Agarwal, Neeraj

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

314 Background: Prostate cancer patients (PC) face an elevated risk of both developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) for ASCVD predictions may lack accuracy. Methods: Males ≥18 years, diagnosed with PC between 2005-2012 at a hybrid academic-community practice were included. Using XGBoost algorithm we developed using a training subset of the cohort (50% train + 25% test), ranked 33 covariates (including demographic, treatment-related and social determinants of health (SDOH) information) for ASCVD prediction using SHAP (Shapley additive explanations) values. The top 10 predictors were transformed in a predictive equation using logistic regression models. This equation was tested in the cohort validation subset (25%), and subsequently compared to the PCE risk score. Results: We included 1,506 patients, with a median age of 67 (IQR 60-74) years, 13.8% had advanced stage disease (TNM III-IV), 1.5% had high risk PC (Gleason 8-10), and 20.5% received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Of those, 10.4% had a 10-year ASCVD risk. The PCE had an area under the curve (AUC)=0.61 and underestimated ASCVD in 0.9% (mean risk=20.1% [95% CI 17.2-23.0] vs. mean predicted risk=19.2% [95% CI 18.6-19.8]). The equation pooled from the top-10 predictors of the ML algorithm (C-index=0.78 [95% CI 0.75-0.81]) achieved an AUC=0.71 (Table). Conclusions: Conventional PCE tend to underestimate ASCVD risk in males with PC. A cancer-specific model inclusive of SDOH exhibits good performance for predicting ASCVD risk in this population. [Table: see text]

212 Background: Patients with prostate cancer with liver metastases are known to have a worse prognosis. In this study, we evaluated ctDNA in mCRPC (metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer) patients with and without liver metastases. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified mCRPC patients with liver metastases at Tulane Cancer Center and Huntsman Cancer Institute. Liver metastases were confirmed via molecular or conventional imaging. All patients had ctDNA assessed with a multi-gene cancer panel via the Guardant 360 assay. Alterations with <0.1% allelic fraction, synonymous alterations, and variants of unknown significance were excluded from analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s Exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests. Correction for multiple testing was not performed, hence these alterations may be subject to a type 1 error. Results: 53 mCRPC patients with liver metastases and 144 mCRPC patients without liver metastases were included in the study. We found seven genes that are more likely to be pathologically altered in ctDNA in mCRPC patients with liver metastases (See Tables 1-3): AR (OR=2.38, 95% CI: [1.25, 4.52], p=0.01), BRAF (OR=2.74, 95% CI:[1.05, 7.18], p=0.05), BRCA2 (OR=5.33, 95% CI:[1.49, 19.02], p=0.01), CDK6 (OR=4.09, 95% CI:[1.35, 12.42], p=0.01), EGFR (OR=3.12, 95% CI:[1.22, 7.99], p=0.02), FGFR1 (OR=5.69, 95% CI:[1.81, 17.86], p-value=0.003), MYC (OR=4.55, 95% CI:[1.63, 12.68], p=0.004), and PIK3CA (OR=4.34, 95% CI:[1.87, 10.06], p=0.01). Additionally, mCRPC patients with liver metastases are more likely to have copy number alterations (CNA) (p= 0.01) compared to mCRPC patients without liver involvement. There were no other significant differences in the remaining 70 genes interrogated. Germline pathogenic alterations did not vary between the two groups. Conclusions: In mCRPC patients with liver metastases, these exploratory analyses suggest ctDNA testing is more likely to detect pathologic alterations in AR, BRAF, BRCA2, CDK6, EGFR, FGFR1, MYC, and PIK3CA. Additionally, mCRPC patients were more likely to have copy number alterations (CNA). Limitations of the Guardant 360 assays are notable in this setting given the incomplete ascertainment of gene deletions and the incomplete number of prostate-relevant genes assessed. [Table: see text]

5074 Background: Analysis of phase 3 studies of patients (pts) with mHSPC in the era of ADT, including in combination with docetaxel and/or androgen receptor axis targeted therapies have established PSA-7mo as a key prognostic marker. Our objective was to evaluate the association between PSA-3mo, PSA 7-mo and OS measured in the phase 3 S1216 trial in mHSPC comparing ADT + orteronel (treatment arm) vs ADT + bicalutamide (control arm) [NCT01809691]. Methods: Pts enrolled in the S1216 trial with available PSA-3mo & PSA-7mo were included in this analysis. PSA responses were defined as complete response (CR) if PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/mL, partial response (PR) for PSA >0.2 and ≤ 4ng/mL, and no response (NR) as PSA >4 ng/mL at month 3 or 7. Landmark OS was measured and Cox regression model applied adjusting for stratification (performance status, extent of disease, early vs late start of treatment, treatment arm). Results: 1251 pts were alive and evaluable for PSA-3mo and 1231 pts were evaluable at 7 mo, out of a total of 1279 pts. The median age was 67 (range: 43-92), 10% of patients were black, 96% had a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Median PSA at baseline was 29 ng/ml (range: 2-6710). Of pts on treatment vs.control arm, PSA-3mo CR, PR, and NR occurred in 52% vs 35%; 31% vs 42%, and 17% vs 23%, respectively. Of pts on treatment vs control arm, PSA-7mo CR, PR, and NR occurred in 61% vs 46%, 20% vs 26%, and 19% vs 29%, respectively. CR or PR at either timepoint led to significantly better outcomes than those with NR. No interaction between treatment arm and PSA response was observed in terms of OS. Conclusions: PSA-3mo and PSA-7mo are strong prognostic markers for pts with mHSPC. More pts on ADT with orteronel achieved CR at 3 and 7 mo. In addition to its use in counseling patients in the clinic, PSA-3mo and PSA-7mo may be used as parameters for designing future trials in pts with mHSPC, utilizing the next generation of intensification or de-intensification treatment regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT01809691 . [Table: see text]

684 Background: In the COSMIC-021 phase 1b study (NCT03170960) evaluating cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in advanced solid tumors, this combination therapy demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in patients with advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) with a median follow-up of 13 mo (Pal. JCO 2021). Results after extended follow-up in nccRCC are presented. Methods: Patients with advanced nccRCC and ECOG PS 0/1 who had ≤1 prior VEGFR-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) were eligible. Prior treatment with TKIs targeting MET or immune checkpoint inhibitors was not allowed. Patients received cabozantinib 40 mg PO QD plus atezolizumab 1200 mg IV Q3W until unacceptable toxicity or progression; dose reductions of cabozantinib (40 mg QD to 20 mg QD, then to 20 mg QOD) were permitted to manage adverse events. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by the investigator; other endpoints included safety, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Results: The study enrolled 32 patients with nccRCC (2 from dose escalation phase, and 30 from expansion phase of the study): median age, 62 y; male, 81%; ECOG PS 0/1, 75%/25%; histology, papillary/chromophobe/clear cell/other, 47%/28%/3%/22%; sarcomatoid feature, 13%; IMDC risk favorable/intermediate/poor, 50%/41%/9%; ≥3 tumor sites, 56%; tumor sites, lung/kidney/bone/liver, 50%/25%/16%/16%; prior nephrectomy, 63%; prior VEGFR TKI, 22%; 0/1 lines of prior therapy (locally advanced/metastatic setting), 81%/19%. As of July 21, 2022, median follow-up was 37.2 mo (range 32.1–58.5) with 5 (16%) patients remaining on study treatment. ORR by investigator was 31% (all PRs) and disease control rate was 94% (Table); median DOR was 8.1 mo. Median PFS was 9.3 mo (95% CI 5.5–12.3), and median OS was not reached (95% CI 23.0–NE). PFS and OS estimates at 12 mo were 34% and 84%, respectively; 24-mo estimates were 6% and 70%. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 97% (grade 3/4, 53%); the most common AEs included diarrhea (69%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (50%), fatigue (44%), dysgeusia (41%), hypertension (31%) and nausea (31%). One grade 5 treatment-related AE of pulmonary hemorrhage occurred. Treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation of both study treatments occurred in 13% of patients. Conclusions: Extended 3-year follow-up reinforces the encouraging clinical activity of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in advanced nccRCC with a manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT03170960 . [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

4504 Background: C, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), promotes an immune-permissive environment that may enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). COSMIC-021, a multicenter phase 1b study, is evaluating C + A (anti‒PD-L1 therapy) in various solid tumors (NCT03170960). C + A demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in cohort 2 of COSMIC-021 in patients (pts) with UC previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy (chemo) (Pal S et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract 5013). Outcomes of C + A from 3 other UC cohorts (C3, C4, C5) are presented. Methods: Pts with inoperable locally advanced/metastatic UC with transitional cell histology and ECOG PS 0‒1 were eligible. Pts enrolled in C3 and C4 had no prior therapy and were cisplatin-based chemo ineligible (C3) or eligible (C4). C5 enrolled pts with one prior ICI and no prior VEGFR-TKI therapy. Pts received C 40 mg PO QD and A 1200 mg IV Q3W. CT/MRI scans were performed Q6W for first year and Q12W thereafter. The primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by investigator. Other endpoints: safety, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Results: Thirty pts each were enrolled in C3 and C4, and 31 in C5. Baseline characteristics for C3, C4, and C5, respectively: median age, 74 y, 66 y, 68 y; male, 67%, 73%, 55%; ECOG PS 1, 63%, 57%, 74%; lung/liver metastasis; 33%/17%, 40%/20%, 58%/23%; ≥3 tumor sites, 30%, 43%, 45%; bladder as primary site, 67%, 70%, 71%. As of Nov 30, 2021, the median follow-up for C3, C4, and C5 was 27.9, 19.1, and 32.9 mo, respectively, with 1, 6, and 1 pts on treatment. C + A demonstrated clinical benefit across all cohorts (Table). Most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade across C3, C4, and C5, respectively, were diarrhea (43%, 33%, 35%), nausea (27%, 17%, 26%), fatigue (27%, 27%, 48%), and decreased appetite (33%, 27%, 39%); grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 63%, 43%, and 45%, and there was no grade 5 TRAE. Conclusions: C + A demonstrated encouraging clinical activity with manageable toxicity in inoperable locally advanced/metastatic UC as first-line systemic therapy in cisplatin-based chemo eligible/ineligible pts and as second- or later line in pts who received prior ICI. Clinical trial information: NCT03170960. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Orteronel (TAK-700) is a nonsteroidal 17,20-lyase inhibitor suppressing androgen synthesis. We evaluated the clinical benefit of orteronel when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS In this open-label randomized phase III study, patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to ADT with orteronel (300 mg oral twice daily; experimental arm) or ADT with bicalutamide (50 mg oral once daily; control arm). The primary objective was the comparison of overall survival (OS), targeting a 33% improvement in median survival. A stratified log-rank test with a one-sided P ≤ .022 would indicate statistical significance. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 7 months (≤ 0.2 v 0.2 to ≤ 4 v > 4 ng/mL), and adverse event profile. RESULTS Among 1,279 patients included in the analysis, 638 were randomly assigned to the ADT plus orteronel arm and 641 to the control arm. The median age was 68 years; 49% had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, there was a significant improvement in PFS (median 47.6 v 23.0 months, hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67; P < .0001) and PSA response at 7 months ( P < .0001), but not in OS (median 81.1 v 70.2 months, hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .040, one-sided). More grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in the experimental versus the control arms (43% v 14%). Postprotocol life-prolonging therapy was received by 77.4% of patients in the control arm and 61.3% of patients in the orteronel arm. CONCLUSION The study did not meet the primary end point of improved OS with orteronel. The lack of correlation of PFS and PSA response with OS raises concerns over assumption of their consistent surrogacy for OS in the context of extensive postprotocol therapy in this setting.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.