Publications by authors named "Sumanta K Pal"

280 Publications

Treatment Pattern and Outcomes with Systemic Therapy in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the Real-World Patients in the United States.

Cancers (Basel) 2021 Sep 30;13(19). Epub 2021 Sep 30.

Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

Background: Both novel hormonal therapies and docetaxel are approved for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC; in castration sensitive or refractory settings). Present knowledge gaps include lack of real-world data on treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed mPC, and comparative effectiveness of novel hormonal therapies (NHT) versus docetaxel after treatment with a prior NHT.

Methods: Herein we extracted patient-level data from a large real-world database of patients with mPC in United States. Utilization of NHT or docetaxel for mPC and comparative effectiveness of an alternate NHT versus docetaxel after one prior NHT was evaluated. Comparative effectiveness was examined via Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score matching weights. Each patient's propensity for treatment was modeled via random forest based on 22 factors potentially driving treatment selection.

Results: The majority of patients (54%) received only androgen deprivation therapy for mPC. In patients treated with an NHT, alternate NHT was the most common next therapy and was associated with improved median overall survival over docetaxel (abiraterone followed by docetaxel vs. enzalutamide (8.7 vs. 15.6 months; adjusted hazards ratio; aHR 1.32; = 0.009; and enzalutamide followed by docetaxel vs. abiraterone (9.7 vs. 13.2 months aHR 1.40; = 0.009). Limitations of the study include retrospective design.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194951DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8508241PMC
September 2021

Interactive Data Visualization Tool for Patient-Centered Decision Making in Kidney Cancer.

JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2021 Aug;5:912-920

Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Purpose: Patients and providers often lack clinical decision tools to enable effective shared decision making. This is especially true in the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape of metastatic kidney cancer. Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria, a validated risk prediction tool for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, we created and user-tested a novel interactive visualization for clinical use.

Methods: An interactive visualization depicting IMDC criteria was created, with the final version including data for more than 4,500 patients. Usability testing was performed with nonmedical lay-users and medical oncology fellow physicians. Subjects used the tool to calculate median survival times based on IMDC criteria. User confidence was surveyed. An iterative user feedback implementation cycle was completed and informed revision of the tool.

Results: The tool is available at CloViz-IMDC. Initially, 400 lay-users and 15 physicians completed clinical scenarios and surveys. Cumulative accuracy across scenarios was higher for physicians than lay-users (84% 74%; = .03). Eighty-three percent of lay-users and 87% of physicians thought the tool became intuitive with use. Sixty-eight percent of lay-users wanted to use the tool clinically compared with 87% of physicians. After revisions, the updated tool was user-tested with 100 lay-users and 15 physicians. Physicians, but not lay-users, showed significant improvement in accuracy in the updated version of the tool (90% 67%; = .008). Seventy-two percent of lay-users and 93% of physicians wanted to use the updated tool in a clinical setting.

Conclusion: A graphical method of interacting with a validated nomogram provides prognosis results that can be used by nonmedical lay-users and physicians, and has the potential for expanded use across many clinical conditions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/CCI.21.00050DOI Listing
August 2021

Effect of Cisplatin and Gemcitabine With or Without Berzosertib in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Oncol 2021 Oct;7(10):1536-1543

Department of Internal Medicine, UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California.

Importance: Preclinical studies suggest that inhibition of single-stranded DNA repair by ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3 (ATR) may enhance the cytotoxicity of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and other chemotherapeutic agents. Cisplatin with gemcitabine remains the standard up-front therapy for treatment in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer.

Objective: To determine whether the use of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, could augment the activity of cisplatin with gemcitabine.

Design, Setting, And Participants: In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial, 87 patients across 23 centers in the National Cancer Institute Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network were randomized to receive either cisplatin with gemcitabine alone (control arm) or cisplatin with gemcitabine plus berzosertib (experimental arm). Key eligibility criteria included confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer, no prior cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease, 12 months or more since perioperative therapy, and eligibility for cisplatin receipt based on standard criteria. The study was conducted from January 27, 2017, to December 15, 2020.

Interventions: In the control arm, cisplatin, 70 mg/m2, was given on day 1 and gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2, was given on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. In the experimental arm, cisplatin, 60 mg/m2, was given on day 1; gemcitabine, 875 mg/m2, on days 1 and 8; and berzosertib, 90 mg/m2, on days 2 and 9 of a 21-day cycle.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival. The analysis was on all patients who started therapy.

Results: Of the total of 87 patients randomized, 41 patients received cisplatin with gemcitabine alone and 46 received cisplatin with gemcitabine plus berzosertib. Median age was 67 (range, 32-84) years, and 68 patients (78%) were men. Median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for both arms (Bajorin risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72-2.08). Median overall survival was shorter with cisplatin with gemcitabine plus berzosertib compared with cisplatin with gemcitabine alone (14.4 vs 19.8 months; Bajorin risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.76-2.68). Higher rates of grade 3 vs grade 4 thrombocytopenia (59% vs 39%) and neutropenia (37% vs 27%) were observed with cisplatin with gemcitabine and berzosertib compared with cisplatin with gemcitabine alone; consequently, more dose reductions were needed in the experimental arm. Patients in the experimental arm received a median cisplatin dose of 250 mg/m2, which was significantly lower than the median dose of 370 mg/m2 in the control arm (P < .001).

Conclusions And Relevance: The addition of berzosertib to cisplatin with gemcitabine did not prolong progression-free survival relative to cisplatin with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, and a trend toward inferior survival was observed with this combination. Berzosertib plus cisplatin with gemcitabine was associated with significantly higher hematologic toxicities despite attenuated dosing of cisplatin with gemcitabine.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02567409.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3441DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8391778PMC
October 2021

Twitter as a Tool to Spread Communication Regarding Genitourinary Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Kidney Cancer 2021 16;5(2):73-78. Epub 2021 Jun 16.

Department of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.

Objectives: To better characterize the relay of information about prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer on Twitter in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials And Methods: Tweets containing the joint hashtags "#COVID-19" and either "#bladder cancer", "#kidney cancer", or "#prostate cancer" were identified on the Twitter platform from January 1, 2020 to July 30, 2020. The Twitter handle responsible for each tweet was categorized as an Academic, Medical Education, Patient Advocacy Groups/Non-Profits, Pharmaceutical, or Other entity based on content domain. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data on Twitter handle characteristics stratified by disease category (bladder, kidney, and prostate). Median/interquartile range and percentages were used to summarize continuous and categorical data, respectively. Number of tweets containing the relevant joint hashtags were tracked over time in relation to the cumulative United States case count of COVID-19.

Results: The content of 730 total tweets containing the joint hashtags "COVID-19" and either "#bladder cancer" (138 tweets), "#kidney cancer" (137 tweets), or "#prostate cancer" (455 tweets) from January 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020 were analyzed. We identified 326 unique Twitter handles across all disease states (62 bladder, 47 kidney, and 217 prostate-related). Academic Twitter handles accounted for the greatest number of tweets containing the joint hashtags (31%). Temporal tracking of tweets with regard to monthly U.S. COVID cases revealed that communication surged in March of 2020 and peaked in April for both bladder and kidney cancer, whereas related prostate cancer Twitter communication peaked in May of 2020.

Conclusions: As COVID-19 case counts rose in the United States initially, so too did communication surrounding COVID-19 and genitourinary cancers on Twitter. Many of these conversations were driven by academically-associated Twitter accounts.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/kca-210115DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8341455PMC
June 2021

A Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Initial Treatment Choice in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Prior to the Immunotherapy Era: The MaRCC Registry Experience.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021 Jul 10. Epub 2021 Jul 10.

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Introduction: The Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (MaRCC) Registry provides prospective data on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods And Materials: Patients with mRCC and no prior systemic therapy were enrolled at academic and community sites. End of study data collection was in March 2019. Outcomes included overall survival (OS). A survey of treating physicians assessed reasons for treatment initiations and discontinuations.

Results: Overall, 376 patients with mRCC initiated first-line therapy; 171 (45.5%) received pazopanib, 75 (19.9%) sunitinib, and 74 (19.7%) participated in a clinical trial. Median (95% confidence interval) OS was longest in the clinical trial group (50.3 [35.8-not reached] months) versus pazopanib (39.0 [29.7-50.9] months) and sunitinib 26.2 [19.9-61.5] months). Non-clear cell RCC (21.5% of patients) was associated with worse median OS than clear cell RCC (18.0 vs. 47.3 months). Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment starting dose, and relative dose exposure among treatment groups suggest selection bias. Survey results revealed a de-emphasis on quality of life, toxicity, and patient preference compared with efficacy in treatment selection.

Conclusion: The MaRCC Registry gives insights into real-world first-line treatment selection, outcomes, and physician rationale regarding initial treatment selection prior to the immunotherapy era. Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and off-study patients reflect the difficulty in translating trial results to real-world patients, and emphasize the need to broaden clinical trial eligibility. Physician emphasis on efficacy over quality of life and toxicity suggests more data and education are needed regarding these endpoints.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.07.002DOI Listing
July 2021

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

Oncologist 2021 Aug 6. Epub 2021 Aug 6.

Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Background: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC).

Materials And Methods: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases.

Conclusion: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC.

Implications For Practice: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/onco.13925DOI Listing
August 2021

Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement.

Cancer 2021 Nov 3;127(21):3957-3966. Epub 2021 Aug 3.

Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Background: Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is believed to have a strong hereditary component, there is a paucity of published guidelines for genetic risk assessment. A panel of experts was convened to gauge current opinions.

Methods: A North American multidisciplinary panel with expertise in hereditary RCC, including urologists, medical oncologists, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, and patient advocates, was convened. Before the summit, a modified Delphi methodology was used to generate, review, and curate a set of consensus questions regarding RCC genetic risk assessment. Uniform consensus was defined as ≥85% agreement on particular questions.

Results: Thirty-three panelists, including urologists (n = 13), medical oncologists (n = 12), genetic counselors and clinical geneticists (n = 6), and patient advocates (n = 2), reviewed 53 curated consensus questions. Uniform consensus was achieved on 30 statements in specific areas that addressed for whom, what, when, and how genetic testing should be performed. Topics of consensus included the family history criteria, which should trigger further assessment, the need for risk assessment in those with bilateral or multifocal disease and/or specific histology, the utility of multigene panel testing, and acceptance of clinician-based counseling and testing by those who have experience with hereditary RCC.

Conclusions: In the first ever consensus panel on RCC genetic risk assessment, 30 consensus statements were reached. Areas that require further research and discussion were also identified, with a second future meeting planned. This consensus statement may provide further guidance for clinicians when considering RCC genetic risk assessment.

Lay Summary: The contribution of germline genetics to the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has long been recognized. However, there is a paucity of guidelines to define how and when genetic risk assessment should be performed for patients with known or suspected hereditary RCC. Without guidelines, clinicians struggle to define who requires further evaluation, when risk assessment or testing should be done, which genes should be considered, and how counseling and/or testing should be performed. To this end, a multidisciplinary panel of national experts was convened to gauge current opinion on genetic risk assessment in RCC and to enumerate a set of recommendations to guide clinicians when evaluating individuals with suspected hereditary kidney cancer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33679DOI Listing
November 2021

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California.

Cancer Med 2021 Aug 31;10(16):5671-5680. Epub 2021 Jul 31.

Department of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.

Background: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4119DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8366095PMC
August 2021

Learning from BISCAY: The future of biomarker-based trial design in bladder cancer.

Cancer Cell 2021 Jul;39(7):910-912

Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. Electronic address:

A recent article in Nature Medicine explored the combination of immunotherapy with multiple distinct targeted therapies in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, employing a biomarker-driven approach. Herein, we discuss the merits of this ambitious study and highlight the need for larger biomarker-based randomized trials to arrive at definitive clinical conclusions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2021.06.011DOI Listing
July 2021

Complementary Role of Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment and Tissue Genomic Profiling in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clin Cancer Res 2021 Sep 15;27(17):4807-4813. Epub 2021 Jun 15.

Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

Purpose: The role of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) as an adjunct to tissue genomic profiling is poorly defined in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this study, we aim to validate previous findings related to genomic alteration (GA) frequency in ctDNA and determine the concordance between ctDNA and tissue-based profiling in patients with mRCC.

Experimental Design: Results of 839 patients with mRCC who had ctDNA assessment with a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified ctDNA assay between November 2016 and December 2019 were collected. Tissue-based genomic profiling was collected when available and concordance analysis between blood- and tissue-based testing was performed.

Results: ctDNA was assessed in 839 patients (comprising 920 samples) with mRCC. GAs were detected in 661 samples (71.8%). Tissue-based GAs were assessed in 112 patients. Limiting our analyses to a common 73-/74-gene set and excluding samples with no ctDNA detected, a total of 228 mutations were found in tissue and blood. Mutations identified in tissue (34.7%; 42/121) were also identified via ctDNA, whereas 28.2% (42/149) of the mutations identified in liquid were also identified via tissue. Concordance between ctDNA and tissue-based profiling was inversely related to the time elapsed between these assays.

Conclusions: This study confirms the feasibility of ctDNA profiling in the largest mRCC cohort to date, with ctDNA identifying multiple actionable alterations. It also demonstrates that ctDNA and tissue-based genomic profiling are complementary, with both platforms identifying unique alterations, and confirms that the frequency of unique alterations increases with greater temporal separation between tests.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0572DOI Listing
September 2021

"Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: diagnosis and implications for management".

Urol Oncol 2021 Jun 8. Epub 2021 Jun 8.

Department of Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA. Electronic address:

Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney is a rare and aggressive subtype of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) arising from the distal convoluted tubules. At the time of diagnosis, patients are more frequently symptomatic, with advanced locoregional stage, and have metastatic disease. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System defined diagnostic criteria for this entity. However, the diagnostic features continue to evolve, with typical, but not entirely specific, histologic and immunophenotypic characteristics. In addition, the lack of consistent molecular alterations makes collecting duct carcinoma a diagnosis of exclusion, with historical cases being re-classified as fumarate hydratase deficient RCC, ALK rearranged RCC, renal medullary carcinoma or high-grade urothelial carcinoma. The rarity and poor prognosis of the tumor makes it difficult to reach consensus guidelines to guide therapy. In this manuscript we review the clinicopathologic features of collecting duct carcinoma including pathologic diagnostic criteria, molecular characteristics and differential diagnosis, and their possible implications for management.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.041DOI Listing
June 2021

Gene Expression Signature Correlates with Outcomes in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Everolimus Alone or with a Vascular Disrupting Agent.

Mol Cancer Ther 2021 Aug 9;20(8):1454-1461. Epub 2021 Jun 9.

Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Everolimus monotherapy use for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has diminished due to recent approvals of immune checkpoint and VEGF inhibitors. We hypothesized that gene expression associated with everolimus benefit may provide rationale to select appropriate patients. To address this hypothesis, tumors from a phase I/II trial that compared everolimus alone or with BNC105P, a vascular disrupting agent, were profiled using Nanostring as a discovery cohort. A phase III trial (CheckMate 025) was used for validation. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as response or stable disease for ≥6 months. A propensity score covariate adjustment was used, and model discrimination performance was assessed using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). In a discovery cohort of 82 patients, 35 (43%) were treated with everolimus alone and 47 (57%) received everolimus + BNC105P. Median PFS (mPFS) was 4.9 (95% CI, 2.8-6.2) months. A four-gene signature (ASXL1, DUSP6, ERCC2, and HSPA6) correlated with CB with everolimus ± BNC105P [AUC, 86.9% (95% CI, 79.2-94.7)]. This was validated in 130 patients from CheckMate 025 treated with everolimus [AUC, 60.2% (95% CI, 49.7-70.7)]. Among 43 patients (52.4%) with low expression of an 18-gene signature, everolimus + BNC105P was associated with significantly longer mPFS compared with everolimus alone (10.4 vs. 6.9 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-1.002; = 0.047). These signatures warrant further validation to select patients who may benefit from everolimus alone or with a vascular disrupting agent.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-1091DOI Listing
August 2021

Chemoimmunotherapy in urothelial cancer: concurrent or sequential?

Lancet Oncol 2021 07 26;22(7):894-896. Epub 2021 May 26.

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00284-9DOI Listing
July 2021

Renal Cell Carcinoma With Urinary Bladder Metastasis: A Case Report With Metachronous Genomic Analyses.

JCO Precis Oncol 2021 Mar 26;5. Epub 2021 Mar 26.

Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00423DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8092369PMC
March 2021

Q-TWiST Analysis of Tivozanib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the TIVO-3 Study.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021 10 3;19(5):468.e1-468.e5. Epub 2021 Apr 3.

Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Background: In TIVO-3, tivozanib increased progression-free survival with no difference in overall survival relative to sorafenib as third- or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We applied quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease and toxicity (Q-TWiST) methods to quantify the net health benefits of tivozanib, in the presence of similar survival, when compared with sorafenib.

Methods: The mean Q-TWiST was calculated by applying utility coefficients of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.5 to the 36-month restricted mean health states of time with toxicity (TOX), TWiST, and time after progression/relapse, respectively. The relative Q-TWiST gain was defined as the mean absolute Q-TWiST difference divided by the sorafenib mean overall survival.

Results: The mean TWiST was longer for tivozanib than for sorafenib, mean time after progression/relapse was shorter for tivozanib, with no difference in mean TOX. Mean Q-TWiST was 15.04 months and 12.78 months for tivozanib and sorafenib, respectively (P = .0493). The tivozanib relative gain was 11.2%.

Discussion: Tivozanib increased Q-TWiST relative to sorafenib, primarily through an increase in TWiST, which is generally considered to be the highest utility state.

Conclusion: Q-TWiST may be considered an alternative patient-centered measure of benefit of tivozanib in as a third- or fourth-line therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Clinical Trial Information: NCT02627963.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.03.018DOI Listing
October 2021

Outcomes of patients with solid tumour malignancies treated with first-line immuno-oncology agents who do not meet eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

Eur J Cancer 2021 Jul 8;151:115-125. Epub 2021 May 8.

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

Background: Immuno-oncology (IO)-based therapies have been approved based on randomised clinical trials, yet a significant proportion of real-world patients are not represented in these trials. We sought to compare the outcomes of trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients with advanced solid tumours treated with first-line (1L) IO therapy.

Patients And Methods: Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Database Consortium and the Alberta Immunotherapy Database, patients with advanced RCC, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma treated with 1L PD-(L)1 inhibition-based therapy were included. Trial eligibility was retrospectively determined as per commonly used exclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), treatment duration (TD) and time to next treatment (TTNT).

Results: A total of 395 of 1241 (32%) patients were deemed trial-ineligible. The main reasons for ineligibility based on preselected exclusion criteria were Karnofsky performance status <70%/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >1 (40%, 158 of 395), brain metastases (32%, 126 of 395), haemoglobin < 9 g/dL (16%, 63 of 395) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 mL/min (15%, 61 of 395). Between the ineligible vs. eligible groups, the median OS, ORR, median TD and median TTNT were 10.2 vs. 39.7 months (p < 0.01), 36% vs. 47% (p < 0.01), 2.7 vs. 6.9 months (p < 0.01) and 6.0 vs. 16.8 months (p < 0.01), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant inferior OS, TD and TTNT for trial-ineligible vs. -eligible patients across all tumour types. Adjusted hazard ratios for death in RCC, NSCLC and melanoma were 1.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.77), 2.21 (95% CI 1.58-3.11) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.21-2.74), respectively..

Conclusions: Thirty-two percent of real-world patients treated with contemporary 1L IO-based therapies were ineligible for clinical trials. Although one-third of the trial-ineligible patients responded to treatment, the overall trial-ineligible population had inferior outcomes than trial-eligible patients. These data may guide patient counselling and temper expectations of benefit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.04.004DOI Listing
July 2021

Prognostic Factors in De Novo Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Report From the Latin American Renal Cancer Group.

JCO Glob Oncol 2021 05;7:671-685

Servicio de Urología, Hospital Pasteur, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Purpose: To assess the effect of clinical and pathological variables on cancer-specific and overall survival (OS) in de novo metastatic patients from a collaborative of primarily Latin American countries.

Patients And Methods: Of 4,060 patients with renal cell carcinoma diagnosed between 1990 and 2015, a total of 530 (14.5%) had metastasis at clinical presentation. Relationships between clinical and pathological parameters and treatment-related outcomes were analyzed by Cox regression and the log-rank method.

Results: Of 530 patients, 184 (90.6%) had died of renal cell carcinoma. The median OS of the entire cohort was 24 months. American Society of Anesthesiology classification 3-4 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64), perirenal fat invasion (HR: 2.02), and ≥ 2 metastatic organ sites (HR: 2.19) were independent prognostic factors for 5-year OS in multivariable analyses. We created a risk group stratification with these variables: no adverse risk factors (favorable group), median OS not reached; one adverse factor (intermediate group), median OS 33 months (HR: 2.04); and two or three adverse factors (poor risk group), median OS 14 months (HR: 3.58).

Conclusion: Our study defines novel prognostic factors that are relevant to a Latin American cohort. With external validation, these easily discerned clinical variables can be used to offer prognostic information across low- and middle-income countries.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/GO.20.00621DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162501PMC
May 2021

Biomarker approach harnessed in trials of personalized medicine for bladder cancer.

Nat Med 2021 05;27(5):761-763

City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01300-1DOI Listing
May 2021

Editorial Comment.

J Urol 2021 08 4;206(2):251. Epub 2021 May 4.

Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001768.02DOI Listing
August 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

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

Cancer 2021 Jul 25;127(13):2204-2212. Epub 2021 Mar 25.

Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Background: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival.

Results: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST.

Conclusions: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33494DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8251950PMC
July 2021

Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Following Disease Progression on Atezolizumab or Sunitinib Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in IMmotion150: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

Eur Urol 2021 05 5;79(5):665-673. Epub 2021 Mar 5.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Background: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC.

Design, Setting, And Participants: IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

Intervention: Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results And Limitations: Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19-37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6-13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9-21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors.

Conclusions: The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC.

Patient Summary: Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.003DOI Listing
May 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

Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling and Immunotherapy Resistance: Lessons for the Treatment of Urothelial Carcinoma.

Cancers (Basel) 2021 Feb 20;13(4). Epub 2021 Feb 20.

Department of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA.

Urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) is a significant public health burden. It accounts for approximately 90 percent of all bladder cancers with an estimated 200,000 annual deaths globally. Platinum based cytotoxic chemotherapy combinations are the current standard of care in the frontline setting for metastatic UCC. Even with these treatments the median overall survival is estimated to be about 15 months. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical benefits compared to second line chemotherapy in UCC treatment. However only a minority of patients (~20%) respond to ICIs, which highlights the need to better understand the mechanisms behind resistance. In this review, we (i) examine the pathophysiology of Wnt/β-catenin signaling, (ii) discuss pre-clinical evidence that supports the combination of Wnt/β-catenin inhibitors and ICI, and (iii) propose future combination treatments that could be investigated through clinical trials.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers13040889DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7924395PMC
February 2021

A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

Lancet 2021 02 13;397(10275):695-703. Epub 2021 Feb 13.

University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Background: MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC.

Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057.

Findings: Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group.

Interpretation: Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC.

Funding: National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00152-5DOI Listing
February 2021

Utilization of systemic therapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma: Lessons from real world experience.

Cancer Treat Res Commun 2021 28;27:100325. Epub 2021 Jan 28.

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Metastatic bladder cancer has poor overall survival. Though systemic therapies have shown to improve overall survival, real-world studies have shown that more than half of the patients do not receive any systemic therapy, while only around 15-20% receive second-line therapy. Even in patients receiving systemic therapies a disproportionately higher use of carboplatin is observed in the first line despite proven superior effectiveness of cisplatin. Reasons for these observations include moderate effectiveness and relatively toxicity of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, concerns with performance status and co-morbidities in this predominantly older patient population, communications barriers, lack of social support, and access to affordable healthcare. Herein we discuss potential ways to overcome these challenges which include (1) preventing/delaying metastatic disease by maximizing the receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based therapy, and development of better tolerated and more effective neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies, (2) use of avelumab maintenance therapy after 4-6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy to overcome attrition of patients from first to second-line therapy, (3) advancing effective and well-tolerated systemic therapies such as enfortumab vedotin, and erdafitinib to the first-line metastatic setting or even to the localized setting, (4) further development of effective and well-tolerated therapies like sacituzumab govitecan, a novel antibody-drug conjugate and (5) improving affordability and accessibility to systemic therapy agents.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctarc.2021.100325DOI Listing
January 2021

Evaluation of Clear Cell, Papillary, and Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastasis Sites and Association With Survival.

JAMA Netw Open 2021 01 4;4(1):e2021869. Epub 2021 Jan 4.

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

Importance: There exists considerable biological and clinical variability between histologic variants of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Data reporting on patterns of metastasis in histologic variants of mRCC are sparse.

Objective: To characterize sites of metastasis and their association with survival across the 3 most common histologic variants of mRCC: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chrRCC).

Design, Setting, And Participants: In this multicenter, international cohort study, the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) database was used to identify consecutive patients starting systemic therapy for mRCC between 2002 and 2019. Patients with mixed histologic subtype were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed from February to June 2020.

Exposures: Data regarding histologic subtype and sites of metastatic involvement at the time of first systemic therapy initiation were collected.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcomes were prevalence of metastatic site involvement and overall survival (OS) from time of systemic therapy initiation. Patients with multiple sites of metastatic involvement were included in analyses of all groups to which they had metastases.

Results: A total of 10 105 patients were eligible for analysis. Median (interquartile range) age at diagnosis was 60 (53-67) years, 7310 (72.4%) were men and 8526 (84.5%) underwent nephrectomy. Of these, 9252 (92%) had ccRCC, 667 (7%) had pRCC, and 186 (2%) had chrRCC. The median number of sites of metastasis was 2 (range, 0-7). In ccRCC, the most common sites of metastasis were lung (70%; 6189 of 8804 patients [448 missing]), lymph nodes (45%; 3874 of 8655 patients [597 missing]), bone (32%; 2847 of 8817 patients [435 missing]), liver (18%; 1560 of 8804 [448 missing]), and adrenal gland (10%; 678 of 6673 patients [2579 missing]). Sites of metastasis varied between subtypes. Lung, adrenal, brain, and pancreatic metastases were more frequent in ccRCC, lymph node involvement was more common in pRCC, and liver metastases were more frequent in chrRCC. Median OS for ccRCC varied by site of metastatic involvement, ranging between 16 months (95% CI, 13.7-18.8 months) for the pleura and 50 months (95% CI, 41.1-55.5 months) for the pancreas. Compared with ccRCC, patients with pRCC tended to have lower OS, regardless of metastatic site.

Conclusions And Relevance: Sites of metastatic involvement differ according to histologic subtype in mRCC and are associated with OS. These data highlight the clinical and biological variability between histologic subtypes of mRCC. Patterns of metastatic spread may reflect differences in underlying disease biology. Further work to investigate differences in immune, molecular, and genetic profiles between metastatic sites and histologic subtypes is encouraged.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21869DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7821027PMC
January 2021

Cabozantinib real-world effectiveness in the first-through fourth-line settings for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.

Cancer Med 2021 02 18;10(4):1212-1221. Epub 2021 Jan 18.

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

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on the METEOR and CABOSUN trials. However, real-world effectiveness and dosing patterns of cabozantinib are not well characterized.

Methods: Patients with mRCC treated with cabozantinib between 2011 and 2019 were identified and stratified using the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups. First- (1L), second- (2L), third- (3L), and fourth-line (4L) overall response rate (ORR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Dose reduction rates and their association with TTF and OS were determined.

Results: A total of 413 patients were identified. The ORRs across 1L to 4L were 32%, 26%, 25%, and 29%, respectively, and the median TTF rates were 8.3, 7.3, 7.0, and 8.0 months, respectively. The median OS (mOS) rates in 1L to 4L were 30.7, 17.8, 12.6, and 14.9 months, respectively. For patients treated with 1L PD(L)1 combination agent (n = 31), 2L cabozantinib had ORR of 22%, median TTF of 5.4 months, and mOS of 17.4 months. About 50% (129/258) of patients required dose reductions. The TTF and mOS were significantly longer for patients who required dose reduction vs. patients who did not, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI 0.202-0.672, p < 0.01) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.215-0.980, p = 0.04), respectively. Limitations include the retrospective study design and the lack of central radiology review.

Conclusion: The ORR and TTF of cabozantinib were maintained from the 1L to 4L settings. Dose reductions due to toxicity were associated with improved TTF and OS. Cabozantinib has clinical activity after 1L Immuno-oncology combination agents.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3717DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926018PMC
February 2021

Systemic therapy and COVID19: Immunotherapy and chemotherapy.

Urol Oncol 2021 04 26;39(4):213-220. Epub 2020 Dec 26.

Department of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA. Electronic address:

As the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 related pandemic - Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged, decision making in the context of cancer treatment has become more complex. The apprehension of using drugs that could adversely affect infected patients, the risk of not using life-saving treatments and the complexities related to the type of cancer itself, all must be taken into consideration before proceeding with treatment. Data from large registries such as COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium, Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) and NCI COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study will hopefully provide granularity on the outcomes of patients with cancer who are infected with COVID-19. As these efforts are underway, this review aims to shed light on the management of patients with genitourinary malignancies being treated with systemic therapies while infected with COVID-19.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.12.022DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7762713PMC
April 2021
-->