Sex Hormones and Hormone Therapy during COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Patients with Cancer

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows a wide spectrum of clinical presentations, severity, and fatality rates. The reason older patients and males show increased risk of severe disease and death remains uncertain. Sex hormones, such as estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone, might be implicated in the age-dependent and sex-specific severity of COVID-19. High testosterone levels could upregulate transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), facilitating the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Data from patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy seem to confirm this hypothesis. Clinical studies on TMPRSS2 inhibitors, such as camostat, nafamostat, and bromhexine, are ongoing. Antiandrogens, such as bicalutamide and enzalutamide, are also under investigation. Conversely, other studies suggest that the immune modulating properties of androgens could protect from the unfavorable cytokine storm, and that low testosterone levels might be associated with a worse prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Some evidence also supports the notion that estrogens and progesterone might exert a protective effect on females, through direct antiviral activity or immune-mediated mechanisms, thus explaining the higher COVID-19 severity in post-menopausal women. In this perspective, we discuss the available evidence on sex hormones and hormone therapy in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and we highlight the possible implications for cancer patients, who can receive hormonal therapies during their treatment plans.

Soluble PD-L1 and Circulating CD8+PD-1+ and NK Cells Enclose a Prognostic and Predictive Immune Effector Score in Immunotherapy Treated NSCLC patients

INTRODUCTION

Upfront criteria to foresee immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy are far from being identified. Thus, we integrated blood descriptors of pro-inflammatory/immunosuppressive or effective anti-tumor response to non-invasively define predictive immune profiles in ICI-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Peripheral blood (PB) was prospectively collected at baseline from 109 consecutive NSCLC patients undergoing ICIs as first or more line treatment. Soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) (immunoassay), CD8+PD-1+ and NK (FACS) cells were assessed and interlaced to generate an Immune effector Score (I_effS). Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) was computed by LDH levels and derived Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (dNLR). All these parameters were correlated with survival outcome and treatment response.

RESULTS

High sPD-L1 and low CD8+PD-1+ and NK number had negative impact on PFS (P < 0.001), OS (P < 0.01) and ICI-response (P < 0.05). Thus, sPD-L1^high, CD8+PD-1+^low and NK^low were considered as risk factors encompassing I_effS, whose prognostic power outperformed that of individual features and slightly exceeded that of LIPI. Accordingly, the absence of these risk factors portrayed a favorable I_effS characterizing patients with significantly (P < 0.001) prolonged PFS (median NR vs 2.3 months) and OS (median NR vs 4.1) and greater benefit from ICIs (P < 0.01). We then combined each risk parameter composing I_effS and LIPI (LDH^high, dNLR^high), thus defining three distinct prognostic classes. A remarkable impact of I_effS-LIPI integration was documented on survival outcome (PFS, HR = 4.61; 95%CI = 2.32-9.18; P < 0.001; OS, HR=4.03; 95%CI=1.91-8.67; P < 0.001) and ICI-response (AUC=0.90, 95%CI=0.81-0.97, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Composite risk models based on blood parameters featuring the tumor-host interaction might provide accurate prognostic scores able to predict ICI benefit in NSCLC patients.

Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm

Anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 agents may have intrinsic and clinically relevant differences in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. By reviewing currently available indirect evidence on these agents for NSCLC treatment, highlighting possible inter- and intra-class dissimilarities, anti-PD1 agents showed a higher response rate and a better outcome when combined with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with squamous and PD-L1 low advanced NSCLC, as compared to anti-PD-L1 agents. Conversely, anti-PD-L1 agents were responsible for less severe adverse events (AEs), particularly, immunerelated AEs. These differences could be explained by their different specific properties. Considering possible differences between anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 agents could be clinically relevant for treatment tailoring and inspiring new investigational approaches.

Immune-related Adverse Events of Pembrolizumab in a Large Real-world Cohort of Patients With NSCLC With a PD-L1 Expression ≥ 50% and Their Relationship With Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The role of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), as a surrogate predictor of the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors, has not yet been described in the setting of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung-cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥ 50%.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We previously conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in patients with treatment-naive metastatic NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression of ≥ 50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab. Here, we report the results of the irAE analysis and the potential correlation between irAEs and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1010 patients were included in this analysis; after a 6-week landmark selection, 877 (86.8%) patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), grade 3/4 irAEs (P = .0025), leading to discontinuation irAEs (P = .0144), multiple-site and single-site irAEs (P < .0001), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0001), endocrine irAEs (P = .0227), pulmonary irAEs (P = .0479), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0018) were significantly related to a higher objective response rate. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0005), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0042), endocrine irAEs (P < .0001), gastrointestinal irAEs (P = .0391), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0086) were significantly related to progression-free survival. Any grade irAEs (P < .0001), single-site irAEs (P < .0001), multiple-site irAEs (P = .0003), cutaneous irAEs (P = .0002), endocrine irAEs (P = .0001), and rheumatologic irAEs (P = .0214) were significantly related to overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the feasibility and the safety of first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab, in a large, real-world cohort of patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%. The occurrence of irAEs may be a surrogate of clinical activity and improved outcomes in this setting.

Management of oligometastatic and oligoprogressive renal cell carcinoma: state of the art and future directions

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper was to perform a narrative review of the literature on the available approaches in the treatment of two emerging subpopulations of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients: the oligometastatic disease (less than 5 metastasis) and the oligoprogressive disease, defined as worsening in maximum 3-5 sites while all other tumor sites are controlled by systemic therapy.

AREAS COVERED

We explore all possible approaches in these settings of patients: the role of local therapies, considering both surgical metastasectomy and/or ablative techniques, the efficacy of systemic therapies and the rationale behind active surveillance. We also discuss ongoing clinical trials in these settings.

EXPERT OPINION

Two different strategies are emerging as the most promising for the approach to the oligometastatic/oligoprogressive mRCC patient: (1) the use of immunocheckpoint inhibitors following metastasectomy; (2) the use of stereotactic radiotherapy alone or combined with immunotherapy for oligometastatic disease. The lack of validated biomarkers of response in these mRCC patient subpopulations is opening the way to the employment of novel technologies. Among them, the use of artificial intelligence seems to be the candidate to contribute to precision oncology in patients with mRCC.

Predictive Ability for Disease-Free Survival of the GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor (GRANT) Score in Patients with Resected Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Recently, the GRANT (GRade, Age, Nodes, and Tumor) score was validated through an adjuvant trial population.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the performance of the GRANT score as a prognostic model for disease-free survival (DFS), compared to the University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System (UISS) score, in a "real-life" population of early renal cell carcinoma patients. A uni-/multivariate analysis of DFS was also performed, to weigh the roles of baseline clinical factors.

RESULTS

From February 1998 to January 2018, 134 consecutive patients were enrolled, of which 85 patients (63.4%) had a favorable GRANT score, 49 (36.6%) an unfavorable GRANT score, and 21 (15.7%), 84 (62.6%), and 29 (21.6%) patients had a low, intermediate, or high risk of recurrence according to the UISS score, respectively. The median follow-up was 96 months. The median DFS of the overall study population was 53.7 months (95% CI: 38.4-87.8). Only bilateral renal cell carcinoma (p = 0.0041), Fuhrman grade 3/4 (p = 0.0008), pT3b- 4 (p = 0.0324), and pN1-2 (p = 0.0303) pathological status were confirmed as independent predictors of a shorter DFS by the multivariate analysis. The median DFS of patients with favorable and unfavorable GRANT scores were 84.9 (95% CI: 49.8-129) and 38.4 months (95% CI: 24.4-87.8), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0147). The median DFS of patients with low, intermediate, and high risk of recurrence according to the UISS score were 92.3 (95% CI: 18.1-153.9), 51.7 (95% CI: 36.2-87.8), and 49.8 months (95% CI: 31.3-129), respectively, without statistically significant differences (p = 0.4728). DFS c-statistic values were 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.67) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.42-0.60) for the GRANT and the UISS scores, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The GRANT score might be a useful tool that is user-friendly and easy to perform in clinical practice.

Pazopanib as a possible option for the treatment of metastatic non-clear cell renal carcinoma patients: a systematic review

Background:

Effective systemic treatment of non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC) is still an unmet clinical need, with few studies to support an evidence-based approach. To date, the only recommended standard first-line treatment is sunitinib. Pazopanib may also be used in nccRCC but its place in therapy is not clearly established. It has comparable efficacy and better tolerability than sunitinib in clear cell renal carcinoma. Our objective was to review the use of pazopanib in metastatic nccRCC.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Any type of study reporting the use of pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma including cases with non-clear cell histology was eligible.

Results:

In all, 15 studies were included in our analysis, including a total of 318 nccRCC patients treated with pazopanib. Most studies were retrospective (n = 12); three were prospective trials. The specific outcomes of nccRCC patients were reported by four studies. Pazopanib alone as first-line treatment gave overall response rates ranging from 27% to 33%, disease control rates of 81–89%, median progression free survival of 8.1–16.5 months and median overall survival of 17.3–31.0 months. Grade 3–4 adverse events rates were 21–55%.

Conclusion:

The present review provides for the first time a systematic summary of evidence about the possible use of pazopanib as first-line treatment for nccRCC, with a favorable outcome despite the low strength of evidence. Pazopanib could be considered as a possible therapeutic option in this setting.

Baseline and early change of systemic inflammation index (bSII and ΔSII) as prognostic factors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with Nivolumab: Final results of the Meet-URO 15 (I-BIO-REC) study

5072

Background: Biomarkers to select mRCC patients most likely to benefit to immunotherapy are still needed. The retrospective multicentre Meet-URO-15 study evaluated the prognostic role of peripheral blood cells in mRCC patients treated with Nivolumab. Methods: Complete blood count was collected at the first four cycles of Nivolumab. The primary endpoint was median overall survival (mOS) according to baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. Secondary analyses included bSII defined as platelet x NLR (cutoff = 1375) and ΔSII defined as the difference between SII at 2ndcycle and bSII (median used as cutoff = 383). Results: From October 2015 to October 2019, 470 patients started Nivolumab as 2nd(67%), 3rd(22%) and > 3rd(11%) line. Median age was 66 years, 71% were male and 83% had clear cell histology. Baseline IMDC group was favorable in 25%, intermediate in 63% and poor in 12%. Lymph-nodes, visceral and bone metastases were present in 54%, 91% and 36%. mOS and progression-free survival (PFS) were 34.8 and 7.5 months. Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 30% and 61%. SII was available in 404 patients: SII < 1375 (82%) correlated with statistically significant improvement of PFS [10.2 vs 4.1 months, HR 2.06 (1.54-2.76), p< 0.001], OS [46.2 vs 9.5 months, HR 3.16 (2.23-4.49), p< 0.001], ORR (35% vs 21%, p= 0.035) and DCR (67% vs 40%, p< 0.001). ΔSII was available in 360 patients: ΔSII < 383 (75%) correlated with statistically significant improvement of PFS [11.3 vs 4.7 months; HR 1.64 (1.23-2.18), p= 0.001] and OS [NR vs 21.1 months; HR 1.76 (1.21-2.56), p= 0.003], ORR (37% vs 24%, p= 0.023) and DCR (68% vs 53%, p= 0.01). Multivariate analyses adjusted for IMDC group, line of therapy and metastatic sites, confirmed the statistically significant correlation of bSII and ΔSII with OS, PFS and DCR. Conclusions: Our study showed the statistically significant correlation of lower bSII and early ΔSII with longer OS, PFS and higher DCR in mRCC patients treated with Nivolumab.

Baseline and early change of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (bNLR and ΔNLR) as prognostic factors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with Nivolumab: Final results of the Meet-URO 15 (I-BIO-REC) study

e17081

Background: Biomarkers to select mRCC patients most likely to benefit to immunotherapy are needed. The retrospective multicentre Meet-URO-15 study evaluated the prognostic role of peripheral blood cells in mRCC patients treated with Nivolumab. Methods: Complete blood count was assessed at the first four cycles of Nivolumab. The primary endpoint was median overall survival (mOS) according to bNLR. NLR was defined as neutrophil / lymphocyte (cutoff = 3) and ΔNLR the difference between NLR at 2nd cycle and bNLR (median as cutoff = 1.1). Results: From October 2015 to October 2019, 470 patients started Nivolumab as 2nd (67%), 3rd (22%) and > 3rd (11%) line. Median age was 66 years, 71% were male and 83% had clear cell histology. Baseline IMDC group was favorable in 25%, intermediate in 63% and poor in 12%. Lymph-nodes, visceral and bone metastases were present in 54%, 91% and 36%. mOS and progression-free survival (PFS) were 34.8 and 7.5 months. Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 30% and 61%. bNLR was available in 404 patients: bNLR < 3 (54%) correlated with statistically significant longer PFS [11.4 vs 5.4 months; HR 1.69 (1.33-2.15)] and OS [46.2 vs 17.2 months; HR 2.37 (1.72-3.26)] (both p< 0.001), with similar ORR (35% vs 30%, p= 0.28) but higher DCR (71% vs 52%, p< 0.001). ΔNLR was available in 360 patients: ΔNLR < 1.1 (73%) correlated with a statistically significant improvement of PFS [11.2 vs 4.9 months; HR 1.53 (1.16-2.03), p= 0.03], OS [Not Reached vs 19.7 months; HR 1.83 (1.28-2.61), p= 0.001], ORR (37% vs 23%, p= 0.011) and DCR (68% vs 53%, p= 0.008). Multivariate analyses adjusted for IMDC group, line of therapy and metastatic sites, confirmed the statistically significant correlation of bNLR and ΔNLR with OS, PFS and DCR. Conclusions: Our study showed the statistically significant correlation of lower bNLR and early ΔNLR with longer OS, PFS and higher DCR in mRCC patients treated with Nivolumab.

Phase II study of avelumab plus intermittent axitinib in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (Tide-A study)

TPS762

Background: The combination of avelumab plus axitinib has been recently reported to be superior than sunitinib alone for treatment of previously untreated mRCC patients (Motzer, NEJM 2019). The study reported a median PFS of 13.8 for the combination of avelumab plus axitinib compared to 8.4 months for sunitinib (p<0.001) with an ORR of 48% vs 24%, respectively. To improve treatment efficacy and safety, TKI discontinuation has been considered in patients treated with sunitinib leading to a longer definitive progression free survival (22.4 months) and overall survival (34.8 months) with a better safety profile (Ornstein, JCO 2017). Despite a new tumor response at TKI reintroduction, many patients progressed after the first months of treatment discontinuation suggesting the necessity to maintain the previous response. This study aims to test if patients achieving a tumor response with the combination of avelumab plus axitinib, can discontinue the TKI in order to delay the resistance and decrease the toxicity related to the combination of therapies. Methods: The single arm, phase II TIDE-A trial, aims to evaluate the activity of avelumab as maintenance therapy in patients with mRCC who achieved a tumor response after the induction phase of therapy with the combination of avelumab and axitinib. Eligible patients have clear cell carcinoma, ECOG performance status 0 or 1, measurable, no bulky disease without tumor-related symptoms or hepatic metastases. Eligible patient will receive the combination of avelumab plus axitinib for 36 weeks. Patients achieving RECIST 1.1 partial response discontinue the axitinib and continue avelumab. At tumor progression, the axitinib will be restarted for at least six months. If a new tumor response is achieved, axitinib will be discontinued again until tumor progression. Patients with RECIST 1.1 stable disease continue the combination of avelumab and axitinib until progression of disease. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the rate of patients free of progression after 8 weeks from axitinib discontinuation. The study is currently ongoing in twenty centres in Italy.

Immunotherapy-based combinations versus standard first-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Considering the recent publication of the results of several clinical trials for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing standard first-line VEGFR-targeted therapy to immune checkpoint inhibitors-based combinations for mRCC patients.

METHODS

3960 patients from 5 randomized clinical trials where available for evaluation.

RESULT

In the all-comers population, immunotherapy-based combinations were able to decrease the risk of death over the standard of care by 26% (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.60-0.92; p = 0.006), to decrease the risk of progression by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.72-0.86; p < 0.00001), and to increase the relative risk of response by 40% (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.11-1.77; p = 0.006). For poor/intermediate-risk patients, the risk of death is decreased by 41% and the risk of progression by 27%.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of immunotherapy-based combinations in mRCC patients is independent from the IMDC risk group, but it is stronger for poor/intermediate-risk patients.

Evaluating the role of FAMIly history of cancer and diagnosis of multiple neoplasms in cancer patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors: the multicenter FAMI-L1 study

Background: We investigate the role of family history of cancer (FHC) and diagnosis of metachronous and/or synchronous multiple neoplasms (MN), during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Design: This was a multicenter retrospective study of advanced cancer patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. FHC was collected in lineal and collateral lines, and patients were categorized as follows: FHC-high (in case of cancer diagnoses in both the lineal and collateral family lines), FHC-low (in case of cancer diagnoses in only one family line), and FHC-negative. Patients were also categorized according to the diagnosis of MN as follows: MN-high (>2 malignancies), MN-low (two malignancies), and MN-negative. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade were evaluated.

Results: 822 consecutive patients were evaluated. 458 patients (55.7%) were FHC-negative, 289 (35.2%) were FHC-low, and 75 (9.1%) FHC-high, respectively. 29 (3.5%) had a diagnosis of synchronous MN and 94 (11.4%) of metachronous MN. 108 (13.2%) and 15 (1.8%) patients were MN-low and MN-high, respectively. The median follow-up was 15.6 months. No significant differences were found regarding ORR among subgroups. FHC-high patients had a significantly longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48–0.97], p = .0379) and OS (HR = 0.61 [95% CI: 0.39–0.93], p = .0210), when compared to FHC-negative patients. FHC-high was confirmed as an independent predictor for PFS and OS at multivariate analysis. No significant differences were found according to MN categories. FHC-high patients had a significantly higher incidence of irAEs of any grade, compared to FHC-negative patients (p = .0012).

Conclusions: FHC-high patients seem to benefit more than FHC-negative patients from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.

Correlations between tumor-infiltrating and circulating lymphocyte subpopulations in advanced renal cancer patients treated with nivolumab

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials with immunotherapy, histological features such as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are investigated as potential predictive biomarkers, with the limit of an outdated parameter for a typically dynamic element.

METHODS

This explorative study compared, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, basal pathological data about TILs on diagnostic histological specimens with circulating lymphocyte subpopulations measured before and during therapy with nivolumab.

RESULTS

Of 11 mRCC patients, 5 had low presence of TILs (L-TILs), 3 moderate amount (M-TILs) and 3 high number (H-TILs). Overall, 8 patients had low intratumoral pathological CD4+/CD8+ ratio (LIPR) ≤1 and 3 cases high intratumoral pathological ratio (HIPR) ≥2. Of 8 patients with LIPR, only 2 matched with low circulating CD4+/CD8+ ratio (LCR) ≤1; 5 had high circulating ratio (HCR) ≥2. All 3 cases with HIPR (≥2) conversely had LCR (≤1). Circulating CD4+/CD8+ ratio remained unchanged during therapy (mean -0.12 in 8 weeks). The respective percentage values of CD4+ and CD8+ circulating T cells also remained stable (variation 0%); the absolute value of CD4+ was more likely to increase (mean +46.3/mm3); the level of CD8+ tended to slightly decrease (mean -6.5/mm3). No correlation of lymphocyte subpopulations with treatment outcome was found. Of note, we did not evidence correspondence between histopathological and circulating findings in terms of T-lymphocyte subpopulations, also suggesting the inconsistency of circulating data in terms of relative variations.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the likely high dynamism of TILs, rebiopsy before therapy might be proposed to assess the utility of TILs characterization for predictive purpose. (www.actabiomedica.it).

Palliative radiotherapy in advanced cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: The PRACTICE study

In the present study, the influence of purely palliative radiotherapy (pRT) on the outcomes of patients with advanced cancer undergoing immune checkpoint blockade was evaluated. Patients were stratified into three groups: Patients who had received pRT within 6 months prior to the initiation of immunotherapy (previous pRT); patients who received pRT during immunotherapy (concurrent pRT); and patients who did not receive RT prior to or during immunotherapy (no RT group), and these groups were compared. The median overall survival (mOS), median progression free survival (mPFS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF) for the previous pRT group were significantly shorter compared with the no RT group (mOS, 3.6 vs. 12.1 months, respectively, P=0.0095; mPFS 1.8 vs. 5.4 months, respectively, P=0.0016; mTTF 1.8 vs. 5.7 months, respectively, P=0.0035). The concurrent pRT group had a longer mTTF compared with the previous pRT group and similar outcomes to the no RT group. In the previous pRT group, 26.9% of the patients experienced immune-related adverse events compared with 40.1% of patients in the no RT group. Despite the use of pRT during immunotherapy being considered safe, the results of the present study suggest that pRT has a negative effect on immune balance.