Citations

This report aims to shed light on the intricate challenges encountered during the diagnosis and treatment of an uncommon variant of prostate cancer—mixed adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the prostate. Prostate cancers of this nature pose distinctive diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas due to their rarity and complex histological composition. We present a case of a 63-year-old man with metastatic prostate cancer, featuring adenocarcinoma with squamous cell differentiation, who underwent a multimodal treatment approach. The patient responded to first-line carboplatin, docetaxel, and androgen deprivation therapy, followed by androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) maintenance. However, disease progression led to radiation therapy and a subsequent switch to Lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan after chemotherapy challenges. Comprehensive genetic profiling revealed shared mutations in the prostate and liver lesions, emphasizing the role of targeted therapies. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted therapy resulted in a notable PSA decline. This case highlights the evolving treatment landscape for rare prostate cancers, integrating genetic insights for tailored interventions. In conclusion, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the prostate is rare, emphasizing the imperative for enhanced comprehension in diagnosis and management. Our case suggests the potential efficacy of ARPI and PSMA-targeted therapies. Our findings advocate for a more nuanced approach to the management of this rare prostate cancer variant, leveraging genomic insights for personalized treatment strategies. This exploration serves as a foundation for further research and clinical considerations in addressing the challenges posed by mixed adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the prostate.

PURPOSE Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo ( Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

With more than 6000 attendees between in-person and virtual offerings, the American Epilepsy Society Meeting 2022 in Nashville, felt as busy as in prepandemic times. An ever-growing number of physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals gathered to learn a variety of topics about epilepsy. The program was carefully tailored to meet the needs of professionals with different interests and career stages. This article summarizes the different symposia presented at the meeting. Basic science lectures addressed the primary elements of seizure generation and pathophysiology of epilepsy in different disease states. Scientists congregated to learn about anti-seizure medications, mechanisms of action, and new tools to treat epilepsy including surgery and neurostimulation. Some symposia were also dedicated to discuss epilepsy comorbidities and practical issues regarding epilepsy care. An increasing number of patient advocates discussing their stories were intertwined within scientific activities. Many smaller group sessions targeted more specific topics to encourage member participation, including Special Interest Groups, Investigator, and Skills Workshops. Special lectures included the renown Hoyer and Lombroso, an ILAE/IBE joint session, a spotlight on the impact of Dobbs v. Jackson on reproductive health in epilepsy, and a joint session with the NAEC on coding and reimbursement policies. The hot topics symposium was focused on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic epilepsy. A balanced collaboration with the industry allowed presentations of the latest pharmaceutical and engineering advances in satellite symposia.

Abstract Background Regorafenib is one of several FDA‐approved cancer therapies targeting multiple tyrosine kinases. However, there are few subtype‐specific data regarding kinase inhibitor activity in sarcomas. We report results of a single arm, phase II trial of regorafenib in advanced Ewing family sarcomas. Methods Patients with metastatic Ewing family sarcomas (age ≥ 18, ECOG 0–2, good organ function) who had received at least one line of therapy and experienced progression within 6 months of registration were eligible. Prior kinase inhibitors were not allowed. The initial dose of regorafenib was 160 mg oral days 1–21 of a 28‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was estimating progression‐free rate (PFR) at 8 weeks employing RECIST 1.1. Results Thirty patients (median age, 32 years; 33% women [10 patients]; bone primary, 40%; extraskeletal primary, 60%) enrolled at 14 sites. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities were hypophosphatemia (5 grade 3, 1 grade 4), hypertension (2 grade 3), elevated ALT (2 grade 3). Sixteen patients required dose reductions, most often for hypophosphatemia ( n = 7 reductions in 6 patients); two stopped regorafenib for toxicity. There was one death unrelated to treatment in the 30‐day post‐study period. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 14.8 weeks (95% CI 7.3–15.9); PFR at 8 weeks by Kaplan–Meier analysis was 63% (95% CI 46–81%). The RECIST 1.1 response rate was 10%. Median OS was 53 weeks (95% CI 37–106 weeks). Conclusions Regorafenib has modest activity in the Ewing family sarcomas. Toxicity was similar to that seen in approval studies.

3134 Background: Mucinous breast cancer (MuBC) is a rare subtype of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) that accounts for less than 2% of all breast cancers and is associated with a favorable prognosis. Since MuBCs are rare in clinical trials, current treatment guidelines are extrapolated from IDC-no special type (IDC-NST). To provide better understanding of MuBCs and factors contributing to their clinical behavior, we examined the transcriptomic profiles of MuBCs in our FLEX study. Methods: The prospective, observational FLEX Study (NCT03053193) includes stage I-III breast cancer patients who receive MammaPrint (MP)/BluePrint (BP) testing and consent to full transcriptome and clinical data collection. For this study, histologically confirmed MuBCs (n = 102) in the FLEX database were included. All patients examined were ER+/HER2- by immunohistochemistry and Luminal by BP. MuBC was compared with IDC matched for Age, MP, and BP index (n = 97). Differential gene expression analyses (DGEA) were performed with R package ‘limma’ and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were considered significant if they had an adjusted p < 0.05 and fold change ≥ 2. Results: DGEA comparing MuBC (n = 102) with IDC (n = 97) revealed 60 DEGs, regardless of the genomic risk, of which 42 genes were upregulated and 18 were downregulated in MuBC relative to IDC. Genes associated with MuBC, such as MUC2, TFF1, CARTPT were among the upregulated genes. Of the 102 MuBC patients, 56 were Luminal A (MP Low Risk-LR) and 46 were Luminal B (MP High Risk-HR) by MammaPrint and BluePrint. Comparison of LR MuBC with LR IDC revealed 111 DEGs. Functional enrichment showed upregulation of pathways involved in estrogen response (early & late) and androgen response and a downregulation of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and E2F pathways in LR MuBC compared to LR IDC. DGEA between HR MuBC and HR IDC revealed only 22 DEGs with immune pathways being downregulated in HR MuBC. DGEA comparing LR MuBC with HR MuBC resulted in 63 DEGs, indicating LR and HR MuBC are biologically distinct types. Interestingly in LR MuBC, the tumor suppressor marker SCUBE2 is upregulated. Over expression of SCUBE2 is associated with better prognosis. Conclusions: Although MuBCs are often expected to have low clinical risk, MP revealed that half of the MuBCs examined in this study were MP High Risk (Luminal B). MP low risk MuBC is biologically different from MP low risk IDC, and downregulation of E2F and EMT pathways might lead to favorable prognoses in MP low risk MuBC. MP high risk MuBC showed limited DEGs compared to high-risk IDCs indicating these tumor types are highly genomically similar and likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The downregulation of immune pathways in MP high risk MuBC may lead to immune surveillance escape resulting in metastasis and further investigation is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03053193.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

BackgroundSystemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow‐growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient‐related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2‐sample rank‐sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan‐Meier survival curves were used to assess survival.ResultsOf 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25‐44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST.ConclusionsAS occurs frequently (32%) in real‐world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Abstract Trial Information Click here to access other published clinical trials. Lessons Learned The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. Background Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. Results Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92–3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64–3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16–23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02–9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31–1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. Conclusion Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

4502 Background: Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are at high risk of recurrence, but no systemic therapy has been shown to benefit this population. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of VEGFR and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with measurable RCC metastatic disease. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test the hypothesis that pazopanib would improve disease-free survival in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy Methods: Patients with NED following metastasectomy were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib starting at 800 mg daily vs. placebo for 52 weeks. Patients were stratified by 1 vs. > 1 site of resected disease, and by disease-free interval ≤ vs. > 1 year. Clinical assessment for toxicity and patient-reported outcomes were performed every 4 weeks, and restaging scans every 12 weeks. The study was designed to observe a 42% improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) from 25% to 45% at 3 years. Results: From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events had been observed (92% information). The median follow-up from randomization was 30 months (range 0.4 – 66.5 months). The study did not meet the primary endpoint: hazard ratio (95% CI) for DFS was 0.85 (0.55, 1.31) p= 0.47 in favor of pazopanib. At the time of unblinding, 22/129 (17%) of subjects had died. The HR for overall survival (OS) was 2.65 (1.02, 6.9) in favor of placebo ( p= 0.05). Patient-reported outcomes and laboratory correlates will be reported separately. Conclusions: 52 weeks of pazopanib did not improve DFS compared to blinded placebo in patients with mRCC who were NED after metastasectomy. There was a trend toward worse overall survival with pazopanib. Clinical trial information: NCT01575548.

PURPOSE SARC024 is a phase II clinical trial of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in specific sarcoma subtypes, including advanced osteosarcoma. We hypothesized that regorafenib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with sarcoma and report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS This trial enrolled patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma with measurable disease by RECIST who had received at least one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to regorafenib or placebo. Crossover was allowed at time of disease progression. PFS was the primary end point of the study, which was powered to detect a difference of at least 3 months in median PFS. RESULTS Forty-two patients from 12 centers were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2018. Median age was 37 years (range, 18 to 76 years). Patients had received an average of 2.3 prior therapy regimens. Ten patients receiving placebo crossed over to active drug at time of progression. Study enrollment was stopped early, after a data safety monitoring committee review. Median PFS was significantly improved with regorafenib versus placebo: 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0 to 7.6 months) versus 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.85; P = .017). In the context of the crossover design, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. Fourteen (64%) of 22 patients initially randomly assigned to regorafenib experienced grade 3 to 4 events attributed to treatment, including one grade 4 colonic perforation. CONCLUSION The study met its primary end point, demonstrating activity of regorafenib in patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma. No new safety signals were observed. Regorafenib should be considered a treatment option for patients with relapsed metastatic osteosarcoma.