User login
No new safety signals reported for pembrolizumab as kidney cancer treatment
A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that
The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.
KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.
At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).
During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.
Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.
Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that
The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.
KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.
At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).
During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.
Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.
Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
A new analysis of KEYNOTE-564 demonstrates that
The updated analysis was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The study, which was led by Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, found no increase in high-grade, or other, adverse events with 30 months of follow-up.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in combination with axitinib, as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The combination is also recommended by the European Society for Medical Oncology for advanced RCC.
KEYNOTE-564 is a phase 3, double-blind, multicenter trial of pembrolizumab versus placebo after surgery in participants with renal cell carcinoma. In previously presented interim KEYNOTE-564 results, the primary endpoint of disease-free survival for adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo was met in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
KEYNOTE-564 includes 994 patients (mean age, 60 years; 71% male) with confirmed clear cell RCC who were either intermediate to high risk, high risk, or M1 with no evidence of disease after surgery. All patients had surgery 12 or fewer weeks prior to randomization.
At 30.1 months, the disease-free survival difference in the intent-to-treat population between pembrolizumab and placebo at 78.3% versus 67.3% had a HR of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.80; nominal P < .0001), greater than the 77.3% versus 68.1% difference at 24.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; P = .001).
Analysis of disease-free survival by recurrence risk subgroups showed an increasing benefit with increasing risk. In the intermediate- to high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 81.1% and 72.0% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89). In the high-risk group, the 24-month rates were 48.7% and 35.4%, respectively (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.10). In the M1 NED group, the rates were 78.4% and 37.9% for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.66).
During a discussion about the presentation, Daniel M Geynisman, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, pointed to the respective absolute differences between pembrolizumab and placebo of 9% in the intermediate- to high-risk group, 13% in the high-risk group, and a “whopping difference of 41% in the M1 NED group,” but underscored that the M1 NED population represents only a small part of the trial population (5.8%). The same relationship was evident among sarcomatoid status subgroups, with 24-month absolute differences of 10.1% favoring pembrolizumab (HR, 0.63) with sarcomatoid features absent and 19.8% (HR, 0.54) when they were present.
Overall survival estimates showed an increasing benefit for pembrolizumab versus placebo (96.6% vs. 93.5%; HR, 0.54) at 24.1 months (96.2% vs. 93.8%, HR, 0.52), but this wasn’t statistically significance because the data collection was incomplete.
Between 24.1 months and 30.1 months, rates of treatment-related adverse events remained the same at 79.1% for pembrolizumab and 53.4% for placebo, with a treatment-related discontinuations in the pembrolizumab group at 17.6% and 18.6% at 24.1 and 30.1 months, respectively.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
FROM ASCO GU 2022
Testicular cancer mortality rates dip for Hispanic men
A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).
Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).
“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.
Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”
Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.
No funding sources were reported for this study.
A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).
Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).
“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.
Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”
Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.
No funding sources were reported for this study.
A study of testicular cancer mortality finds worse outcomes among Hispanic men, but better outcomes among Black men.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
Incidence rates for testicular cancer in the United States have increased slowly in recent decades, said Anushka Ghosh, a clinical research coordinatory with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Her analysis found mortality increases from 1999 to 2019 to be significantly greater among Hispanic men. The increase was 0.0019 per 100,000, compared with a 0.0003 per 100,000 decrease among non-Hispanic men (comparison P = .010).
Among Black men, testicular cancer–specific mortality rates declined by 0.0007 per 100,000, compared with a marginally significant increase of 0.0006 per 100,000 among White men (P =.049).
“Given that testicular cancer generally has a favorable prognosis, it is concerning that the mortality rate for this disease is increasing,” said Sophia C. Kamran, MD, the study’s lead author and a radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Dr. Kamran urged new efforts to understand these trends and to make testicular cancer care more accessible for all patients.
Ms. Ghosh said that other researchers have identified the same disparity among Hispanic men with prostate cancer. “Even though testicular cancer is a rare, our finding warrants further investigation to find the basis of these disparities to better serve the Hispanic community.”
Other studies have shown higher likelihood of later stage diagnosis and worse survival outcomes among Black patients.
No funding sources were reported for this study.
FROM ASCO GU 2022
Sotorasib demonstrates clinically meaningful difference in pancreatic cancer
Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations.
The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).
The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).
Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).
Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.
Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.
Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.
The study was funded by Amgen.
Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations.
The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).
The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).
Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).
Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.
Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.
Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.
The study was funded by Amgen.
Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.
The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations.
The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).
The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).
Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).
Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.
Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.
Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.
The study was funded by Amgen.
FROM ASCO GU 2022
Bladder cancer need not always require radical cystectomy
The results of a large, matched cohort study from three major institutions have led investigators to call for broader use of trimodal therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Radical cystectomy (RC), or the surgical removal of the whole bladder, prostate glands and seminal vesicles in men, or the bladder, uterus and fallopian tubes in women, is the traditional gold standard. But with trimodal therapy (TMT), patients can keep their bladders and avoid a long surgery. The procedure, which is called transurethral tumor resection, requires removing cancerous tumors from the bladder followed by chemoradiation.
After matching hundreds of patients requiring RC or TMT, “the oncologic outcomes seem to be equivalent. ...We do believe that TMT should be offered as an effective alternative for these patients,” said lead investigator Alexandre Zlotta, MD, PhD, director of uro-oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, after he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
“The findings that patients with clinical T2 disease have similar outcomes with either approach is encouraging,” said Matthew Zibelman, MD,, an assistant hematology/oncology professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, when asked for comment.
Trimodal therapy is already an alternative to cystectomy in guidelines for patients with clinical T2-T3 disease who have no, or minor, unilateral hydronephrosis, and unifocal tumors of 7 cm or less, among other criteria.
However, oncologists shy away from it preferring to reserve trimodal therapy mostly for patients who are not candidates for surgery, Dr. Zlotta explained.
The problem is a lack of head-to-head randomized data comparing the two approaches. Attempts at trials in the past closed early because of lack of accrual, and it seems unlikely there’ll be another attempt in the future.
A ‘very valuable’ option
Dr. Zlotta and associates wanted to address the evidence gap with the next best thing, a large, matched cohort study. In lieu of a level 1 data, he said their work provides “the best possible evidence” comparing the two approaches and supports TMT as a “very valuable” option so long as centers can provide the necessary follow-up, including salvage cystectomy if needed.
Dr. Zibelman said the retrospective study “cannot completely account for unmeasured variables that may have predisposed patients to get trimodal therapy over surgery, which may have influenced the final data.”
Sill, “trimodal therapy likely provides oncologic outcomes similar to surgery in carefully selected patients ... and should be discussed ... as a bladder-preserving option,” he said.
The study matched 1 to 3, 282 patients undergoing trimodal therapy with 421 patients undergoing radical cystectomy. The patients were treated during 2005-2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the University of California, Los Angeles; or the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.
Patients had cT2-T3/4a disease without positive nodes or metastases. The entire cohort would have been eligible for either TMT or RC under current guidelines.
Propensity score matching produced well-balanced study arms, with a median age of about 71 years; cT2 disease in about 90%; hydronephrosis in about 11%, and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in about 60% of both arms.
At 5 years, both cancer-specific survival (78% with RC and 85% with TMT; P = .02) and overall survival favored TMT (66% RC vs. 78% TMT; P < .001), although Dr. Zlotta said the stark OS difference could have resulted from chance.
Trends also favored TMT in the primary outcome – 5-year metastasis free survival (73% RC vs. 78% TMT; P = .07) – as well as in distant failure-free survival (78% RC vs. 82% TMT; P = .14). The 5-year pelvic node failure-free survival was 96% in the RC group versus 94% with TMT (P = .33).
There were slight differences in surgical protocols between the study centers, and while adjuvant therapy was used at Massachusetts General, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in Toronto.
The differences might have introduced confounders, but “I have to say we were pretty reassured to see that we observed exactly the same results” regardless of where subjects were treated. It was “incredibly surprising, but comforting,” Dr. Zlotta said.
Another potential confounder – poor surgical technique – also wasn’t an issue. A median of 40 lymph nodes were removed during cystectomy, which “speaks to the quality of the surgical series,” he said.
The tumor recurrence rate was 20.5% in the TMT arm; 13% of patients had subsequent salvage cystectomies. Perioperative mortality was 2.1% in the RC arm.
There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Zlotta had ties to numerous companies and honoraria/research funding from or being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Verity Pharmaceuticals, and others. Dr. Zibelman didn’t have any disclosures.
This article was updated on 3/10/22.
The results of a large, matched cohort study from three major institutions have led investigators to call for broader use of trimodal therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Radical cystectomy (RC), or the surgical removal of the whole bladder, prostate glands and seminal vesicles in men, or the bladder, uterus and fallopian tubes in women, is the traditional gold standard. But with trimodal therapy (TMT), patients can keep their bladders and avoid a long surgery. The procedure, which is called transurethral tumor resection, requires removing cancerous tumors from the bladder followed by chemoradiation.
After matching hundreds of patients requiring RC or TMT, “the oncologic outcomes seem to be equivalent. ...We do believe that TMT should be offered as an effective alternative for these patients,” said lead investigator Alexandre Zlotta, MD, PhD, director of uro-oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, after he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
“The findings that patients with clinical T2 disease have similar outcomes with either approach is encouraging,” said Matthew Zibelman, MD,, an assistant hematology/oncology professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, when asked for comment.
Trimodal therapy is already an alternative to cystectomy in guidelines for patients with clinical T2-T3 disease who have no, or minor, unilateral hydronephrosis, and unifocal tumors of 7 cm or less, among other criteria.
However, oncologists shy away from it preferring to reserve trimodal therapy mostly for patients who are not candidates for surgery, Dr. Zlotta explained.
The problem is a lack of head-to-head randomized data comparing the two approaches. Attempts at trials in the past closed early because of lack of accrual, and it seems unlikely there’ll be another attempt in the future.
A ‘very valuable’ option
Dr. Zlotta and associates wanted to address the evidence gap with the next best thing, a large, matched cohort study. In lieu of a level 1 data, he said their work provides “the best possible evidence” comparing the two approaches and supports TMT as a “very valuable” option so long as centers can provide the necessary follow-up, including salvage cystectomy if needed.
Dr. Zibelman said the retrospective study “cannot completely account for unmeasured variables that may have predisposed patients to get trimodal therapy over surgery, which may have influenced the final data.”
Sill, “trimodal therapy likely provides oncologic outcomes similar to surgery in carefully selected patients ... and should be discussed ... as a bladder-preserving option,” he said.
The study matched 1 to 3, 282 patients undergoing trimodal therapy with 421 patients undergoing radical cystectomy. The patients were treated during 2005-2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the University of California, Los Angeles; or the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.
Patients had cT2-T3/4a disease without positive nodes or metastases. The entire cohort would have been eligible for either TMT or RC under current guidelines.
Propensity score matching produced well-balanced study arms, with a median age of about 71 years; cT2 disease in about 90%; hydronephrosis in about 11%, and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in about 60% of both arms.
At 5 years, both cancer-specific survival (78% with RC and 85% with TMT; P = .02) and overall survival favored TMT (66% RC vs. 78% TMT; P < .001), although Dr. Zlotta said the stark OS difference could have resulted from chance.
Trends also favored TMT in the primary outcome – 5-year metastasis free survival (73% RC vs. 78% TMT; P = .07) – as well as in distant failure-free survival (78% RC vs. 82% TMT; P = .14). The 5-year pelvic node failure-free survival was 96% in the RC group versus 94% with TMT (P = .33).
There were slight differences in surgical protocols between the study centers, and while adjuvant therapy was used at Massachusetts General, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in Toronto.
The differences might have introduced confounders, but “I have to say we were pretty reassured to see that we observed exactly the same results” regardless of where subjects were treated. It was “incredibly surprising, but comforting,” Dr. Zlotta said.
Another potential confounder – poor surgical technique – also wasn’t an issue. A median of 40 lymph nodes were removed during cystectomy, which “speaks to the quality of the surgical series,” he said.
The tumor recurrence rate was 20.5% in the TMT arm; 13% of patients had subsequent salvage cystectomies. Perioperative mortality was 2.1% in the RC arm.
There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Zlotta had ties to numerous companies and honoraria/research funding from or being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Verity Pharmaceuticals, and others. Dr. Zibelman didn’t have any disclosures.
This article was updated on 3/10/22.
The results of a large, matched cohort study from three major institutions have led investigators to call for broader use of trimodal therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Radical cystectomy (RC), or the surgical removal of the whole bladder, prostate glands and seminal vesicles in men, or the bladder, uterus and fallopian tubes in women, is the traditional gold standard. But with trimodal therapy (TMT), patients can keep their bladders and avoid a long surgery. The procedure, which is called transurethral tumor resection, requires removing cancerous tumors from the bladder followed by chemoradiation.
After matching hundreds of patients requiring RC or TMT, “the oncologic outcomes seem to be equivalent. ...We do believe that TMT should be offered as an effective alternative for these patients,” said lead investigator Alexandre Zlotta, MD, PhD, director of uro-oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, after he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
“The findings that patients with clinical T2 disease have similar outcomes with either approach is encouraging,” said Matthew Zibelman, MD,, an assistant hematology/oncology professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, when asked for comment.
Trimodal therapy is already an alternative to cystectomy in guidelines for patients with clinical T2-T3 disease who have no, or minor, unilateral hydronephrosis, and unifocal tumors of 7 cm or less, among other criteria.
However, oncologists shy away from it preferring to reserve trimodal therapy mostly for patients who are not candidates for surgery, Dr. Zlotta explained.
The problem is a lack of head-to-head randomized data comparing the two approaches. Attempts at trials in the past closed early because of lack of accrual, and it seems unlikely there’ll be another attempt in the future.
A ‘very valuable’ option
Dr. Zlotta and associates wanted to address the evidence gap with the next best thing, a large, matched cohort study. In lieu of a level 1 data, he said their work provides “the best possible evidence” comparing the two approaches and supports TMT as a “very valuable” option so long as centers can provide the necessary follow-up, including salvage cystectomy if needed.
Dr. Zibelman said the retrospective study “cannot completely account for unmeasured variables that may have predisposed patients to get trimodal therapy over surgery, which may have influenced the final data.”
Sill, “trimodal therapy likely provides oncologic outcomes similar to surgery in carefully selected patients ... and should be discussed ... as a bladder-preserving option,” he said.
The study matched 1 to 3, 282 patients undergoing trimodal therapy with 421 patients undergoing radical cystectomy. The patients were treated during 2005-2017 at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the University of California, Los Angeles; or the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.
Patients had cT2-T3/4a disease without positive nodes or metastases. The entire cohort would have been eligible for either TMT or RC under current guidelines.
Propensity score matching produced well-balanced study arms, with a median age of about 71 years; cT2 disease in about 90%; hydronephrosis in about 11%, and adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in about 60% of both arms.
At 5 years, both cancer-specific survival (78% with RC and 85% with TMT; P = .02) and overall survival favored TMT (66% RC vs. 78% TMT; P < .001), although Dr. Zlotta said the stark OS difference could have resulted from chance.
Trends also favored TMT in the primary outcome – 5-year metastasis free survival (73% RC vs. 78% TMT; P = .07) – as well as in distant failure-free survival (78% RC vs. 82% TMT; P = .14). The 5-year pelvic node failure-free survival was 96% in the RC group versus 94% with TMT (P = .33).
There were slight differences in surgical protocols between the study centers, and while adjuvant therapy was used at Massachusetts General, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used in Toronto.
The differences might have introduced confounders, but “I have to say we were pretty reassured to see that we observed exactly the same results” regardless of where subjects were treated. It was “incredibly surprising, but comforting,” Dr. Zlotta said.
Another potential confounder – poor surgical technique – also wasn’t an issue. A median of 40 lymph nodes were removed during cystectomy, which “speaks to the quality of the surgical series,” he said.
The tumor recurrence rate was 20.5% in the TMT arm; 13% of patients had subsequent salvage cystectomies. Perioperative mortality was 2.1% in the RC arm.
There was no outside funding for the work. Dr. Zlotta had ties to numerous companies and honoraria/research funding from or being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Verity Pharmaceuticals, and others. Dr. Zibelman didn’t have any disclosures.
This article was updated on 3/10/22.
FROM ASCO GU 2022
63% of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma respond to chemo before surgery
They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).
The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.
Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.
“What do we do?” he asked.
Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.
In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.
Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.
Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.
Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.
Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.
Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.
The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.
They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).
The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.
Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.
“What do we do?” he asked.
Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.
In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.
Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.
Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.
Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.
Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.
Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.
The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.
They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).
The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.
Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.
“What do we do?” he asked.
Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.
In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.
Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.
Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.
Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.
Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.
Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.
The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.
ASCO GU 2022
MRI far safer than CT for guiding radiotherapy in prostate cancer
shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.
While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.
“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.
The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.
Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.
Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.
Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.
Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.
Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.
The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.
shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.
While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.
“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.
The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.
Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.
Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.
Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.
Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.
Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.
The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.
shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.
While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.
“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.
The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.
Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.
Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.
Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.
Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.
Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.
The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.
FROM ASCO GU 2022
Twitter storm over ‘reprehensible behavior’ at conference podium
, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.
It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.
“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”
It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”
But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.
Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”
Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.
“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”
As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’
The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.
The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.
During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*
“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.
He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.
The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?
At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”
She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”
She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.
Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.
“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”
At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”
After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.
When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.
Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”
Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”
Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”
Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”
After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”
There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.
Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.
It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.
“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”
It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”
But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.
Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”
Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.
“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”
As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’
The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.
The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.
During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*
“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.
He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.
The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?
At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”
She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”
She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.
Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.
“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”
At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”
After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.
When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.
Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”
Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”
Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”
Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”
After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”
There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.
Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.
It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.
“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”
It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”
But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.
Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”
Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.
“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”
As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’
The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.
The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.
During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*
“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.
He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.
The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?
At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”
She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”
She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.
Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.
“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”
At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”
After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.
When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.
Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”
Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”
Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”
Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”
After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”
There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.
Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
FROM ASCO GU 2022