoma of the urethra represents less than 0.02% of all malignancies in women. Adenocarcinomas account for 10% of female urethral carcinomas, of which 40% are the clear cell variant. Determining the presence or absence of certain mutations through genetic testing may predict whether a patient with cancer may benefit from a particular chemotherapy regimen. CASE SUMMARY: A 40-year-old woman presented with a 3-year history of slow urinary flow and a 3-mo history of urinary urgency and frequency as well as gross hematuria. An abdominal and pelvic computed tomography scan demonstrated enlarged lymph nodes in the abdomen and pelvis. A biopsy of a left inguinal lymph node microscopically confirmed a metastatic adenocarcinoma of the urethra. Specialized genetic testing determined personalized chemotherapy. She was treated successfully with a non-platinum-based chemotherapy consisting of paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Following 3 cycles of paclitaxel and bevacizumab, she attained significant clinical improvement, and response by FDG-Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging showed a definite improvement in size and metabolic activity. She achieved complete response after 6 cycles of therapy by PET scan. The patient concluded 11 cycles of paclitaxel and bevacizumab, and a subsequent PET scan confirmed progression of metastatic disease. The patient was then treated with two cycles of doxorubicin after which a PET scan revealed a mixed response to the treatment. CONCLUSION: We report the first case of a patient with metastatic clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra who underwent personalized chemotherapy after testing for cancer gene alterations. Our unique case represents the safe and effective use of non-platinum-based chemotherapy in clear cell adenocarcinoma of the urethra.