D. Scott Ernst

Health-Related Quality of Life in Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated With Prednisone Alone or Mitoxantrone and Prednisone

PURPOSE A combination of mitoxantrone plus prednisone is preferable to prednisone alone for reduction of pain in men with metastatic, hormone-resistant, prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HQL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with metastatic prostate cancer (n = 161) were randomized to receive either daily prednisone alone or mitoxantrone (every 3 weeks) plus prednisone. Those who received prednisone alone could have mitoxantrone added after 6 weeks if there was no improvement in pain. HQL was assessed before treatment initiation and then every 3 weeks using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Quality of Life Module-Prostate 14 (QOLM-P14), a trial-specific module developed for this study. An intent-to-treat analysis was used to determine the mean duration of HQL improvement and differences in improvement duration between groups of patients. RESULTS At 6 weeks, both groups showed improvement in several HQL domains, and only physical functioning and pain were better in the mitoxantrone-plus-prednisone group than in the prednisone-alone group. After 6 weeks, patients taking prednisone showed no improvement in HQL scores, whereas those taking mitoxantrone plus prednisone showed significant improvements in global quality of life (P =.009), four functioning domains, and nine symptoms (.001 < P <. 01), and the improvement (> 10 units on a scale of 0 to100) lasted longer than in the prednisone-alone group (.004 < P <.05). The addition of mitoxantrone to prednisone after failure of prednisone alone was associated with improvements in pain, pain impact, pain relief, insomnia, and global quality of life (.001 < P <.003). CONCLUSION Treatment with mitoxantrone plus prednisone was associated with greater and longer-lasting improvement in several HQL domains and symptoms than treatment with prednisone alone.

Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND The benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for overall survival (OS) is unclear in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of targeted therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine OS benefit of CN compared with no CN in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective data from patients with synchronous mRCC (n=1658) from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were used to compare 982 mRCC patients who had a CN with 676 mRCC patients who did not. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OS was compared and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for IMDC poor prognostic criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable, intermediate, or poor in 9%, 63%, and 28% vs 1%, 45%, and 54%, respectively). The median OS of patients with CN versus without CN was 20.6 versus 9.5 mo (p<0.0001). When adjusted for IMDC criteria to correct for imbalances, the HR of death was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.69; p<0.0001). Patients estimated to survive <12 mo may receive marginal benefit from CN. Patients who have four or more of the IMDC prognostic criteria did not benefit from CN. Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS CN is beneficial in synchronous mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy, even after adjusting for prognostic factors. Patients with estimated survival times <12 mo or four or more IMDC prognostic factors may not benefit from CN. This information may aid in patient selection as we await results from randomized controlled trials. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.

The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model as a prognostic tool in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma previously treated with first-line targeted therapy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND Previous prognostic models for second-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma have not been studied in the setting of targeted therapy. We sought to validate the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) model in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving next-line targeted therapy after progression on first-line targeted therapy. METHODS In this population-based study, we analysed patients who received second-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma at 19 centres in Canada, USA, Greece, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark. The primary endpoint was overall survival since the initiation of second-line therapy. We compared the prognostic performance of the IMDC model with the three-factor MSKCC model used for previously treated patients for overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy. FINDINGS Between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 30, 2012, we included 1021 patients treated with second-line targeted therapy. Median overall survival since the start of second-line targeted therapy was 12·5 months (95% CI 11·3-14·3). Five of six predefined factors in the IMDC model (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, Karnofsky performance status [KPS] <80, and <1 year from diagnosis to first-line targeted therapy) were independent predictors of poor overall survival on multivariable analysis. The concordance index using all six prognostic factors (ie, also including hypercalcaemia) was 0·70 (95% CI 0·67-0·72) with the IMDC model and was 0·66 (95% CI 0·64-0·68) with the three-factor MSKCC model. When patients were divided into three risk categories using IMDC criteria, median overall survival was 35·3 months (95% CI 28·3-47·8) in the favourable risk group (n=76), 16·6 months (14·9-17·9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5·4 months (4·7-6·8) in the poor risk group (n=261). INTERPRETATION The IMDC prognostic model can be applied to patients previously treated with targeted therapy, in addition to previously validated populations in first-line targeted therapy. The IMDC prognostic model in the second-line targeted therapy setting has an improved prognostic performance and is applicable to a more contemporary patient cohort than that of the three-factor MSKCC model. FUNDING DF/HCC Kidney Cancer SPORE P50 CA101942-01, Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Trust Family, Loker Pinard, Michael Brigham, and Gerald DeWulf.

Phase II Study of Perifosine in Previously Untreated Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

SummaryPurpose: To assess the response rate and toxicity of the alkylphosphocholine analogue, perifosine, in patients with metastatic or recurrent malignant melanoma.Patients and Methods: Patients had histologically proven, unidimensionally measurable disease which was incurable by standard therapy. Prior adjuvant immunotherapy was allowed but patients had not received prior chemotherapy. Perisfosine was given orally as a loading dose of 900 mg on day 1 followed by a maintenance dose of 150 mg po on days 2–21 in a 28 day cycle. The loading dose was 300 mg on day 1 of all subsequent cycles. Tumour response was assessed every 2 cycles.Results: 18 patients were accrued over 7 mos. No objective responses occurred in the 14 evaluable patients. Three patients (21%) achieved stable disease after 2 cycles and 11 had progression. Seventeen patients were evaluable for toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicities included: diarrhea (12%), arthralgia (12%), nausea (6%), headache (6%), and fatigue (6%). No grade 3 or 4 hematological or biochemical toxicity were observed. Seventy-seven percent of patients received ≥90% of planned cycle 1 dose intensity and 58% received ≥90% of planned dose for cycle 2+. Four patients required dose reductions; treatment was delayed in 5 patients; and 5 patients missed doses because of toxicity.Conclusions: Perifosine can be safely administered when given as an initial loading dose followed by daily maintenance therapy over 28 days. Gastrointestinal toxicity is common but generally of low grade. Hematological toxicity is minimal. No objective responses were observed. No further development of single-agent perifosine is recommended in malignant melanoma.

Vismodegib in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma (STEVIE): a pre-planned interim analysis of an international, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND The Hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib has shown clinical benefit in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma and is approved for treatment of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma for whom surgery is inappropriate. STEVIE was designed to assess the safety of vismodegib in a situation similar to routine practice, with a long follow-up. METHODS In this multicentre, open-label trial, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced basal cell carcinoma or metastatic basal cell carcinoma were recruited from regional referral centres or specialist clinics. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and adequate organ function. Patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery. All patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib capsules once a day on a continuous basis in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was safety (incidence of adverse events until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects), with assessments on day 1 of each treatment cycle (28 days) by principal investigator and coinvestigators at the site. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary endpoints. The safety evaluable population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Patients with histologically confirmed basal cell carcinoma who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the efficacy analysis. An interim analysis was pre-planned after 500 patients achieved 1 year of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01367665. The study is still ongoing. FINDINGS Between June 30, 2011, and Nov 6, 2014, we enrolled 1227 patients. At clinical cutoff (Nov 6, 2013), 499 patients (468 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and 31 with metastatic basal cell carcinoma) had received study drug and had the potential to be followed up for 12 months or longer. Treatment was discontinued in 400 (80%) patients; 180 (36%) had adverse events, 70 (14%) had progressive disease, and 51 (10%) requested to stop treatment. Median duration of vismodegib exposure was 36·4 weeks (IQR 17·7-62·0). Adverse events happened in 491 (98%) patients; the most common were muscle spasms (317 [64%]), alopecia (307 [62%]), dysgeusia (269 [54%]), weight loss (162 [33%]), asthenia (141 [28%]), decreased appetite (126 [25%]), ageusia (112 [22%]), diarrhoea (83 [17%]), nausea (80 [16%]), and fatigue (80 [16%]). Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. We recorded serious adverse events in 108 (22%) of 499 patients. Of the 31 patients who died, 21 were the result of adverse events. As assessed by investigators, 302 (66·7%, 62·1-71·0) of 453 patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (153 complete responses and 149 partial responses); 11 (37·9%; 20·7-57·7) of 29 patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (two complete responses, nine partial responses). INTERPRETATION This study assessed the use of vismodegib in a setting representative of routine clinical practice for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. Our results show that treatment with vismodegib adds a novel therapeutic modality from which patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma can benefit substantially. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: Radiotherapy vs. Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery (ORATOR) – study protocol for a randomized phase II trial

BackgroundThe incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has markedly increased over the last three decades due to newly found associations with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Primary radiotherapy (RT) is the treatment of choice for OPSCC at most centers, and over the last decade, the addition of concurrent chemotherapy has led to a significant improvement in survival, but at the cost of increased acute and late toxicity. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has emerged as a promising alternative treatment, with preliminary case series demonstrating encouraging oncologic, functional, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes. However, comparisons of TORS and RT in a non-randomized fashion are susceptible to bias. The goal of this randomized phase II study is to compare QOL, functional outcomes, toxicity profiles, and survival following primary RT (± chemotherapy) vs. TORS (± adjuvant [chemo] RT) in patients with OPSCC.Methods/DesignThe target patient population comprises OPSCC patients who would be unlikely to require chemotherapy post-resection: Tumor stage T1-T2 with likely negative margins at surgery; Nodal stage N0-2, ≤3 cm in size, with no evidence of extranodal extension on imaging. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between Arm 1 (RT ± chemotherapy) and Arm 2 (TORS ± adjuvant [chemo] RT). In Arm 1, patients with N0 disease will receive RT alone, whereas N1-2 patients will receive concurrent chemoradiation. In Arm 2, patients will undergo TORS along with selective neck dissections, which may be staged. Pathologic high-risk features will be used to determine the requirement for adjuvant radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is QOL score using the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), with secondary endpoints including survival, toxicity, other QOL outcomes, and swallowing function. A sample of 68 patients is required.DiscussionThis study, if successful, will provide a much-needed randomized comparison of the conventional strategy of primary RT vs. the novel strategy of primary TORS. The trial is designed to provide a definitive QOL comparison between the two arms, and to inform the design of an eventual phase III trial for survival outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01590355

Third-line Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND The use of third-line targeted therapy (TTT) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is not well characterized and varies due to the lack of robust data to guide treatment decisions. This study examined the use of third-line therapy in a large international population. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use and efficacy of targeted therapy in a third-line setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Twenty-five international cancer centers provided consecutive data on 4824 mRCC patients who were treated with an approved targeted therapy. One thousand and twelve patients (21%) received TTT and were included in the analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Patients were analyzed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival using Kaplan-Meier curves, and were evaluated for overall response. Cox regression analyses were used to determine the statistical association between OS and the six factors included in the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic model. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients stratified by their IMDC prognostic risk status. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Everolimus was the most prevalent third-line therapy (27.5%), but sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, temsirolimus, and axitinib were all utilized in over ≥9% of patients. Patients receiving any TTT had an OS of 12.4 mo, a progression-free survival of 3.9 mo, and 61.1% of patients experienced an overall response of stable disease or better. Patients not receiving TTT had an OS of 2.1 mo. Patients with favorable- (7.2%) or intermediate-risk (65.3%) disease had the highest OS with TTT, 29.9 mo and 15.5 mo, respectively, while poor-risk (27.5%) patients survived 5.5 mo. Results are limited by the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS TTT remains highly heterogeneous. The IMDC prognostic criteria can be used to stratify third-line patients. TTT use in favorable- and intermediate-risk patients was associated with the greatest OS. PATIENT SUMMARY Patients with favorable- and intermediate-prognostic criteria disease treated with third-line targeted therapy have an associated longer overall survival compared with those with poor risk disease.

Efficacy of Second-line Targeted Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma According to Change from Baseline in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Prognostic Category

BACKGROUND We hypothesized that changes in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic category at start of second-line therapy (2L) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) might predict response. OBJECTIVE To assess outcomes of 2L according to type of therapy and change in IMDC prognostic category. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We performed a retrospective review of the IMDC database for mRCC patients who received first-line (1L) VEGF inhibitors (VEGFi) and then 2L with VEGFi or mTOR inhibitors (mTORi). IMDC prognostic categories were defined before each line of therapy (favorable, F; intermediate, I; poor, P). Data were analyzed for 1516 patients, of whom 89% had clear cell histology. INTERVENTION All included patients received targeted therapy for mRCC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and response to 2L were analyzed using Cox or logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS At start of 2L, 60% of patients remained in the same prognostic category; 9.0% improved (3% I → F; 6% P → I); 31% deteriorated (15% F → I or P; 16% I → P). Patients with the same or better IMDC prognostic category had a longer time to treatment failure if they remained on VEGFi compared to those who switched to mTORi (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] ranging from 0.33 to 0.78, adjusted p<0.05). Patients who deteriorated from F to I appeared more likely to benefit from switching to mTORi (median OS 16.5 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0-19.0 for VEGFi; 20.2 mo, 95% CI 14.3-26.1 for mTORi; AHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04-2.24; adjusted p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Changes in IMDC prognostic category predict the subsequent clinical course for patients with mRCC and provide a rational basis for selection of subsequent therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY The pattern of treatment failure might help to predict what the next treatment should be for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

ECF chemotherapy for liver metastases due to castration-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION Most men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have biochemical response to docetaxel, but the objective response rate is low. Liver metastases are uncommon with CRPC and associated with shorter survival. More active treatment might benefit these patients. Epirubicin, cisplatin and flurouracil (ECF) is a standard regimen for gastric cancer and response in CRPC liver metastases has been reported. We reviewed our experience with ECF in CRPC with the primary objective of determining its anti-tumour activity in patients with liver metastatic CRPC. METHODS Men with CRPC treated with ECF were identified from electronic databases and data were extracted from medical records. Men with tumours showing neuroendocrine features were excluded. RESULTS In total, we identified 14 CRPC patients treated with ECF were identified, of which 8 had liver metastases. The median age was 56 (range: 42-76) and all had multiple poor prognostic features. A median of 6 cycles of ECF were administered (range: 1-10) and toxicities were similar to previous reports. Of the 8 patients with liver metastases, 5 had partial remission. CONCLUSIONS ECF was highly active in this small selected group of younger men with liver metastases from CRPC and multiple poor prognostic features. Despite important limitations, this is the third report of high objective response rates with ECF in CRPC. Objective response rates are low with current monotherapies. A higher probability of ORR is preferred for critical organ disease, therefore the anti-tumour activity should encourage testing of ECF in comparison to the most active current therapies.

Consolidative high-dose chemotherapy after conventional-dose chemotherapy as first salvage treatment for male patients with metastatic germ cell tumours.

INTRODUCTION Some men with metastatic germ cell tumours that have progressed after response to initial cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy are cured with conventional dose first salvage chemotherapy (CDCT)--however, many are not. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) may be of value in these patients. Prognosis has recently been better defined by International Prognostic Factor Study Group (IPFSG) prognostic factors. HDCT after response to CDCT has been offered at our institution over the past two decades. We retrospectively assessed the validity of the IPFSG prognostic factors in our patients and evaluated the value of HDCT. METHODS We identified eligible men with metastatic germ cell tumour progressed after at least 3 cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and treated with cisplatin-based CDCT alone or with carboplatin-based HDCT. We also collected their clinical data. Patients were classified into risk groups using IPFSG factors, and progression-free and overall survival factors were analyzed and compared in patients treated with CDCT alone and with HDCT. RESULTS We identified 38 eligible first salvage patients who had received a median of 4 cycles (range, 1 to 7 cycles) of CDCT. Twenty patients received CDCT alone and 18 patients received CDCT plus HDCT. The overall median progression- free survival was 24.6 months (95%CI, 7.3 to 28.7 months) and overall median overall survival was 34.6 months (95%CI, 17.2 to 51.3 months). Distribution by IPFSG category and 2-year progression- free survival and 3-year overall survival rates within each risk category were very similar to the IPFSG results. There were two toxic deaths with CDCT and none with HDCT. Overall, patients treated with CDCT plus HDCT had improved progression- free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS The IPFSG prognostic risk factors appeared valid in our patient population. The safety of HDCT with etoposide and carboplatin was confirmed. HDCT was associated with improved progression- free survival and overall survival outcomes, consistent with observations of the IPFSG group. Ideally, the value of optimal HDCT should be determined in comparison to optimal CDCT as first salvage therapy in men with metastatic germ cell tumour with a randomized trial.