Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundA great number of DNA-damage repair (DDR) pathways have been recognized to be frequently dysregulated in advanced stages of prostate cancer. DNA-repair defects in prostate cancer represents a clinically relevant disease subset. Tumors whose ability to repair double-strand DNA breaks by homologous recombination is compromised, are highly sensitive to blockade of the repair of DNA single-strand breaks via the inhibition of the enzyme poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP).MethodsA systematic review of the literature has been conducted in January 2020 using PubMed Medline database in line with the recommendations from the PRISMA guidelines. The following string terms were used for searching clinical trial articles: castration resistant OR castrate resistance OR castration refractory AND prostate cancer AND PARP OR poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor OR DNA-repair OR homologous recombination repair. On-going clinical trials with olaparib, niraparib, talazoparib, veliparib, and rucaparib in mCRPC were searched on the clinicalTrials.gov website.ResultsFrom this research 176 articles were identified. After title screening and abstract reading, five papers and four abstract were considered for the systematic review. Thirty-two clinical trials were also identified: from these 16 trials which did not include mCRPC patients or only prostate cancer patients, trials not yet recruiting and trials including radio-metabolic treatments were excluded. Sixteen trials were included and discussed in the paper.ConclusionsOlaparib has been the first agent showing a benefit in terms of rPFS and ORR alone or in combination with abiraterone plus prednisone in patients with DDR deficiency prostate cancer. Also rucaparib showed a benefit in terms of PSA response rate and ORR in patients with BRCA2 and BRCA1 mutation in a phase-II study. Other phase-III clinical trials are evaluating niraparib and talazoparib, alone or in combination with AR signaling inhibitors.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is considered an immunogenic tumor with a prominent dysfunctional immune cell infiltrate, unable to control tumor growth. Cytokine-based immunotherapies, including interferon-α and interleukin-2, have been used for the treatment of metastatic RCC (mRCC). Long-term responses and complete remissions were observed, but durable clinical benefit efficacy in the overall population was limited and associated with significant toxicity. As a consequence, new generation agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways replaced interferon alpha (IFN-α). Strategies of tumor immune evasion include T-cell suppression by negative signals deriving from the interaction between programmed death-1 (PD-1) on the T cell and its ligand (PDL-1) on the tumor cells. Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 checkpoint inhibitor, blocks this pathway, thus reversing T-cell suppression and activating antitumor responses. The aim of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy data of nivolumab in mRCC. Objective responses and safety profile of single-agent nivolumab are favorable in both previously treated and treatment-naïve mRCC patients. Despite toxic effects, combination therapies with nivolumab have shown promising results, indicating a potential role in the treatment of mRCC. Tailoring immunotherapy on a patient-to-patient basis represents a major challenge for the future.

Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are commonly used in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Despite preliminary results suggesting effects of ADT+ARPI on cognition, there is limited data on their impact in older adults. The objective was to assess cognition in mPC patients ≥70 years receiving ADT+ARPI. Methods: This observational study (COG-PRO trial, NCT02907372, registered on 26/07/2016) recruited castration-resistant mPC patients (aged ≥70) receiving ADT+ARPI, patients receiving ADT alone, and healthy controls (HC). Cognition was prospectively assessed using a self-report questionnaire (subjective cognition) and cognitive tests addressing six domains: processing speed/attention, working memory, verbal memory, visual memory, visuospatial abilities, and executive functions (objective cognition). Rates of patients with impairment before ARPI initiation and decline after 3, 6 and 12 months were estimated using international recommendations. Adjusted scores were then analyzed with linear models. Results: We report that at baseline (before starting ARPI for ADT+ARPI patients), objective cognitive impairment affects 36 (51%), 5 (26%) and 3 (10%) ADT+ARPI patients, ADT patients and HC, respectively. After 3 and 6 months of follow-up, adjusted scores show poorer subjective cognition in ADT+ARPI patients than in ADT patients (p ≤ 0.033). ADT+ARPI patients also have lower objective performance in processing speed/attention domain at all visits (p ≤ 0.010). Conclusions: Although limited by small sample sizes, our study shows that ARPI + ADT can increase the risk of impacting objective and subjective cognition in older adults with mPC, compared to ADT alone. Clinician should use specific measures of objective and subjective cognition to assess ARPI-induced cognitive changes. Plain language summary Hormonal treatments for advanced prostate cancer could have an impact on cognition (including memory loss and difficulty concentrating) and affect the daily lives of older adults. This study aimed to assess cognition over a one-year period in patients treated with two different types of hormone therapy. Patients were evaluated using cognitive tests and self-report questionnaires. Results show poorer cognitive function in patients treated with hormone therapy, particularly when new generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors are added to androgen deprivation hormone therapy. These findings provide a better understanding of the challenges faced by older adults treated for advanced cancer and help identify suitable tools for their evaluation. Boué et al. longitudinally assess cognition in patients aged ≥70 years receiving hormone therapy for metastatic prostate cancer. Poorer objective and subjective cognition occurs in patients receiving hormone therapy, particularly when androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) are added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Background: We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety profile of abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with controlled cardiovascular comorbidities or risk factors. Methods: We retrospectively analysed the clinical charts of consecutive mCRPC patients with cardiac disorders/risk factors who had been treated with abiraterone 1000 mg once daily plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily for a median duration of 16 months at an oncology referral centre between April 2011 and July 2015. Patients underwent an electrocardiogram (ECG) and echocardiographic assessments, including measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline and at the end of treatment. Blood pressure (BP) was measured daily at home. During follow up (median 24 months), all adverse events were recorded. Cardiac events (CEs) were defined, according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, as the appearance of a symptomatic CE that required medical intervention. Results: A total of 51 patients (median age 71 years) were evaluated. Pre-existing cardiovascular conditions included hypertension (41%), cardiac ischaemia (12%), stroke (9%), dyslipidaemia (18%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (12%). No CEs were recorded and no changes in LVEF were observed. The most frequently reported adverse events were Grade 1–2 fluid retention (18%), hypertension (16%) and asthenia (16%). No patients permanently discontinued abiraterone due to cardiac events. Conclusions: Long-term abiraterone treatment was well tolerated in mCRPC patients with controlled cardiovascular comorbidities/risk factors, with no apparent worsening of cardiovascular conditions from baseline over an extended observation period.

Background The combination of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with standard therapies is becoming a common approach for overcoming resistance to cancer immunotherapy in most human malignancies including metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this regard, insights into the immunomodulatory properties of antiangiogenic agents may help designing multidrug schedules based on specific immune synergisms. Methods We used orthogonal transcriptomic and phenotyping platforms combined with functional analytic pipelines to elucidate the immunomodulatory effect of the antiangiogenic agent pazopanib in mRCC patients. Nine patients were studied longitudinally over a period of 6 months. We also analyzed transcriptional data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) RCC cohort (N = 571) to assess the prognostic implications of our findings. The effect of pazopanib was assessed in vitro on NK cells and T cells. Additionally, myeloid‐derived suppressor (MDSC)‐like cells were generated from CD14+ monocytes transfected with mimics of miRNAs associated with MDSC function in the presence or absence of pazopanib. Results Pazopanib administration caused a rapid and dramatic reshaping in terms of frequency and transcriptional activity of multiple blood immune cell subsets, with a downsizing of MDSC and regulatory T cells in favor of a strong enhancement in PD‐1 expressing cytotoxic T and Natural Killer effectors. These changes were paired with an increase of the expression of transcripts reflecting activation of immune‐effector functions. This immunomodulation was marked but transient, peaking at the third month of treatment. Moreover, the intratumoral expression level of a MDSC signature (MDSC INT) was strongly associated with poor prognosis in RCC patients. In vitro experiments indicate that the observed immunomodulation might be due to an inhibitory effect on MDSC‐mediated suppression, rather than a direct effect on NK and T cells. Conclusions The marked but transient nature of this immunomodulation, peaking at the third month of treatment, provides the rationale for the use of antiangiogenics as a preconditioning strategy to improve the efficacy of ICB.  

The treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has markedly improved over the last few years with the introduction of several targeted agents in clinical practice. Nevertheless, either primary or secondary resistance to inhibition of VEGF and mTOR pathways has limited the clinical benefit of these systemic treatments. Recently, a better understanding of the involvement of MET and its ligand HGF in many biological processes made this signaling pathway an attractive therapeutic target in oncology, particularly in mRCC. Herein, we review the development of cabozantinib, a recently approved inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, including MET, VEGFRs, and AXL, which has proven to increase progression-free survival and overall survival when compared to everolimus in mRCC patients who had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. Finally, we discuss the potential role of cabozantinib within the current treatment landscape for mRCC.

Background Pazopanib is a standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and 800 mg/daily is considered the optimal dose. However, some patients require dose modification because of toxicity. Whether a reduced dose of pazopanib is as effective as the standard dose in achieving clinical benefit remains unclear. Objectives Our objective was to conduct a retrospective analysis to investigate the clinical effect of different therapeutic doses of first-line pazopanib in patients with mRCC. Methods Consecutive patients with mRCC treated with first-line pazopanib between 2011 and 2016 at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan were retrospectively analysed for demographics, response, outcomes, and toxicity. Three patient groups were compared: group 1 received the standard dose of 800 mg/day; group 2 started with 800 mg/day and then reduced the dose to 400 or 600 mg/day because of toxicity; and group 3 received a reduced starting dose of 400 or 600 mg/day because they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2 and/or comorbidities. Results In total, 69 patients were evaluated: 34 in group 1, 19 in group 2, and 16 in group 3. After a median follow-up of 13.9 months (range 0.3–43.8), 27 (39.1%) patients had progressive disease (PD) and three (4.3%) patients had died. The incidence rate of PD or death per 100 person-months was 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6–4.4; hazard ratio (HR) 1] in group 1 and 3.9 (95% CI 0–14.3; HR 1.43) in the combined group (2 + 3). The discontinuation rate due to PD was 28% in group 1, 42% in group 2, and 44% in group 3. The objective response rate was 44, 11, and 19% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Conclusions Our results may suggest that patients with mRCC receiving a lower dose of first-line pazopanib might not have a meaningful progression-free survival advantage compared with those receiving a standard dose. These data highlight that proper management of treatment-related side effects may lead to optimal drug exposure.

BackgroundCohort B of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study (NCT02861573) found that docetaxel + pembrolizumab + prednisone demonstrated activity in patients previously treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide for mCRPC. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate was 28%; objective response rate (ORR) was 18% (7 partial responses); duration of response (DOR) was 6.7 months; progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months; overall survival (OS) was 20.4 months; and the 12-month PFS and OS rates were 24.0% and 75.8%, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile of this combination was consistent with the profiles of each individual agent. The KEYNOTE-921 (NCT03834506) phase 3 trial will evaluate efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab + docetaxel + prednisone/prednisolone in patients with mCRPC after prior treatment with NHA.MethodsEligible patients are adults with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRPC who experience disease progression with androgen deprivation therapy (or after bilateral orchiectomy) within 6 months of screening and have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1. Other eligibility criteria are disease progression or intolerance to NHA in the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer setting or CRPC setting, no prior treatment with chemotherapy for mCRPC, and tissue available for biomarker analysis. Treatment stratification factors are prior treatment with abiraterone acetate (yes or no) and metastases location (bone only, liver, other). Approximately 1000 patients will be randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV Q3W + prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg orally BID and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV Q3W or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV Q3W + prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg PO BID + placebo IV Q3W (1:1 ratio). Response and progression will be determined using imaging (CT/MRI/bone) according to PCWG3–modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) Q9W during the first year and Q12W thereafter. Treatment maximums are 10 cycles for docetaxel + prednisone/prednisolone and 35 cycles for pembrolizumab or placebo. Treatment discontinuation regardless of therapy received is mandated for disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The dual primary end points are radiographic PFS per PCWG3-modified RECIST v1.1, as assessed by BICR and OS, and the key secondary end point is time to initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy or death. Other secondary end points include PSA response rate, time to PSA progression, ORR, DOR, time to radiographic soft tissue progression, time to radiographic bone progression, and safety. KEYNOTE-921 is ongoing or planned in 22 countries across, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America.ResultsN/AConclusionsN/AEthics ApprovalThe study and the protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board or ethics committee at each site.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors are cornerstones of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma; however, optimal treatment sequencing after progression is unknown. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of tivozanib–nivolumab versus tivozanib monotherapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed following one or two lines of therapy in the post-ICI setting. TiNivo-2 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 190 sites across 16 countries, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and progression during or after one to two previous lines of therapy (including one ICI) were randomised 1:1 to tivozanib (0·89 mg per day, orally) plus nivolumab (480 mg every 4 weeks, intravenously) or tivozanib (1·34 mg per day, orally). Randomisation was stratified by immediate previous therapy (ICI or non-ICI) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to first documentation of objective progressive disease according to RECIST 1·1 or death from any cause, whichever came first, by independent radiology review. Efficacy was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received one or more doses of the study drug. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04987203) and is active and not recruiting. From Nov 4, 2021, to June 16, 2023, 343 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib–nivolumab (n=171) or tivozanib monotherapy (n=172). Median follow-up was 12·0 months. Median PFS was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·0–7·4) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 7·4 months (5·6–9·2) with tivozanib monotherapy (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·84–1·43; p=0·49). Among those with an ICI as their immediate previous therapy (n=244), median PFS was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6–9·6) with tivozanib–nivolumab and 9·2 months (7·4–10·0) with tivozanib monotherapy. With non-ICIs as the most recent therapy, lower median PFS was observed, with no difference between groups (tivozanib–nivolumab 3·7 months [95% CI 2·7–5·4] and with tivozanib monotherapy 3·7 months [1·9–7·2]). Serious adverse events occurred in 54 (32%) of 168 patients receiving tivozanib–nivolumab and 64 (37%) of 171 patients receiving tivozanib monotherapy. One (<1%) treatment-related death occurred (tivozanib group). These data further support that ICI rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Furthermore, these data suggest that tivozanib monotherapy has efficacy in the post-ICI setting. Aveo Pharmaceuticals.

[...]the physician's and patient's perceptions of toxicity often differ. For this reason, patient-reported outcomes might become the right approach for high-quality assessment of quality of life.8 Thirdly, the definition of the correct endpoint in clinical trials remains essential; progression-free survival is often chosen as a surrogate for overall survival but the two are not always correlated.9,10 In diseases that can have an asymptomatic, slow progressive course, such as advanced renal cell carcinoma, tumour shrinkage might be predictive of treatment efficacy, but this won't necessarily be clinically relevant since tumour shrinkage is not always associated with symptom relief.