Very Long-Term Complete Remission Can Be Achieved in Men With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and a Very High PSA Value: An Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not fully established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events. CONCLUSIONS: Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Cabazitaxel Versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Older Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in the CARD Study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide). OBJECTIVE: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Incremental Utility of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: Quantifying the Relapse Risk Associated with Therapeutic Effect.

The availability of new potent systemic therapies for urothelial carcinoma may change the way we use standard chemotherapy perioperatively. In particular, identifying which patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is compelling. From a multicenter database we selected 950 patients with cT2-4N0M0 MIBC treated with radical cystectomy (RC), with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and AC. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses to test 1-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates according to AC use. Nomogram-derived probabilities of 1-yr recurrence after RC were plotted against actual recurrence rates according to AC use. Overall, we did not see evidence of an AC effect on the 1-yr RFS rate (p=0.6). Conversely, the 1-yr RFS rate was higher among patients with pT3-4 or pN1 disease who received AC (75% vs 54%; p<0.001). We were unable to demonstrate a difference between AC and no AC among patients who received prior NAC (1-yr RFS 57% vs 76%; p=0.057). As the most important finding, AC was associated with incremental RFS benefits only for patients with a nomogram-derived 1-yr recurrence probability of >40%. Patient summary: Maximizing disease control with adjuvant chemotherapy was beneficial for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who had a calculated recurrence risk of >40% and did not impact cancer recurrence in lower-risk disease. Therefore, patient stratification using the nomogram available for predicting recurrence is advisable pending external validation.

Modeling 1-year Relapse-free Survival After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radical Cystectomy in Patients with Clinical T2-4N0M0 Urothelial Bladder Carcinoma: Endpoints for Phase 2 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Several ongoing phase 2 trials are evaluating new neoadjuvant therapy regimens in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The 1-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) after radical cystectomy (RC), with or without perioperative chemotherapy, can be used to model statistical assumptions and interpret outcomes from these studies. OBJECTIVE: To provide a benchmark for predicting 1-yr RFS in patients with cT2-4N0 MIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 950 patients with clinical stage T2-4N0 MIBC undergoing RC at 27 centers between 1990 and 2016. We assessed 1-yr RFS rates for patients managed with no perioperative chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), or NAC followed by AC. Cox regression analyses tested for 1-yr postsurgical RFS predictors. A Cox-based nomogram was developed to estimate 1-yr RFS and its accuracy was assessed in terms of Harrell's c-index, a calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. We report 1-yr RFS rates across the nomogram tertiles. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 1-yr RFS rates were 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64-72) after no perioperative chemotherapy, 76.9% (95% CI 72-83%) after NAC, 77.8% (95% CI 71-85%) after AC, and 57% (95% CI 37-87) after NAC+AC. On multivariable analysis, positive surgical margins (p=0.002), pT stage (p<0.0001), and pN stage (p<.0001) were significantly associated with RFS, while NAC was not (p=0.6). The model including all these factors yielded a c-index of 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.79), good calibration, and a high net benefit. The 1-yr RFS rates across nomogram tertiles were 90.5% (95% CI 87-94%), 73.4% (95% CI 68-79%), and 51.1% (95% CI 45-58%), respectively. The results lack external validation. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmark 1-yr RFS estimates for phase 2 design of new neoadjuvant trials are proposed and can be used for statistical assumptions, pending external validation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our prognostic model predicting 1-yr survival free from recurrence of bladder cancer after radical cystectomy, with or without standard chemotherapy, could provide an improvement to the quality of phase 2 clinical trial designs and interpretation of their results.

The Impact of Cisplatin- or Non-Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy on Long-Term and Conditional Survival of Patients with Advanced Urinary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of cisplatin use on long-term survival of unselected patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) has not been adequately investigated. We used a multinational database to study long-term survival and the impact of treatment type in unselected patients with aUTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,333 patients with aUTC (cT4bN0M0, cTanyN+M0, cTanyNanyM+), transitional-cell, squamous, or adenocarcinoma histology who received systemic chemotherapy and had available survival data were selected. Long-term survival was defined as alive at 3 years following initiation of first-line chemotherapy. Conditional overall survival (COS) analysis was employed to study change in prognosis given time survived from initiation of first-line chemotherapy. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 31.7 months. The combination of cisplatin use and cisplatin eligibility accurately predicted long-term survival. Eligible patients treated with cisplatin conferred a 31.6% probability of 3-year survival (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1-38.3), and 2-year COS for patients surviving 3 years after initiation of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was 83% (95% CI: 59.7-93.5). The respective probabilities for patients who were ineligible for cisplatin or not treated with cisplatin despite eligibility were 14% (95% CI: 10.8-17.6) and 49.3% (95% CI: 28.2-67.4). Two-year COS remained significantly different between these two groups up to 3 years after chemotherapy initiation. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin-based therapy was associated with the highest likelihood of long-term survival in patients with aUTC and should be used in patients who fulfill the established eligibility criteria. Novel therapies are necessary to increase long-term survival in cisplatin-ineligible patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Long-term, disease-free survival is possible in one in four eligible-for-cisplatin patients with advanced urinary tract cancer (aUTC) treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. Therefore, deviations from eligibility criteria should be avoided. Consolidation surgery should be considered in responders. These data provide benchmarks for the study of novel therapies in aUTC.

Lack of Effectiveness of Postchemotherapy Lymphadenectomy in Bladder Cancer Patients with Clinical Evidence of Metastatic Pelvic or Retroperitoneal Lymph Nodes Only: A Propensity Score-based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data is available on the role, and extent of, postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy (PC-LND) in patients with clinical evidence of pelvic (cN1-3) or retroperitoneal (RP) lymph node spread from urothelial bladder carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of operated versus nonoperated patients after first-line chemotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 34 centers was collected, totaling 522 patients, treated between January 2000 and June 2015. Criteria for patient selection were the following: bladder primary tumor, lymph node metastases (pelvic±RP) only, first-line platinum-based chemotherapy given. INTERVENTION: LND (with cystectomy) versus observation after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial bladder carcinoma. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Multiple propensity score techniques were adopted, including 1:1 propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Additionally, the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed with the inclusion of the covariates, that is, with doubly robust estimation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 242 (46.4%) patients received PC-LND and 280 (53.6%) observation after chemotherapy. There were 177 (33.9%) and 345 (66.1%) patients with either RP or pelvic LND only, respectively. Doubly robust estimation-adjusted comparison was not significant for improved OS for PC-LND (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.31, p=0.479), confirmed by matched analysis (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.60-1.36, p=0.628). This was also observed in the RP subgroup (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.68-1.84). The retrospective nature of the data and the heterogeneous patient population were the major limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were substantial differences between the two groups, after accounting for major confounders we report a nonsignificant OS difference with PC-LND compared with observation only. These findings may be hypothesis-generating for future prospective trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found no differences in survival by adding postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in patients with pelvic or retroperitoneal lymph node metastatic bladder cancer. The indication to perform postchemotherapy lymphadenectomy in the most suitable patients requires additional studies.

Development of a Prediction Tool for Exclusive Locoregional Recurrence After Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available about the pattern of relapse after perioperative chemotherapy with radical cystectomy (RC) vs. RC alone in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1082 patients of the Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium database, treated from February 1990 to December 2013 at 27 centers in the United States, Europe, Israel, and Canada, were collected. Locoregional relapse was defined as any pelvic lymph node or soft tissue-only recurrences. Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate time to locoregional relapse (TTRL). Cox regression analyses were performed and a nomogram for 12-month locoregional relapse-free survival (RFS) was developed. The nomogram was applied to an external data set (n = 1021). RESULTS: A total of 517 patients (47.8%) developed a relapse: 177 (16.4%) exclusive locoregional relapse. In multivariable analyses, perioperative chemotherapy was associated with longer TTRL (P < .001). Other factors were nonurothelial histology (P = .013), pT-stage (P < .001), and surgical margins (P < .001). The concordance index of the model was 0.681 (95% bootstrapped confidence interval, 0.666-0.716). Risk group categories were obtained according to nomogram tertiles. Despite, overall, observed locoregional RFS in the validation cohort exceeding predicted results, for high-risk patients (80 points or less, lowest nomogram tertile) observed 12-month RFS was similar between development and validation cohorts (60.1% and 66.6%). The study is limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSION: In the largest study, to our knowledge, that analyzed locoregional recurrences after RC, we propose a risk prediction tool for exclusive locoregional failures that might be suitable for clinical studies. Patients best suited for adjuvant radiotherapy might be those within the lowest nomogram tertile. Prospective trials are needed to validate findings.

Sunitinib Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Angiogenesis Biomarkers Predict Clinical Outcome in the Prospective Phase II PREINSUT Trial.

Purpose: The PREINSUT study characterized factors predictive of response to sunitinib given before planned nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Patients and Methods: This French multicenter, prospective, open-label, phase II trial (NCT00930345) included treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell mRCC. Patients received two cycles of sunitinib before nephrectomy. The primary objective was to evaluate the potential of circulating angiogenesis-related biomarkers measured before and on treatment for identifying responders based on primary renal tumor (PRT) size change. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the ability of biomarkers to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median PFS was 4.5 months, and the median OS was 12.4 months. OS was significantly longer in responding patients (28.8 vs. 11.1 months; P = 0.03). Of 27 patients evaluable for PRT response, nine (33.3%) had a ≥10% decrease in PRT size. Baseline biomarkers significantly associated with outcome were endothelial progenitor cells (PRT response); vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1), soluble VEGF receptors (sVEGFR)1 and 2 (PFS); and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). During treatment, changes in biomarkers associated with outcome were SDF-1 and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-BB (PRT response), sVEGFR2 (PFS), and SDF-1 and sVEGFR1 (OS). There was no correlation between plasma sunitinib or its active metabolite steady-state trough concentrations and clinical outcome.Conclusions: Angiogenesis-related parameters that could reflect hypoxia seem to be associated with worse outcome in mRCC. As blood biomarkers are not subjected to tumor heterogeneity and allow longitudinal follow-up, circulating angiogenesis profile has a promising place in antiangiogenic therapy guidance. Clin Cancer Res; 24(22); 5534-42. ©2018 AACR.

Impact of the Number of Cycles of Platinum Based First Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of the number of cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy (fewer than 6 cycles vs the conventional 6 cycles or more) on the survival of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the RISC (Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium) database. The association of the number of cycles of chemotherapy with overall survival was investigated by Cox multiple regression analysis after controlling for recognized prognostic factors. We excluded patients who received fewer than 3 or more than 9 platinum chemotherapy cycles to reduce confounding factors. The primary analysis was a comparison of overall survival for 3 to 5 vs 6 to 9 cycles using 6-month landmark analysis when 281 death events were observed. RESULTS: Of the 1,020 patients in the RISC 472 received cisplatin or carboplatin, of whom 338 and 134, respectively, were evaluable. A total of 157 patients received 3 to 5 cycles (median 4) and 315 received 6 to 9 cycles (median 6). There was no significant difference in overall survival between 3 to 5 and 6 to 9 cycles (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.33, p = 0.91). No significant interactions were observed for the type of platinum (p = 0.09) and completed planned chemotherapy (p = 0.56). The limitations of a hypothesis generating, retrospective analysis applied. CONCLUSIONS: Four cycles of platinum based, first line chemotherapy appeared adequate and did not significantly compromise the survival of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. The omission of excessive cycles may avoid unnecessary cumulative toxicity and facilitate a better transition to second line therapy and investigational switch maintenance therapy strategies. These results require prospective validation but they may impact practice in select patients.

Sunitinib Alone or after Nephrectomy in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Stereotactic radiation therapy in the strategy of treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A study of the Getug group.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is usually considered radioresistant, but stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) may increase local disease control. This study aimed to assess the benefit of SRT in the management of metastatic RCC patients. METHODS: Data of all RCC patients who received SRT between 2008 and 2015 with curative intent were retrospectively collected in six French referral centres. Local control (LC), progression-free survival (PFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), time to systemic therapy (TTS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-eight patients treated with SRT for 252 RCC metastases (brain [n = 120]; spine [n = 75]; and others [n = 57]) were recensed. SRT was performed for oligoprogressive disease (101 patients), oligometastatic disease (80 patients) or residual tumour after a partial response to systemic treatment (7 patients). The median biologically effective dose was 78 Gy. For the whole population, local control rates at 6, 12 and 24 months were 87.5%, 82.9% and 77.6%, respectively; median PFS, LRFS, TTS and OS were 8.5, 23.2, 13.2 and 29.2 months, respectively. Among patients treated for oligoprogressive/oligometastatic disease, the median PFS, TTS, and OS were 8.6/7.6, 10.5/14.2 and 23.2/33.9 months, respectively. Among the 7 patients treated with SRT after partial response to systemic treatment, no relapse occurred for 3 of them after a median follow-up of 22 months. Acute and late severe toxicities were noted in 5 (2.6%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: SRT is effective and safe for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive RCC patients and may delay introduction or change of systemic therapy.

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Patients Receiving Perioperative Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: The Oncologist's Perspective from a Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) combined with perioperative chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical and oncological outcomes for RARC and ORC in multimodal treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 28 centres were collected for cystectomies performed between January 2000 and July 2013. INTERVENTION: RARC or ORC combined with perioperative chemotherapy for UBC. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Fisher's exact tests, χ2 tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the RARC and ORC groups. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate potential prognostic factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 688 patients (n=603 ORC and n=85 RARC) were analysed; 60.6% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 45.1% adjuvant chemotherapy. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the groups. The median time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was 1.9 mo for both RARC and ORC groups. The median number of lymph nodes removed was 21 (interquartile range [IQR] 14-35) for RARC and 13 (IQR 8-21) for ORC (p<0.001); the results were confirmed in subgroup analyses. Multivariable analyses revealed no difference in the rate of positive surgical margins (p=0.54 and p=0.78), rate of neobladder diversion (p=0.33 and p=0.51), relapse-free survival (p=0.31 and p=0.23), and overall survival (p=0.63 and p=0.69). The retrospective nature of the data is the major limitation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, no differences in efficacy outcomes or ability to deliver adjuvant chemotherapy were observed between RARC and ORC. The increasing use of RARC is justifiable from an oncological viewpoint. PATIENT SUMMARY: In a retrospective study of patients who received perioperative chemotherapy for urothelial bladder cancer, we found no difference in key outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open radical cystectomy. Performing RARC seems to be justifiable in the multidisciplinary setting.

Atezolizumab in Platinum-treated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Outcomes by Prior Number of Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy have had few treatment options and uniformly poor outcomes. Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) was approved in the USA for cisplatin-ineligible and platinum-treated mUC based on IMvigor210, a phase 2, single-arm, two-cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab by the number of prior lines of systemic therapy in patients with pretreated mUC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: IMvigor210 enrolled 315 patients with mUC with progression during or following platinum-based therapy at 70 international sites between May 2014 and November 2014. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥18 yr, creatinine clearance ≥30ml/min, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, with no limit on prior lines of treatment. INTERVENTION: Patients in this cohort received atezolizumab 1200mg intravenously every 3 wk until loss of clinical benefit. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Centrally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1 objective response rate (ORR), median duration of response, overall survival (OS), and adverse events were evaluated by prior treatment. Potential differences between subgroups were evaluated using log-rank (for OS) and chi-square (for ORR and adverse events frequencies) testing. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Three hundred and ten patients were efficacy and safety evaluable (median follow-up, 21 mo). Objective responses and prolonged OS occurred across all prespecified subgroups; median duration of response was not reached in most subgroups. In patients without prior systemic mUC therapy (first-line subgroup), ORR was 25% (95% confidence interval: 14-38), and median OS was 9.6 mo (95% confidence interval: 5.9-15.8). No significant differences in efficacy or toxicity by therapy line were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety in previously treated patients with mUC across all lines of therapy evaluated. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated effects of previous treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progressed after platinum-based therapy. Atezolizumab was active and tolerable no matter how many treatment regimens patients had received. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02108652.

Anticancer Activity and Tolerance of Treatments Received Beyond Progression in Men Treated Upfront with Androgen Deprivation Therapy With or Without Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-naïve Prostate Cancer in the GETUG-AFU 15 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6-7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3-4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Nomogram-based Prediction of Overall Survival in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy: Retrospective International Study of Invasive/Advanced Cancer of the Urothelium (RISC).

BACKGROUND: The available prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) have been derived from clinical trial populations of cisplatin-treated patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new model based on real-world patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual patient-level data from 29 centers were collected, including metastatic UC and first-line cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy administered between January 2006 and January 2011. INTERVENTION: First-line, platinum-based, combination chemotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The population was randomly split into a development and a validation cohort. Generalized boosted regression modelling was used to screen out irrelevant variables and address multivariable analyses. Two nomograms were built to estimate OS probability, the first based on baseline factors and platinum agent, the second incorporating objective response (OR). The performance of the above nomograms and that of other available models was assessed. We plotted decision curves to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the two nomograms. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1020 patients were analyzed (development: 687, validation: 333). In a platinum-stratified Cox model, significant variables for OS were performance status (p<0.001), white blood cell count (p=0.013), body mass index (p=0.003), ethnicity (p=0.012), lung, liver, or bone metastases (p<0.001), and prior perioperative chemotherapy (p=0.012). The c-index was 0.660. The distribution of the nomogram scores was associated with OR (p<0.001), and incorporating OR into the model further improved the c-index in the validation cohort (0.670). CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated two nomograms for OS to be used before and after completion of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We proposed two models for estimating overall survival of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma receiving first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. These nomograms have been developed on real-world patients who were treated outside of clinical trials and may be used irrespective of the chemotherapeutic platinum agent used.

Efficacy and safety of Vinflunine for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in routine practice based on the French multi-centre CURVE study.

BACKGROUND: To retrospectively assess the efficacy and safety of Vinflunine (VFL) under routine conditions and identify overall survival (OS) prognostic factors. METHODS: Twenty centres participated in the retrospective study (minimum 4 patients undergoing VFL treatment for advanced/metastatic UC after platinum-based regimen progression. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS), radiological response rate (RR) RECIST criteria and toxicity (CTC NCI v3). RESULTS: These centres enrolled 134 patients. Prior chemotherapy (CT) lines (≥ 1 palliative): 1 and ≥ 2 in 69% and 26% of patients, respectively. Performance status (PS): 0, 1, 2 in 25%, 46% and 23% of patients. Median OS = 8.2 months [6.5-9.4], PFS = 4.2 months and RR 22%, median number of 5 cycles. In risk groups based on 0-3 presence of adverse prognostic factors (PS ≥ 1, haemoglobin ≤ 10 g/dl and liver metastasis), median OS: 13.2, 9.9, 3.6, and 2.4 months (P < .0001), respectively; 3.3 months (1.9-5.6) in PS ≥ 2 subgroup. CONCLUSION: This study reflects routine UC management and confirmed VFL patient efficacy. The drug is safe with gastro-intestinal and haematological prophylaxis. Analysis of prognostic factors for OS is consistent with pivotal trials.

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). RESULTS: A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.