Publications by authors named "Christian K Kollmannsberger"

46 Publications

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021 May 15. Epub 2021 May 15.

Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Patients And Methods: We used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts.

Results: A total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71).

Conclusions: Based on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.05.004DOI Listing
May 2021

Effectiveness of first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide among patients ≥80 years of age with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A retrospective propensity score-weighted comparative cohort study.

Eur J Cancer 2021 Jul 12;152:215-222. Epub 2021 Jun 12.

Department of Medicine, Medical Oncology Division, BC Cancer, Vancouver Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) disproportionately affects the elderly. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and tolerability of abiraterone acetate (AA) versus enzalutamide in this population.

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of AA versus enzalutamide in patients ≥ 80 years with mCRPC.

Design, Setting And Participants: A retrospective propensity-weighted comparative cohort study of first-line AA versus enzalutamide among patients with mCRPC aged ≥80 years.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Inverse probability treatment weights based on propensity scores were generated to assess the treatment effect of AA versus enzalutamide on time to PSA progression (TTPP), time to progression (TTP) (first of PSA/radiographic/clinical progression) and overall survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. PSA response rate (PSA RR) was compared between groups using Χ.

Results And Limitations: One hundred fifty-three patients received AA, and 125 received enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was associated with higher PSA RR (61.6% vs 43.8%, P < 0.004), and TTP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.88, P = 0.01) but not TTPP (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, P = 0.06). There were significantly more dose reductions with enzalutamide (22.9% vs 44.8%, P > 0.001) but there was no interaction between median proportion of full dose received and TTPP or TTP for either drug. Rates of treatment discontinuation (for reasons other than progression) were also significantly different between AA and enzalutamide (28.8% vs 40.8%, respectively, P = 0.04). The most common reason for dose reductions and discontinuation of enzalutamide was fatigue (30.4% and 5.6%, respectively).

Conclusions: Despite more dose reductions and a higher treatment discontinuation rate, enzalutamide was associated with a higher PSA RR and longer time to progression, than AA. Given that clinical outcomes were not adversely impacted by decreased treatment exposure, dose modification may be a useful treatment strategy to balance toxicity and tolerance.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.05.003DOI Listing
July 2021

Clinical Effectiveness of Second-line Sunitinib Following Immuno-oncology Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Real-world Study.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021 08 17;19(4):354-361. Epub 2021 Mar 17.

Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Department of Oncology, Calgary, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Limited data exist on the clinical effectiveness of second-line (2L) vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) targeted inhibitor (VEGF(R)i) sunitinib after first-line (1L) immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in real-world settings.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study among adult patients with mRCC treated with 2L sunitinib following 1L IO was conducted from select International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) centers. All analyses were performed overall and by 1L ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI+NIVO) or 1L IO+VEGF(R)i. Median overall survival (mOS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) in 2L were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The 2L objective response rate (ORR) (complete/partial response) was reported.

Results: Among 102 patients on 2L sunitinib, mean age was 61.3 years. IMDC risk scores at 2L initiation was available for 83 patients: 8 (9.6%) were favorable, 45 (54.2%) were intermediate, and 30 (36.1%) were poor risk. The 1L consisted of IPI+NIVO in 62 (60.8%), IO+VEGF(R)i therapy in 27 (26.5%), and IO monotherapy in 13 (12.7%) patients. Among all patients, mOS was 15.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.8-21.7), with a 1-year OS rate of 57.5% (95% CI, 45.2-68.0). mTTD was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) and ORR was 22.5%.

Conclusion: Despite availability of effective 1L therapies in recent years, 2L sunitinib continues to have clinical activity after failure of 1L IO. Further studies on optimal treatment sequencing after 1L IO progression are needed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.03.006DOI Listing
August 2021

Efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in the treatment of older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) - an International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) analysis.

J Geriatr Oncol 2021 06 3;12(5):820-826. Epub 2021 Mar 3.

William Osler Health System, Brampton, ON, Canada. Electronic address:

Objective: Older adults with metastatic renal cell carcinoma(mRCC) are underrepresented in immune-checkpoint inhibitor(ICI) registration trials. Here we compare the efficacy of ICI treatments in older vs. younger adults with mRCC.

Methods: Using the International mRCC Database Consortium(IMDC), patients treated with a PD(L)-1 based ICI were identified. Older adult was defined as ≥70-years at the time of treatment. Descriptive statistics were summarized in means, medians, and proportions. Effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure(TTF), time-to-next treatment(TNT), and overall response rate(ORR). Hazards ratios were adjusted(aHR) for IMDC risk factors, histology, line of treatment and older age.

Results: Of 1427 included patients, 397(28%) were older adults. ICI was used as 1st line(1 L) in 40%, 2nd line(2 L) in 49% and 3rd line(3 L) in 11% of patients. In univariable analysis, older adults had inferior OS compared to younger adults(25.1 m vs. 30.8 m, p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TTF (6.9 m vs. 6.9 m, p = 0.4) or TNT(9.1 m vs 10 m, p = 0.3) between groups. In multivariable analyses, older age was not independently associated with worse OS(aHR = 1.02, p = 0.8), TTF(aHR = 0.95, p = 0.6) or TNT(aHR = 0.93, p = 0.5). Older adults had a lower ORR compared to younger adults(24% vs. 31%, p = 0.01), which was mainly driven by responses in 1 L(31% vs. 44%, p = 0.02) and not observed in 2 L/3 L.

Conclusions: After multivariable analyses, older adults with mRCC treated with ICI had no difference in OS, TTF or TNT when compared to younger adults. Our data support that chronological older age should not preclude patients from receiving ICI based therapies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2021.02.022DOI Listing
June 2021

Angiokines Associated with Targeted Therapy Outcomes in Patients with Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clin Cancer Res 2021 Jun 16;27(12):3317-3328. Epub 2021 Feb 16.

Department of Biostatistics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Purpose: Biomarkers are needed in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas (NC-RCC) to inform treatment selection but also to identify novel therapeutic targets. We thus sought to profile circulating angiokines in the context of a randomized treatment trial of everolimus versus sunitinib.

Patients And Methods: ASPEN (NCT01108445) was an international, randomized, open-label phase II trial of patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified NC-RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Patients were randomized to everolimus or sunitinib and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) defined by RECIST 1.1. Plasma angiokines were collected at baseline, cycle 3, and progression and associated with PFS and overall survival (OS).

Results: We enrolled 108 patients, 51 received sunitinib and 57 everolimus; of these, 99 patients had evaluable plasma for 23 angiokines. At the final data cutoff, 94 PFS and 64 mortality events had occurred. Angiokines that were independently adversely prognostic for OS were osteopontin (OPN), TIMP-1, thrombospondin-2 (TSP-2), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), and VCAM-1, and these were also associated with poor-risk disease. Stromal derived factor 1 (SDF-1) was associated with improved survival. OPN was also significantly associated with worse PFS. No statistically significant angiokine-treatment outcome interactions were observed for sunitinib or everolimus. Angiopoeitin-2 (Ang-2), CD-73, HER-3, HGF, IL6, OPN, PIGF, PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, SDF-1, TGF-b1-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VCAM-1, VEGF, and VEGF-R1 levels increased with progression on everolimus, while CD-73, ICAM-1, IL6, OPN, PlGF, SDF-1, TGF-b2, TGFb-R3, TIMP-1, TSP-2, VEGF, VEGF-D, and VCAM-1 increased with progression on sunitinib.

Conclusions: In patients with metastatic NC-RCC, we identified several poor prognosis angiokines and immunomodulatory chemokines during treatment with sunitinib or everolimus, particularly OPN.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4504DOI Listing
June 2021

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 4-year follow-up of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

ESMO Open 2020 11;5(6):e001079

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.

Purpose: To report updated analyses of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial with extended minimum follow-up assessing long-term outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus (vs) sunitinib (SUN) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

Methods: Patients with aRCC with a clear cell component were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk and randomised to NIVO (3 mg/kg) plus IPI (1 mg/kg) every three weeks ×4 doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg) every two weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day ×4 weeks (6-week cycle). Efficacy endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in patients with intermediate/poor-risk disease (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat patients (ITT; secondary) and in patients with favourable-risk disease (FAV; exploratory).

Results: Overall, 1096 patients were randomised (ITT: NIVO+IPI, n=550, SUN, n=546; I/P: NIVO+IPI, n=425, SUN, n=422; FAV: NIVO+IPI, n=125, SUN, n=124). After 4 years minimum follow-up, OS (HR; 95% CI) remained superior with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (0.69; 0.59 to 0.81) and I/P patients (0.65; 0.54 to 0.78). Four-year PFS probabilities were 31.0% vs 17.3% (ITT) and 32.7% vs 12.3% (I/P), with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. ORR remained higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN in ITT (39.1% vs 32.4%) and I/P (41.9% vs 26.8%) patients. In FAV patients, the HRs (95% CI) for OS and PFS were 0.93 (0.62 to 1.40) and 1.84 (1.29 to 2.62); ORR was lower with NIVO+IPI vs SUN. However, more patients in all risk groups achieved complete responses with NIVO+IPI: ITT (10.7% vs 2.6%), I/P (10.4% vs 1.4%) and FAV (12.0% vs 6.5%). Probability (95% CI) of response ≥4 years was higher with NIVO+IPI vs SUN (ITT, 59% (0.51 to 0.66) vs 30% (0.21 to 0.39); I/P, 59% (0.50 to 0.67) vs 24% (0.14 to 0.36); and FAV, 60% (0.41 to 0.75) vs 38% (0.22 to 0.54)) regardless of risk category. Safety remained favourable with NIVO+IPI vs SUN.

Conclusion: After long-term follow-up, NIVO+IPI continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits vs SUN, with manageable safety.

Trial Registration Details: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02231749.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-001079DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7703447PMC
November 2020

Nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Updated results with long-term follow-up of the randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial.

Cancer 2020 09 16;126(18):4156-4167. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

Department of Clinical Trials, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey.

Background: CheckMate 025 has shown superior efficacy for nivolumab over everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) along with improved safety and tolerability. This analysis assesses the long-term clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus.

Methods: The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 025 trial (NCT01668784) included patients with clear cell aRCC previously treated with 1 or 2 antiangiogenic regimens. Patients were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or everolimus (10 mg once a day) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the confirmed objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Results: Eight hundred twenty-one patients were randomized to nivolumab (n = 410) or everolimus (n = 411); 803 patients were treated (406 with nivolumab and 397 with everolimus). With a minimum follow-up of 64 months (median, 72 months), nivolumab maintained an OS benefit in comparison with everolimus (median, 25.8 months [95% CI, 22.2-29.8 months] vs 19.7 months [95% CI, 17.6-22.1 months]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85) with 5-year OS probabilities of 26% and 18%, respectively. ORR was higher with nivolumab (94 of 410 [23%] vs 17 of 411 [4%]; P < .001). PFS also favored nivolumab (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P = .0331). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (34.7%) and pruritus (15.5%) with nivolumab and fatigue (34.5%) and stomatitis (29.5%) with everolimus. HRQOL improved from baseline with nivolumab but remained the same or deteriorated with everolimus.

Conclusions: The superior efficacy of nivolumab over everolimus is maintained after extended follow-up with no new safety signals, and this supports the long-term benefits of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated aRCC.

Lay Summary: CheckMate 025 compared the effects of nivolumab (a novel immunotherapy) with those of everolimus (an older standard-of-care therapy) for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer in patients who had progressed on antiangiogenic therapy. After 5 years of study, nivolumab continues to be better than everolimus in extending the lives of patients, providing a long-lasting response to treatment, and improving quality of life with a manageable safety profile. The results demonstrate that the clinical benefits of nivolumab versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced kidney cancer continue in the long term.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33033DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415096PMC
September 2020

Survival outcomes and independent response assessment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: 42-month follow-up of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

J Immunother Cancer 2020 07;8(2)

Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.

Background: The extent to which response and survival benefits with immunotherapy-based regimens persist informs optimal first-line treatment options. We provide long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) receiving first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib (SUN) in the phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial. Survival, response, and safety outcomes with NIVO+IPI versus SUN were assessed after a minimum of 42 months of follow-up.

Methods: Patients with aRCC were enrolled from October 16, 2014, through February 23, 2016. Patients stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk and region were randomized to nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks; or SUN (50 mg) once per day for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiology review committee in IMDC intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints: OS, PFS, and ORR in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety. Favorable-risk patient outcomes were exploratory.

Results: Among ITT patients, 550 were randomized to NIVO+IPI (425 intermediate/poor risk; 125 favorable risk) and 546 to SUN (422 intermediate/poor risk; 124 favorable risk). Among intermediate-risk/poor-risk patients, OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80) and PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) benefits were observed, and ORR was higher (42.1% vs 26.3%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In ITT patients, both OS benefits (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86) and higher ORR (39.1% vs 32.6%) were observed with NIVO+IPI versus SUN. In favorable-risk patients, HR for death was 1.19 (95% CI, 0.77-1.85) and ORR was 28.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 54.0% with SUN. Duration of response was longer (HR, 0.46-0.54), and more patients achieved complete response (10.1%-12.8% vs 1.4%-5.6%) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN regardless of risk group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports.

Conclusions: NIVO+IPI led to improved efficacy outcomes versus SUN in both intermediate-risk/poor-risk and ITT patients that were maintained through 42 months' minimum follow-up. A complete response rate >10% was achieved with NIVO+IPI regardless of risk category, with no new safety signals detected in either arm. These results support NIVO+IPI as a first-line treatment option with the potential for durable response.

Trial Registration Number: NCT02231749.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-000891DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7359377PMC
July 2020

Deferred Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Eur Urol 2020 10 30;78(4):615-623. Epub 2020 Apr 30.

Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Background: The use of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) selectively for patients who show a favorable response to upfront systemic therapy may be an approach to select optimal candidates with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) who are most likely to benefit.

Objective: We sought to characterize outcomes of deferred CN (dCN) after upfront sunitinib, outcomes relative to sunitinib alone, and outcomes of CN followed by sunitinib.

Design, Setting, And Participants: We used the prospectively maintained International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database to identify patients with newly diagnosed mRCC (2006-2018).

Intervention: Sunitinib alone, upfront CN followed by sunitinib, sunitinib followed by dCN.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Outcomes were overall survival (OS) and time to sunitinib treatment failure (TTF). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed; dCN was analyzed as a time-varying covariate to account for immortal time bias.

Results And Limitations: We evaluated 1541 patients, of whom 651 (42%) received sunitinib alone, 805 (52%) underwent CN followed by sunitinib, and 85 (5.5%) received sunitinib followed by dCN, at a median of 7.8 mo from diagnosis. Median OS periods for patients treated with sunitinib alone, CN followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by dCN were 10, 19, and 46 mo, respectively, while the median TTF values were 4, 8, and 13 mo, respectively. In multivariable regression analyses, sunitinib followed by dCN was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.60, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85, p = 0.003) versus sunitinib alone. Among CN-treated patients, sunitinib followed by dCN was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70, p < 0.001) and TTF (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90, p = 0.005) compared with upfront CN followed by sunitinib. In various sensitivity analyses, dCN remained significantly associated with improved OS and TTF.

Conclusions: Patients who received dCN were carefully selected and achieved long OS. With these benchmark outcomes, optimal selection criteria need to be identified and confirmation of the role of dCN in a clinical trial is warranted.

Patient Summary: We characterized benchmark survival outcomes for patients with metastatic kidney cancer treated with sunitinib alone, nephrectomy (kidney removal) followed by sunitinib, and sunitinib followed by nephrectomy. Patients who had their nephrectomy after an initial course of sunitinib had prolonged survival.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.038DOI Listing
October 2020

Plasma Circulating Tumor DNA and Clonal Hematopoiesis in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020 08 8;18(4):322-331.e2. Epub 2020 Jan 8.

Vancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, British Columbia, Canada.

Background: There is a lack of molecularly-informed biomarkers for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing is a minimally-invasive alternative to tissue for profiling the genome in other cancers but relevance in metastatic RCC remains unclear.

Materials And Methods: Whole blood was collected from 55 patients with metastatic RCC. Plasma cfDNA and leukocyte DNA were subjected to targeted sequencing across 981 cancer genes. Matched tumor tissue from 14 patients was analyzed.

Results: Thirty-three percent of patients had evidence for RCC-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), significantly lower than patients with metastatic prostate or bladder cancer analyzed using the same approach. Among ctDNA-positive patients, ctDNA fraction averaged only 3.9% and showed no strong association with clinical variables. In these patients, the most commonly mutated genes were VHL, BAP1, and PBRM1, and matched tissue concordance was 77%. Evidence of somatic expansions unrelated to RCC, such as clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, were detected in 43% of patients. Pathogenic germline mutations in DNA repair genes were detected in 11% of patients. CtDNA-positive patients had shorter overall survival and progression-free survival on first-line therapy. Patients with evidence of clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential had an intermediate prognosis compared with ctDNA-positive and -negative patients.

Conclusions: CfDNA sequencing enables straightforward characterization of the somatic RCC genome in a minority of patients with metastatic RCC. Owing to low ctDNA abundance, and the presence of non-RCC derived somatic clones in circulation, cfDNA sequencing may not be a simple pan-patient alternative to tissue biopsy in metastatic RCC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.018DOI Listing
August 2020

Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Eur Urol Oncol 2020 08 6;3(4):530-539. Epub 2020 Feb 6.

Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Canada.

Background: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised.

Objective: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]).

Design, Setting, And Participants: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals).

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors.

Results And Limitations: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status <80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p <  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p <  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p <  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p <  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively.

Conclusions: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC.

Patient Summary: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.01.001DOI Listing
August 2020

Patient selection for a developmental therapeutics program using whole genome and Transcriptome analysis.

Invest New Drugs 2020 10 6;38(5):1601-1604. Epub 2020 Jan 6.

Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, Canada.

Introduction Given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the outcomes of early phase clinical trials, whole genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) can be used to optimize patient selection and study assignment. In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed the impact of this approach on one such program. Methods Patients with advanced malignancies underwent fresh tumor biopsies as part of our personalized medicine program (NCT02155621). Tumour molecular data were reviewed for potentially clinically actionable findings and patients were referred to the developmental therapeutics program. Outcomes were reviewed in all patients, including those where trial selection was driven by molecular data (matched) and those where there was no clear molecular rationale (unmatched). Results From January 2014 to January 2018, 28 patients underwent WGTA and enrolled in clinical trials, including 2 patients enrolled in two trials. Fifteen patients were matched to a treatment based on a molecular target. Five patients were matched to a trial based upon single-gene DNA changes, all supported by RNA data. Ten cases were matched on the basis of genome-wide data (n = 4) or RNA gene expression only (n = 6). With a median follow-up of 6.7 months, the median time on treatment was 8.2 weeks. Discussion When compared to single-gene DNA-based data alone, WGTA led to a 3-fold increase in treatment matching. In a setting where there is a high level of uncertainty around both the investigational agents and the biomarkers, more data are needed to fully evaluate the impact of routine use of WGTA.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10637-020-00892-8DOI Listing
October 2020

Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial.

Lancet Oncol 2019 12 11;20(12):1730-1739. Epub 2019 Nov 11.

Division of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and enzalutamide are both used for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to determine the best sequence in which to use both drugs, as well as their second-line efficacy.

Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2, crossover trial done in six cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with newly-diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without neuroendocrine differentiation and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated random number table to receive either abiraterone acetate 1000 mg orally once daily plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily until PSA progression followed by crossover to enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily (group A), or the opposite sequence (group B). Treatment was not masked to investigators or participants. Primary endpoints were time to second PSA progression and PSA response (≥30% decline from baseline) on second-line therapy, analysed by intention-to-treat in all randomly assigned patients and in patients who crossed over, respectively. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125357.

Findings: Between Oct 21, 2014, and Dec 13, 2016, 202 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either group A (n=101) or group B (n=101). At the time of data cutoff, 73 (72%) patients in group A and 75 (74%) patients in group B had crossed over. Time to second PSA progression was longer in group A than in group B (median 19·3 months [95% CI 16·0-30·5] vs 15·2 months [95% CI 11·9-19·8] months; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·45-0·97, p=0·036), at a median follow-up of 22·8 months (IQR 10·3-33·4). PSA responses to second-line therapy were seen in 26 (36%) of 73 patients for enzalutamide and three (4%) of 75 for abiraterone (χ p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events throughout the trial were hypertension (27 [27%] of 101 patients in group A vs 18 [18%] of 101 patients in group B) and fatigue (six [10%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) of 101 patients in group A and 20 (20%) of 101 patients in group B. There were no treatment-related deaths.

Interpretation: Enzalutamide showed activity as a second-line novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, whereas abiraterone acetate did not, leading to a longer time to second PSA progression for the sequence of abiraterone followed by enzalutamide than with the opposite treatment sequence. Our data suggest that using a sequencing strategy of abiraterone acetate followed by enzalutamide provides the greatest clinical benefit.

Funding: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Prostate Cancer Canada, Movember Foundation, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Terry Fox New Frontiers Program, BC Cancer Foundation, Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Janssen, and Astellas.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30688-6DOI Listing
December 2019

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Lancet Oncol 2019 10 16;20(10):1370-1385. Epub 2019 Aug 16.

Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Background: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting.

Methods: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment.

Findings: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related.

Interpretation: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories.

Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497870PMC
October 2019

Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Eur Urol Oncol 2019 Nov 5;2(6):643-648. Epub 2019 Apr 5.

Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: There is evidence that cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) may be beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This has been studied predominantly in clear-cell RCC, with more limited data on the role of CN in patients with papillary histology.

Objective: To determine the benefit of CN in synchronous metastatic papillary RCC.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) database, a retrospective analysis was performed for patients with papillary mRCC treated with or without CN.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined for both patient groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to control for imbalances in individual IMDC risk factors.

Results And Limitations: In total, 647 patients with papillary mRCC were identified, of whom 353 had synchronous metastatic disease. Of these, 109 patients were treated with CN and 244 were not. The median follow-up was 57.1mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.9-77.8) and the OS from the start of first-line targeted therapy for the entire cohort was 13.2mo (95% CI 12.0-16.1). Median OS for patients with CN was 16.3mo, compared to 8.6mo (p<0.0001) in the no-CN group. When adjusted for individual IMDC risk factors, the hazard ratio (HR) of death for CN was 0.62 (95% CI 0.45-0.85; p=0.0031). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the analysis.

Conclusions: The use of CN in patients with mRCC and papillary histology appears to be associated with better survival compared to no CN after adjustment for risk criteria. Selection of appropriate candidates for CN is crucial. A clinical trial in this rare population may not be possible.

Patient Summary: In a population of patients with advanced papillary kidney cancer, we found that surgical removal of the primary kidney tumor was associated with better overall survival.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.007DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6886238PMC
November 2019

Current Management of Disseminated Germ Cell Tumors.

Urol Clin North Am 2019 Aug 21;46(3):377-388. Epub 2019 May 21.

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, BC Cancer--Vancouver Cancer Center, University of British Columbia, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 4E6, Canada. Electronic address:

The modern treatment of disseminated germ cell tumors (GCT) relies largely on cisplatin-based regimens, particularly combination chemotherapy with bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin. This article reviews the evidence supporting its use as well as common alterations based on prognostic grouping or contraindications to bleomycin. Special topics around the management of intermediate/poor prognosis choriocarcinoma and brain metastases are included. The management of residual masses for both seminoma and nonseminoma is discussed as well as long-term follow-up care of patients. Finally, the management of relapsed disseminated GCT is addressed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2019.04.003DOI Listing
August 2019

Management of Stage II Germ Cell Tumors: Be Sure, Be Patient, Be Safe.

J Clin Oncol 2019 08 10;37(22):1856-1862. Epub 2019 Jun 10.

2Testicular Cancer Commons, Vancouver, WA.

A healthy 27-year-old man discovered a left testicular mass. Several months later he saw an urologist, who palpated a suspicious mass on the left testicle; an ultrasound confirmed a 2-cm solid mass. Serum tumor marker testing disclosed a slightly elevated alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) of 12.3 µg/L (upper limit of normal, 8.0 µg/L), and a normal β-human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). Staging imaging with a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest/abdomen/pelvis showed no evidence for retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy or distant metastases. He underwent a left radical orchiectomy, and pathology showed a 1.5-cm mixed germ cell tumor with 85% embryonal, 10% yolk sac tumor, and 5% mature teratoma histologies. Lymphovascular invasion was present. His AFP normalized after surgery. After discussion of management alternatives, he chose active surveillance, but 4 months later a scheduled surveillance CT scan identified a 1.4-cm left para-aortic lymph node just below the left renal hilum (Fig 1). Serum tumor markers remained negative. He returns to discuss his results and potential management options.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.00502DOI Listing
August 2019

Outcome Definition Influences the Relationship Between Genetic Polymorphisms of , , and Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity in Adult Testicular Cancer Patients.

Genes (Basel) 2019 05 10;10(5). Epub 2019 May 10.

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Although previous research identified candidate genetic polymorphisms associated with cisplatin nephrotoxicity, varying outcome definitions potentially contributed to the variability in the effect size and direction of this relationship. We selected genetic variants that have been significantly associated with cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in more than one published study ( rs316019; rs11615 and rs3212986; rs1799793 and rs13181) and performed a replication analysis to confirm associations between these genetic polymorphisms and cisplatin nephrotoxicity using various outcome definitions. We included 282 germ cell testicular cancer patients treated with cisplatin from 2009-2014, aged >17 years recruited by the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety. Nephrotoxicity was defined using four grading tools: (1) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 for acute kidney injury (AKI) or CTCAE-AKI; (2) adjusted cisplatin-induced AKI; (3) elevation of serum creatinine; and (4) reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Significant associations were only found when using the CTCAE v4.03 definition: genotype CA of the rs3212986 was associated with decreased risk of cisplatin nephrotoxicity (OR = 0.24; 95% CI:0.08-0.70; 0.009) compared to genotype CC. In contrast, addition of allele A at rs316019 was associated with increased risk (OR = 4.41; 95% CI:1.96-9.88; < 0.001) while genotype AC was associated with a higher risk of cisplatin nephrotoxicity (OR = 5.06; 95% CI:1.69-15.16; 0.004) compared to genotype CC. Our study showed that different case definitions led to variability in the genetic risk ascertainment of cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Therefore, consensus on a set of clinically relevant outcome definitions that all such studies should follow is needed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes10050364DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562793PMC
May 2019

The efficacy and safety of sunitinib given on an individualised schedule as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A phase 2 clinical trial.

Eur J Cancer 2019 02 14;108:69-77. Epub 2019 Jan 14.

Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1Z2, Canada.

Background: Sunitinib is administered on a rigid schedule that may not be optimal for all patients. We hypothesised that toxicity-driven dose and schedule changes would optimise drug exposure and outcome for each patient.

Materials And Methods: In a phase 2 trial, 117 patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell cancer were started on sunitinib 50 mg/day with the aim to treat for 28 days. Treatment breaks were reduced to 7 days. Sunitinib dose and the number of days on therapy were individualised based on toxicity aiming for ≤ grade II toxicity with dose escalation in patients with minimal toxicity. The null hypothesis for the primary end-point was a progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.5 months based on a study with similar eligibility criteria.

Results: The null hypothesis was rejected (p < 0.001) with a median PFS of 12.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.6-16.5). The median overall survival was 38.5 months (95% CI: 28.3-not reached). The objective response rate (46.1%) and stable disease rate (38.5%) translated into a clinical benefit for 84.6% of patients with no decline in quality of life scores during therapy. Fewer patients were dose reduced (26.5% vs. 50%) or discontinued due to toxicity (7.7 vs. 18-20%) compared to standard sunitinib dosing, and 20 (18.4%) patients were dose escalated to 62.5 mg (12) and 75 mg (8) with a wide individual variation in the optimal dose and treatment duration.

Conclusions: Individualised sunitinib therapy is feasible, safe and an effective method to manage toxicity with one of the best efficacy seen for oral vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. CLINICALTRIALS.

Gov Identifier: NCT01499121.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.12.006DOI Listing
February 2019

Health-related Quality of Life for Abiraterone Plus Prednisone Versus Enzalutamide in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from a Phase II Randomized Trial.

Eur Urol 2019 06 24;75(6):940-947. Epub 2018 Dec 24.

Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Urological Sciences, The Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Electronic address:

Background: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are associated with side effects that may impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Objective: To assess patient-reported HRQoL, depression symptoms, and cognitive function for abiraterone versus enzalutamide.

Design, Setting, And Participants: We randomized 202 patients in a phase II study of abiraterone versus enzalutamide for first-line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02125357).

Intervention: Patients completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) questionnaires, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cognitive assessments at baseline and on treatment.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: To compare the change in FACT-P scores over time between treatment arms, we used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). For FACT-P domains where there was an interaction between the treatment arm and age, we constructed separate models for patients aged <75 and ≥75yr. We compared the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change from baseline for FACT-P, and the proportion of patients with an abnormal score and median change from baseline for PHQ-9 and MoCA using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results And Limitations: In the MMRM analysis, there was a positive test for interaction in the treatment arm by age for total FACT-P (p=0.048). FACT-P change from baseline over time was better for abiraterone than for enzalutamide in the ≥75-yr model (p=0.003), with no difference in the <75-yr model (p>0.9). A higher proportion of patients experienced clinically meaningful worsening with enzalutamide for the physical and functional well-being domains (37% vs 21%, p=0.013; 39% vs 23%, p=0.015). The distribution of change in PHQ-9 scores from baseline favored abiraterone at weeks 4, 8, and 12. These analyses were not prespecified, and results should be considered to be hypothesis generating.

Conclusions: Patient-reported outcomes favored abiraterone compared with enzalutamide with differences in FACT-P HRQoL and PHQ-9 depression scores. Differences in the total FACT-P scores were seen only in the elderly patient subgroup.

Patient Summary: In this report, we examined the change in patient-reported quality-of-life scores from the start of treatment over time for patients treated with abiraterone versus enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We found that elderly patients treated with abiraterone had better quality of life over time, with no difference between treatments for the younger subgroup of patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.015DOI Listing
June 2019

A phase II trial of the effect of perindopril on hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) incidence and severity in patients receiving regorafenib for refractory mCRC.

Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2019 03 8;83(3):411-417. Epub 2018 Dec 8.

BC Cancer Vancouver Centre, 600-10th Ave W, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, Canada.

Purpose: Regorafenib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that offers an OS benefit to patients with mCRC refractory to standard therapy (Grothey et al., in Lancet 381:303-312, 2013), but comes with potential significant toxicities including grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). The pathogenesis of regorafenib-induced HFSR is not well established, but may be related to alterations in the capillary endothelium. We hypothesized that perindopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, indicated for the treatment of hypertension (Ceconi et al., in Cardiovasc Res 73:237-246, 2007), and which plays a role in preventing endothelial dysfunction, may help to prevent or reduce the severity of regorafenib-induced HFSR.

Patients And Methods: In this single-center phase II open-label trial, patients with refractory mCRC were treated with both regorafenib (160 mg/day) and perindopril (4 mg/day) for 21 days per 28-day cycle. The primary end point was to assess the proportion of patients with any grade HFSR toxicity. Secondary end points included time to development of worst (grade 3) HFSR, reduction of all grades of hypertension and all grade toxicities, as well as progression-free survival. All toxicities were evaluated using CTCAE v4.03.

Results: A planned interim analysis was performed after ten evaluable patients had completed their first cycle of study treatment. As 50% (5/10) experienced grade 3 HFSR, enrolment was stopped as the addition of perindopril did not lead to a reduced level of HFSR compared with regorafenib alone. Other grade 3 toxicities included hypertension (16.7%) and increased AST (16.7%).

Conclusion: The addition of an ACE inhibitor perindopril to regorafenib did not reduce HFSR incidence or severity in patients with refractory mCRC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00280-018-3738-xDOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6394486PMC
March 2019

Clinical effectiveness of docetaxel for castration-sensitive prostate cancer in a real-world population-based analysis.

Prostate 2019 02 28;79(3):281-287. Epub 2018 Oct 28.

Division of Medical Oncology, University of British Columbia, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Background: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has known efficacy, with an overall survival benefit in Phase III clinical trials. The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in the general patient population remains undefined.

Patients And Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective review using the British Columbia Provincial Pharmacy Database. To be included, patients had to have castration-sensitive prostate cancer not previously treated (except in the adjuvant setting) and have received at least one cycle of docetaxel, with complete records available for review. Safety and clinical effectiveness were evaluated.

Results: From April 2015 to February 2017, we identified 183 cases; 156 met inclusion criteria. Most patients had high-volume disease (80%). All 6 planned docetaxel cycles were delivered in 126 cases (81%). Dose reductions and delays were required in 39% and 16% of cases. Grade 3-4 adverse events were noted in 40%, with no treatment-related deaths. The rate of febrile neutropenia was 18% and was significantly associated with the presence of high-volume disease (P = 0.038). PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/L was achieved in 27% of patients after 6 months of ADT and maintained in 16% after 12 months. Patients with over 20 bone metastases had worse time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and time to treatment for CRPC, and a trend toward worse overall survival. CRPC developed in 41% within 1 year, with a median time to CRPC of 14.4 months. Treatment for CRPC was given in 84 cases, with 90% receiving either abiraterone or enzalutamide in the first-line, with a PSA decline ≥50% occurring in 47%.

Conclusions: The effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT in a general population of patients with mCSPC was associated with poorer outcomes and high rates of toxicity compared to the published studies. Response rates to first-line treatment for mCRPC with abiraterone or enzalutamide appear similar to reported outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.23733DOI Listing
February 2019

Phase I Trials of Anti-ENPP3 Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Advanced Refractory Renal Cell Carcinomas.

Clin Cancer Res 2018 09 30;24(18):4399-4406. Epub 2018 May 30.

BC Cancer, Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

To determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and recommended phase II dose of an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting ectonucleotide phosphodiesterases-pyrophosphatase 3 (ENPP3) conjugated to monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF) in subjects with advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Two phase I studies were conducted sequentially with 2 ADCs considered equivalent, hybridoma-derived AGS-16M8F and Chinese hamster ovary-derived AGS-16C3F. AGS-16M8F was administered intravenously every 3 weeks at 5 dose levels ranging from 0.6 to 4.8 mg/kg until unacceptable toxicity or progression. The study was terminated before reaching the MTD. A second study with AGS-16C3F started with the AGS-16M8F bridging dose of 4.8 mg/kg given every 3 weeks. The AGS-16M8F study ( = 26) closed before reaching the MTD. The median duration of treatment was 12 weeks (1.7-83 weeks). One subject had durable partial response (PR; 83 weeks) and 1 subject had prolonged stable disease (48 weeks). In the AGS-16C3F study ( = 34), the protocol-defined MTD was 3.6 mg/kg, but this was not tolerated in multiple doses. Reversible keratopathy was dose limiting and required multiple dose deescalations. The 1.8 mg/kg dose was determined to be safe and was associated with clinically relevant signs of antitumor response. Three of 13 subjects at 1.8 mg/kg had durable PRs (range, 100-143 weeks). Eight subjects at 2.7 mg/kg and 1.8 mg/kg had disease control >37 weeks (37.5-141 weeks). AGS-16C3F was tolerated and had durable antitumor activity at 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks. .
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0481DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6731023PMC
September 2018

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

N Engl J Med 2018 Apr 21;378(14):1277-1290. Epub 2018 Mar 21.

From Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (R.J.M.), and Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo (S.G.) - both in New York; University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (N.M.T., P. Sharma); Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (D.F.M.), and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School (T.K.C.), Boston; Centro Internacional de Estudios Clínicos (O.A.F.) and Fundación Arturo López Pérez (P. Salman), Santiago, Chile; Palacký University and University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic (B.M.); Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia (E.R.P.); Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg (P.B.), Bordeaux University Hospital, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux (A.R.), and Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (B.E.) - all in France; Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Matteo University Hospital Foundation, Pavia (C.P.), and Ospedale San Donato, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Toscana Sud-Est, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Arezzo (S.B.) - both in Italy; Barts Cancer Institute, Cancer Research UK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Royal Free NHS Trust (T.P.), and Cancer Research UK (R.H.), London; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark (F.D.); Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv - both in Israel (V.N.); British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada (C.K.K.); Westmead Hospital and Macquarie University, Sydney (H.G.); Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany (M.-O.G.); Centro de Pesquisa em Oncologia, Hospital São Lucas, Porto Alegre, Brazil (C.H.B.); Niigata University, Niigata, Japan (Y.T.); Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid (D.C.); Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland (B.I.R.); Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ (A.C.C., S.M., M.B.M., M.W.-R., J.D.); and Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore (H.J.H.).

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.

Methods: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.

Results: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.

Conclusions: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1712126DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5972549PMC
April 2018

Further Investigation of the Role of and Pharmacogenomic Variants in the Development of Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity in Testicular Cancer Patients.

Clin Cancer Res 2018 04 22;24(8):1866-1871. Epub 2018 Jan 22.

Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Adverse drug reactions such as ototoxicity, which occurs in approximately one-fifth of adult patients who receive cisplatin treatment, can incur large socioeconomic burdens on patients with testicular cancer who develop this cancer during early adulthood. Recent genome-wide association studies have identified genetic variants in and that are associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. We sought to explore the role of these genetic susceptibility factors to cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with testicular cancer. Extensive clinical and demographic data were collected for 229 patients with testicular cancer treated with cisplatin. Patients were genotyped for two variants, rs1872328 and rs62283056, that have previously been associated with hearing loss in cisplatin-treated patients. Analyses were performed to investigate the association of these variants with ototoxicity in this cohort of adult patients with testicular cancer. Pharmacogenomic analyses revealed that rs1872328 was significantly associated with cisplatin-induced ototoxicity [ = 2.83 × 10, OR (95% CI):14.7 (2.6-84.2)]. rs62283056 was not significantly associated with ototoxicity caused by cisplatin ( = 0.39); however, this variant was associated with hearing loss attributable to any cause [ = 5.67 × 10, OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.4-7.7)]. This study has provided the first evidence for the role of rs1872328 in cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with testicular cancer. These results support the use of this information to guide the development of strategies to prevent cisplatin-induced ototoxicity across cancers. Further, this study has highlighted the importance of phenotypic differences in replication studies and has provided further evidence for the role of rs62283056 in susceptibility to hearing loss, which may be worsened by cisplatin treatment. .
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2810DOI Listing
April 2018

New treatments for stage I testicular cancer.

Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2017 Aug;15(8):626-631

Division of Medical Oncology, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada.

Clinical stage I represents the most frequent presentation of both seminoma and nonseminoma testicular cancer. Despite a survival rate of close to 100%, the management of patients with this disease stage is controversial. The recurrence rate is 10% to 20% for patients with stage I seminoma and 15% to 50% for those with stage I nonseminoma. A highly sensitive and specific biomarker of relapse that is applicable to both seminoma and nonseminoma, and able to drive a definitive risk-adapted management of the patients, still is not available. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the orchiectomy specimen has been used as a risk factor in patients with stage I nonseminoma. However, with a risk of recurrence of 50% for LVI-positive patients and 15% for LVI-negative patients, the discriminative power of LVI is modest at best. Various management options exist. In the absence of a predictive biomarker for recurrence, active surveillance avoids overtreatment in 50% to 85% of patients, with no risk of long-term side effects in nonrelapsing patients and a preserved overall survival of almost 100% after specific treatment for recurrent disease. However, although active surveillance has been accepted as the preferred option for stage I seminoma and low-risk stage I nonseminoma, its role in high-risk stage I nonseminoma remains controversial.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
August 2017

Practice Makes Perfect: The Rest of the Story in Testicular Cancer as a Model Curable Neoplasm.

J Clin Oncol 2017 11 30;35(31):3525-3528. Epub 2017 Aug 30.

Torgrim Tandstad, St Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Christian K. Kollmannsberger, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Bruce J. Roth, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Claudio Jeldres, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Silke Gillessen, Kantonsspital, St Gallen, Switzerland; Karim Fizazi, University of Paris Sud, Paris, France; Siamak Daneshmand, University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA; William T. Lowrance, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Nasser H. Hanna, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN; Gabriella Cohn Cedermark, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Darren R. Feldman, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Medical Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Thomas Powles, Barts Cancer Institute, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Mark A. Lewis, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, UT; Peter Scott Grimison, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Douglas Bank, Testicular Cancer Resource Center, Riverwoods, IL; Christopher Porter, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA; Peter Albers, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany; Maria De Santis, Cancer Research Center, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Sandy Srinivas, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; George J. Bosl, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Craig R. Nichols, Precision Genomics Cancer Research Clinic, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, UT; Testicular Cancer Commons, Portland, OR.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.73.4723DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5791831PMC
November 2017

First-line sunitinib or pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Canadian experience.

Can Urol Assoc J 2017 Mar-Apr;11(3-4):112-117

Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Introduction: Clinical trial data has shown pazopanib to be non-inferior in overall survival (OS) compared to sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and compare dose-modifying toxicities of mRCC patients treated with suntinib or pazopanib in the real-world setting.

Methods: Data were collected on mRCC patients using the prospective Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis) database from January 2011 to November 2015. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression adjusted for several risk factors and the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: We identified 670 patients treated with sunitinib (n=577) and pazopanib (n=93). There were no significant differences in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (p=0.807). Patients treated with sunitinib had improved OS compared with pazopanib (median 31.7 vs. 20.6 months, p=0.028; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.380.94). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was numerically, but not statistically, improved with sunitinib (medians 11.0 vs. 8.4 months, p=0.130; aHR 0.87; 95% CI 0.591.28). Outcomes with individualized dosing on sunitinib were unavailable for this analysis. Patients treated with sunitinib had a higher incidence of mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease; patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity.

Conclusions: In Canadian patients with mRCC, treatment with sunitinib appears to be associated with an improved OS compared to pazopanib in the first-line setting. Patient selection factors and the contemporary practice of individualized dosing with sunitinib may contribute to these real-world outcomes and warrant further investigation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4398DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5434501PMC
May 2017
-->