Explore the vast range of titles available.

Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01136733. Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months [95% CI 5·9–20·1] vs 5·5 months [3·5–7·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·24–0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months [95% CI 5·6–10·2]; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·39–1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38–0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 [50%]) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 [79%]) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 [71%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten [20%]), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten [19%]), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six [12%]). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eisai Inc.

Lenvatinib plus either pembrolizumab or everolimus was compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was also more effective than sunitinib, but the difference was smaller.

In a phase 3 clinical trial involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer with the VEGF receptor inhibitor cabozantinib than with everolimus (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months). Renal-cell carcinoma is the most common form of kidney cancer, with more than 330,000 cases diagnosed and more than 140,000 deaths attributed to it worldwide every year. 1 Approximately one third of patients present with metastatic disease at diagnosis, 2 and in about one third of treated patients with localized disease, the disease will relapse. 3 – 5 Inactivation of the von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) tumor-suppressor protein characterizes clear-cell tumors, the predominant histologic subtype in patients with renal-cell carcinoma, and results in the up-regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production. 6 , 7 Antiangiogenic drugs that target VEGF (bevacizumab) and its receptors (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, and . . .

Durvalumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor with clinical activity in advanced urothelial cancer (AUC) 1 . AUC is characterized by several recurrent targetable genomic alterations 2 – 5 . This study ( NCT02546661 , BISCAY) combined durvalumab with relevant targeted therapies in biomarker-selected chemotherapy-refractory AUC populations including: (1) fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors in tumors with FGFR DNA alterations (FGFRm); (2) pharmacological inhibitor of the enzyme poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) in tumors with and without DNA homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRRm); and (3) TORC1/2 inhibitors in tumors with DNA alteration to the mTOR/PI3K pathway 3 – 5 .This trial adopted a new, biomarker-driven, multiarm adaptive design. Safety, efficacy and relevant biomarkers were evaluated. Overall, 391 patients were screened of whom 135 were allocated to one of six study arms. Response rates (RRs) ranged 9–36% across the study arms, which did not meet efficacy criteria for further development. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar in the combination arms and durvalumab monotherapy arm. Biomarker analysis showed a correlation between circulating plasma-based DNA (ctDNA) and tissue for FGFRm. Sequential circulating tumor DNA analysis showed that changes to FGFRm correlated with clinical outcome. Our data support the clinical activity of FGFR inhibition and durvalumab monotherapy but do not show increased activity for any of the combinations. These findings question the targeted/immune therapy approach in AUC. The adaptive, biomarker-driven BISCAY trial evaluating durvalumab with targeted agents in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma based on tumor genomic alterations finds no added clinical benefit over durvalumab monotherapy.

Background: Cabozantinib is approved, in various settings, for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, medullary thyroid cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and it has been investigated for the treatment of other cancers. With the available evidence and the real-world performance of cabozantinib compared with clinical trial data, we performed a systematic review of cabozantinib monotherapy as treatment for solid tumors in adults. Methods: This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020144680). We searched for clinical and observational studies of cabozantinib monotherapy for solid tumors using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases (October 2020), and screened relevant congress abstracts. Eligible studies reported clinical or safety outcomes, or biomarker data. Small studies (n < 25) and studies of cabozantinib combination therapies were excluded. Quality was assessed using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methodology, and study characteristics were described qualitatively. Results: Of 2888 citations, 114 were included (52 randomized studies, 29 observational studies, 32 nonrandomized phase I or II studies or pilot trials, and 1 analysis of data from a randomized study and a nonrandomized study). Beyond approved indications, other tumors studied were castration-resistant prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, uveal melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma, glioblastoma, pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas, cholangiocarcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, colorectal cancer, salivary gland cancer, carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhea, and fatigue. Conclusion: The identified evidence demonstrates the positive efficacy/effectiveness of cabozantinib monotherapy in various solid tumor types, with safety findings being consistent with those observed with other VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors. When available, real-world findings were consistent with the data reported from clinical trials. A limitation of this review is the high proportion of abstracts; however, this allowed us to capture the most up-to-date findings.

BackgroundMetastatic prostate cancer has a 30% 5-year survival rate despite recent therapeutic advances. There is a need to improve the clinical understanding and treatment of this disease, particularly in the real-world setting and among patients who are under-represented in clinical trials.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who received their first treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in routine clinical practice, independent of treatment used, including subgroups with baseline cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases.Patients and methodsProspective, noninterventional analysis of patient record data in the multicenter Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) of men with mCRPC. The data were collected in 16 countries with the aim of recruiting more than 3000 patients between 2013 and 2016. The study end date was 9 July 2018. Data evaluated included baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, and efficacy outcomes [overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP)] of patients treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (collectively, “abiraterone”), enzalutamide, or docetaxel. Descriptive outcomes are reported from the overall patient population and subgroups of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases. The treatment effects for time to progression were compared for the overall patient population.ResultsThe study enrollment period lasted 2.5 years, and each patient was followed for a maximum of 3 years. A total of 1874 patients in the PCR had not received previous mCRPC treatment at baseline, although they had received androgen-deprivation therapy. Prevalent co-morbidities included cardiovascular disease in 65.4% and diabetes mellitus in 17.4% of patients. Baseline characteristics suggested that patients with more advanced disease received docetaxel treatment. In the overall patient population, the median time to progression with abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel as first-line mCRPC therapy was 9.6, 10.3, and 7.6 months, respectively, and median OS was 27.1, 27.1, and 27.9 months, respectively. Outcomes in the subgroups of patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus were similar to those of the whole population in the analysis. As expected, patients with visceral metastases had shorter TTP and OS than patients in the overall population.ConclusionsThis analysis shows, for the first time, the effectiveness in parallel of first-line abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel in mCRPC, including in patients with co-morbidities such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus or in patients with visceral metastases. These real-world findings from the PCR provide meaningful information to help manage mCRPC, particularly in patients under-represented in clinical studies.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236637; registered September 2014.

Purpose To provide real-world evidence of the clinical characteristics and outcomes of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer patients (LPC/LAPC). Materials & methods Observational and retrospective analysis using secondary data from electronic health records (EHR) of prostate cancer (PC) patients in eight Spanish hospitals (2014–2018). Data was extracted and analyzed using EHRead® technology, based on natural language processing and machine learning. LPC/LAPC patients were included and stratified by risk and by first treatment received. Results Twenty-two thousand one hundred sixty-six PC patients were identified,14,434 (65.1%) were classified as LPC/LAPC. Among them, 5,331 incident patients with sufficient data were selected for outcome analysis (real world overall survival [rwOS], metastasis and event free survival [MFS, EFS]) and were followed for a median time of 2.3 years. 36.5% were classified as LPC intermediate risk (IR), 26.0% LPC high risk (HR), 7.3% LPC low risk (LR), 5.9% LAPC, and 24.2% unknown risk. First treatment received was radiotherapy (RT) in 40.7%, radical prostatectomy (RP) in 37.1%, active surveillance (AS)/watchful waiting (WW) in 6.4%, brachytherapy (BT) in 4.2%, and androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (ADT only) in 3.3%. rwOS and MFS worsened as risk increased. Patients treated with ADT only presented the worst baseline characteristics, showing limited clinical outcomes. The 36-month rwOS was 91% for LAPC patients, 93% for HR-LPC, 97% for IR-LPC, and 98% for LR-LPC. Conclusions Despite using treatment with curative intent, patients experienced oncological events within a median of less than three years post-diagnosis. Our findings emphasize the need for risk stratification, and proactive strategies to improve clinical outcomes.

The increasing knowledge of prostate cancer is leading to many questions about its natural history and to reconsider conventional therapeutic strategies. Androgen ablation therapy has been the standard therapy in the advanced setting. Although docetaxel has demonstrated increased survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had progressed to hormone treatments, due to its potential toxicity the role of chemotherapy has been relegated to patients who were symptomatic or who had high tumor burden. Several studies have assessed whether docetaxel could have a role in hormone-sensitive disease or even in earlier stages with no distant metastases. In the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, docetaxel provides an unprecedented increase in overall survival (OS). This review summarizes the evidence behind the paradigm shift to strengthening docetaxel as a new standard of treatment that prolongs survival in earlier stages of prostate cancer.

Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is a histologically and molecularly distinct class of rare renal tumor. TCGA studies revealed low mutational burden, with only TP53 and PTEN recurrently mutated, and discovered alterations in TERT promoter and in the electron transport chain Complex I genes. However, knowledge on drug targetable genes is limited and treatments at metastatic stage do not follow a molecular rationale. In a large series of 92 chRCC enriched with metastatic cases, we performed an in-depth characterization of mTOR pathway alterations through targeted NGS and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of phospho-S6, tuberin, and PTEN. Mutations in mitochondria, telomere maintenance and other renal cancer related genes and p53 IHC, were also assessed. The impact on metastasis development and disease specific survival was determined, using TCGA-KICH series (n = 65) for validation. mTOR pathway mutations (MTOR, TSC1, TSC2) were present in 17% of primary tumors, most of them being classified as pathogenic. Mutations were associated with positive IHC staining of phospho-S6 and PTEN (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001, respectively) and with chRCC eosinophilic variant (P = 0.039), supporting a biological relevance of the pathway. mTOR pathway mutations were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Survival analysis gave a hazard ratio of 5.5 (P = 0.027), and this association was confirmed in TCGA-KICH (HR = 10.3, P = 0.006). TP53 mutations were enriched in metastatic cases (P = 0.018), and mutations in telomere maintenance genes showed a trend in the same direction. p53 IHC staining pattern was associated with the underlying TP53 defect, and negative PTEN IHC staining (82% of cases) suggested PTEN loss as a chRCC hallmark. In conclusion, our study provides with novel genomic knowledge in chRCC and identifies novel markers of poor survival. Furthermore, this is the first study showing that mTOR pathway mutations correlate with poor prognosis, and may help to identify patients with increased sensitivity to mTOR inhibitors.

Prostate cancer with bone metastasis exhibits significant heterogeneity, complicating prognosis, and treatment. This study explores the potential of plasma, serum, and urine biomarkers to stratify patients and evaluate their prognostic value. Using two-step clustering, we analyzed baseline levels of Platelet-derived growth factor-BB (PDGF-BB), Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1), Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 (BMP-2), Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (plasma and urine), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), chromogranin A (CgA) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP) (serum) and creatinine (Cr), and type I collagen-cross-linked N telopeptide (NTx) (urine) in 29 patients with prostate cancer and bone metastasis. Longitudinal biomarker dynamics were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier and multivariate analyses. Three distinct groups (C1, C2, and C3) were identified. C1 exhibited elevated pPDGF-BB and pVEGF levels, C3 had increased pBAP and uNTx/Cr, and C2 showed lower biomarker levels. Prior treatments influenced biomarker levels, with bisphosphonates reducing bone turnover markers and radiotherapy correlating with long-term changes in growth factors. Longitudinal analysis revealed unique biomarker dynamics within each group, with a tendency for pPDGF-BB and pVEGF levels to decrease over time in C1, and distinct trends in uNTx/Cr between groups. Despite individual biomarkers failing to predict survival, C3 patients demonstrated significantly worse survival than C1 and C2. Molecular clustering of peripheral blood and urinary biomarkers identifies distinct subgroups with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients outperforming traditional models in outcome prediction and supporting its potential for personalized treatment and prognosis.