User login
FDA advisory committee to consider adjuvant sunitinib for RCC
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Food and Drug Administration will meet on Sept. 19 to discuss a supplemental new drug application for sunitinib (Sutent), for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy.
Sunitinib is an oral antiangiogenic agent that has been approved for the treatment of advanced RCC since 2006.
The FDA accepted the new drug application in May and is expected to issue a decision by January 2018.
Results for sunitinib as adjuvant treatment have been mixed. No significant differences in disease-free survival or overall survival were found in the phase 3 ASSURE between patients receiving adjuvant sunitinib and those receiving placebo, according to results published in The Lancet. However, adjuvant sunitinib prolonged disease-free survival by 1.2 years, compared with placebo, in the phase 3 S-TRAC trial, presented at the 2016 ESMO Congress and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. S-TRAC results are the basis for the new drug application submitted by Pfizer, Inc., according to a press release.
The advisory committee will consider comments from the public if submitted by Sept. 5, as electronic comments through the electronic filing system or by mail/hand delivery/courier at Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1063.
Sequential pazopanib and everolimus nets good survival in metastatic RCC
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
op@frontlinemedcom.com
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
op@frontlinemedcom.com
Sequential treatment with pazopanib and everolimus yields a median overall survival exceeding 2 years in predominantly older and sicker patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated in real-world settings, according to results of an Italian multicenter cohort study.
“These data confirmed that pazopanib was effective, even in reduced dosing, and well tolerated and suggested that everolimus may represent an opportunity to continue a therapy when patients cannot further tolerate angiogenesis inhibitors or develop a resistance,” wrote Sabrina Rossetti, MD, of the Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, and associates (Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 20;8:484).
“Overall, the sequential therapy showed favorable clinical outcomes and a good safety profile and may be feasible even for elderly patients or with multiple comorbidities,” they said.
The investigators prospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed metastatic RCC. They had a median age of 68 years. Fully 73.3% underwent nephrectomy before treatment; 87.1% had at least one comorbidity, and 25.8% had at least three of them.
All patients were treated with the antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor pazopanib (Votrient) as first-line therapy and, after disease progression on that agent or discontinuation for toxicity, with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (Afinitor) as second-line therapy.
The median overall survival with the two-drug sequence was 26.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months with pazopanib and 5.3 months with everolimus.
Patients were able to continue on pazopanib for a median time of 8.1 months, with 31% requiring dose reduction. They were able to continue on everolimus for a median time of 4.4 months, with 16% requiring dose reduction.
Main adverse events of any grade on pazopanib were hypertension (48.4%), fatigue (32.2%), and thyroid disorders (19.3%). Those on everolimus were anemia (32.2%), hypercholesterolemia (22.6%), and hyperglycemia (22.6%).
“The choice of second-line treatment in the new therapeutic paradigm is dramatically changed with the approval of new drugs, such as nivolumab and cabozantinib,” noted Dr. Rossetti and colleagues. “The next step in optimizing mRCC management would be the identification of new prognostic and predictive factors to detect a personalized sequence for each patient.”
op@frontlinemedcom.com
FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Median overall survival with first-line pazopanib followed by second-line everolimus was 26.5 months.
Data source: A real-world prospective multicenter cohort study of 31 patients with untreated metastatic RCC.
Disclosures: Dr. Rossetti and colleagues disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was supported by Novartis Farma SpA.
Abiraterone plus ADT boosts prostate cancer survival
In findings that are being hailed as practice changing, men with metastatic prostate cancer had a near 40% lower risk of death when they were treated with a combination of abiraterone acetate (Zytiga), androgen deprivation therapy, and prednisone or prednisolone, compared with ADT alone.
After a median follow-up of 30.4 months, median overall survival for men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with ADT plus dual placebos was 34.7 months, vs. not reached for men treated with ADT, abiraterone, and prednisone in the LATITUDE trial. Similarly, in the STAMPEDE trial, men with newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic disease who were randomized to ADT with abiraterone and prednisolone had a 37% reduction in their risk for death and a 79% reduction in their risk for treatment failure, compared with men randomized to ADT alone.
The majority of men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer who are started on androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) analog with or without a first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor will have responses to therapy, but within a median of 1-year most will progress to castration-resistant disease, noted Karim Fizazi, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute at the University of Paris Sud, Villejuif, France, and coinvestigators of the LATITUDE trial.
“Resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy is largely driven by the reactivation of androgen receptor signaling through persistent adrenal androgen production, upregulation of intratumoral testosterone production, modification of the biologic characteristics of androgen receptors, and steroidogenic parallel pathways,” they wrote.
Although ADT and docetaxel is the standard of care for men with metastatic castration-sensitive disease who are eligible for chemotherapy, data from real-world practice suggest that patients with this presentation are older than those enrolled in clinical trials, and may not be able to tolerate the toxicities that occur when docetaxel is added to ADT, they noted.
Abiraterone, in combination with prednisone, has been shown to increase overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have not undergone chemotherapy, and among patients who had previously been treated with docetaxel.
The drug is thought to exert its antitumor effects through a combination of androgen receptor antagonism and blockade of steroidogenic enzymes, the investigators wrote.
The LATITUDE trial
LATITUDE investigators from 235 sites in 34 countries in Europe, Asia/Pacific, Latin America and Canada enrolled 1,199 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and randomly assigned them to receive either abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT (597 patients), or ADT plus dual placebos (602).
At a planned interim analysis at a median follow-up of 30.4 months, after 406 patients had died, median OS, a co-primary end point, had not been reached among patients in the abiraterone group, compared with 34.7 months for patients assigned to ADT/placebo. This difference translates into a hazard ratio for death of 0.62 (P less than .001).
The median duration of radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), the other primary end point, was 33.0 months among patients treated with abiraterone vs. 14.8 months for those treated with placebo (HR for disease progression or death, 0.47; P less than .001)
Abiraterone was also associated with significantly better outcomes in all secondary endpoints, including time until pain progression, subsequent therapy, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (P less than .001 for each comparison).
The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 12% for patients in the abiraterone group vs. 10% for those in the placebo group. Rates of grade 3 or 4 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher among patients who received abiraterone.
Based on the trial results, the independent data and safety monitoring committee unanimously recommended unblinding of the trial and allowing patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone.
The STAMPEDE trial
The STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) trial was designed to test whether adding other therapies to ADT can improve OS in the first-line setting for men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators enrolled 1,917 patients with either newly diagnosed node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, high-risk locally advanced disease, or relapsed, high-risk disease following radical surgery or radiotherapy.
In all, 95% of patients had newly diagnosed disease; 52% had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative nonmetastatic disease.
After a median follow-up of 40 months, there had been 184 deaths among the 960 patients assigned to received ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone, compared with 262 deaths among 957 patients assigned to ADT alone. The respective 3-year survival rates were 83% vs. 76%, translating into a HR of 0.63 (P less than .001) favoring abiraterone. The respective hazard ratios for abiraterone in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic disease were 0.75 and 0.61, respectively.
Failure-free survival (no radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen progression or prostate cancer death) also favored abiraterone, with a HR of 0.29, compared with ADT alone (P less than .001). The respective hazard ratios for patients with nonmetastatic disease and metastatic disease were 0.21 and 0.31, respectively.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 47% of patients on abiraterone, and in 33% of patients treated with ADT alone. There nine deaths on treatment in the abiraterone group, including two cases of pneumonia (one with sepsis), two strokes, and one case each of dyspnea, lower respiratory tract infection, liver failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, and chest infections.
There were three deaths in the ADT alone group, two from myocardial infarctions and one from bronchopneumonia.
LATITUDE was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Fizazi reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Multiple coauthors reported personal fees or other support from Janssen and other companies. STAMPEDE was supported by Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. Lead author Nicholas D. James, PhD, reports receiving support, fees, grants and/or other considerations from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, and Sanofi-Aventis. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships with various entities.
The LATITUDE and STAMPEDE research teams report encouraging improvements in the initial treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. Metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer is diagnosed in a small proportion of men with prostate cancer at initial presentation and is disproportionately represented in lethal prostate cancer. The findings of these two trials suggest that therapeutically relevant biologic features of this form of cancer are shared with castration-resistant prostate cancer and raise the broader question of whether earlier application of approved life-prolonging therapies will further improve outcomes.
The reports support the hypothesis that more complete suppression of androgen signaling with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist lengthens survival of men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The findings are in line with the efficacy of abiraterone plus LHRH agonist therapy as a preoperative treatment. Confidence in the conclusion stems from the observation that treatment with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist was superior to an LHRH agonist alone in these two large studies among patients with distant metastases, including those with nonosseous visceral metastases. The reported toxic effects of the combination therapy relative to those observed with the LHRH agonist alone did not adversely affect outcomes. The findings may extend to second-generation androgen-receptor inhibitors or combinations with abiraterone currently under study. This practice-changing evidence supports the conclusion that men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, particularly those with more than three bone metastases on conventional imaging, should be treated with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist.
Christopher J. Logothetis, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. This comment is excerpted from an editorial accompanying the studies (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1704992).
The LATITUDE and STAMPEDE research teams report encouraging improvements in the initial treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. Metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer is diagnosed in a small proportion of men with prostate cancer at initial presentation and is disproportionately represented in lethal prostate cancer. The findings of these two trials suggest that therapeutically relevant biologic features of this form of cancer are shared with castration-resistant prostate cancer and raise the broader question of whether earlier application of approved life-prolonging therapies will further improve outcomes.
The reports support the hypothesis that more complete suppression of androgen signaling with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist lengthens survival of men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The findings are in line with the efficacy of abiraterone plus LHRH agonist therapy as a preoperative treatment. Confidence in the conclusion stems from the observation that treatment with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist was superior to an LHRH agonist alone in these two large studies among patients with distant metastases, including those with nonosseous visceral metastases. The reported toxic effects of the combination therapy relative to those observed with the LHRH agonist alone did not adversely affect outcomes. The findings may extend to second-generation androgen-receptor inhibitors or combinations with abiraterone currently under study. This practice-changing evidence supports the conclusion that men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, particularly those with more than three bone metastases on conventional imaging, should be treated with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist.
Christopher J. Logothetis, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. This comment is excerpted from an editorial accompanying the studies (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1704992).
The LATITUDE and STAMPEDE research teams report encouraging improvements in the initial treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. Metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer is diagnosed in a small proportion of men with prostate cancer at initial presentation and is disproportionately represented in lethal prostate cancer. The findings of these two trials suggest that therapeutically relevant biologic features of this form of cancer are shared with castration-resistant prostate cancer and raise the broader question of whether earlier application of approved life-prolonging therapies will further improve outcomes.
The reports support the hypothesis that more complete suppression of androgen signaling with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist lengthens survival of men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The findings are in line with the efficacy of abiraterone plus LHRH agonist therapy as a preoperative treatment. Confidence in the conclusion stems from the observation that treatment with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist was superior to an LHRH agonist alone in these two large studies among patients with distant metastases, including those with nonosseous visceral metastases. The reported toxic effects of the combination therapy relative to those observed with the LHRH agonist alone did not adversely affect outcomes. The findings may extend to second-generation androgen-receptor inhibitors or combinations with abiraterone currently under study. This practice-changing evidence supports the conclusion that men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, particularly those with more than three bone metastases on conventional imaging, should be treated with abiraterone plus an LHRH agonist.
Christopher J. Logothetis, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. This comment is excerpted from an editorial accompanying the studies (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1704992).
In findings that are being hailed as practice changing, men with metastatic prostate cancer had a near 40% lower risk of death when they were treated with a combination of abiraterone acetate (Zytiga), androgen deprivation therapy, and prednisone or prednisolone, compared with ADT alone.
After a median follow-up of 30.4 months, median overall survival for men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with ADT plus dual placebos was 34.7 months, vs. not reached for men treated with ADT, abiraterone, and prednisone in the LATITUDE trial. Similarly, in the STAMPEDE trial, men with newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic disease who were randomized to ADT with abiraterone and prednisolone had a 37% reduction in their risk for death and a 79% reduction in their risk for treatment failure, compared with men randomized to ADT alone.
The majority of men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer who are started on androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) analog with or without a first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor will have responses to therapy, but within a median of 1-year most will progress to castration-resistant disease, noted Karim Fizazi, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute at the University of Paris Sud, Villejuif, France, and coinvestigators of the LATITUDE trial.
“Resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy is largely driven by the reactivation of androgen receptor signaling through persistent adrenal androgen production, upregulation of intratumoral testosterone production, modification of the biologic characteristics of androgen receptors, and steroidogenic parallel pathways,” they wrote.
Although ADT and docetaxel is the standard of care for men with metastatic castration-sensitive disease who are eligible for chemotherapy, data from real-world practice suggest that patients with this presentation are older than those enrolled in clinical trials, and may not be able to tolerate the toxicities that occur when docetaxel is added to ADT, they noted.
Abiraterone, in combination with prednisone, has been shown to increase overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have not undergone chemotherapy, and among patients who had previously been treated with docetaxel.
The drug is thought to exert its antitumor effects through a combination of androgen receptor antagonism and blockade of steroidogenic enzymes, the investigators wrote.
The LATITUDE trial
LATITUDE investigators from 235 sites in 34 countries in Europe, Asia/Pacific, Latin America and Canada enrolled 1,199 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and randomly assigned them to receive either abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT (597 patients), or ADT plus dual placebos (602).
At a planned interim analysis at a median follow-up of 30.4 months, after 406 patients had died, median OS, a co-primary end point, had not been reached among patients in the abiraterone group, compared with 34.7 months for patients assigned to ADT/placebo. This difference translates into a hazard ratio for death of 0.62 (P less than .001).
The median duration of radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), the other primary end point, was 33.0 months among patients treated with abiraterone vs. 14.8 months for those treated with placebo (HR for disease progression or death, 0.47; P less than .001)
Abiraterone was also associated with significantly better outcomes in all secondary endpoints, including time until pain progression, subsequent therapy, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (P less than .001 for each comparison).
The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 12% for patients in the abiraterone group vs. 10% for those in the placebo group. Rates of grade 3 or 4 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher among patients who received abiraterone.
Based on the trial results, the independent data and safety monitoring committee unanimously recommended unblinding of the trial and allowing patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone.
The STAMPEDE trial
The STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) trial was designed to test whether adding other therapies to ADT can improve OS in the first-line setting for men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators enrolled 1,917 patients with either newly diagnosed node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, high-risk locally advanced disease, or relapsed, high-risk disease following radical surgery or radiotherapy.
In all, 95% of patients had newly diagnosed disease; 52% had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative nonmetastatic disease.
After a median follow-up of 40 months, there had been 184 deaths among the 960 patients assigned to received ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone, compared with 262 deaths among 957 patients assigned to ADT alone. The respective 3-year survival rates were 83% vs. 76%, translating into a HR of 0.63 (P less than .001) favoring abiraterone. The respective hazard ratios for abiraterone in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic disease were 0.75 and 0.61, respectively.
Failure-free survival (no radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen progression or prostate cancer death) also favored abiraterone, with a HR of 0.29, compared with ADT alone (P less than .001). The respective hazard ratios for patients with nonmetastatic disease and metastatic disease were 0.21 and 0.31, respectively.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 47% of patients on abiraterone, and in 33% of patients treated with ADT alone. There nine deaths on treatment in the abiraterone group, including two cases of pneumonia (one with sepsis), two strokes, and one case each of dyspnea, lower respiratory tract infection, liver failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, and chest infections.
There were three deaths in the ADT alone group, two from myocardial infarctions and one from bronchopneumonia.
LATITUDE was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Fizazi reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Multiple coauthors reported personal fees or other support from Janssen and other companies. STAMPEDE was supported by Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. Lead author Nicholas D. James, PhD, reports receiving support, fees, grants and/or other considerations from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, and Sanofi-Aventis. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships with various entities.
In findings that are being hailed as practice changing, men with metastatic prostate cancer had a near 40% lower risk of death when they were treated with a combination of abiraterone acetate (Zytiga), androgen deprivation therapy, and prednisone or prednisolone, compared with ADT alone.
After a median follow-up of 30.4 months, median overall survival for men with newly diagnosed metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer treated with ADT plus dual placebos was 34.7 months, vs. not reached for men treated with ADT, abiraterone, and prednisone in the LATITUDE trial. Similarly, in the STAMPEDE trial, men with newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic disease who were randomized to ADT with abiraterone and prednisolone had a 37% reduction in their risk for death and a 79% reduction in their risk for treatment failure, compared with men randomized to ADT alone.
The majority of men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer who are started on androgen deprivation therapy with a luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) analog with or without a first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor will have responses to therapy, but within a median of 1-year most will progress to castration-resistant disease, noted Karim Fizazi, MD, from the Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute at the University of Paris Sud, Villejuif, France, and coinvestigators of the LATITUDE trial.
“Resistance to androgen-deprivation therapy is largely driven by the reactivation of androgen receptor signaling through persistent adrenal androgen production, upregulation of intratumoral testosterone production, modification of the biologic characteristics of androgen receptors, and steroidogenic parallel pathways,” they wrote.
Although ADT and docetaxel is the standard of care for men with metastatic castration-sensitive disease who are eligible for chemotherapy, data from real-world practice suggest that patients with this presentation are older than those enrolled in clinical trials, and may not be able to tolerate the toxicities that occur when docetaxel is added to ADT, they noted.
Abiraterone, in combination with prednisone, has been shown to increase overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have not undergone chemotherapy, and among patients who had previously been treated with docetaxel.
The drug is thought to exert its antitumor effects through a combination of androgen receptor antagonism and blockade of steroidogenic enzymes, the investigators wrote.
The LATITUDE trial
LATITUDE investigators from 235 sites in 34 countries in Europe, Asia/Pacific, Latin America and Canada enrolled 1,199 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and randomly assigned them to receive either abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT (597 patients), or ADT plus dual placebos (602).
At a planned interim analysis at a median follow-up of 30.4 months, after 406 patients had died, median OS, a co-primary end point, had not been reached among patients in the abiraterone group, compared with 34.7 months for patients assigned to ADT/placebo. This difference translates into a hazard ratio for death of 0.62 (P less than .001).
The median duration of radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), the other primary end point, was 33.0 months among patients treated with abiraterone vs. 14.8 months for those treated with placebo (HR for disease progression or death, 0.47; P less than .001)
Abiraterone was also associated with significantly better outcomes in all secondary endpoints, including time until pain progression, subsequent therapy, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (P less than .001 for each comparison).
The frequency of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 12% for patients in the abiraterone group vs. 10% for those in the placebo group. Rates of grade 3 or 4 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher among patients who received abiraterone.
Based on the trial results, the independent data and safety monitoring committee unanimously recommended unblinding of the trial and allowing patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone.
The STAMPEDE trial
The STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) trial was designed to test whether adding other therapies to ADT can improve OS in the first-line setting for men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer.
The investigators enrolled 1,917 patients with either newly diagnosed node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, high-risk locally advanced disease, or relapsed, high-risk disease following radical surgery or radiotherapy.
In all, 95% of patients had newly diagnosed disease; 52% had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative nonmetastatic disease.
After a median follow-up of 40 months, there had been 184 deaths among the 960 patients assigned to received ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone, compared with 262 deaths among 957 patients assigned to ADT alone. The respective 3-year survival rates were 83% vs. 76%, translating into a HR of 0.63 (P less than .001) favoring abiraterone. The respective hazard ratios for abiraterone in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic disease were 0.75 and 0.61, respectively.
Failure-free survival (no radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen progression or prostate cancer death) also favored abiraterone, with a HR of 0.29, compared with ADT alone (P less than .001). The respective hazard ratios for patients with nonmetastatic disease and metastatic disease were 0.21 and 0.31, respectively.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 47% of patients on abiraterone, and in 33% of patients treated with ADT alone. There nine deaths on treatment in the abiraterone group, including two cases of pneumonia (one with sepsis), two strokes, and one case each of dyspnea, lower respiratory tract infection, liver failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, and chest infections.
There were three deaths in the ADT alone group, two from myocardial infarctions and one from bronchopneumonia.
LATITUDE was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Fizazi reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Multiple coauthors reported personal fees or other support from Janssen and other companies. STAMPEDE was supported by Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. Lead author Nicholas D. James, PhD, reports receiving support, fees, grants and/or other considerations from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, and Sanofi-Aventis. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships with various entities.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Adding abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer.
Major finding: The hazard ratio for death with abiraterone/ADT vs. ADT alone in LATITUDE was 0.62, and in STAMPEDE was 0.63.
Data source: Randomized LATITUDE study in 1,199 men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Randomized STAMPEDE trial in 1,917 patients with newly diagnosed node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, high-risk locally advanced disease, or relapsed, high-risk disease.
Disclosures: LATITUDE was supported by Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Fizazi reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Multiple coauthors reported personal fees or other support from Janssen and other companies. STAMPEDE was supported by Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Astellas Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. Lead author Nicholas D. James, PhD, reports receiving support, fees, grants and/or other considerations from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, and Sanofi-Aventis. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships with various entities.
No survival benefit with adjuvant girentuximab in high-risk RCC
The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.
In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).
The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.
“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.
The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.
“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.
Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.
The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.
The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).
Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).
Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.
The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.
In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).
The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.
“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.
The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.
“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.
Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.
The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.
The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).
Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).
Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.
The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
The monoclonal antibody girentuximab does not appear to have a clinical benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).
Adjuvant therapy with girentuximab failed to improve either disease-free or overall survival, compared with placebo, in a cohort of patients who had undergone full surgical resection, according to phase 3 results of the ARISER trial.
In a subset of patients with CAIX scores of 200 or greater, however, there was disease-free survival benefit although it did not reach significance, reported lead author Karim Chamie, MD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and his colleagues (JAMA Oncol. 2017;3[7]:913-20).
The drug was well tolerated, with an excellent safety profile, and there were no reported drug-related serious adverse events.
“Our finding that girentuximab was more effective in the subgroup of patients younger than 65 years is consistent with these observations and, while requiring prospective confirmation, suggests that an insufficient activation of [antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity] could explain the failure of its efficacy,” wrote Dr. Chamie and his colleagues.
The authors also point out that “virtually all trials of adjuvant therapy in high-risk RCC have failed to show a treatment benefit,” and thus illustrates the difficulty in identifying successful adjuvant therapies.
“The success of future adjuvant trials will require use of inclusion criteria sufficiently broad to meet accrual goals while limiting inclusion to patients who are most likely to benefit from therapy,” they write.
Girentuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds carbonic anhydrase IX, a cell surface glycoprotein that is ubiquitously expressed in ccRCC. Phase 2 studies showed the agent to be safe and active in this setting, and served as the basis for conducting the current phase 3 ARISER trial (Adjuvant Rencarex Immunotherapy Phase 3 Trial to Study Efficacy in Nonmetastatic RCC).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 142 academic medical centers in 15 countries in North and South America and Europe and included a cohort of 864 patients who had undergone partial or radical nephrectomy for ccRCC and fell into one of the following high-risk groups: pT3/pT4Nx/N0M0 or pTanyN+M0 or pT1b/pT2Nx/N0M0 with nuclear grade 3 or greater.
The cohort was randomly assigned to either a single loading dose of girentuximab, 50 mg (week 1), followed by weekly intravenous infusions of girentuximab, 20 mg (weeks 2-24), or placebo, stratified by risk group and region.
The overall disease-free survival was comparable for the two groups: at 5 years it was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively, while the median disease-free survival was 71.4 months (interquartile range, 3 months to not reached) for patients who received girentuximab and was not reached for those receiving placebo (P = .74).
Median overall survival was not reached for either of the two groups, and there was no difference in overall survival between arms (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.32).
Adverse events were reported in 185 patients (21.6%), and were comparable between groups, and serious events occurred in 72 patients (8.4%), and were also comparable between the two arms.
The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: Adjuvant girentuximab did not confer a survival benefit in patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Major finding: Five-year disease-free survival was 53.9% and 51.6% for the girentuximab and placebo groups, respectively.
Data source: A phase 3 placebo controlled multicenter clinical trial that included 864 patients with high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Wilex, AG. Dr. Chamie receives research support from and serves as a consultant for UroGen Pharma, receives grant support from Phase One Foundation and Stop Cancer, and is a consultant for Cold Genesys and a scientific advisory board member of Altor. Several coauthors reported relationships with industry.
Savolitinib improves PFS in some with MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma
Savolitinib, a highly selective inhibitor of c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase, improved progression-free survival in a small portion of patients with MET-driven advanced renal papillary cell cancer.
The molecule, being developed by Hutchison China MediTech Limited and AstraZeneca, extended progression-free survival by about 5 months in these patients, compared with those whose tumors were not MET driven (6.2 vs. 1.4 months, respectively), reported Toni Choueiri, MD, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol 2017. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2967).
Of 109 patients in the phase II study, 44 (40%) had MET-driven disease. The cancer was MET independent in 46 (42%); MET status was unknown in the remainder.
Half of those with MET-driven tumors experienced stable disease, and 61% experienced tumor shrinkage ranging from 0.7% to 66%. Tumor shrinkage occurred in 20% of those with MET-independent tumors. These also responded less vigorously (shrinkage 0.5%-20%).
Of the eight patients exhibiting a partial response, six were still responding to treatment at the study’s end, with response ranging from 2 to 16 months. Two patients experienced progressive disease after 1.8 and 2.8 months. By the end of the study, disease progression had occurred in 75% of the MET-driven cases, 96% of the MET-independent cases, and 74% of cases whose MET status was unknown.
“These results confirm that savolitinib … holds promise as a personalized treatment for patients with metastatic MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma,” the investigators wrote. The data also support the June launch of the phase III SAVOIR trial, they noted.
SAVOIR will enroll about 180 patients with MET-driven renal papillary cancer confirmed by a next-generation molecular sequencing developed by the companies for savolitinib response. Patients will be randomized to continuous treatment with savolitinib 600 mg orally, once daily, or intermittent treatment with sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off), on a 6-week cycle.
Dr. Choueiri has been a consultant for and received research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca.
msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @Alz_gal
Savolitinib, a highly selective inhibitor of c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase, improved progression-free survival in a small portion of patients with MET-driven advanced renal papillary cell cancer.
The molecule, being developed by Hutchison China MediTech Limited and AstraZeneca, extended progression-free survival by about 5 months in these patients, compared with those whose tumors were not MET driven (6.2 vs. 1.4 months, respectively), reported Toni Choueiri, MD, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol 2017. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2967).
Of 109 patients in the phase II study, 44 (40%) had MET-driven disease. The cancer was MET independent in 46 (42%); MET status was unknown in the remainder.
Half of those with MET-driven tumors experienced stable disease, and 61% experienced tumor shrinkage ranging from 0.7% to 66%. Tumor shrinkage occurred in 20% of those with MET-independent tumors. These also responded less vigorously (shrinkage 0.5%-20%).
Of the eight patients exhibiting a partial response, six were still responding to treatment at the study’s end, with response ranging from 2 to 16 months. Two patients experienced progressive disease after 1.8 and 2.8 months. By the end of the study, disease progression had occurred in 75% of the MET-driven cases, 96% of the MET-independent cases, and 74% of cases whose MET status was unknown.
“These results confirm that savolitinib … holds promise as a personalized treatment for patients with metastatic MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma,” the investigators wrote. The data also support the June launch of the phase III SAVOIR trial, they noted.
SAVOIR will enroll about 180 patients with MET-driven renal papillary cancer confirmed by a next-generation molecular sequencing developed by the companies for savolitinib response. Patients will be randomized to continuous treatment with savolitinib 600 mg orally, once daily, or intermittent treatment with sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off), on a 6-week cycle.
Dr. Choueiri has been a consultant for and received research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca.
msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @Alz_gal
Savolitinib, a highly selective inhibitor of c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase, improved progression-free survival in a small portion of patients with MET-driven advanced renal papillary cell cancer.
The molecule, being developed by Hutchison China MediTech Limited and AstraZeneca, extended progression-free survival by about 5 months in these patients, compared with those whose tumors were not MET driven (6.2 vs. 1.4 months, respectively), reported Toni Choueiri, MD, and his colleagues (J Clin Oncol 2017. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2967).
Of 109 patients in the phase II study, 44 (40%) had MET-driven disease. The cancer was MET independent in 46 (42%); MET status was unknown in the remainder.
Half of those with MET-driven tumors experienced stable disease, and 61% experienced tumor shrinkage ranging from 0.7% to 66%. Tumor shrinkage occurred in 20% of those with MET-independent tumors. These also responded less vigorously (shrinkage 0.5%-20%).
Of the eight patients exhibiting a partial response, six were still responding to treatment at the study’s end, with response ranging from 2 to 16 months. Two patients experienced progressive disease after 1.8 and 2.8 months. By the end of the study, disease progression had occurred in 75% of the MET-driven cases, 96% of the MET-independent cases, and 74% of cases whose MET status was unknown.
“These results confirm that savolitinib … holds promise as a personalized treatment for patients with metastatic MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma,” the investigators wrote. The data also support the June launch of the phase III SAVOIR trial, they noted.
SAVOIR will enroll about 180 patients with MET-driven renal papillary cancer confirmed by a next-generation molecular sequencing developed by the companies for savolitinib response. Patients will be randomized to continuous treatment with savolitinib 600 mg orally, once daily, or intermittent treatment with sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off), on a 6-week cycle.
Dr. Choueiri has been a consultant for and received research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca.
msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @Alz_gal
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: A partial response occurred in 18% of these patients, who gained about 5 months of progression-free disease compared with those with MET-independent tumors.
Data source: A phase II trial comprising 109 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Choueiri has been a consultant for and received research funds from AstraZeneca, which is developing the drug.
PROTECT: Pazopanib falls short as adjuvant therapy for high-risk RCC
CHICAGO – The antiangiogenic agent pazopanib is not efficacious when used as adjuvant therapy for resected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with features that confer a high risk of recurrence, the PROTECT investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Pazopanib (Votrient) is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor active against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). Adjuvant use of other agents in this class has yielded mixed results, noted lead investigator Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
In PROTECT, a phase III randomized controlled trial of more than 1,500 patients who had undergone nephrectomy for high-risk locally advanced RCC, pazopanib started at 600 mg daily did not yield significantly better disease-free survival than placebo, the trial’s primary endpoint. The drug did have a significant benefit when started at 800 mg daily, but that dose had to be lowered partway through because of a high rate of discontinuation due to adverse events.
“The trial did not meet its primary endpoint,” Dr. Motzer concluded. “Pazopanib is not recommended for adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC.”
Expert perspective
“The current landscape of RCC adjuvant therapy is really controversial,” commented invited discussant Daniel Y. C. Heng, MD, MPH, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) Tom Baker Cancer Centre.
“Are these [factors] important or not? I think a lot of this is being overshadowed by things that are going on right now,” Dr. Heng maintained. “There are newer medications, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors that are now being studied. And there are now perioperative studies as well – should we be using these drugs before nephrectomy and after nephrectomy to prime the immune system to get better outcomes?”
At the end of the day, identification of a reliable predictive biomarker will be key to using the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he concluded. “I look forward to the future where we can actually use these tests to determine who will benefit most from adjuvant therapy so that we can maximize patient outcomes.”
Study details
The PROTECT trial was funded by Novartis Oncology and randomized 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade), pT3, or greater nonmetastatic clear cell RCC, a highly vascular tumor typically reliant on aberrant signaling in the VEGF pathway.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive pazopanib or placebo for 1 year. The starting dose was lowered from 800 mg daily to 600 mg daily (with escalation permitted) after 403 patients had been treated.
In intention-to-treat analysis among patients started on the 600-mg dose and having a median follow-up of about 31 months, disease-free survival was better with pazopanib but not significantly so (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .16), Dr. Motzer reported.
In secondary analyses, pazopanib did have a significant disease-free survival benefit among patients started on the 800-mg dose (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .02) and among the entire trial population started on either dose (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .01).
One possible explanation for the differing results seen with the two doses was the difference in follow-up, as the 800-mg group was treated earlier in the trial, he proposed. But with an additional year of blinded follow-up, the benefit in the 600-mg group actually diminished, whereas that in the 800-mg group did not.
Another possibility was the somewhat better performance of the placebo group used for comparison with the lower dose: the 3-year disease-free survival rate with placebo was 64% for the 600-mg comparison but 56% for the 800-mg comparison. “One factor that could explain differences in the outcomes of the placebo groups includes unidentified patient demographic characteristics,” Dr. Motzer noted.
Overall survival was statistically indistinguishable between the pazopanib and placebo groups, regardless of dose. However, “the results are inconclusive as the data are not yet mature,” he said, with a definitive analysis planned for 2019.
Compared with counterparts given placebo, patients started on the 600-mg dose of pazopanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events overall (60% vs. 21%), driven in large part by higher rates of hypertension and increased alanine aminotransferase levels.
“Although the intent of modifying the protocol dose of pazopanib from 800 mg to 600 mg was to reduce the rate of discontinuation and improve the safety profile ... both cohorts had similar discontinuation rates and safety profiles,” Dr. Motzer noted.
A quality of life analysis for the 600-mg group using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) showed values were consistently lower with the drug than with placebo during treatment, with a crossing of the threshold for a minimally important difference at week 8.
Pharmacokinetic analyses from the trial, reported in a poster at the meeting (Abstract 4564), showed that in the group starting pazopanib at 600 mg, disease-free survival was longer in patients who achieved higher drug trough concentrations at week 3 or 5.
CHICAGO – The antiangiogenic agent pazopanib is not efficacious when used as adjuvant therapy for resected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with features that confer a high risk of recurrence, the PROTECT investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Pazopanib (Votrient) is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor active against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). Adjuvant use of other agents in this class has yielded mixed results, noted lead investigator Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
In PROTECT, a phase III randomized controlled trial of more than 1,500 patients who had undergone nephrectomy for high-risk locally advanced RCC, pazopanib started at 600 mg daily did not yield significantly better disease-free survival than placebo, the trial’s primary endpoint. The drug did have a significant benefit when started at 800 mg daily, but that dose had to be lowered partway through because of a high rate of discontinuation due to adverse events.
“The trial did not meet its primary endpoint,” Dr. Motzer concluded. “Pazopanib is not recommended for adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC.”
Expert perspective
“The current landscape of RCC adjuvant therapy is really controversial,” commented invited discussant Daniel Y. C. Heng, MD, MPH, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) Tom Baker Cancer Centre.
“Are these [factors] important or not? I think a lot of this is being overshadowed by things that are going on right now,” Dr. Heng maintained. “There are newer medications, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors that are now being studied. And there are now perioperative studies as well – should we be using these drugs before nephrectomy and after nephrectomy to prime the immune system to get better outcomes?”
At the end of the day, identification of a reliable predictive biomarker will be key to using the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he concluded. “I look forward to the future where we can actually use these tests to determine who will benefit most from adjuvant therapy so that we can maximize patient outcomes.”
Study details
The PROTECT trial was funded by Novartis Oncology and randomized 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade), pT3, or greater nonmetastatic clear cell RCC, a highly vascular tumor typically reliant on aberrant signaling in the VEGF pathway.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive pazopanib or placebo for 1 year. The starting dose was lowered from 800 mg daily to 600 mg daily (with escalation permitted) after 403 patients had been treated.
In intention-to-treat analysis among patients started on the 600-mg dose and having a median follow-up of about 31 months, disease-free survival was better with pazopanib but not significantly so (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .16), Dr. Motzer reported.
In secondary analyses, pazopanib did have a significant disease-free survival benefit among patients started on the 800-mg dose (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .02) and among the entire trial population started on either dose (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .01).
One possible explanation for the differing results seen with the two doses was the difference in follow-up, as the 800-mg group was treated earlier in the trial, he proposed. But with an additional year of blinded follow-up, the benefit in the 600-mg group actually diminished, whereas that in the 800-mg group did not.
Another possibility was the somewhat better performance of the placebo group used for comparison with the lower dose: the 3-year disease-free survival rate with placebo was 64% for the 600-mg comparison but 56% for the 800-mg comparison. “One factor that could explain differences in the outcomes of the placebo groups includes unidentified patient demographic characteristics,” Dr. Motzer noted.
Overall survival was statistically indistinguishable between the pazopanib and placebo groups, regardless of dose. However, “the results are inconclusive as the data are not yet mature,” he said, with a definitive analysis planned for 2019.
Compared with counterparts given placebo, patients started on the 600-mg dose of pazopanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events overall (60% vs. 21%), driven in large part by higher rates of hypertension and increased alanine aminotransferase levels.
“Although the intent of modifying the protocol dose of pazopanib from 800 mg to 600 mg was to reduce the rate of discontinuation and improve the safety profile ... both cohorts had similar discontinuation rates and safety profiles,” Dr. Motzer noted.
A quality of life analysis for the 600-mg group using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) showed values were consistently lower with the drug than with placebo during treatment, with a crossing of the threshold for a minimally important difference at week 8.
Pharmacokinetic analyses from the trial, reported in a poster at the meeting (Abstract 4564), showed that in the group starting pazopanib at 600 mg, disease-free survival was longer in patients who achieved higher drug trough concentrations at week 3 or 5.
CHICAGO – The antiangiogenic agent pazopanib is not efficacious when used as adjuvant therapy for resected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with features that confer a high risk of recurrence, the PROTECT investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Pazopanib (Votrient) is an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor active against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). Adjuvant use of other agents in this class has yielded mixed results, noted lead investigator Robert J. Motzer, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
In PROTECT, a phase III randomized controlled trial of more than 1,500 patients who had undergone nephrectomy for high-risk locally advanced RCC, pazopanib started at 600 mg daily did not yield significantly better disease-free survival than placebo, the trial’s primary endpoint. The drug did have a significant benefit when started at 800 mg daily, but that dose had to be lowered partway through because of a high rate of discontinuation due to adverse events.
“The trial did not meet its primary endpoint,” Dr. Motzer concluded. “Pazopanib is not recommended for adjuvant therapy following resection of locally advanced RCC.”
Expert perspective
“The current landscape of RCC adjuvant therapy is really controversial,” commented invited discussant Daniel Y. C. Heng, MD, MPH, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) Tom Baker Cancer Centre.
“Are these [factors] important or not? I think a lot of this is being overshadowed by things that are going on right now,” Dr. Heng maintained. “There are newer medications, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors that are now being studied. And there are now perioperative studies as well – should we be using these drugs before nephrectomy and after nephrectomy to prime the immune system to get better outcomes?”
At the end of the day, identification of a reliable predictive biomarker will be key to using the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, he concluded. “I look forward to the future where we can actually use these tests to determine who will benefit most from adjuvant therapy so that we can maximize patient outcomes.”
Study details
The PROTECT trial was funded by Novartis Oncology and randomized 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade), pT3, or greater nonmetastatic clear cell RCC, a highly vascular tumor typically reliant on aberrant signaling in the VEGF pathway.
The patients were assigned evenly to receive pazopanib or placebo for 1 year. The starting dose was lowered from 800 mg daily to 600 mg daily (with escalation permitted) after 403 patients had been treated.
In intention-to-treat analysis among patients started on the 600-mg dose and having a median follow-up of about 31 months, disease-free survival was better with pazopanib but not significantly so (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .16), Dr. Motzer reported.
In secondary analyses, pazopanib did have a significant disease-free survival benefit among patients started on the 800-mg dose (hazard ratio, 0.69; P = .02) and among the entire trial population started on either dose (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .01).
One possible explanation for the differing results seen with the two doses was the difference in follow-up, as the 800-mg group was treated earlier in the trial, he proposed. But with an additional year of blinded follow-up, the benefit in the 600-mg group actually diminished, whereas that in the 800-mg group did not.
Another possibility was the somewhat better performance of the placebo group used for comparison with the lower dose: the 3-year disease-free survival rate with placebo was 64% for the 600-mg comparison but 56% for the 800-mg comparison. “One factor that could explain differences in the outcomes of the placebo groups includes unidentified patient demographic characteristics,” Dr. Motzer noted.
Overall survival was statistically indistinguishable between the pazopanib and placebo groups, regardless of dose. However, “the results are inconclusive as the data are not yet mature,” he said, with a definitive analysis planned for 2019.
Compared with counterparts given placebo, patients started on the 600-mg dose of pazopanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events overall (60% vs. 21%), driven in large part by higher rates of hypertension and increased alanine aminotransferase levels.
“Although the intent of modifying the protocol dose of pazopanib from 800 mg to 600 mg was to reduce the rate of discontinuation and improve the safety profile ... both cohorts had similar discontinuation rates and safety profiles,” Dr. Motzer noted.
A quality of life analysis for the 600-mg group using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) showed values were consistently lower with the drug than with placebo during treatment, with a crossing of the threshold for a minimally important difference at week 8.
Pharmacokinetic analyses from the trial, reported in a poster at the meeting (Abstract 4564), showed that in the group starting pazopanib at 600 mg, disease-free survival was longer in patients who achieved higher drug trough concentrations at week 3 or 5.
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Compared with placebo, pazopanib started at 600 mg daily did not significantly reduce the risk of disease-free survival events (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .16).
Data source: A phase III randomized controlled trial among 1,538 patients who had undergone nephrectomy for high-risk locally advanced RCC (PROTECT trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Motzer disclosed that he is a consultant to Eisai, Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, and that he receives research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb (institutional), Eisai (institutional), Genentech/Roche (institutional), GlaxoSmithKline (institutional), Novartis (institutional), and Pfizer (institutional). The trial was funded by Novartis Oncology.
Hypogonadism after testicular cancer treatment can have lifelong impact
CHICAGO – Hypogonadism may compromise the long-term health outlook for many younger men who have been successfully treated for testicular cancer, according to an analysis conducted by the Platinum Study Group.
“Today, 95% of all testicular cancer patients are cured of their disease thanks to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Nowadays, testicular cancer survivors can expect to live for over 40 years from the time of their diagnosis,” lead investigator Mohammad Issam Abu Zaid, MBBS, said in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “However, they are at risk of other health problems that may be related to their cancer treatment, including late complications from chemotherapy.”
“Testicular cancer survivors, especially those treated with chemotherapy, are at increased risk for hypogonadism, a problem that can be associated with predisposing factors for heart disease,” summarized Dr. Abu Zaid, of Indiana University in Indianapolis. “Mitigating approaches are the usual weight control, exercise, and monitoring of blood pressure and cholesterol levels.”
Expert perspective
“This is an important study, and it sends a loud message to those of us who take care of testis cancer patients, my area of expertise. ... We need to watch for hypogonadism, and we need to ask survivors about it. We need to examine them thinking about it, and, in patients who we are worried [they] might have hypogonadism, we need to do blood tests for testosterone and other hormone levels,” commented ASCO Expert Timothy D. Gilligan, MD, MSc, of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “These are young patients, they have many years of life, so it’s many decades of suffering from consequences of this if it’s undetected.”
The findings were not surprising based on his personal experience and on evidence from the prostate cancer field showing the adverse metabolic effects of withdrawing testosterone, he said. Although the prevalence of hypogonadism found in the study was higher than that found in other studies, given the large size of the cohort, it should be taken seriously. Additionally, even if the true prevalence is somewhat lower, the absolute number of survivors affected would be substantial.
“We need to be cautious though and make sure people don’t misunderstand and think that this means we should test testosterone levels in all patients, which is a risky thing to do because the definition of normal testosterone is very fuzzy,” Dr. Gilligan stressed. “There is a wide range of normal, and what’s normal for me may not be the same as what’s normal for another man. So, looking for symptoms is really what guides this work, and, when there are symptoms, then testing is important.”
Study details
The Platinum Study is a large, ongoing, multicenter North American–based cohort study of testicular cancer survivors who received cisplatin as part of their chemotherapy.
Dr. Abu Zaid and his colleagues analyzed data from 491 participants who were aged 50 years or younger at diagnosis. All completed questionnaires addressing comorbidities, medications, and health behaviors; underwent physical examination; had measurement of testosterone levels; and had a genetic analysis.
The men were by and large young at the time of evaluation, with a mean age of just 38 years, he reported in the press briefing and a poster session at the meeting.
Overall, 38.5% had hypogonadism, defined in the study as a serum testosterone level of 3 ng/mL or lower or as use of testosterone replacement therapy.
In a multivariate analysis, survivors’ odds of hypogonadism increased with age (odds ratio, 1.41 per 10-year increment; P = .007) and were higher for those having a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, vs. lower (OR, 2.22; P = .003). On the other hand, there was a trend whereby survivors who engaged in any vigorous-intensity physical activity, vs. none, were less likely to have hypogonadism (OR, 0.64; P = .06).
The odds rose with number of risk alleles in the sex hormone–binding globulin gene, but findings were not significant, Dr. Abu Zaid said. They were also statistically indistinguishable across groups differing with respect to the chemotherapy regimen received and socioeconomic factors.
Compared with counterparts having normal testosterone levels, survivors having hypogonadism were up to four times more likely to be taking medication to treat dyslipidemia (20.1% vs. 6.0%; P less than .001), hypertension (18.5% vs. 10.6%; P = .013), erectile dysfunction (19.6% vs. 11.9%; P = .018), diabetes (5.8% vs. 2.6%; P = .067), and anxiety or depression (14.8% vs. 9.3%; P = .060).
Testicular cancer survivors should not universally have testosterone testing, agreed Dr. Abu Zaid. Such a practice might lead to overtreatment, and, in older men at least, use of testosterone itself has been linked to elevated cardiovascular risk.
“You really want to treat somebody who has symptoms related to hypogonadism: constant fatigue, night sweats, and depressed mood and some other symptoms that are well known to the clinician,” he maintained. “At the moment, we have no studies done looking at testosterone replacement in young men. I would hypothesize that we actually help them by giving them testosterone, and that’s what I tell my patients.”
CHICAGO – Hypogonadism may compromise the long-term health outlook for many younger men who have been successfully treated for testicular cancer, according to an analysis conducted by the Platinum Study Group.
“Today, 95% of all testicular cancer patients are cured of their disease thanks to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Nowadays, testicular cancer survivors can expect to live for over 40 years from the time of their diagnosis,” lead investigator Mohammad Issam Abu Zaid, MBBS, said in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “However, they are at risk of other health problems that may be related to their cancer treatment, including late complications from chemotherapy.”
“Testicular cancer survivors, especially those treated with chemotherapy, are at increased risk for hypogonadism, a problem that can be associated with predisposing factors for heart disease,” summarized Dr. Abu Zaid, of Indiana University in Indianapolis. “Mitigating approaches are the usual weight control, exercise, and monitoring of blood pressure and cholesterol levels.”
Expert perspective
“This is an important study, and it sends a loud message to those of us who take care of testis cancer patients, my area of expertise. ... We need to watch for hypogonadism, and we need to ask survivors about it. We need to examine them thinking about it, and, in patients who we are worried [they] might have hypogonadism, we need to do blood tests for testosterone and other hormone levels,” commented ASCO Expert Timothy D. Gilligan, MD, MSc, of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “These are young patients, they have many years of life, so it’s many decades of suffering from consequences of this if it’s undetected.”
The findings were not surprising based on his personal experience and on evidence from the prostate cancer field showing the adverse metabolic effects of withdrawing testosterone, he said. Although the prevalence of hypogonadism found in the study was higher than that found in other studies, given the large size of the cohort, it should be taken seriously. Additionally, even if the true prevalence is somewhat lower, the absolute number of survivors affected would be substantial.
“We need to be cautious though and make sure people don’t misunderstand and think that this means we should test testosterone levels in all patients, which is a risky thing to do because the definition of normal testosterone is very fuzzy,” Dr. Gilligan stressed. “There is a wide range of normal, and what’s normal for me may not be the same as what’s normal for another man. So, looking for symptoms is really what guides this work, and, when there are symptoms, then testing is important.”
Study details
The Platinum Study is a large, ongoing, multicenter North American–based cohort study of testicular cancer survivors who received cisplatin as part of their chemotherapy.
Dr. Abu Zaid and his colleagues analyzed data from 491 participants who were aged 50 years or younger at diagnosis. All completed questionnaires addressing comorbidities, medications, and health behaviors; underwent physical examination; had measurement of testosterone levels; and had a genetic analysis.
The men were by and large young at the time of evaluation, with a mean age of just 38 years, he reported in the press briefing and a poster session at the meeting.
Overall, 38.5% had hypogonadism, defined in the study as a serum testosterone level of 3 ng/mL or lower or as use of testosterone replacement therapy.
In a multivariate analysis, survivors’ odds of hypogonadism increased with age (odds ratio, 1.41 per 10-year increment; P = .007) and were higher for those having a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, vs. lower (OR, 2.22; P = .003). On the other hand, there was a trend whereby survivors who engaged in any vigorous-intensity physical activity, vs. none, were less likely to have hypogonadism (OR, 0.64; P = .06).
The odds rose with number of risk alleles in the sex hormone–binding globulin gene, but findings were not significant, Dr. Abu Zaid said. They were also statistically indistinguishable across groups differing with respect to the chemotherapy regimen received and socioeconomic factors.
Compared with counterparts having normal testosterone levels, survivors having hypogonadism were up to four times more likely to be taking medication to treat dyslipidemia (20.1% vs. 6.0%; P less than .001), hypertension (18.5% vs. 10.6%; P = .013), erectile dysfunction (19.6% vs. 11.9%; P = .018), diabetes (5.8% vs. 2.6%; P = .067), and anxiety or depression (14.8% vs. 9.3%; P = .060).
Testicular cancer survivors should not universally have testosterone testing, agreed Dr. Abu Zaid. Such a practice might lead to overtreatment, and, in older men at least, use of testosterone itself has been linked to elevated cardiovascular risk.
“You really want to treat somebody who has symptoms related to hypogonadism: constant fatigue, night sweats, and depressed mood and some other symptoms that are well known to the clinician,” he maintained. “At the moment, we have no studies done looking at testosterone replacement in young men. I would hypothesize that we actually help them by giving them testosterone, and that’s what I tell my patients.”
CHICAGO – Hypogonadism may compromise the long-term health outlook for many younger men who have been successfully treated for testicular cancer, according to an analysis conducted by the Platinum Study Group.
“Today, 95% of all testicular cancer patients are cured of their disease thanks to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Nowadays, testicular cancer survivors can expect to live for over 40 years from the time of their diagnosis,” lead investigator Mohammad Issam Abu Zaid, MBBS, said in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “However, they are at risk of other health problems that may be related to their cancer treatment, including late complications from chemotherapy.”
“Testicular cancer survivors, especially those treated with chemotherapy, are at increased risk for hypogonadism, a problem that can be associated with predisposing factors for heart disease,” summarized Dr. Abu Zaid, of Indiana University in Indianapolis. “Mitigating approaches are the usual weight control, exercise, and monitoring of blood pressure and cholesterol levels.”
Expert perspective
“This is an important study, and it sends a loud message to those of us who take care of testis cancer patients, my area of expertise. ... We need to watch for hypogonadism, and we need to ask survivors about it. We need to examine them thinking about it, and, in patients who we are worried [they] might have hypogonadism, we need to do blood tests for testosterone and other hormone levels,” commented ASCO Expert Timothy D. Gilligan, MD, MSc, of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “These are young patients, they have many years of life, so it’s many decades of suffering from consequences of this if it’s undetected.”
The findings were not surprising based on his personal experience and on evidence from the prostate cancer field showing the adverse metabolic effects of withdrawing testosterone, he said. Although the prevalence of hypogonadism found in the study was higher than that found in other studies, given the large size of the cohort, it should be taken seriously. Additionally, even if the true prevalence is somewhat lower, the absolute number of survivors affected would be substantial.
“We need to be cautious though and make sure people don’t misunderstand and think that this means we should test testosterone levels in all patients, which is a risky thing to do because the definition of normal testosterone is very fuzzy,” Dr. Gilligan stressed. “There is a wide range of normal, and what’s normal for me may not be the same as what’s normal for another man. So, looking for symptoms is really what guides this work, and, when there are symptoms, then testing is important.”
Study details
The Platinum Study is a large, ongoing, multicenter North American–based cohort study of testicular cancer survivors who received cisplatin as part of their chemotherapy.
Dr. Abu Zaid and his colleagues analyzed data from 491 participants who were aged 50 years or younger at diagnosis. All completed questionnaires addressing comorbidities, medications, and health behaviors; underwent physical examination; had measurement of testosterone levels; and had a genetic analysis.
The men were by and large young at the time of evaluation, with a mean age of just 38 years, he reported in the press briefing and a poster session at the meeting.
Overall, 38.5% had hypogonadism, defined in the study as a serum testosterone level of 3 ng/mL or lower or as use of testosterone replacement therapy.
In a multivariate analysis, survivors’ odds of hypogonadism increased with age (odds ratio, 1.41 per 10-year increment; P = .007) and were higher for those having a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater, vs. lower (OR, 2.22; P = .003). On the other hand, there was a trend whereby survivors who engaged in any vigorous-intensity physical activity, vs. none, were less likely to have hypogonadism (OR, 0.64; P = .06).
The odds rose with number of risk alleles in the sex hormone–binding globulin gene, but findings were not significant, Dr. Abu Zaid said. They were also statistically indistinguishable across groups differing with respect to the chemotherapy regimen received and socioeconomic factors.
Compared with counterparts having normal testosterone levels, survivors having hypogonadism were up to four times more likely to be taking medication to treat dyslipidemia (20.1% vs. 6.0%; P less than .001), hypertension (18.5% vs. 10.6%; P = .013), erectile dysfunction (19.6% vs. 11.9%; P = .018), diabetes (5.8% vs. 2.6%; P = .067), and anxiety or depression (14.8% vs. 9.3%; P = .060).
Testicular cancer survivors should not universally have testosterone testing, agreed Dr. Abu Zaid. Such a practice might lead to overtreatment, and, in older men at least, use of testosterone itself has been linked to elevated cardiovascular risk.
“You really want to treat somebody who has symptoms related to hypogonadism: constant fatigue, night sweats, and depressed mood and some other symptoms that are well known to the clinician,” he maintained. “At the moment, we have no studies done looking at testosterone replacement in young men. I would hypothesize that we actually help them by giving them testosterone, and that’s what I tell my patients.”
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Fully 38.5% of survivors had low testosterone levels, and men in this group were more likely to be taking medications for dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, and anxiety or depression.
Data source: A cohort study of 491 testicular cancer survivors who had been treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy (Platinum Study).
Disclosures: Dr. Abu Zaid reported that he had no relevant disclosures.
ADT+RT duration can safely be shortened in high risk PC
CHICAGO – Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy can safely be reduced from 36 to 18 months without compromising outcomes or quality of life in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, according to the final results of a randomized phase III trial.
At a median of 9.4 year follow-up of 630 patients who were randomized to receive pelvic and prostate radiotherapy combined with either 36 or 18 months of ADT, the 10-year overall survival rate was 62.4% and 62.0% in the treatment arms, respectively (global hazard ratio, 1.024), Abdenour Nabid, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Disease-free survival was 44.5% and 39.2% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.835). This difference did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Nabid of Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
The disease-free survival curves separated over the course of the study, mainly because of a significant difference in biochemical failure between the groups, which favored the 36-month arm (24.8% vs. 31.0%; HR, 0.714), but this is not an unexpected finding with longer treatment, he explained.
“Does this biochemical control give you more control of the disease? I’m not sure,” he said, noting that bone metastases alone occurred in 23 and 24 patients in the 36 and 18 month treatment groups, respectively, and bone plus other site metastases occurred in 11 patients in each group. “At the end of the day, the P value (for disease-free survival) is not significant (.0768).”
Further, a quality of life analysis showed that patients in the 18-month treatment arm performed significantly better on 6 of 21 scales and 13 of 55 items addressing various quality of life factors. On two of these items – hot flushes and enjoyable sex – a clinically relevant difference of 10 or more points in mean scores was noted, he said.
Long-term ADT combined with radiotherapy is a standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer, but the optimal duration of treatment has not been defined, Dr. Nabid said.
The current trial looked at treatment duration in patients 80 years and younger (median of 71 in both groups) with T3-T4 disease, PSA levels greater than 20 mg/ml, and Gleason score greater than 7, with normal hepatic function and no regional disease or distant metastases. ADT included a 50 mg initial dose of bicalutamide daily for 1 month plus 10.8 mg of subcutaneous goserelin every 3 months, as well as pelvic and prostate radiotherapy.
On both univariate and multivariate analyses including age, Gleason score greater than 7, treatment duration, prostate-specific antigen greater than 20, T3-T4 disease, and biochemical failure during follow-up, only age and Gleason score were significantly associated with overall survival (HR, 1.05 for age in both analyses, and 1.40 and 1.42, respectively for Gleason score greater than 7 on univariate and multivariate analyses).
“In localized high-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy duration can be safely reduced from 36 to 18 months,” Dr. Nabid said, adding that 18 months could represent a threshold effect in ADT duration and that side effects and treatment costs can be reduced with shorter duration of therapy.
“Eighteen months of ADT represents a new standard of care,” he concluded.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Nabid has been a speaker, advisory board member, and/or received financial support from Janssen Canada, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer.
Although it may seem reasonable to conclude based on the findings of this study that 18 months of ADT is similar to 36 months of ADT, the study was not designed to make this determination, according to Susan Halabi, PhD.
“In fact, a nonsignificant test result from a superiority comparison cannot be used to establish similarity,” Dr. Halabi said during a discussion of the findings at the meeting.
While she congratulated Dr. Nabid for his findings and long-term patient follow-up, she said questions remain.
“The optimal duration of ADT for high-risk localized prostate cancer is not known and remains a clinically important question,” she said.
Dr. Halabi is with Duke University, Durham, N.C. She reported consultant and/or advisory roles with Dendreon, Eisai, Genentech, Sanofi, and Tokai Pharmaceuticals and has received travel accommodations or expenses from Dendreon.
Although it may seem reasonable to conclude based on the findings of this study that 18 months of ADT is similar to 36 months of ADT, the study was not designed to make this determination, according to Susan Halabi, PhD.
“In fact, a nonsignificant test result from a superiority comparison cannot be used to establish similarity,” Dr. Halabi said during a discussion of the findings at the meeting.
While she congratulated Dr. Nabid for his findings and long-term patient follow-up, she said questions remain.
“The optimal duration of ADT for high-risk localized prostate cancer is not known and remains a clinically important question,” she said.
Dr. Halabi is with Duke University, Durham, N.C. She reported consultant and/or advisory roles with Dendreon, Eisai, Genentech, Sanofi, and Tokai Pharmaceuticals and has received travel accommodations or expenses from Dendreon.
Although it may seem reasonable to conclude based on the findings of this study that 18 months of ADT is similar to 36 months of ADT, the study was not designed to make this determination, according to Susan Halabi, PhD.
“In fact, a nonsignificant test result from a superiority comparison cannot be used to establish similarity,” Dr. Halabi said during a discussion of the findings at the meeting.
While she congratulated Dr. Nabid for his findings and long-term patient follow-up, she said questions remain.
“The optimal duration of ADT for high-risk localized prostate cancer is not known and remains a clinically important question,” she said.
Dr. Halabi is with Duke University, Durham, N.C. She reported consultant and/or advisory roles with Dendreon, Eisai, Genentech, Sanofi, and Tokai Pharmaceuticals and has received travel accommodations or expenses from Dendreon.
CHICAGO – Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy can safely be reduced from 36 to 18 months without compromising outcomes or quality of life in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, according to the final results of a randomized phase III trial.
At a median of 9.4 year follow-up of 630 patients who were randomized to receive pelvic and prostate radiotherapy combined with either 36 or 18 months of ADT, the 10-year overall survival rate was 62.4% and 62.0% in the treatment arms, respectively (global hazard ratio, 1.024), Abdenour Nabid, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Disease-free survival was 44.5% and 39.2% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.835). This difference did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Nabid of Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
The disease-free survival curves separated over the course of the study, mainly because of a significant difference in biochemical failure between the groups, which favored the 36-month arm (24.8% vs. 31.0%; HR, 0.714), but this is not an unexpected finding with longer treatment, he explained.
“Does this biochemical control give you more control of the disease? I’m not sure,” he said, noting that bone metastases alone occurred in 23 and 24 patients in the 36 and 18 month treatment groups, respectively, and bone plus other site metastases occurred in 11 patients in each group. “At the end of the day, the P value (for disease-free survival) is not significant (.0768).”
Further, a quality of life analysis showed that patients in the 18-month treatment arm performed significantly better on 6 of 21 scales and 13 of 55 items addressing various quality of life factors. On two of these items – hot flushes and enjoyable sex – a clinically relevant difference of 10 or more points in mean scores was noted, he said.
Long-term ADT combined with radiotherapy is a standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer, but the optimal duration of treatment has not been defined, Dr. Nabid said.
The current trial looked at treatment duration in patients 80 years and younger (median of 71 in both groups) with T3-T4 disease, PSA levels greater than 20 mg/ml, and Gleason score greater than 7, with normal hepatic function and no regional disease or distant metastases. ADT included a 50 mg initial dose of bicalutamide daily for 1 month plus 10.8 mg of subcutaneous goserelin every 3 months, as well as pelvic and prostate radiotherapy.
On both univariate and multivariate analyses including age, Gleason score greater than 7, treatment duration, prostate-specific antigen greater than 20, T3-T4 disease, and biochemical failure during follow-up, only age and Gleason score were significantly associated with overall survival (HR, 1.05 for age in both analyses, and 1.40 and 1.42, respectively for Gleason score greater than 7 on univariate and multivariate analyses).
“In localized high-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy duration can be safely reduced from 36 to 18 months,” Dr. Nabid said, adding that 18 months could represent a threshold effect in ADT duration and that side effects and treatment costs can be reduced with shorter duration of therapy.
“Eighteen months of ADT represents a new standard of care,” he concluded.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Nabid has been a speaker, advisory board member, and/or received financial support from Janssen Canada, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer.
CHICAGO – Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation therapy can safely be reduced from 36 to 18 months without compromising outcomes or quality of life in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, according to the final results of a randomized phase III trial.
At a median of 9.4 year follow-up of 630 patients who were randomized to receive pelvic and prostate radiotherapy combined with either 36 or 18 months of ADT, the 10-year overall survival rate was 62.4% and 62.0% in the treatment arms, respectively (global hazard ratio, 1.024), Abdenour Nabid, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Disease-free survival was 44.5% and 39.2% in the groups, respectively (HR, 0.835). This difference did not reach statistical significance, said Dr. Nabid of Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
The disease-free survival curves separated over the course of the study, mainly because of a significant difference in biochemical failure between the groups, which favored the 36-month arm (24.8% vs. 31.0%; HR, 0.714), but this is not an unexpected finding with longer treatment, he explained.
“Does this biochemical control give you more control of the disease? I’m not sure,” he said, noting that bone metastases alone occurred in 23 and 24 patients in the 36 and 18 month treatment groups, respectively, and bone plus other site metastases occurred in 11 patients in each group. “At the end of the day, the P value (for disease-free survival) is not significant (.0768).”
Further, a quality of life analysis showed that patients in the 18-month treatment arm performed significantly better on 6 of 21 scales and 13 of 55 items addressing various quality of life factors. On two of these items – hot flushes and enjoyable sex – a clinically relevant difference of 10 or more points in mean scores was noted, he said.
Long-term ADT combined with radiotherapy is a standard treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer, but the optimal duration of treatment has not been defined, Dr. Nabid said.
The current trial looked at treatment duration in patients 80 years and younger (median of 71 in both groups) with T3-T4 disease, PSA levels greater than 20 mg/ml, and Gleason score greater than 7, with normal hepatic function and no regional disease or distant metastases. ADT included a 50 mg initial dose of bicalutamide daily for 1 month plus 10.8 mg of subcutaneous goserelin every 3 months, as well as pelvic and prostate radiotherapy.
On both univariate and multivariate analyses including age, Gleason score greater than 7, treatment duration, prostate-specific antigen greater than 20, T3-T4 disease, and biochemical failure during follow-up, only age and Gleason score were significantly associated with overall survival (HR, 1.05 for age in both analyses, and 1.40 and 1.42, respectively for Gleason score greater than 7 on univariate and multivariate analyses).
“In localized high-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy, androgen deprivation therapy duration can be safely reduced from 36 to 18 months,” Dr. Nabid said, adding that 18 months could represent a threshold effect in ADT duration and that side effects and treatment costs can be reduced with shorter duration of therapy.
“Eighteen months of ADT represents a new standard of care,” he concluded.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Nabid has been a speaker, advisory board member, and/or received financial support from Janssen Canada, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer.
AT THE 2017 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Ten-year overall survival was 62.4% and 62.0% for patients randomized to receive pelvic and prostate radiotherapy combined with either 36 or 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy, respectively (global hazard ratio, 1.024).
Data source: A randomized phase III trial of 630 patients.
Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Nabid has been a speaker, advisory board member, and/or received financial support from Janssen Canada, Sanofi, Astellas, and Bayer.
VIDEO: Survival improves when cancer patients self-report symptoms
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
CHICAGO – Patients with metastatic cancer who self-reported symptoms during routine cancer treatment experienced a number of benefits, including a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, according to findings from a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
The median overall survival among 441 patients receiving treatment for metastatic breast, lung, genitourinary, or gynecologic cancer who were randomized to the intervention arm was more than 5 months longer – a nearly 20% increase – than in 325 patients who received standard care (31.2 vs. 26 months), Ethan Basch, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Additionally, 31% of patients in the intervention arm had better quality of life/physical functioning, compared with those in the control arm, and 7% fewer patients in the intervention arm visited an emergency room during the course of the study. The duration of potentially life-prolonging chemotherapy was increased by an average of 2 months in the intervention arm, he said.
The findings were simultaneously published online in a research letter in JAMA (2017 Jun 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156).
Symptoms such as nausea, pain, and fatigue are common among patients with metastatic cancer, Dr. Basch said. “Unfortunately, they often go undetected by doctors and nurses until they become severe and physically debilitating,” he added, explaining that patients are often hesitant to call the office to report symptoms between visits.
Even at office visits, competing topics can interfere with communication about symptoms, he noted.
He and his colleagues hypothesized that self-reporting of patient symptoms between visits or prior to a visit while in the clinic waiting area would prompt earlier intervention and improve symptom control and outcomes.
Study subjects were patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had advanced solid genitourinary, gynecologic, breast, or lung tumors and who were receiving outpatient chemotherapy. Those assigned to the intervention group used tablet computers and an online web survey system to report on 12 symptoms commonly experienced during chemotherapy. The system triggers an alert to a nurse when a severe or worsening symptom is reported. Patients in the usual care group discussed symptoms during office visits and were encouraged to call the office between visits if they experienced concerning symptoms.
Patients remained on the study until discontinuation of all cancer treatment, hospice, or death.
One possible explanation for the findings is that this self-reporting approach prompts clinicians to manage symptoms before they cause serious downstream complications, Dr. Basch said.
The approach may also keep patients more physically functional, which is known from prior studies to have a strong association with better survival, and the approach may also improve management of chemotherapy side effects, enabling longer duration of beneficial cancer treatment, he said, explaining that, “in oncology, we often are limited in our ability to give life-prolonging treatment because people don’t tolerate it well.”
“This approach should be considered for inclusion in standard symptoms management as a component of high quality cancer care,” he concluded, noting that efforts are underway to test the next generation of systems to improve communication between patients and care teams and to figure out how best to integrate these tools into oncology practice.
The system used in the this study was designed for research, but a number of companies have tools currently available for patient-reported outcomes, and others are being developed, Dr. Basch said, noting that a National Cancer Institute questionnaire – the PRO-CTCAE – is publicly available and could be loaded into patients’ electronic health records for this purpose as well.
ASCO’s chief medical officer, Richard L. Schilsky, MD, said the findings demonstrate that “these frequent touches between the patient and their health care providers obviously can make a huge difference in their outcomes.”
Additionally, ASCO expert Harold J. Burstein, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said this “exciting and compelling study” validates the feeling among many clinicians that patient-focused, team-based care can improve outcomes in a meaningful way for patients. In a video interview, he further discusses the challenges with implementing a system like this and particularly with obtaining funding to support implementation.
“If this was a drug, if it was iPad-olizumab, it would be worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars per year to have something that improved overall survival. We don’t have those same kinds of dollars to help implement these into our electronic health records or our systems. We need to find ways to support that and make it happen,” he said.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
AT THE 2017 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Median overall survival was 31.2, vs. 26 months, with self-reporting of symptoms, vs. usual care.
Data source: A randomized controlled clinical trial of 766 patients.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Basch and Dr. Burstein each reported having no disclosures.
Immune-agonist combo has activity against several tumor types
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
CHICAGO – A combination of the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with an experimental immune-enhancing monoclonal antibody induced clinical responses in patients with several different solid tumor types, including some patients who had disease progression on a PD-1 inhibitor, investigators reported.
The investigational agent, euphoniously named BMS-986156 (986156), is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 agonist monoclonal antibody with high affinity binding for the glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor–related gene (GITR).
BMS-986156156 “induces potent antitumor immunity by several mechanisms. First, it increases T-effector cell survival and function. Second, it promotes T-regulatory cell depletion and reduction through its conversion to other immune cells. As well, it reduces T-reg-mediated suppression of T-effector cells,” said Lillian L Siu, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.
In preclinical studies, the combination of an anti-GITR and an anti-PD-1 agent showed synergistic activity against murine tumor models.
Dr. Siu and colleagues conducted a phase I/IIa study of BMS-986156 with or without nivolumab in 66 patients with advanced solid tumors.
The 29 patients assigned to BMS-986156 monotherapy were started at 10 mg every 2 weeks, which was gradually titrated upward to find the maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg Q2 weeks.
The 37 patients assigned to the combination were started on a dose of 30-mg nivolumab and 240-mg BMS-986156. The nivolumab dose but not the BMS-986156 dose was then titrated upward to a maximum tolerated dose of 240 mg for each agent. This dose was based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies.
Tumor types included melanoma, cervical, colon, breast, renal, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma.
Approximately one-third of patients in the monotherapy arm and nearly half of those in the combination arm had undergone three or more prior therapies for cancer. Seven patients in the monotherapy group and five in the combination group had previously received a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.
The median duration of treatment ranged from 7 to 15.5 weeks for 156 monotherapy and 8 to 18 weeks for the combination.
Safe and well tolerated
There were no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths in either study arm, and patients tolerated both BMS-986156 monotherapy and the combination well. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the monotherapy arm.
“In the combination arm, the toxicity is very consistent with that observed with nivolumab monotherapy alone,” Dr. Siu said.
The only grade 4 event in this group was an increase in blood creatine phosphokinase. In this group, there were six grade 3 adverse events, including one each of colitis, dehydration, fatigue and increases in hepatic enzymes, lipase increase, and lung infection.
In pharmacokinetic studies, the action of the combinations was linear, with dose-related increases in exposure, and the combination had low immunogenicity, with no patients developing persistent antidrug antibodies.
The combination was also associated with increases in natural killer and CD8 cells in peripheral blood. Immunophenotyping of patients treated with the 240/240-mg dose of the combination showed increased proliferation and activation of CD8 effector cells, central memory cells, and CD4 cells.
Early promise
Dr. Siu reviewed interim efficacy results for the five patients treated with the combination who had responses.
For example, a 44-year-old woman with metastatic cervical cancer – a tumor type known to have high levels of GITR expression – had received more than three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy with a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor. She had a partial response with the combination, with an approximately 62% reduction in tumor burden. She had an ongoing response to the combination at the time of data cutoff in March 2017.
Two other patients had partial responses after progression on an anti-PD-1 agents, including one with nasopharyngeal cancer who had received three prior lines of therapy, including chemotherapy and a PD-1 inhibitor. This patient had an approximately 43% reduction in tumor burden, with a 17-week duration of response and ongoing response at data cutoff.
The other patient was a 59-year-old with malignant melanoma that had advanced on pembrolizumab (Keytruda). This patient too had received three prior lines of therapy, including a BRAF inhibitor, anti-PD-1, and BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination.
This patient had a response of 24-week duration at the time of data cutoff. It is ongoing, Dr. Liu said.
“This combination of immune agonists was safe with a low incidence of severe toxicity, and there was no maximum tolerated dose; however, the maximum administered dose may not be the most effective dose to move forward,” commented Siwen Hu-Lieskovan MD, PhD, from the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, the invited discussant.
She noted that activity of the combination has been seen in a wide range of tumor histologies but added that further biomarker studies will be critical for identifying patients who are likely to respond.
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.
AT ASCO 2017
Key clinical point: A combination of a GITR-agonist and anti-PD-1 agent was safe and produced partial responses in patients with heavily pretreated advanced cancers.
Major finding: Two patients with cancers that had progression on a PD-1 inhibitor had durable partial responses.
Data source: A phase I/IIa dose-finding and safety study of BMS986156 alone or in combination with nivolumab (Opdivo).
Disclosures: The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Siu disclosed research funding from the company and others and consulting/advising for several different companies. Dr. Hu-Lieskovan disclosed institutional research funding from BMS and other companies, as well as honoraria and consulting and serving in an advisory capacity for companies other than BMS. Several coauthors are employees of the company.