Cora N. Sternberg

Background: MIBC is an aggressive disease, with 5-year survival rates ranging from 36 to 48% for p T3/p T4/p N+tumors. Perioperative treatment can improve overall survival, with more robust evidence in favor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Few randomized studies have compared neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in bladder cancer. Consequently, it has been difficult to establish the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in MIBC. Methods: Data from patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (>pT2) collected from 2005 to 2012 within the RISC data base (Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelial Tract) were evaluated. Overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between NC and AC generated using the Kaplan-Meier method were compared for MIBC by log-rank test. All patients in this analysis received either NC or AC. Results: A total of 656 patients with MIBC (325 treated with AC and 331 with NC) were analyzed. The median DFS was 34.6 months (95% CI:25.3–43.9) for NC vs. 24.9 months (95% CI: 19.4–30.5) with AC, with a reduction in the risk of disease progression of 21% in favor of NC (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.96, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in terms of CSS (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79–1.43, P: 0.70), and OS (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.83–1.39, P = 0.57). Conclusions: This study demonstrates superiority in DFS for NC compared to AC. The positive prognostic impact of complete pathological response to NC was confirmed.

The SIU (Société Internationale d’Urologie)–ICUD (International Consultation on Urologic Diseases) working group on systemic therapy for metastatic bladder cancer has summarized the most recent findings on the aforementioned topic and came to conclusions and recommendations according to the evidence published. In Europe and the United States, treatment for metastatic UC has changed a great deal recently, mainly involving a move from chemotherapy to immune checkpoint blockers. This is particularly true in platinum-refractory disease, where supportive randomized data exist. Five checkpoint blockers have been approved in this setting by the FDA: avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab have been approved in Europe.

Purpose: PROTECT, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study, evaluated pazopanib efficacy and safety in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting. The relationship between pazopanib exposure (Ctrough) and efficacy and safety was evaluated. Patients and Methods: Evaluable steady-state blood trough concentrations were collected from 311 patients at week 3 or 5 (early Ctrough) and 250 patients at week 16 or 20 (late Ctrough). Pazopanib pharmacokinetic (PK) data were analyzed via a population model approach. Relationship between Ctrough or dose intensity and disease-free survival (DFS) was explored via Kaplan–Meier and multivariate analysis. Adverse events (AE) and AE-related treatment discontinuation proportions were summarized by Ctrough quartiles. Results: Most (>90%) patients with early or late Ctrough data started on 600 mg. Mean early and late Ctrough overlapped across dose levels. Patients with higher early Ctrough quartiles achieved longer DFS (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.82; P = 0.002). Patients achieving early or late Ctrough >20.5 μg/mL had significantly longer DFS: not estimable (NE) versus 29.5 months, P = 0.006, and NE versus 29.9 months, P = 0.008, respectively. Dose intensity up to week 8 did not correlate with DFS, consistent with population PK model–based simulations showing overlapping pazopanib exposure with 600 and 800 mg doses. The proportion of AE-related treatment discontinuation and grade 3/4 AEs, with the exception of hypertension, was not correlated to Ctrough. Conclusions: In the adjuvant setting, higher pazopanib Ctrough was associated with improved DFS and did not increase treatment discontinuations or grade 3/4 AEs, with the exception of hypertension. Clin Cancer Res; 24(13); 3005–13. ©2018 AACR. See related commentary by Rini, p. 2979

5042 Background: Ra-223, a targeted alpha therapy, prolonged survival with good safety in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial. REASSURE will evaluate Ra-223 short- and long-term safety in routine clinical practice settings. This is the first planned interim analysis (median 7 mo observation). Methods: This global, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled pts with mCRPC with bone metastases (mets) for whom Ra-223 therapy was planned. Follow-up will continue up to 7 years after last Ra-223 dose. Results: 1106 pts (437 N. America, 665 Europe, 4 not recorded) enrolled from 2 Sep 2014 to 22 Sep 2016. Baseline data are available from 583 pts receiving 1st- (1L), 2nd- (2L), or ≥3rd-line (≥3L) Ra-223 for mCRPC(Table). The majority of pts (n=369, 63%) completed 5–6 doses (1L, 70%; 2L, 64%; ≥3L, 49%); median 6 doses (1L,6; 2L, 6; ≥3L, 4). Treatment-emergent drug-related AEs occurred in 215 pts (37%). Post-treatment grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 14 pts (2.4%) and anemia in 45 (7.7%). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, Ra-223 was associated with no short-term safety concerns and appeared to be used in pts with less advanced mCRPC than in ALSYMPCA. The majority of pts on 1L/2L Ra-223 therapy received 5–6 doses. Ra-223 was often used with abiraterone or enzalutamide, but not chemotherapy. The next interim analysis in 2019 will report long-term safety and outcomes on all pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438. [Table: see text]