Thomas Powles

EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2014 Update.

CONTEXT The European Association of Urology Guideline Panel for Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for RCC management. OBJECTIVES To provide an update of the 2010 RCC guideline based on a standardised methodology that is robust, transparent, reproducible, and reliable. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION For the 2014 update, the panel prioritised the following topics: percutaneous biopsy of renal masses, treatment of localised RCC (including surgical and nonsurgical management), lymph node dissection, management of venous thrombus, systemic therapy, and local treatment of metastases, for which evidence synthesis was undertaken based on systematic reviews adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, trial registries, conference proceedings) were searched (January 2000 to November 2013) including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled studies with a comparator arm. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence were performed. The remaining sections of the document were updated following a structured literature assessment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated. For the various systematic reviews, the search identified a total of 10,862 articles. A total of 151 studies reporting on 78,792 patients were eligible for inclusion; where applicable, data from RCTs were included and meta-analyses were performed. For RCTs, there was low RoB across studies; however, clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented data pooling for most studies. The majority of studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts based on single or multi-institutional data or national registries. The exception was for systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, in which several RCTs have been performed, resulting in recommendations based on higher levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS The 2014 guideline has been updated by a multidisciplinary panel using the highest methodological standards, and provides the best and most reliable contemporary evidence base for RCC management. PATIENT SUMMARY The European Association of Urology Guideline Panel for Renal Cell Carcinoma has thoroughly evaluated available research data on kidney cancer to establish international standards for the care of kidney cancer patients.

Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma have few treatment options after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this trial, we assessed treatment with atezolizumab, an engineered humanised immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that binds selectively to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), in this patient population. METHODS For this multicentre, single-arm, two-cohort, phase 2 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled from 70 major academic medical centres and community oncology practices in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria for enrolment were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), adequate haematological and end-organ function, and no autoimmune disease or active infections. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens with sufficient viable tumour content were needed from all patients before enrolment. Patients received treatment with intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg, given every 3 weeks). PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) was assessed prospectively by immunohistochemistry. The co-primary endpoints were the independent review facility-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST v1.1 and the investigator-assessed objective response rate according to immune-modified RECIST, analysed by intention to treat. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to assess whether the objective response rate was significantly higher than the historical control rate of 10% at an α level of 0·05. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02108652. FINDINGS Between May 13, 2014, and Nov 19, 2014, 486 patients were screened and 315 patients were enrolled into the study. Of these patients, 310 received atezolizumab treatment (five enrolled patients later did not meet eligibility criteria and were not dosed with study drug). The PD-L1 expression status on infiltrating immune cells (ICs) in the tumour microenvironment was defined by the percentage of PD-L1-positive immune cells: IC0 (<1%), IC1 (≥1% but <5%), and IC2/3 (≥5%). The primary analysis (data cutoff May 5, 2015) showed that compared with a historical control overall response rate of 10%, treatment with atezolizumab resulted in a significantly improved RECIST v1.1 objective response rate for each prespecified immune cell group (IC2/3: 27% [95% CI 19-37], p<0·0001; IC1/2/3: 18% [13-24], p=0·0004) and in all patients (15% [11-20], p=0·0058). With longer follow-up (data cutoff Sept 14, 2015), by independent review, objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 18-36) in the IC2/3 group, 18% (13-24) in the IC1/2/3 group, and 15% (11-19) overall in all 310 patients. With a median follow-up of 11·7 months (95% CI 11·4-12·2), ongoing responses were recorded in 38 (84%) of 45 responders. Exploratory analyses showed The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) subtypes and mutation load to be independently predictive for response to atezolizumab. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, of which fatigue was the most common (five patients [2%]), occurred in 50 (16%) of 310 treated patients. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 15 (5%) of 310 treated patients, with pneumonitis, increased aspartate aminotransferase, increased alanine aminotransferase, rash, and dyspnoea being the most common. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION Atezolizumab showed durable activity and good tolerability in this patient population. Increased levels of PD-L1 expression on immune cells were associated with increased response. This report is the first to show the association of TCGA subtypes with response to immune checkpoint inhibition and to show the importance of mutation load as a biomarker of response to this class of agents in advanced urothelial carcinoma. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials

BACKGROUND Early findings on the use of tamoxifen or raloxifene as prophylaxis against breast cancer have been mixed; we update available data and overview the combined results. METHODS All five randomised prevention trials comparing tamoxifen or raloxifene with placebo were included. Relevant data on contralateral breast tumours and side-effects were included from an overview of adjuvant trials of tamoxifen versus control. FINDINGS The tamoxifen prevention trials showed a 38% (95% CI 28-46; p<0.0001) reduction in breast-cancer incidence. There was no effect for breast cancers negative for oestrogen receptor (ER; hazard ratio 1.22 [0.89-1.67]; p=0.21), but ER-positive cancers were decreased by 48% (36-58; p<0.0001) in the tamoxifen prevention trials. Age had no apparent effect. Rates of endometrial cancer were increased in all tamoxifen prevention trials (consensus relative risk 2.4 [1.5-4.0]; p=0.0005) and the adjuvant trials (relative risk 3.4 [1.8-6.4]; p=0.0002); no increase has been seen so far with raloxifene. Venous thromboembolic events were increased in all tamoxifen studies (relative risk 1.9 [1.4-2.6] in the prevention trials; p<0.0001) and with raloxifene. Overall, there was no effect on non-breast-cancer mortality; the only cause showing a mortality increase was pulmonary embolism (six vs two). INTERPRETATION The evidence now clearly shows that tamoxifen can reduce the risk of ER-positive breast cancer. New approaches are needed to prevent ER-negative breast cancer and to reduce the side-effects of tamoxifen. Newer agents such as raloxifene and the aromatase inhibitors need to be evaluated. Although tamoxifen cannot yet be recommended as a preventive agent (except possibly in women at very high risk with a low risk of side-effects), continued follow-up of the current trials is essential for identification of a subgroup of high-risk, healthy women for whom the risk-benefit ratio is sufficiently positive.

European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ Cell Cancer: A Report of the Second Meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): Part I

OBJECTIVES The first consensus report presented by the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG) in the year 2004 has found widespread approval by many colleagues throughout the world. In November 2006, the group met a second time under the auspices of the Department of Urology of the Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. METHODS Medical oncologists, urological surgeons, radiation oncologists as well as pathologists from several European countries reviewed and discussed the data that had emerged since the 2002 conference, and incorporated the new data into updated and revised guidelines. As for the first meeting, the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was applied. The results of the discussion were compiled by the writing committee. All participants have agreed to this final update. RESULTS The first part of the consensus paper describes the clinical presentation of the primary tumor, its treatment, the importance and treatment of testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN), histological classification, staging and prognostic factors, and treatment of stage I seminoma and non-seminoma. CONCLUSIONS Whereas the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2004 remain valid 3 yr later, refinements in the treatment of early- and advanced-stage testicular cancer have emerged from clinical trials. Despite technical improvements, expert clinical skills will continue to be one of the major determinants for the prognosis of patients with germ cell cancer. In addition, the particular needs of testicular cancer survivors have been acknowledged.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy and the Incidence of Non–AIDS-Defining Cancers in People With HIV Infection

PURPOSE The effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on the incidence of non-AIDS-defining cancers (NADCs) is unclear. METHODS We have investigated the occurrence of NADCs in a prospective cohort of 11,112 HIV-positive individuals, with 71,687 patient-years of follow-up. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated using general population incidence data. We investigated the effect of calendar period, HIV parameters, and immunologic and treatment-related factors on the incidence of these cancers using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS The SIR for all NADCs was 1.96 (95% CI, 1.66 to 2.29). There was no significant excess in incidence in the pre-HAART era (1983 to 1995; SIR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.47). However, the incidence increased in the early HAART period (1996 to 2001) and remains elevated in the most recent established HAART period (2002 to 2007; SIR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.72, and SIR 2.49; 95% CI, 2.00 to 3.07, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that use of HAART (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.39) and a nadir CD4 count less than 200/microL (HR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.54) were associated with an increased risk. Only the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) were associated with a significantly increased risk of NADCs (HR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.08). Much of this association was attributable to an increased risk of Hodgkins lymphoma with NNRTIs (HR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.69). CONCLUSION Since the introduction of HAART, there has been a significantly increased risk of NADCs, which has now stabilized. A number of factors are associated with this increased risk, including HAART use. There may be an association between the use of NNRTIs and the development of Hodgkins lymphoma.

Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial Assessing Treatment Preference for Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: PISCES Study

PURPOSE Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choice in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly between approved targeted therapies with similar efficacy. This double-blind cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety factors on their stated preference. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib 800 mg per day for 10 weeks, a 2-week washout, and then sunitinib 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks, or the reverse sequence. The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assessed by questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other end points and analyses included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL. RESULTS Of 169 randomly assigned patients, 114 met the following prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis: exposure to both treatments, no disease progression before cross over, and completion of the preference questionnaire. Significantly more patients preferred pazopanib (70%) over sunitinib (22%); 8% expressed no preference (P < .001). All preplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopanib. Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the main reasons for preferring pazopanib, with less diarrhea being the most cited reason for preferring sunitinib. Physicians also preferred pazopanib (61%) over sunitinib (22%); 17% expressed no preference. Adverse events were consistent with each drugs known profile. Pazopanib was superior to sunitinib in HRQoL measures evaluating fatigue, hand/foot soreness, and mouth/throat soreness. CONCLUSION This innovative cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HRQoL and safety as key influencing factors.

Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. METHODS In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. FINDINGS Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). INTERPRETATION Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. FUNDING Exelixis Inc.

Atezolizumab, an Anti–Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Antibody, in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Long-Term Safety, Clinical Activity, and Immune Correlates From a Phase Ia Study

PURPOSE The objective was to determine the safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (MPDL3280A), a humanized programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Exploratory biomarkers were analyzed and associated with outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seventy patients with metastatic RCC, including clear cell (ccRCC; n = 63) and non-clear cell (ncc; n = 7) histologies, received atezolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. PD-L1 expression was scored at four diagnostic levels (0/1/2/3) that were based on PD-L1 staining on tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) with the SP142 assay. Primary end points were safety and toxicity; secondary end points assessed clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and immune-related response criteria. Plasma and tissue were analyzed for potential biomarkers of atezolizumab response. RESULTS Grade 3 treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 17% and 4% of patients, respectively, and there were no grade 4 or 5 events. Sixty-three patients with ccRCC were evaluable for overall survival (median, 28.9 months; 95% CI, 20.0 months to not reached) and progression-free survival (median, 5.6 months; 95% CI, 3.9 to 8.2 months), and 62 patients were evaluable for objective response rate (ORR; 15%; 95% CI, 7% to 26%). ORR was evaluated on the basis of PD-L1 IC expression (IC1/2/3: n = 33; 18%; 95% CI, 7% to 35%; and IC0: n = 22; 9%; 95% CI, 1% to 29%). The ORR for patients with Fuhrman grade 4 and/or sarcomatoid histology was 22% (n = 18; 95% CI, 6% to 48%). Decreases in circulating plasma markers and acute-phase proteins and an increased baseline effector T-cell-to-regulatory T-cell gene expression ratio correlated with response to atezolizumab. CONCLUSION Atezolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic RCC. Correlative studies identified potential predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. These results have guided ongoing studies and combinations with atezolizumab in RCC.

Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377–1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478–496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497–513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.