In this issue of JAMA Oncology, Shore et al. 1 present the results of the randomized phase II trial: the ENzalutamide Monotherapy Versus ACTive Surveillance in Patients With 2 Low- or Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer (ENACT). Between June 2016 and August 2020227 men with prostate cancer were randomized with equal probability to either enzalutamide or active surveillance. The median age at randomization was 65 years and 53% of patients had low risk as determined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.2 Patients on the treatment arm were treated with 160 mg enzalutamide for 1 year with initial follow up for 1 year and a second year of follow up for remaining patients in the trial. The primary endpoint was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression. Pathological progression in the study was defined as an increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern by at least one or higher proportion of cancer-positive cores (≥15% increase). Therapeutic progression was considered upon primary therapy for prostate cancer whether this was prostatectomy, radiation, focal therapy, or any systemic therapy.

The goal of this study was to examine time-dependent effects of prognostic biomarkers of systemic inflammation in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center with authorization from the Emory University Institutional Review Board and the Veterans Administration Research and Development Committee. Inclusion criteria included age ⩾18 years, treatment with targeted therapy for clear cell or non–clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma and concomitant assessment of C-reactive protein and albumin levels on ⩾3 occasions that were ⩾10 days apart. Discovery, expansion, and external validation cohorts were identified. Established prognostic variables were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Intensity of systemic inflammation was assessed at all time points with C-reactive protein and albumin as prognostic covariates for overall survival in an extended Cox regression model. Intensity of systemic inflammation was assessed on 3186 occasions in 181 patients. Risk status changed in 131 patients (72%). The hazard ratio for overall survival was 21.41 (95% confidence interval = 8.26–55.50) with a type 3 p value of <0.001 for the reference cohort and 9.68 (2.07–45.31) with a type-3 p value of 0.006 for the external validation cohort when time points associated with severe systemic inflammation were compared to all other time points. The bias-corrected c-statistic was 0.839 (0.773–0.905) and 0.818 (0.691–0.946), respectively. Terminal disease progression with severe systemic inflammation was detected in 87% of the 90 patients who died. In conclusion, time-dependent effects are a prominent feature of intensity of systemic inflammation, a powerful prognostic biomarker for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the appropriate patients to receive immunotherapy (IO) remains a challenge due to the lack of optimal biomarkers. The presence of liver metastases has been implicated as a poor prognostic factor in patients with metastatic cancer. We investigated the association between sites of metastatic disease and clinical outcomes in patients receiving IO. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 90 patients treated on IO-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University between 2009 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the first dose of IO to date of death or hospice referral and clinical or radiographic progression, respectively. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as a best response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). Univariate analysis (UVA) and Multivariate analysis (MVA) were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, whether IO is indicated for the patient's histology, ECOG performance status, Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group, number of metastatic sites, and histology. RESULTS: The median age was 63 years and 53% of patients were men. The most common histologies were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal cancers (22%). Most patients (73.3%) had more than one site of distant metastasis. Sites of metastasis collected were lymph node (n = 58), liver (n = 40), lung (n = 37), bone (n = 24), and brain (n = 8). Most patients (80.7%) were RMH good risk. Most patients (n = 62) had received 2+ prior lines of systemic treatment before receiving IO on trial; 27 patients (30.0%) received prior ICB. Liver metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS (HR: 0.38, CI: 0.17-0.84, p = 0.017). Patients with liver metastasis also trended towards having shorter PFS (HR: 0.70, CI: 0.41-1.19, p = 0.188). The median OS was substantially longer for patients without liver metastases (21.9 vs. 8.1 months, p = 0.0048). CONCLUSIONS: Liver metastases may be a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving IO on phase 1 clinical trials. The presence of liver metastases may warrant consideration in updated prognostic models if these findings are validated in a larger prospective cohort.

Aim: More than half of patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer who have bone metastases have evidence of skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) on osteoblasts and their precursors. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose of denosumab is 120 mg every 4 weeks; however, other schedules have been used in practice for patient convenience. Evidence for the safety and efficacy of alternative dosing intervals is lacking. Patient & Methods: Adult patients with solid cancers and bone metastases who received at least two doses of denosumab 120 mg were reviewed. Patients were grouped based on an average denosumab dosing interval of <5 weeks (short-interval) versus 5–11 weeks (medium-interval) versus ⩾12 weeks (long-interval). The primary outcome was the time to first SRE while on denosumab between the short- and medium-interval groups. The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), efficacy comparisons between the other groups, and safety events. Results: There was no significant difference in median time to first SRE between the short- and medium-interval denosumab groups [33.2 versus 28.4 months, hazard ratio (HR): 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66–1.92, p = 0.91] or the medium- and long-interval dosing groups (28.4 versus 32.2 months, HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.66–2.01, p = 0.62). Median OS was not found to differ significantly between any of the groups. There were significantly more hospitalizations in the short-interval dosing group than the other groups (55.2% versus 33.8% versus 30.4%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Extending denosumab dosing intervals does not appear to negatively impact time to first SRE and is associated with fewer hospitalizations in real-world patients with solid cancers and bone metastases.

Introduction: Cabozantinib (XL-184) is a small molecule inhibitor of the tyrosine kinases c-Met, AXL, and VEGFR2 that has been shown to reduce tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis. After the promising results from the METEOR and CABOSUN trials, cabozantinib was approved for use in the first- and second-line setting in patients with advanced RCC. Previously, targeted therapies have been used in the neoadjuvant setting for tumor size reduction and facilitating nephrectomies. The increased response rates with cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), along with the other neoadjuvant TKI data, strongly support an expanded role for cabozantinib in the neoadjuvant setting. Case Description: We report on a 59-year-old gentleman presenting with an unresectable 21.7 cm left renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with extension to soft tissue and muscles of the thoracic cage, psoas muscle, posterior abdominal wall, tail of pancreas, splenic flexure of colon, and inferior margin of spleen. Presurgical, neoadjuvant systemic therapy with cabozantinib was initiated for 11 months in total. Initially after 2 months of cabozantinib, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a significant reduction (44.2%) in tumor diameter from 21.7 to 12.1 cm with decreased extension into adjacent structures. After 11 months total of cabozantinib, the corresponding MRI showed grossly stable size of the tumor and significant resolution of invasion of adjacent structures. After washout of cabozantinib, radical resection, including nephrectomy, was successfully performed without any major complications, either intra-operative or perioperative. Negative margins were achieved. Conclusions: This is a report of neoadjuvant cabozantinib downsizing a tumor and enabling surgical resection in this patient with locally advanced RCC. Our findings demonstrate that neoadjuvant cabozantinib to facilitate subsequent surgical resection may be a feasible option for patients presenting with unresectable RCC.

Purpose: Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a standard of care for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Despite a large food effect, AA was administered under fasting conditions in its pivotal trials. We sought to test the hypothesis that low-dose AA (LOW; 250 mg with a low-fat meal) would have comparable activity to standard AA (STD; 1,000 mg fasting) in patients with CRPC. Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 72) with progressive CRPC from seven institutions in the United States and Singapore were randomly assigned to STD or LOW. Both arms received prednisone 5 mg twice daily. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was assessed monthly, and testosterone/dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate were assessed every 12 weeks with disease burden radiographic assessments. Plasma was collected for drug concentrations. Log change in PSA, as a pharmacodynamic biomarker for efficacy, was the primary end point, using a noninferiority design. Progression-free survival (PFS), PSA response ($ 50% reduction), change in androgen levels, and pharmacokinetics were secondary end points. Results: Thirty-six patients were accrued to both arms. At 12 weeks, there was a greater effect on PSA in the LOW arm (mean log change, 21.59) compared with STD (21.19), and noninferiority of LOW was established according to predefined criteria. The PSA response rate was 58% in LOW and 50% in STD, and the median PFS was approximately 9 months in both groups. Androgen levels decreased similarly in both arms. Although there was no difference in PSA response or PFS, abiraterone concentrations were higher in STD. Conclusion: Low-dose AA (with low-fat breakfast) is noninferior to standard dosing with respect to PSA metrics. Given the pharmacoeconomic implications, these data warrant consideration by prescribers, payers, and patients. Additional studies are indicated to assess the long-term efficacy of this approach.

Purpose: For muscle-invasive bladder cancer, bladder preserving chemoradiotherapy (BPCRT) has shown to be a viable alternative for patients with urothelial carcinoma (UCa). Traditionally bladder cancer with variant histology UCa or other tumors types involving the bladder have worse outcomes and BPCRT has been contraindicated. However, there is limited high level evidence for this recommendation. Materials/methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients with Bladder cancer treated from 2004 to 2015 restricted to clinical stage T2-4, N0, M0 who had variants of UCa or other tumors types involving the bladder (e.g. adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma). Only patients treated with definitive intent with either radical cystectomy or BPCRT after maximal transurethral tumor resection were analyzed. Propensity-score matching was used. Results: 356 patients had BPCRT and 2093 patients had definitive surgery for muscle-invasive bladder cancer limited to variants of UCa and other tumors types involving the bladder. On multivariable analysis worse prognosis was associated with age >65 years old (HR 1.24, p = 0.004) and T4 disease (HR 1.90, p < 0.001). In propensity score weighted sample, there was no statistical significant difference in OS for patients with BPCRT as compared to cystectomy (p = 0.387) and for neuroendocrine, micropapillary or not otherwise specified histology subgroups there was no significant difference. Patients with adenocarcinoma (HR 1.75) or squamous cell carcinoma (HR 1.49) had worse OS associated with BPCRT compared to surgery. Conclusion: From 2004 to 2015, BPCRT in muscle-invasive bladder cancer was associated with similar overall survival compared to cystectomy in patients with selected variant histology but with worse OS for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma specifically. As our study has inherent limitations, these hypotheses require validation in a prospective setting and/or with a larger sample size.

BACKGROUND: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria are the gold standard for risk-stratifying patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). We developed a novel risk scoring system for patients with mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 100 ICI-treated patients with mRCC at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2018. Several baseline variables were collected, including markers of inflammation, body mass index (BMI), and sites of metastatic disease, and all were considered for inclusion in our risk scoring system. Upon variable selection in multivariable model, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), BMI, and number and sites of metastases at baseline were used for risk score calculation. Patients were categorized using four-level risk groups as good (risk score = 0), intermediate (risk score = 1), poor (risk score = 2), or very poor (risk score = 3-4). Cox's proportional hazard model and the Kaplan-Meier method were implemented for survival outcomes. RESULTS: Most patients were male (66%) with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (72%). The majority (71%) received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 monotherapy. Our risk scoring criteria had higher Uno's concordance statistics than IMDC in predicting overall survival (OS; 0.71 vs. 0.57) and progression-free survival (0.61 vs. 0.58). Setting good risk (MLR <0.93, BMI ≥24, and D_Met = 0) as the reference, the OS hazard ratios were 29.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.64-238.9), 6.58 (95% CI, 0.84-51.68), and 3.75 (95% CI, 0.49-28.57) for very poor, poor, and intermediate risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Risk scoring using MLR, BMI, and number and sites of metastases may be an effective way to predict survival in patients with mRCC receiving ICI. These results should be validated in a larger, prospective study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A risk scoring system was created for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The results of this study have significant implications for practicing oncologists in the community and academic setting. Importantly, these results identify readily available risk factors that can be used clinically to risk-stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Background: Sarcopenia and inflammation have been associated with poor survival in patients with cancer. We explored the combined effects of these variables on survival in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 90 patients enrolled on immunotherapy-based phase I clinical trials at Emory University from 2009 to 2017. Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were used as surrogates of inflammation. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was derived from the skeletal muscle density calculated from baseline abdominal computed tomography images. Optimal cutoffs for continuous inflammation biomarkers and SMI were determined by bias-adjusted log-rank test. A four-level risk stratification was used to create low-risk (PLR <242 and nonsarcopenic), intermediate-risk (PLR <242 and sarcopenic), high-risk (PLR ≥242 and nonsarcopenic), and very-high-risk (PLR ≥242 and sarcopenic) groups with subsequent association with survival. Results: Most patients (59%) were male, and the most common cancers were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal (22%). Very high-risk, high-risk, and intermediate-risk patients had significantly shorter overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 8.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.65–27.01; p <.001; HR, 5.32; CI, 1.96–14.43; p =.001; and HR, 4.01; CI, 1.66–9.68; p =.002, respectively) and progression-free survival (HR, 12.29; CI, 5.15–29.32; p <.001; HR, 3.51; CI, 1.37–9.02; p =.009; and HR, 2.14; CI, 1.12–4.10; p =.022, respectively) compared with low-risk patients. Conclusion: Baseline sarcopenia and elevated inflammatory biomarkers may have a combined effect on decreasing survival in immunotherapy-treated patients in phase I trials. These data may be immediately applicable for medical oncologists for the risk stratification of patients beginning immunotherapeutic agents. Implications for Practice: Sarcopenia and inflammation have been associated with poor survival in patients with cancer, but it is unclear how to apply this information to patient care. The authors created a risk-stratification system that combined sarcopenia and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a marker of systemic inflammation. The presence of sarcopenia and systemic inflammation decreased progression-free survival and overall survival in our cohort of 90 patients who received immunotherapy in phase I clinical trials. The data presented in this study may be immediately applicable for medical oncologists as a way to risk-stratify patients who are beginning treatment with immunotherapy.

In attempt to improve long-term disease control outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer, numerous clinical trials have tested the addition of chemotherapy (CTX)—either adjuvant or neoadjuvant—to definitive local therapy, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT). Neoadjuvant trials generally confirm safety, feasibility, and pre-RP PSA reduction, but rates of pathologic complete response are rare, and no indications for neoadjuvant CTX have been firmly established. Adjuvant regimens have included CTX alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Here we provide a review of the relevant literature, and also quantify utilization of CTX in the definitive management of localized high-risk prostate cancer by querying the National Cancer Data Base. Between 2004 and 2013, 177 patients (of 29,659 total) treated with definitive RT, and 995 (of 367,570 total) treated with RP had CTX incorporated into their treatment regimens. Low numbers of RT + CTX patients precluded further analysis of this population, but we investigated the impact of CTX on overall survival (OS) for patients treated with RP +/− CTX. Disease-free survival or biochemical-recurrence-free survival are not available through the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity-score matching was conducted as patients treated with CTX were a higher-risk group. For nonmatched groups, OS at 5-years was 89.6% for the CTX group vs. 95.6%, for the no-CTX group (P < 0.01). The difference in OS between CTX and no-CTX groups did not persist after propensity-score matching, with 5-year OS 89.6% vs. 90.9%, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.99; P = 0.88). In summary, CTX was not shown to improve OS in this retrospective study. Multimodal regimens—such as RP followed by ADT, RT, and CTX; or RT in conjunction with ADT followed by CTX—have shown promise, but long-term follow-up of randomized data is required.