A single-arm, multicenter, open-label phase II trial of cabazitaxel as second-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma (TCC)

372

Background: For patients with advanced TCC who have progressed on a platinum-based regimen, no widely accepted standard second line therapy currently exists. A 2-stage phase II study was conducted to assess the activity and toxicity profile of the microtubule inhibitor cabazitaxel (Jevtana; FDA-approved in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen) in patients with metastatic TCC after failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01600339. Methods: Patients with one prior platinum based systemic therapy for metastatic TCC received cabazitaxel at a dose of 25 mg\m2every 21 days with prophylactic GCSF support, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-three patients were enrolled to the study, 19 of whom received treatment. Male\female ratio was 15\4 and the median age was 67 (range, 56-81) years. Partial response (PR) was observed in 1 patient (5.3%), 10 patients (52.6%) achieved stable disease (SD), including 8 (42.1%) that had prolonged SD (≥16 weeks).Furthermore, the disease control rate (PR or prolonged SD) was 47.4%. The median TTP and OS were 4.2 (95% CI, 2.0-6.0) months and 9.9 (95% CI 5.6-13.2) months, respectively. The median number of treatment cycles was 5 (range 1-10). One patient experienced Grade 5 toxicity. Neutropenic fever occurred in 10.6% of patients. Most common toxicities were anemia and diarrhea. Conclusions: Cabazitaxel had modest efficacy in the treatment of advanced TCC, and there was no evidence of a significant response. Toxicity profile was considerable. The role of Cabazitaxel in urothelial carcinoma may need further evaluation in rational combination strategies, but not as a single agent. Clinical trial information: NCT01600339.

Diabetes as a risk factor for medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe devastating complication for which the exact pathogenesis is not completely understood. Multiple systemic and local factors may contribute to the development of MRONJ. A growing body of evidence supports diabetes mellitus (DM) as an important risk factor for this complication; however, the exact mechanism by which DM may promote MRONJ has yet to be determined. The current review elucidates the role of DM in the pathogenesis of MRONJ and the mechanisms by which DM may increase the risk for MRONJ. Factors related to DM pathogenesis and treatment may contribute to poor bone quality through multiple damaged pathways, including microvascular ischemia, endothelial cell dysfunction, reduced remodeling of bone, and increased apoptosis of osteoblasts and osteocytes. In addition, DM induces changes in immune cell function and promotes inflammation. This increases the risk for chronic infection in the settings of cancer and its treatment, as well as antiresorptive medication exposure, thus raising the risk of developing MRONJ. A genetic predisposition for MRONJ, coupled with CYP 450 gene alterations, has been suggested to affect the degradation of medications for DM such as thiazolidinediones and may further increase the risk for MRONJ.

Experience with sunitinib treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large cohort of Israeli patients: outcome and associated factors

BACKGROUND

The VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor sunitinib was approved in Israel in 2008 for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), based on an international trial. However, the efficacy of sunitinib treatment in Israeli mRCC patients has not been previously reported.

OBJECTIVES

To report the outcome and associated factors of sunitinib treatment in a large cohort of Israeli mRCC patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of an unselected cohort of mRCC patients who were treated with sunitinib during the period 2006-2013 in six Israeli hospitals. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between treatment outcome and clinicopathologic factors.

RESULTS

We identified 145 patients; the median age was 65 years, 63% were male, 80% had a nephrectomy, and 28% had prior systemic treatment. Seventy-nine percent (n = 115) had clinical benefit (complete response 5%, n = 7; partial response 33%, n = 48; stable disease 41%, n = 60); 21% (n = 30) were refractory to treatment. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months and median overall survival 21 months. Factors associated with clinical benefit were sunitinib-induced hypertension: [odds ratio (OR) 3.6, P = 0.042] and sunitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption (OR 2.4, P = 0.049). Factors associated with PFS were female gender [hazard ratio (HR) 2, P = 0.0041, pre-sunitinib treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio < or = 3 (HR 2.19, P = 0.002), and active smoking (HR 0.19, P < 0.0001). Factors associated with overall survival were active smoking (HR 0.25, P < 0.0001) and sunitinib-induced hypertension (HR 0.48, P = 0.005). To minimize toxicity, the dose was reduced or the treatment interrupted in 39% (n = 57).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of sunitinib treatment for mRCC among Israeli patients is similar to that in international data.

Comparison of abiraterone acetate versus ketoconazole in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer refractory to docetaxel

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone, a potent CYP 17 inhibitor, is standard treatment in docetaxel refractory, metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, in countries where abiraterone has not been approved yet, or for patients who cannot afford it, ketoconazole is used as an alternative CYP 17 inhibitor. Although preclinical data suggests that ketoconazole is a less potent inhibitor of CYP 17, there are limited clinical data comparing both agents. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of abiraterone versus ketoconazole in docetaxel refractory mCRPC.

METHODS

Records from mCRPC patients treated with ketoconazole (international multicenter database, n = 162) were reviewed retrospectively. Twenty-six patients treated post docetaxel were individually matched by clinicopathologic factors to patients treated with abiraterone (national multicenter database, n = 140). We compared the PSA response, biochemical and radiological progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the groups. PFS and OS were determined by Cox regression.

RESULTS

The groups were matched by Gleason score, pre-treatment disease extent, ECOG PS, pre-treatment risk category (Keizman, Oncologist 2012). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding other known confounding risk factors. In the groups of abiraterone versus ketoconazole, PSA response was 46% versus 19% (OR 4.3, P = 0.04), median biochemical PFS 7 versus 2 months (HR 1.54, P = 0.02), median radiological PFS 8 versus 2.5 months (HR 1.8, P = 0.043), median OS 19 versus 11 months (HR 0.53, P = 0.79), and treatment interruption d/t severe adverse events 8% (n = 2) versus 31% (n = 8) (0R 0.6, P = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

In docetaxel refractory mCRPC, the outcome of abiraterone treatment may be superior to ketoconazole.

Characteristics and outcome of octogenarian versus young patients (pts) with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with ketoconazole

256

Background: Standard treatment options for patients (pts) with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) include docetaxel based chemotherapy, abiraterone, and radium 223. Octogenarian pts (age 80 and older) are often considered to be unfit for chemotherapy. However, recommendations for their management is limited by the paucity of clinical trials data in this population. In countries where abiraterone in the pre-chemotherapy setting has not been approved yet, or for pts who can’t afford it, the CYP 17 inhibitor ketoconazole is used as an alternative advanced hormonal tx. We aimed to study baseline characteristics and outcome of octogenarian versus young (age 60 or younger) pts with mCRPC treated with ketoconazole. Methods: We performed an international multicenter retrospective study of pts with mCRPC, who were treated with ketoconazole at four centers across two different countries. We compared baseline characteristics and outcome of octogenarian versus young pts. The effect of very old age on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), was tested with adjustment of other known confounding risk factors using a chi-square test and partial likelihood test from Cox model. Results: Between 2004 and 2013, 35 octogenarians (median age 83) and 33 young pts with (median age 57) mCRPC were treated with ketoconazole. The groups were balanced regarding the following baseline clinicopathologic characteristics: extent of disease (limited-axial skeleton and/or nodal versus extensive-appendicular skeleton and/or visceral), combined gleason score, pre-treatment risk category (Keizman, Oncologist 2012; based on pre-tx neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio/prostate-specific antigen doubling time, and prior response to ADT), pain intensity, ECOG performance status, alkaline phosphatase level, hemoglobin level, PSA level. In octogenarian versus young pts, PSA response (greater than or equal to 50% decline from baseline) was 40% versus 61% (OR 3.5, p=0.04), median PFS 7 versus 8 months (HR 0.91, p=0.44), and median OS 31 versus 36 months (HR 0.66, p=0.31). Conclusions: In very old vs young mCRPC patients treated with ketoconazole, PSA response was lower. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics, PFS, and OS were not significantly different between the groups.

Patients with metastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who may benefit from sunitinib therapy (tx): Results from an international metastatic RCC database

486

Background: The VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib is a standard tx for metastatic clear cell RCC. Data on the activity of sunitinib in metastatic non clear cell RCC, is limited by small or heterogeneous (mixed histology or targeted therapies) studies, that revealed a lower antitumor activity than in patients with clear cell histology. We aimed to analyze the activity of sunitinib in a large international cohort of patients with metastatic papillary RCC, and to characterize patients who may benefit for this therapy. Methods: Records from metastatic papillary RCC patients treated with sunitinib in 10 centers across 3 countries were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses of association between clinicopathologic factors and clinical outcome were performed using Cox regression. Results: Between 2004-2013, 74 patients (median age 60, 68% male) with metastatic papillary RCC were treated with sunitinib. 78% had a prior nephrectomy. HENG risk was good 11%, intermediate 56%, and poor 33%. 21% were active smokers, and 31% users of angiotensin system inhibitors. 24% and 41% had liver and bone metastases, respectively. 55% had a pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >3. 40% had dose reduction/treatment interruption. Sunitinib induced hypothyroidism and hypertension (HTN) occurred in 30% and 43%, respectively. 70% achieved a clinical benefit (partial response + stable disease), while 30% had disease progression within the first 3 months of therapy. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5 and 12 months, respectively. 27% had a PFS ≥ 1 year, and 26% survived ≥ 2 years. Factors associated with PFS were sunitinib induced HTN (HR 0.31, p=0.002), pre-treatment NLR >3 (HR 5.3, p=0.001), and active smoking (HR 2.5, p=0.01). Factors associated with OS were sunitinib induced hypothyroidism (HR 0.4, p=0.024), past nephrectomy (HR 0.41, p=0.02), pre-treatment NLR >3 (HR 2.25, p=0.036), and active smoking (HR 2.3, p=0.027). Conclusions: Clinicopathologic factors may be used to identify patients with metastatic papillary RCC who may benefit from sunitinib tx. A prolonged PFS and OS were noted in 26-27% of patients.

Clinicopathologic factors associated with the development of sunitinib induced hypertension (HTN) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

508

Background: The VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib is a standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). HTN, an on-target class effect of VEGF signaling-pathway inhibitors, has been shown to correlate with clinical outcome. Studies have shown the association between genetic polymorphisms in several genes, and the development of HTN in patients treated with targeted therapies. We aimed to study the association between readily available clinicopathologic factors and the development of sunitinib induced HTN in mRCC patients. Methods: Records from mRCC patients treated with sunitinib in 9 centers across 2 countries were retrospectively reviewed. Sunitinib induced HTN was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg. Analysis of the association between clinicopathologic factors and the development of HTN was performed using logistic regression. Results: Between 2004-2013, 302 patients with mRCC were treated with sunitinib. The incidence of sunitinib induced HTN was 50% (n=152). Clinicopathologic factors included in the analysis were age (median 63), gender (67% male), HENG risk (good 22%, intermediate 59%, poor 19%), smoking status (active 21%), BMI (obese=BMI ≥30, 28%; overweight=BMI 25-29.9, 37%; normal weight= BMI <25, 35%), pre-treatment HTN (58%), past nephrectomy (83%), histology (73% clear cell), > 1 metastatic site (82%), metastatic site (lung 72%, liver 25%, bones 40%), pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (>3 in 45%), treatment line (first vs advanced), sunitinib dose reduction/treatment interruption (45%). Absence of liver metastases (OR 3.5, p=0.02), pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio ≤ 3 (OR 5.5, p=0.001), and BMI (overweight and normal weight vs obese, OR 2.2 and 2.3 respectively, p=0.01 both) were independently associated with the development of HTN. Conclusions: In metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib, readily available clinicopathologic factors may be used to identify patients who are prone to the development of HTN.

Potential impact of prior high-dose IL-2 on the outcomes of sunitinib (Su) treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

494

Background: Targeted txs are the tx of choice in most mRCC pts. However, HDIL2 which may produce durable responses in a small percentage of cases, is still an option in carefully selected pts. While the effect of prior HDIL2 on the outcome of targeted txs in mRCC pts is poorly defined, a recent single center report (Birkhäuser FD, Cancer J 2013) revealed an improved disease-specific survival in pts treated with prior HDIL2. We aimed to study the effect of prior HDIL2 tx on outcome of mRCC pts treated with sunitinib. Methods: Records from 302 mRCC pts treated with Su from 2004 to 2013 in 9 centers across 2 countries were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the response rate, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), between post HDIL2 pts (n=27) and individually matched tx naïve pts (n=27). Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: All pts had prior nephrectomy and clear cell histology. The groups were matched by age (median 61), gender (male 74%), Heng risk (favorable 37%, intermediate 59%, poor 4%), sunitinib induced hypertension (67%), sunitinib dose reduction/treatment interruption (41%), smoking status (active 7%), use of angiotensin system inhibitors (41%), the presence of more than one metastases site (96%), and pre-tx neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (> 3 in 22%). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding the presence of lung (68%), liver (31%), and bone (43%) metastases, and the use of bisphosphonates (32%). In prior HDIL2 versus tx naïve pts, objective response was partial response/stable disease 89% (n=24) versus 74% (n=20), and progressive disease at first imaging evaluation within the first 3 months (mos) 11% (n=3) versus 26% (n=7) (p=0.29, OR 2.4). Median progression free survival was 21 versus 12 mos (HR 2.3, p=0.005), and median overall survival 25 versus 20 mos (HR 2.2, p=0.013). Conclusions: In metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib, prior high dose IL-2 therapy may improve the outcome.

Active smoking may negatively affect response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib

BACKGROUND

Obesity, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes are risk factors for renal cell carcinoma development. Their presence has been associated with a worse outcome in various cancers. We sought to determine their association with outcome of sunitinib treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective study of sunitinib-treated mRCC patients was performed. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between outcome and the pretreatment status of smoking, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and other known prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2013, 278 mRCC patients were treated with sunitinib: 59 were active smokers, 67 were obese, 73 were diabetic, and 165 had pretreatment hypertension. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months, and overall survival (OS) was 22 months. Factors associated with PFS were smoking status (past and active smokers: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.17, p = .39; never smokers: HR: 2.94, p < .0001), non-clear cell histology (HR: 1.62, p = .011), pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio >3 (HR: 3.51, p < .0001), use of angiotensin system inhibitors (HR: 0.63, p = .01), sunitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption (HR: 0.72, p = .045), and Heng risk (good and intermediate risk: HR: 1.07, p = .77; poor risk: HR: 1.87, p = .046). Factors associated with OS were smoking status (past and active smokers: HR: 1.25, p = .29; never smokers: HR: 2.7, p < .0001), pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio >3 (HR: 2.95, p < .0001), and sunitinib-induced hypertension (HR: 0.57, p = .002).

CONCLUSION

Active smoking may negatively affect the PFS and OS of sunitinib-treated mRCC. Clinicians should consider advising patients to quit smoking at initiation of sunitinib treatment for mRCC.

Diabetes microvascular disease and the risk for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: a single center study

CONTEXT

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) is a severe bone disease for which the exact pathogenesis mechanisms are not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to investigate a possible contribution of diabetes and microvascular disease to the pathophysiology of BRONJ.

DESIGN

We identified 46 patients treated with bisphosphonates who were diagnosed with BRONJ based on their medical history during 2009 to 2012 and invited them for a dental assessment to confirm the diagnosis. Diabetes diagnosis was based on the American Diabetes Association criteria. The study group was compared to a control group of 38 patients treated with bisphosphonates without evidence of BRONJ.

SETTING

The study was conducted at Rambam Health Care Campus, a referral center, Haifa, Israel.

RESULTS

The results of our study showed that of the 46 patients with BRONJ, 31 (67.4%) had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. The proportion with diabetes (37%) was higher than in the control group (26.3%; P = .009). The presence of diabetes or impaired fasting glucose increased the association with BRONJ by 2.78-fold (confidence interval = 1.27-6.07, P = .009). The prevalence of microvascular disease (neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy) was significantly higher in the BRONJ than in the control group (P = .01). The presence of diabetic nephropathy increased the association with BRONJ by 3.9-fold (confidence interval = 1.12-13.52, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study suggests an association between diabetes, perhaps mediated through microvascular complications, and the development of BRONJ.

A BCI using VEP for continuous control of a mobile robot

A brain-computer interface (BCI) translates brain activity into commands to control devices or software. Common approaches are based on visual evoked potentials (VEP), extracted from the electroencephalogram (EEG) during visual stimulation. High information transfer rates (ITR) can be achieved using (i) steady-state VEP (SSVEP) or (ii) code-modulated VEP (c-VEP). This study investigates how applicable such systems are for continuous control of robotic devices and which method performs best. Eleven healthy subjects steered a robot along a track using four BCI controls on a computer screen in combination with feedback video of the movement. The average time to complete the tasks was (i) 573.43 s and (ii) 222.57 s. In a second non-continuous trial-based validation run the maximum achievable online classification accuracy over all subjects was (i) 91.36 % and (ii) 98.18 %. This results show that the c-VEP fits the needs of a continuous system better than the SSVEP implementation.

Comparison of abiraterone acetate (Abi) versus ketoconazole (Keto) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) refractory to docetaxel (D)

e16068

Background: Abi is a standard treatment (tx) in pts with mCRPC refractory to D. It is a potent and selective CYP 17 inhibitor, that blocks the synthesis of androgens in the testis, adrenal glands, and prostate. However, in many countries where abi has not been approved yet, keto is used as an alternative CYP 17 inhibitor. Although preclinical data suggests that keto is a less specific and potent inhibitor of CYP 17, there are limited clinical data comparing both agents. Aims: To compare the clinical effectiveness of abi vs keto in pts with mCRPC refractory to D. Methods: Records from 156 mCRPC pts treated with keto 200 - 400 mg 3x day, in 4 centers across the US and Israel, were reviewed retrospectively. 26 pts treated post D were individually matched by clinicopathologic factors to pts treated with abi (selected from a multicenter Israeli database, n=120). We compared the PSA response (decrease ≥50% from baseline), biochemical and radiological progression free survival, and overall survival between the groups. Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: The groups were matched by Gleason score, pre-tx disease extent (limited-axial skeleton and/or nodal vs extensive- appendicular skeleton and/or visceral), ECOG PS, pre-tx risk category (favorable, intermediate, poor; Keizman, Oncologist 2012). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding median age (71 abi vs 69 keto), time from primary tx to disease relapse, time to progression on prior GnRH-a and antiandrogen, PSA response and time to progression on prior D, pre-tx pain score/alkaline phosphatase/hemoglobin/neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio/PSADT/PSA. In the groups of abi vs keto, PSA response was 46% vs 19% (OR 4.4, p=0.043), median biochemical PFS 7 vs 2 months (HR 0.65, p=0.02), median radiological PFS 6 vs 2.5 months (HR 0.63, p=0.016), median overall survival 17 vs 12 months (HR 0.53, p=0.79), and tx interruption d/t adverse events 12% vs 23% (0R 0.6, p=0.023). Conclusions: In mCRPC refractory to D, the outcome of pts treated with abiraterone was superior to ketoconazole.

Activity of cabazitaxel following docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer

e16023

Background: Cabazitaxel (CAB) and Abiraterone-acetate (AA) have been approved after Docetaxel in castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Both exhibit hormonal effects. AA depletes androgen in microenvironment; taxanes affect the microtubule-dependent trafficking of the androgen receptor. Recently, clinical cross-resistance has been suggested between AA and taxanes. This prompted evaluation of CAB following Docetaxel and AA in CRPC. Methods: Over 13 months until December 2011, 130 CRPC patients received AA after Docetaxel in compassionate programs. Of them, 24 (18.4%) subsequently received CAB. We retrospectively reviewed their data (PCWG2/RECIST and NCI toxicity criteria). Results: Fourteen (58.3%) received CAB/prednisone at 20 mg/m 2 and 10 patients 25 mg/m2 , overall a median of 4 (1-13) cycles. Nineteen (79.1%) received primary G-CSF support. Patient characteristics (median, range in parenthesis): Age 65 (57-85) years, Gleason- 8 (6-10), K.S- 80 (50-90) %. Metastatic sites: liver- 5 (20.8%), visceral- 8 (33.3%), osseous- 22 (91.6%), No. sites involved- 2 (1-4). Lab-work: PSA- 128.1 (0.01-1700) ng/ml, PSA Doubling time- 2.16 (0.64-7.41) months, alkaline phosphatase 129 (35-1200) u/L. Castration sensitive period - 16.2 (2.0-92.1) months. Using Cox univariate analysis, only K.S was near-significant for prediction of survival after initiating CAB, p=0.075, OR=0.315, 95% C.I (0.88-1.125). A PSA response of 30%, 95% C.I (11,8-54,2)% was observed after CAB with non progression occurring in 6 (26%) out of 23 evaluable patients, 95% CI (10.2-48.4)%. At analysis 11 patients are alive. Median survival from initiation of CAB was 8.2 (95% C.I 3.34-13.05) months, from AA 16.1 (95 C.I 11.56-20.64) and from Docetaxel 32.0 (95% C.I 11.56-39.69). Non-progression with Docetaxel (but not AA) was associated with longer survival with CAB, p=0.049, 43.1 v.s 17.4 months. Four (16.6%) patients developed infectious complications, including one death due to septic shock. Conclusions: Limited number of patients with CRPC received CAB following Docetaxel and AA. In this selected population CAB was active. Response to prior Docetaxel was associated with prolonged survival to CAB therapy.

Comparison between the outcome of metastatic RCC patients treated with sunitinib as part of clinical trials and matched nonparticipants receiving sutent as standard therapy

e15597

Background: Several studies have suggested the existence of a “trial effect”, in which for a given treatment, participation in a clinical trial is associated with a better outcome of cancer patients. The VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib is a standard treatment for mRCC. The effect of clinical trial participation on the outcome of sunitinib treatment in mRCC is poorly defined. Aims: To study the effect of clinical trial participation on outcome of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. Methods: Records from 275 mRCC patients treated with sunitinib from 2004 to 2012 in 7 centers across 2 countries were reviewed. We compared the response rate, progression free survival, and overall survival, between clinical trial participants (n=49) and a matched cohort of non participants (n=49) who who received standard therapy. Each patient participating in a clinical trial was individually matched with a non participant by clinicopathologic factors. Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: The groups were matched by age (median 64), gender (male 67%), Heng risk (favorable 24%, intermediate 60%, poor 16%), ECOG performance status (0-1 92%), prior nephrectomy (92%), renal cell carcinoma histology (clear cell 80%), sunitinib induced hypertension (56%), and sunitinib dose reduction/treatment interruption (41%). In clinical trial participants versus non participants, objective response was partial response/stable disease 80% (n=39) versus 73% (n=36), and progressive disease at first imaging evaluation within the first 3 months (mos) 20% (n=10) versus 27% (n=13) (p=0.63, OR 1.2). Median progression free survival was 10 versus 11 mos (HR=0.96, p=0.84), and median overall survival 23 versus 24 mos (HR=0.97, p=0.89). Conclusions: In mRCC patient treated with sunitinib, the outcome of clinical trial participants was similar to matched non participants who received standard therapy.

Are there geographic differences in the outcome of patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib (su)?

e15598

Background: Geographic differences in the outcome of pts have been described in various cancers. The VEGFR inhibitor su is a standard treatment (tx) for mRCC. The effect of geographic differences on the outcome of su tx in mRCC is poorly defined. Aims: To study the effect of geographic differences on outcome of su tx in mRCC. Methods: We performed an international multicentre retrospective study of unselected cohort of 275 mRCC pts, who were treated with su from 2004 to 2012 in 7 centers across the US and Middle East (ME; Israel). Clinicopathologic and prognostic factors, and tx outcome were compared between US (n=133) and ME (n=142) pts. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and two-sample t-test was used to compare continuous endpoints. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox regression. Results: Median age was 61 (US) vs 65 (ME, p=0.01). The groups were balanced regarding gender, Heng risk, past nephrectomy, RCC histology, presence of ≥ 2 metastatic sites, lung/liver/bone metastasis, use of angiotensin system inhibitors (ASI), prior cytokines/ targeted txt, su induced HTN, and su dose reduction/tx interruption secondary to side effects. The incidence of active smokers (28% vs 15%, p=0.01), bisphosphonates users (23% vs 13%, p=0.03) and pts with pre-tx neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≤ 3 (63% vs 49%, p=0.04) was higher among ME pts. In US vs ME pts, objective response was partial response/stable disease 77% (n=102) vs 79% (n=112), and progressive disease at first imaging evaluation within the first 3 months (mos) 23% (n=31) vs 21% (n=30) (p=0.77, OR 1.1). Median PFS was 8 vs 12 mos (HR=1.8, p<0.0001), and median OS 21 vs 22 mos (HR=0.94, p=0.9) in US vs ME pts. Factors associated with PFS in multivariate analysis of the entire cohort (n=275) were geographic location (US vs ME), Heng risk, RCC histology, su induced HTN, ASI use, pre-tx NLR, and smoking status. Conclusions: Geographic differences in clinicopathologic factors and PFS of pts with mRCC treated with su may exist. This should be further investigated, and if validated, applied in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Comparison of abiraterone acetate (Abi) versus ketoconazole (Keto) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) refractory to docetaxel (D)

146

Background: Abi is a standard treatment (tx) in pts with mCRPC refractory to deocetaxel. It is a potent and selective CYP 17 inhibitor that blocks the synthesis of androgens in the testis, adrenal glands, and prostate. However, in many countries where abi has not been approved yet, keto is used as an alternative CYP 17 inhibitor. Although preclinical data suggests that keto is a less specific and potent inhibitor of CYP 17, there are limited clinical data comparing both agents. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of abi vs keto in pts with mCRPC refractory to D. Methods: Records from 156 mCRPC pts treated with keto 200 - 400 mg 3x day, in 4 centers across the US and Israel, were reviewed retrospectively. 26 pts treated post D were individually matched by clinicopathologic factors to pts treated with abi (selected from a multicenter Israeli database, n=120). We compared the PSA response (decrease ≥50% from baseline), biochemical and radiological progression free survival, and overall survival between the groups. Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: The groups were matched by Gleason score, pre-tx disease extent (limited-axial skeleton and/or nodal vs extensive- appendicular skeleton and/or visceral), ECOG PS, pre-tx risk category (favorable, intermediate, poor; Keizman, Oncologist 2012). Furthermore, they were balanced regarding median age (71 abi vs 69 keto), time from primary tx to disease relapse, time to progression on prior GnRH-a and antiandrogen, PSA response and time to progression on prior D, pre-tx pain score/alkaline phosphatase/hemoglobin/ neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio/PSADT/PSA. In the groups of abi vs keto, PSA response was 46% vs 19% (OR 4.4, p=0.043), median biochemical PFS 7 vs 2 months (HR 0.65, p=0.02), median radiological PFS 6 vs 2.5 months (HR 0.63, p=0.016), median overall survival 17 vs 12 months (HR 0.53, p=0.79), and tx interruption d/t adverse events 12% vs 23% (0R 0.6, p=0.023). Conclusions: In mCRPC refractory to D, the outcome of pts treated with abiraterone was superior to ketoconazole.

Activity of cabazitaxel following docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer

186

Background: Cabazitaxel (CAB) and abiraterone-acetate (AA) have been approved after docetaxel in castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Both exhibit hormonal effects. AA depletes androgen in microenvironment; taxanes affect the microtubule-dependent trafficking of the androgen receptor. Recently, clinical cross-resistance has been suggested between AA and taxanes. This prompted evaluation of CAB following docetaxel and AA in CRPC. Methods: Over 13 months until December 2011, 130 CRPC patients received AA after docetaxel in compassionate programs. Of them, 24 (18.4%) subsequently received CAB. We retrospectively reviewed their data (PCWG2/RECIST and NCI toxicity criteria). Results: Fourteen (58.3%) received CAB/prednisone at 20 mg/m2 and 10 patients 25 mg/m2, overall a median of 4 (1-13) cycles. Nineteen (79.1%) received primary G-CSF support. Patient characteristics (median, range in parenthesis): Age 65 (57-85) years, Gleason- 8 (6-10), K.S- 80 (50-90) %. Metastatic sites: liver- 5 (20.8%), visceral- 8 (33.3%), osseous- 22 (91.6%), No. sites involved- 2 (1-4). Lab-work: PSA- 128.1 (0.01-1700) ng/ml, PSA Doubling time- 2.16 (0.64-7.41) months, alkaline phosphatase 129 (35-1200) u/L. Castration sensitive period - 16.2 (2.0-92.1) months. Using Cox univariate analysis, only K.S was near-significant for prediction of survival after initiating CAB, p=0.075, OR=0.315, 95% C.I (0.88-1.125). A PSA response of 30%, 95% C.I (11,8-54,2)% was observed after CAB with non progression occurring in 6 (26%) out of 23 evaluable patients, 95% CI (10.2-48.4)%. At analysis 11 patients are alive. Median survival from initiation of CAB was 8.2 (95% C.I 3.34-13.05) months, from AA 16.1 (95 C.I 11.56-20.64) and from docetaxel 32.0 (95% C.I 11.56-39.69). Non-progression with docetaxel (but not AA) was associated with longer survival with CAB, p=0.049, 43.1 v.s 17.4 months. Four (16.6%) patients developed infectious complications, including one death due to septic shock. Conclusions: Limited number of patients with CRPC received CAB following docetaxel and AA. In this selected population CAB was active. Response to prior docetaxel was associated with prolonged survival to CAB therapy.

Are there geographic differences in the outcome of patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib (su)?

458

Background: Geographic differences in the outcome of pts have been described in various cancers. The VEGFR inhibitor su is a standard treatment (tx) for mRCC. The effect of geographic differences on the outcome of su tx in mRCC is poorly defined. We aimed to study the effect of geographic differences on outcome of su tx in mRCC. Methods: We performed an international multicenter retrospective study of unselected cohort of 275 mRCC pts, who were treated with su from 2004 to 2012 in 7 centers across the United States and Middle East (ME; Israel). Clinicopathologic and prognostic factors, and tx outcome were compared between United States (n=133) and ME (n=142) pts. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and two-sample t-test was used to compare continuous endpoints. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox regression. Results: Median age was 61 (United States) vs. 65 (ME, p = 0.01). The groups were balanced regarding gender, Heng risk, past nephrectomy, RCC histology, presence of ≥ 2 metastatic sites, lung/liver/bone metastasis, use of angiotensin system inhibitors (ASI), prior cytokines/ targeted txt, su induced HTN, and su dose reduction/tx interruption secondary to side effects. The incidence of active smokers (28% vs. 15%, p =0.01), bisphosphonates users (23% vs. 13%, p = 0.03) and pts with pre-tx neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≤ 3 (63% vs. 49%, p = 0.04) was higher among ME pts. In United States vs. ME pts, objective response was partial response/stable disease 77% (n=102) vs. 79% (n=112), and progressive disease at first imaging evaluation within the first 3 months (mos) 23% (n=31) vs. 21% (n=30) (p = 0.77, OR 1.1). Median PFS was 8 vs. 12 mos (HR=1.8, p < 0.0001), and median OS 21 vs. 22 mos (HR=0.94, p = 0.9) in United States vs ME pts. Factors associated with PFS in multivariate analysis of the entire cohort (n=275) were geographic location (United States vs. ME), Heng risk, RCC histology, su induced HTN, ASI use, pre-tx NLR, and smoking status. Conclusions: Geographic differences in clinicopathologic factors and PFS of pts with mRCC treated with su may exist. This should be further investigated, and if validated, applied in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Is there a "trial effect" on outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with sunitinib?

453

Background: Several studies have suggested the existence of a trial effect, in which for a given treatment, participation in a clinical trial is associated with a better outcome of cancer patients. The VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib is a standard treatment for mRCC. The effect of clinical trial participation on the outcome of sunitinib treatment in mRCC is poorly defined. We aimed to study the effect of clinical trial participation on outcome of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib. Methods: Records from 275 mRCC patients treated with sunitinib from 2004 to 2012 in 7 centers across 2 countries were reviewed. We compared the response rate, progression free survival, and overall survival, between clinical trial participants (n=49) and a matched cohort of non participants (n=49) who received standard therapy. Each patient participating in a clinical trial was individually matched with a non-participant by clinicopathologic factors. Progression free survival and overall survival were determined by Cox regression. Results: The groups were matched by age (median 64), gender (male 67%), Heng risk (favorable 24%, intermediate 60%, poor 16%), ECOG performance status (0-1 92%), prior nephrectomy (92%), renal cell carcinoma histology (clear cell 80%), sunitinib induced hypertension (56%), and sunitinib dose reduction/treatment interruption (41%). In clinical trial participants vs. non participants, objective response was partial response/stable disease 80% (n=39) vs. 73% (n=36), and progressive disease at first imaging evaluation within the first 3 months (mos) 20% (n=10) vs. 27% (n=13) (p = 0.63, OR 1.2). Median progression free survival was 10 vs. 11 mos (HR=0.96, p = 0.84), and median overall survival 23 vs. 24 mos (HR=0.97, p=0.89). Conclusions: In mRCC patient treated with sunitinib, the outcome of clinical trial participants was similar to matched non participants who received standard therapy.