Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundLow-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1b (encoded by LRP1B) is a putative tumor suppressor, and preliminary evidence suggests LRP1B-mutated cancers may have improved outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective pan-cancer analysis of patients with LRP1B alterations treated with ICI at Duke University, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and University of Michigan (UM). The primary objective was to assess the association between overall response rate (ORR) to ICI and pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) LRP1B alterations compared with LRP1B variants of unknown significance (VUS). Secondary outcomes were the associations with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by LRP1B status.ResultsWe identified 101 patients (44 Duke, 35 JHU, 22 UM) with LRP1B alterations who were treated with ICI. The most common tumor types by alteration (P/LP vs VUS%) were lung (36% vs 49%), prostate (9% vs 7%), sarcoma (5% vs 7%), melanoma (9% vs 0%) and breast cancer (3% vs 7%). The ORR for patients with LRP1B P/LP versus VUS alterations was 54% and 13%, respectively (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 22.3, p=0.0009). P/LP LRP1B alterations were associated with longer PFS (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0003) and OS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01, p=0.053). These results remained consistent when excluding patients harboring microsatellite instability (MSI) and controlling for tumor mutational burden (TMB).ConclusionsThis multicenter study shows significantly better outcomes with ICI therapy in patients harboring P/LP versus VUS LRP1B alterations, independently of TMB/MSI status. Further mechanistic and prospective validation studies are warranted.

Background Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with metastatic, microsatellite instability (MSI)‐high or mismatch repair‐deficient (dMMR) solid tumors. However, very few men with prostate cancer were included in these initial studies. Methods We performed a single institution retrospective review of men with metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who were treated with pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to describe the clinical efficacy of pembrolizumab associated with patient and genomic characteristics. Results We identified 48 men who received ≥1 cycle of pembrolizumab for mCRPC. Of these, 94% (45/48) had ≥3 prior lines of therapy for mCRPC. Somatic tumor sequencing was available in 18/48 men (38%). We found that 17% (8/48) had a ≥50% confirmed PSA decline with pembrolizumab, and 8% (4/48) had a ≥90% PSA decline with durations of response ranging from 3.1 to 16.3 months. Two of these four men had mutations in LRP1b, one of whom also had MSH2 loss and was MSI‐H and TMB‐high. Despite prior progression on enzalutamide, 48% (23/48) of men were treated with concurrent enzalutamide. The median PSA progression‐free‐survival was 1.8 months (range 0.4‐13.7 months), with 31% of patients remaining on pembrolizumab therapy and 54% of men remain alive with a median follow‐up of 7.1 months. Conclusions In a heavily pretreated population of men with mCRPC, pembrolizumab was associated with a ≥50% PSA decline in 17% (8/48) of men, including a dramatic ≥90% PSA response in 8% (4/48), two of whom harbored pathogenic LRP1b mutations suggesting that LRP1b mutations may enrich for PD‐1 inhibitor responsiveness in prostate cancer. A subset of men with heavily treated metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer derives clinical benefit from treatment with pembrolizumab. Tumor biomarkers such as microsatellite instability are being used to help identify some of these men; more investigation into potential biomarkers such as LRP1b are needed to help identify others who may derive benefit.

Background Due to their location away from the nerve bundles, anterior prostate cancers (APC) represent a rational target for image-guided cryoablation. This report describes the feasibility and short-term outcomes of anterior focal cryosurgery. Methods A retrospective review between 2012 and 2016 of patients with clinically localized APC treated with anterior gland cryoablation was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to report: age, PSA, prostate volume, prostate cancer grade group (PGG), median time to follow-up, and changes in functional status measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score. Results A total of 17 patients underwent anterior focal cryoablation with a median follow-up of 15 months. Median age and PSA at diagnosis were 67 years and 8.7 ng/mL. Pre-operative PGG1 was identified in 12 (71%) men and PGG2 in 5 (29%) men. Median (IQR) lesion volume was 2 mL(0.86, 3.1). Preoperative median IIEF-5 and IPSS scores were 19.5 and 5, and decreased to 19 and 4, post-operatively. All patients remained continent with no change in sexual function. All post-procedure targeted biopsies of the treated cancers were negative. Conclusion Our pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of treating APCs with image-guided targeted focal cryoablation as a good balance between short-term oncologic control and near complete preservation of genitourinary function. Further follow-up is necessary to examine the potential benefits long-term.

BackgroundImmunotherapy combinations including ipilimumab and nivolumab are now the standard of care for untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Biomarkers of response are lacking to predict patients who will have a favorable or unfavorable response to immunotherapy. This study aimed to use the OmniSeq transcriptome-based platform to develop biomarkers of response to immunotherapy.MethodsTwo cohorts of patients were retrospectively collected. These included an investigational cohort of patients with mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy from five institutions, and a subsequent validation cohort of patients with mRCC treated with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab from two institutions (Duke Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center). Tissue-based RNA sequencing was performed using the OmniSeq Immune Report Card on banked specimens to identify gene signatures and immune checkpoints associated with differential clinical outcomes. A 5-gene expression panel was developed based on the investigational cohort and was subsequently evaluated in the validation cohort. Clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted by retrospective chart review. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1.ResultsThe initial investigation cohort identified 86 patients with mRCC who received nivolumab (80%, 69/86), ipilimumab/nivolumab (14%, 12/86), or pembrolizumab (6%, 5/86). A gene expression score was created using the top five genes found in responders versus non-responders (FOXP3, CCR4, KLRK1, ITK, TIGIT). The ORR in patients with high gene expression (GEhigh) on the 5-gene panel was 29% (14/48), compared with low gene expression (GElow) 3% (1/38, χ2 p=0.001). The validation cohort was comprised of 62 patients who received ipilimumab/nivolumab. There was no difference between GEhigh and GElow in terms of ORR (44% vs 38.5%), PFS (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.89), or OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.83). Similarly, no differences in ORR, PFS or OS were observed when patients were stratified by tumor mutational burden (high=top 20%), PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) expression by immunohistochemistry or RNA expression, or CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocytes-associated protein 4) RNA expression. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score was prognostic for OS but not PFS.ConclusionA 5-gene panel that was associated with improved ORR in a predominantly nivolumab monotherapy population of patients with mRCC was not predictive for radiographic response, PFS, or OS among patients with mRCC treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Introduction Two separate antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immunotherapy (IO) combinations are FDA‐approved as front‐line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Little is known about off‐protocol and post‐front‐line experience with combination TKI–IO approaches. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of mRCC patients who received combination TKI–IO post‐first‐line therapy between November 2015 and January 2019 at MD Anderson Cancer Center and Duke Cancer Institute. Chart review detailed patient characteristics, treatments, toxicity, and survival. Independent radiologists, blinded to clinical data, assessed best radiographic response using RECIST v1.1. Results We identified 48 mRCC patients for inclusion: median age 65 years, 75.0% clear cell histology, 68.8% IMDC intermediate risk, and median two prior systemic therapies. TKI–IO combinations included nivolumab–cabozantinib (N +C; 24 patients), nivolumab–pazopanib (N+P; 13), nivolumab–axitinib (6), nivolumab–lenvatinib (2), and nivolumab–ipilimumab–cabozantinib (3). The median progression‐free survival was 11.6 months and the median overall survival was not reached. Response data were available in 45 patients: complete response (CR; n = 3, 6.7%), partial response (PR; 20, 44.4%), stable disease (SD; 19, 42.2%), and progressive disease (3, 6.7%). Overall response rate was 51% and disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) was 93%. Only one patient had a grade ≥3 adverse event. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first case series reporting off‐label use of combination TKI–IO for mRCC. TKI–IO combinations, particularly N+P and N+C, are well tolerated and efficacious. Although further prospective research is essential, slow disease progression on IO or TKI monotherapy may be safely controlled with addition of either TKI or IO. Real world use of combination anti‐angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)—anti‐PD1 immunotherapy (IO) is feasible, well tolerated and efficacious for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the second line setting and beyond. Although further prospective research is essential to define optimal use of salvage TKI‐IO, slow disease progression on IO or TKI monotherapy may be safely controlled with addition of either a TKI or IO.

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network. We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017-2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL. The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 1.98, p=0.001). Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. Clinical relevance statement High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. Key Points High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI . PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium . PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI .

Accurate early detection of recurrent prostate cancer after surgical or nonsurgical treatment is increasingly relevant in the era of evolving options for salvage therapy. The importance of differentiating between local tumor recurrence, distant metastatic disease, and a combination of both in a patient with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer is essential for appropriate treatment selection. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the best test for localization and characterization of locally residual or recurrent prostate cancer. It is essential for the radiologist involved in prostate MRI interpretation to be familiar with key imaging findings and advantages of different sequences to reach a confident diagnosis in the post-treatment setting. In this pictorial review, we present imaging findings of post-treatment prostate MRI including expected post-treatment anatomy and imaging characteristics, and the typical appearances of local tumor recurrence after radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and focal therapy for prostate cancer. While a multi-parametric MRI approach remains key just as in the treatment-naïve gland, this review emphasizes the much greater importance of the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI sequence for evaluation in the post-treatment setting.

Recurrent prostate cancer after primary treatment with radiation therapy is a common problem. Patients with localized recurrence may benefit from salvage therapy, but careful patient selection is crucial because not all patients will benefit from local salvage therapy, and salvage therapy has increased morbidity compared to primary treatments for prostate cancer. This review aims to provide an overview of the evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy and how it is continuing to evolve with increasing data on outcomes, as well as improving technologies and techniques. Our enhanced understanding of treatment outcomes and risk stratification has influenced the identification of patients who may benefit from local salvage treatment. Advances in imaging and biopsy techniques have enhanced the accuracy of locating the recurrence, which affects treatment decisions. Additionally, the growing interest in image-targeted ablative therapies that have less morbidity and complications than whole-gland therapies for suitable patients influences the evaluation process for those considering focal salvage therapy. Although significant changes have been made in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy, it remains unclear whether these changes will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Accurate detection and characterization of liver observations to enable HCC diagnosis and staging using LI-RADS requires a technically adequate imaging exam. To help achieve this objective, LI-RADS has proposed technical requirements for CT, MR, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound of liver. This article reviews the technical requirements for liver imaging, including the description of minimum acceptable technical standards, such as the scanner hardware requirements, recommended dynamic imaging phases, and common technical challenges of liver imaging.