SlideShare a Scribd company logo
2015 ASCO
Genitourinary Cancers Update
June 13, 2015
Amir Mortazavi, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine
Prostate Cancer
E3805
CHAARTED: ChemoHormonal Therapy
versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial
for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer
3
ASCO 2014
Christopher Sweeney, MBBS, et al.
E3805 – CHAARTED Treatment
STRATIFICATION
Extent of Mets
-High vs. Low
Age
≥70 vs < 70yo
ECOG PS
- 0-1 vs 2
CAB> 30 days
-Yes vs. No
SRE Prevention
-Yes vs. No
Prior Adjuvant ADT
≤12 vs. > 12 months
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
ARM A:
ADT + Docetaxel
75mg/m2 every 21
days for maximum
6 cycles
ARM B:
ADT (androgen
deprivation therapy
alone)
Evaluate
every 3 weeks
while
receiving
docetaxel and
at week 24
then every 12
weeks
Evaluate
every 12
weeks
Follow for time
to progression
and overall
survival
Chemotherapy
at investigator’s
discretion at
progression
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
• ADT allowed up to 120 days prior to randomization.
• Intermittent ADT dosing was not allowed
• Standard dexamethasone premedication but no daily prednisone
(N = 790)
Primary endpoint: Overall survival
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
OS (Months)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
Probability
HR=0.61 (0.47-0.80) p=0.0003
Median OS:
ADT + D: 57.6 months
ADT alone: 44.0 months
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
Causes of Death
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
ADT + Doc (N=397) ADT alone (N=393)
N % N %
Due to prostate cancer 84 83.2 112 82.6
Due to protocol Rx 1 1.0 0 0.0
Other cause 8 7.9 11 8.2
Unknown 8 7.9 11 8.2
Missing 0 2
Total 101 136
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
OS (Months)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
Probability
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
OS (Months)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
Probability
In patients with high volume metastatic disease, there is a 17 month
improvement in median overall survival from 32.2 months to 49.2 months
OS by extent of metastatic disease at start of ADT
High volume Low volume
p=0.0006
HR=0.60 (0.45-0.81)
Median OS:
ADT + D: 49.2 months
ADT alone: 32.2 months
p=0.1398
HR=0.63 (0.34-1.17)
Median OS:
ADT + D: Not reached
ADT alone: Not reached
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
ADT + Docetaxel
benefited all
subgroups
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
Secondary Endpoints
ADT + Doc
(N=397)
ADT alone
(N=393)
P-value
Hazard Ratio
(95%CI*)
PSA <0.2 ng/mL at 6 months 27.5% 14.0% <0.0001
PSA <0.2 ng/mL at 12 months 22.7% 11.7% <0.0001
Median time to CRPC
- biochemical, symptoms, or
radiographic (months)
20.7 14.7 <0.0001 0.56 (0.44, 0.70)
Median time to clinical
progression
- symptoms or radiographic
(months)
32.7 19.8 <0.0001 0.49 (0.37, 0.65)
*CI: confidence intervals
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
Conclusion
• The combination of standard ADT and 6 cycles of
docetaxel significantly improved overall survival
compared to standard ADT alone in men with hormone
sensitive prostate cancer
• The benefit in patients with a high volume of
metastases is clear and justifies the treatment burden
– longer follow-up is required for patients with low volume
metastatic disease
Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
Docetaxel and/or zoledronic acid for
hormone-naïve prostate cancer:
First survival results from STAMPEDE
12
Abstract # 5001
Nicholas James, MD, PhD, et al.
• Setting
 Hormone therapy the mainstay of treatment since 1940s
 Addition of radiotherapy to N0M0 disease improves
outcomes
• Hypothesis
 Early use of active therapies (e.g. docetaxel, zoledronic
acid, abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc.) may give a larger
absolute benefit in overall survival
Setting and hypothesis
Inclusion criteria
Newly-diagnosed
Any of:
• Metastatic
• Node-Positive
• ≥2 of: Stage T3/4
PSA≥40ng/ml
Gleason 8-10
Relapsing after previous RP or
RT with ≥1 of:
• PSA ≥4ng/ml and rising with
doubling time <6m
• PSA ≥20ng/ml
• Node-positive
• Metastatic
All patients
WHO performance status 0-2
Outcome measures
Primary outcome measure
Overall survival
Secondary outcome measures
Failure-free survival (FFS)
Toxicity
Quality of life
Skeletal-related events
Cost effectiveness
FFS definition
First of:
PSA failure
Local failure
Lymph node failure
Distant metastases
Prostate cancer death
PSA failure definition
PSA fall >= 50%
 24wk nadir + 50% and
 >4ng/ml
PSA fall of <50%
 failure at t=0
Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) design
For each research comparison
• Allocation ratio of 2 control to 1 research
• Target 25% relative improvement in overall survival
 HR=0.75
• Interim analysis
 3 lack-of-benefit analyses on failure-free survival
• Main analysis on primary outcome measure
 Requires ~400 control arm deaths
 Power and alpha 90% and 0.025, 1-sided
Over all original comparisons
 Power and alpha 83% and 0.013, 1-sided
 Familywise error rate ~5%
Docetaxel & ZA comparisons: patients
Accrual
Comparison
Open: Oct-2005
Closed: Mar-2013
Accrual: 2962
Number of patients
1184 A Standard-of-care (SOC)
593 B SOC + zoledronic acid
592 C SOC + docetaxel
593 E SOC + zoledronic acid + docetaxel
Patient characteristics
1% WHO PS 2 [s]
21% WHO PS 1 [s]
65yr Median age [s]
(min 40, max 84)
61% Metastatic [s]
(85% Bony mets)
15% N+M0
24% N0M0
98% LHRH analogues [s]
29% Planned for RT [s]
(72% of N0M0 pts)
6% Previous local therapy
Balanced by arm
[s] Stratification factors + hospital + NSAID/aspirin
SOC 750 FFS events
SOC+ZA 371 FFS events
HR (95%CI) 0.93 (0.82, 1.05)
P-value 0.26
Zoledronic acid: Failure-free survival
Median FFS (95% CI)
SOC 21m (18, 24m)
SOC+ZA 21m (18, 25m)
Zoledronic acid: Survival
SOC 405 deaths
SOC+ZA 197 deaths
HR (95%CI) 0.93 (0.79, 1.11)
P-value 0.44
Median OS (95% CI)
SOC 67m (60, 91m)
SOC+ZA 80m (70, NR)
Docetaxel: Failure-free survival
SOC 750 FFS events
SOC+Doc 371 FFS events
HR (95%CI) 0.62 (0.54, 0.70)
P-value <0.0000000001*
Median FFS (95% CI)
SOC 21m (18, 24m)
SOC+Doc 37m (33, 42m)
Docetaxel: Survival
SOC 405 deaths
SOC+Doc 165 deaths
HR (95%CI) 0.76 (0.63, 0.91)
P-value 0.003
Median OS (95% CI)
SOC 67m (60, 91m)
SOC+Doc 77m (70, NR)
Zoledronic acid + docetaxel: Failure-free survival
SOC 750 FFS events
SOC+ZA+Doc 371 FFS events
HR (95%CI) 0.62 (0.54, 0.71)
P-value <0.0000000001*a
Median FFS (95% CI)
SOC 21m (18, 24m)
SOC+ZA+Doc 37m (31, 42m)
Zoledronic acid + docetaxel: Survival
SOC 405 deaths
SOC+ZA+Doc 181 deaths
HR (95%CI) 0.81 (0.68, 0.97)
P-value 0.02
Median OS (95% CI)
SOC 67m (60, 91m)
SOC+ZA+Doc 72m (63, 90m)
Consistency of treatment effect
• Subgroups included:
 Metastatic status (M0, M1)
 Nodal status (N0, N+, NX)
 Gleason sum score (≤7, 8+, unknown)
 PSA pre-hormone therapy (0-20ng/ml, 20-40, 40-100, 100+)
 Age at randomisation (under 70, 70 or over)
 WHO PS (0, 1-2)
 NSAID/Aspirin use (no use, uses either)
• No good evidence of heterogeneity
Treatment effect by metastatic status: FFS
+ZA
+Doc
+ZA+Doc
Pre-planned analysis
+ZA
+Doc
+ZA+Doc
Pre-planned analysis
Treatment effect by metastatic status: Overall survival
Docetaxel: Survival – M1 Patients
SOC 343 deaths
SOC+Doc 134 deaths
HR (95%CI) 0.73 (0.59, 0.89)
P-value 0.002
Median OS (95% CI)
SOC 43m (24, 88m)
SOC+Doc 65m (27, NR)
Target Dose: 75mg/m2, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (+prednisolone 10mg daily)
Doc ZA+Doc
Report receiving 6 cycles 76% 69%
Report receiving ≥5 cycles 80% 74%
Docetaxel treatment
Grade 3+ adverse events ever reported
A
SOC
B
SOC+ZA
C
SOC+Doc
E
SOC+ZA+Doc
Patients randomised 1184 593 592 593
Patients with adverse event data 1174 587 579 564
Grade 3-5 AE (G5) N 363 (3) 185 (1) 291 (3) 294 (7)
% 31% 31% 51% 52%
Endocrine disorder 12% 12% 10% 12%
Blood and lymphatic (febrile neutropenia) 1% 2% 12% 12%
Blood/bone marrow (neutrophils) 1% 1% 12% 11%
General disorder 4% 5% 8% 11%
Musculo-skeletal 5% 5% 6% 8%
Gastrointestinal disorder 3% 3% 7% 7%
Renal 5% 4% 4% 6%
- Early peak in toxicity during chemotherapy seems to settle by 1 year
• Docetaxel improves survival for hormone-naive prostate cancer
• Zoledronic acid does not improve survival
• Adding both improves survival but offers no obvious benefit
over adding just docetaxel
• Multi-arm, multi-stage trials are practicable and efficient
• Docetaxel should be:
 Considered for routine practice in suitable men with
newly-diagnosed metastatic disease
 Considered for selected men with high-risk non-metastatic disease
in view of substantial prolongation of failure-free survival
Conclusions
A phase III protocol of androgen suppression and
radiotherapy vs AS and RT followed by
chemotherapy with docetaxel and prednisone for
localized, high-risk prostate cancer
(NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521)
33
Abstract # LBA 5002
Howard Sandler, MD, et al.
Background
• Locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate
cancer has a relatively poor prognosis.
• Standard management often uses radiotherapy and
long term (2-3 years) hormonal treatment.
• Improvements in local and systemic treatment are
likely to beneficial.
• Hypothesis: chemotherapy (docetaxel) known to be
beneficial in metastatic, hormone-resistant cancer
would improve outcome in non-metastatic, hormone-
sensitive prostate cancer
RTOG 0521
Stage
Gleason
score PSA
Any T
stage
≥9 <150
7-8 ≥20-150
≥T2 8 <20
Arm 1
Androgen
Suppression (24 mos)
+
External RT (8 wks)
High
Risk
R
a
n
d
o
m
i
z
e
Arm 2
Androgen
Suppression (24 mos)
+
External RT (8 wks)
+
Docetaxel beginning 4 wks after RT (6 cycles)
Characteristic
Arm 1 and Arm 2
(N=563)
Risk Category (stratification) (%)
Gleason ≥9, PSA ≤150, Any T-stage 53
Gleason 8, PSA <20, ≥T2 21
Gleason 8, PSA≥20-150, Any T-stage 10
Gleason 7, PSA≥20-150, Any T-stage 16
Gleason score, no. (%)
7 16
8 31
9-10 53
Serum PSA, ng/mL, Median (Q1-Q3) 15 (7-34)
Age, Median 66
cT3-T4 27%
pN0 33%
Overall Survival
4 yr OS 93% vs. 89%
HR 0.70 (90%CI: 0.51-0.98)
Biochemical Failure
6 yr BF 74% vs. 66%
HR 0.81 (95%CI: 0.58-1.11)
Disease-Free Survival
6 yr DFS 65% vs. 55%
HR 0.76 (95%CI: 0.58-0.99)
Distant Metastasis at Any Time
Cause of Death*
AS+RT
(n=59)
AS+RT+CT
(n=43)
Death due to cancer under study 23 16
Death due to protocol treatment 0 2
Death due to other cause 24 16
Death due to second primary 12 5
Unknown cause of death 0 4
*Based on central review blinded to treatment arm
Adverse Events Definitely, Probably, or
Possibly Related to Treatment
Grade
AS+RT
(%)
AS+RT+CT
(%)
Worst overall 1 17 3
2 53 29
3 21 38
4 1 26
5 0 1
Conclusions
• For the first time, improvement in overall survival observed with
(tolerable) adjuvant chemotherapy for localized, high-risk,
hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
• Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was reduced
• The potential role of docetaxel in hormone-sensitive prostate
cancer is consistent with and supported by our data and other
studies, such as STAMPEDE and CHAARTED.
• This analysis is relatively early and additional follow-up will likely
be enlightening.
Interest of short hormonotherapy (HT) associated
with radiotherapy (RT) as salvage treatment for
biological relapse (BR) after radical prostatectomy
(RP): Results of the GETUG-AFU 16 phase III
randomized trial
44
Abstract # 5006
Christian Carrie, MD, et al.
N = 742
Urothelial Carcinomas
A Phase Ia Study of Atezolizumab
(MPDL3280A/Anti-PDL1):
Updated Response and Survival Data
in Urothelial Bladder Cancer (UBC)
52
Abstract # 4501
Daniel Petrylak, MD, et al.
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
53
References: 1. Bellmunt et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009. 2. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Nature. 2014. 3. Kandoth C, et al. Nature. 2013.
4. Lawrence MS, et al. Nature. 2013. 5. Rizvi et al. Science. 2015.
• Metastatic UBC is associated with poor outcomes
• There are no FDA-approved therapies for patients who relapse after platinum-based
therapy
– OS ≈ 5-7 months in the second-line setting1
• UBC has a high mutational load due to tobacco/environmental carcinogen exposure2-4
– In other cancers,4,5 high somatic non-synonomous mutational burden has been associated with
durable clinical benefit of PD-L1/PD-1–directed therapy5
Metastatic UBC: Unmet Need and Potential for
Cancer Immunotherapy
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
54
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) Is a Humanized Anti-PDL1 Anti-
body That Inhibits the Binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1
• Inhibiting PD-L1/PD-1 and PD-L1/B7.1
interactions can restore antitumor T-cell activity
and enhance T-cell priming
• Targeting PD-L1 leaves the PD-L2/PD-1
interaction intact, thereby potentially preserving
peripheral immune homeostasis1,2
• PD-L1 is expressed in many cancers3,4
References: 1. Akbari et al. Mucosal Immunol. 2010; 2. Matsumoto et al. Biochem Biophys Res
Commun. 2008. 3. Brown et al. J Immunol. 2003. 4. Latchman et al. Nat Immunol. 2001.
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
55
a Safety-evaluable UBC population. b The UBC cohort originally enrolled patients with PD-L1 IC2/3 but was then expanded to include all-comers,
primarily recruiting PD-L1 IC0/1 patients.
References: Powles et al. ASCO, 2014; Powles et al. Nature, 2014; Bellmunt et al. ESMO, 2014; Xiao et al. SITC, 2014; Kim et al. ASCO-GU, 2015.
• Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) administered IV Q3W 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg flat dose
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Phase Ia Study
Ongoing dose-expansion phase
RCC
1. All-
comers
2. PD-L1
selected
Melanoma
All-comers
NSCLC
1. All-
comers
2. PD-L1
selected
Other Tumor
Types
1. PD-L1
selected
2. All-
comers
UBC
N = 92a
1. PD-L1
selected
2. All-
comersb
TNBC
1. PD-L1
selected
2. All-
comers
Key Eligibility Criteria:
• Measurable disease per RECIST v1.1
• ECOG PS 0 or 1
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
56
a Safety-evaluable patients received at least 1 dose of atezolizumab. b Includes lung, liver, non-lymph or soft tissue. c n = 89. Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014.
References: 1. Bellmunt et al J Clin Oncol. 2010. 2. Pond et al BJU Int. 2014.
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Baseline Characteristics
in UBC (safety evaluable)
Characteristic
Patients
N = 92a
Median age, y (range) 66 (36-89)
Male, n (%) 69 (75%)
ECOG PS, n (%)
0 37 (40%)
1 55 (60%)
Site of primary tumor
Bladder 73 (79%)
Renal pelvis 5 (5%)
Ureter 9 (10%)
Urethra 5 (5%)
Site of metastases at baseline, n (%)
Visceralb 73 (79%)
Liver 34 (37%)
Characteristic
Patients
N = 92a
Prior treatments, n (%)
Cystectomy or
nephroureterectomy
56 (61%)
Platinum-based chemotherapy 86 (94%)
Cisplatin-based 69 (75%)
Carboplatin-based 35 (38%)
≥ 2 prior systemic therapies
(metastatic
66 (72%)
≤ 3 months from last chemotherapy 37 (42%)c
Hemoglobin levels < 10 g/dL 16 (17%)
GFR < 60 mL/min 38 (41%)
• Poor prognostic factors included visceral
mets, low hemoglobin levels, ECOG PS 1 and
short time (≤ 3 months) from prior chemo1,2
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
57
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Treatment-Related AEs
in UBC
• Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated
– Median safety follow-up was 16+ wk (range, 3
to 86+ wk)
• Median duration of treatment was 3 mo
(range, 0 to 19 mo)
– No treatment-related deaths
– 1 discontinuation due to a treatment-related AE
– 5% of patients had a Grade 3-4 immune-
mediated AE per investigator assessment
• Grade 3 AEs: increased AST (n = 3);
increased ALT (n = 2); increased blood
bilirubin (n = 1); hypophysitis (n = 1)
– 37 patients (40%) had a Grade 3-4 AE of
any causec
a Safety-evaluable patients received at least 1 dose of atezolizumab. b Additional Gr 3-4 AEs (1% each) included anemia, confusional state, decreased
blood phosphorus, hypophysitis, increased ALT, increased GGT and thrombocytopenia. c In addition, 2 Grade 5 AEs not related to treatment were seen
(acute respiratory failure and alcohol overdose). Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014.
Treatment-Related AEs
Occurring in ≥ 5% of Patients (All Grade)
or in ≥ 2 Patients (Grade 3-4)
N = 92a All Grade Grade 3-4b
Any AE 60 (65%) 7 (8%)
Fatigue 15 (16%) 0
Asthenia 12 (13%) 1 (1%)
Nausea 10 (11%) 0
Decreased appetite 9 (10%) 0
Pruritus 9 (10%) 0
Pyrexia 6 (7%) 0
Rash 7 (8%) 0
Diarrhea 5 (5%) 0
Increased AST 2 (2%) 2 (2%)
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
58
PD-L1 IHC
n = 87b
ORR
(95% CI), %a
IC3 (n = 12) 67% (35%-90%)
50% (35, 65)
IC2 (n = 34) 44% (27%-62%)
IC1 (n = 26) 19% (7%-39%)
17% (7, 32)
IC0 (n = 15) 13% (2%-40%)
a Efficacy-evaluable patients with measurable disease at baseline per RECIST v1.1. Responses are investigator assessed (unconfirmed); of 30 unconfirmed
responses, 24 have been confirmed by the cutoff date. b 4 IC2/3 patients and 7 IC0/1 patients missing or unevaluable. Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014.
• Responses were observed all PD-L1 subgroups, with higher ORRs associated with higher
PD-L1 expression in IC
• Responders also included patients with visceral metastases at baseline: 38% ORR (95% CI,
21%-56%) in 32 IC2/3 patients and 14% (95% CI, 5%-30%) ORR in 36 IC0/1 patients
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): ORR in UBC by IC Status
CR,
n (%)
PR,
n (%)
4 (33%)
9 (20%)
4 (33%)
14 (30%)
5 (15%) 10 (29%)
-
-
5 (19%)
7 (17%)
- 2 (13%)
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
59
a Change in SLD > 100%. b Seven patients without post-baseline tumor assessments not included. Asterisks denote 9 CR patients, 6 of whom have been
confirmed by data cutoff date (Dec 2, 2014) and 7 of whom had < 100% reduction due to lymph node target lesions. All lymph nodes returned to normal
size per RECIST v1.1.
• Forty-four of 80 patients (55%) with post-baseline tumor assessments experienced a
reduction in tumor burden
• Decreased circulating inflammatory marker (CRP) and tumor markers (CEA, CA-19-9)
were also observed in patients responding to atezolizumab
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Response in UBC
by IC statusa
* *
* *
*
*** *
IC0
IC1
IC2
IC3MaximumSLDReduction
FromBaseline,%b
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
60
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Duration of Treatment
and Response in UBC
• Median duration of response has not
yet been reached in either IC group
(range, 0+ to 43 mo)
• Median time to response was 62 days
– IC2/3 patients: range, 1+ to 10+ mo
– IC0/1 patients: range, 1+ to 7+ mo
• 20 of 30 responding patients had
ongoing responses at the time of
data cutoff
• 10 patients have been treated for over
1 year, including 3 retreated following
protocol amendment
a Discontinuation and ongoing response status markers have no timing implication. 4 patients discontinued treatment after cycle 16 prior to 1 year per original protocol.
Responses plotted are investigator assessed and have not all been confirmed by the data cutoff (Dec 2, 2014).
Patients with UBC and CR or PR as best response
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
61
Median OS 7.6 mo
(95% CI, 4.7 mo-NE)
Median OS Not Reached
(95% CI, 9.0 mo-NE)
___ IC2/3
___ IC0/1
+ Censored
• PD-L1 IC status appeared to be predictive of benefit from atezolizumab treatment
– mPFS and 1-year PFS rates were higher in atezolizumab-treated patients with higher PD-L1 IC expression
– The same association was observed for 1-year OS rates, and mOS for IC2/3 patients was not yet reached
• Preliminary analysis using SP142 from an independent sample set (n = 110) suggests that
PD-L1 IC status is not prognostic for OS in UBC1
Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014. Reference: 1. Genentech, unpublished data.
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Survival in UBC
Survivala
N = 92
IC2/3
n = 48
IC0/1
n = 44
PFS
Median PFS
(range)
6 mo
(0+ to 18)
1 mo
(0+ to 14+)
1-y PFS
(95% CI)
39%
(24-54)
10%
(0-21)
OS
Median OS
(range)
Not reached
(1 to 20+ mo)
8 mo
(1 to 15+ mo)
1-y survival
(95% CI)
57%
(41-73)
38%
(19-56)
Median survival follow-up: 14 mo (IC2/3)
12 mo (IC0/1)
Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC
62
• Atezolizumab has demonstrated promising clinical activity in a heavily pre-treated
metastatic UBC cohort with encouraging survival and clinically meaningful response data
– 1-year OS rates were 57% and 38% for IC2/3 and 0/1 patients, respectively
– ORRs were 50% and 17% in IC2/3 and 0/1 patients, respectively
– Median time to response was 62 days, and median DOR was not reached
• Atezolizumab has been well tolerated with manageable side effects
– No treatment-related deaths
– Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AE rate was 5%
• The highly sensitive and specific SP142 IHC assay measures PD-L1 expression on IC,
which may be a predictive biomarker for atezolizumab response
• Phase II and III studies in UBC are ongoing (NCT02108652 [IMvigor 210] and
NCT02302807 [IMvigor 211]), with Phase II data expected later this year
Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Phase Ia UBC Summary
Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) for advanced
urothelial cancer: Updated results and
biomarker analysis from KEYNOTE-012.
63
Abstract # 4502
Elizabeth Plimack, MD, et al.
Kidney Cancer
Randomized phase 2 three-arm trial of
lenvatinib (LEN), everolimus (EVE), and
LEN+EVE in patients with metastatic renal
cell carcinoma
76
Abstract # 4506
Robert Motzer, MD, et al.
Introduction
 There is an unmet need for improved
treatment outcome of metastatic RCC
patients to standard VEGF-targeted
therapies and mTOR inhibitors
 Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) pathway
activation has been proposed as a
mechanism of escape from
VEGF-targeted therapies1
 Lenvatinib is a highly potent tyrosine
kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1–3 and
FGFR1–42-4
Kinase inhibitory profile of lenvatinib5
1. Casanovas O, Cancer Cell. 2005; 2. Matsui J, Int J Cancer 2008; 3. Matsui J, Clin Cancer Res 2008; 4. Okamoto K, Cancer Lett 2013; 5. Eisai data on file.
Study Design
Stratification factors:
• Hemoglobin (normal vs low)
• Corrected serum calcium
(≥ vs < 10 mg/dL)
Key eligibility criteria:
•Advanced or metastatic RCC
•Measurable disease
•Progression on/after 1 prior
VEGF-targeted therapy
•Progression within 9 mos of
stopping prior treatment
•ECOG PS ≤1 Everolimus
10 mg PO qd
Lenvatinib
18 mg PO qd
+
Everolimus
5 mg PO qd
Lenvatinib
24 mg PO qd
Patients were treated until:
• Disease progression
• Unacceptable toxicity
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
Patient Characteristics and Prior Therapy
Lenvatinib/Everolimus
(n = 51)
Lenvatinib
(n = 52)
Everolimus
(n = 50)
MSKCC risk group, %
Favorable 24 21 24
Intermediate 37 35 38
Poor 39 44 38
Prior VEGF-targeted therapy*, %
Sunitinib 71 67 56
Pazopanib 18 25 26
Sorafenib 2 0 4
Other 10 8 14
*Lenvatinib/Everolimus total sum exceeds 100% due to rounding
In total, 5 patients had prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and 14 patients had prior cytokine therapy
Treatment Administration
Lenvatinib/Everolimus Lenvatinib Everolimus
Patients Treated, n 51 52 50
Treatment Ongoing at Data Cut-off* 13 7 3
Duration of treatment, mos
Median 7.6 7.4 4.1
Range 0.7–22.6 0.1–23.0 0.3–20.1
Dose reductions, %
Lenvatinib 71 62 -
Everolimus 2 - 26
Primary Reason for Discontinuation, n
Adverse Events 9 11 5
Patient Choice 3 0 0
Progression 19 29 35
Other 7 5 7
Primary Endpoint: Progression-free Survival
Number at risk
Lenvatinib/Everolimus 51 41 27 23 16 10 5 1 0
Lenvatinib 52 41 29 20 11 6 4 1 0
Everolimus 50 29 15 11 7 3 1 0 0
Median, mos (95% CI)
Lenvatinib/Everolimus 14.6 (5.9–
20.1)
Lenvatinib 7.4 (5.6–
10.2)
Everolimus 5.5 (3.5–
7.1)
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Time (mos)
Progression-freeSurvival
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Lenvatinib/Everolimus vs Everolimus
HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.24–0.68); P < 0.001
Lenvatinib vs Everolimus
HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.38–0.98); P = 0.048
Objective Response
Lenvatinib/Everolimus
(n = 51)
Lenvatinib
(n = 52)
Everolimus
(n = 50)
Objective response rate, % 43 27 6
95% CI 29–58 16–41 1–17
Best overall response, %
Complete 2 0 0
Partial 41 27 6
Stable disease 41 52 62
Progression 4 6 24
Not evaluated 12 15 8
Median duration of objective
response, (months)
13.0 7.5 8.5
95% CI 3.7–NE 3.8–NE 7.5–9.4
NE, not estimable.
Overall Survival (Updated Analysis)
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Time (mos)
OverallSurvival
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Median, mos (95% CI)
Lenvatinib/Everolimus 25.5 (16.4–NE)
Lenvatinib 19.1 (13.6–26.2)
Everolimus 15.4 (11.8–19.6)
Lenvatinib/Everolimus vs Everolimus
HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.30–0.88); P = 0.024
Lenvatinib vs Everolimus
HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.41–1.14); P = 0.118
Number at risk:
Lenvatinib/Everolimus 51 48 46 44 38 35 29 21 14 6
Lenvatinib 52 50 45 42 37 31 26 16 7 4
Everolimus 50 46 42 38 30 27 20 14 8 2
Selected Treatment-emergent Adverse Events
Lenvatinib/Everolimus
(n = 51)
Lenvatinib
(n = 52)
Everolimus
(n = 50)
Adverse event, % Any grade Grade 3 (4) Any grade Grade 3 (4) Any grade Grade 3 (4)
Any TEAE 100 71 (14) 100 83 (10) 100 52 (12)
Diarrhea 84 20 71 12 34 2
Fatigue/Asthenia 59 14 50 8 38 0 (2)
Vomiting 45 8 39 4 10 0
Nausea 41 6 62 8 16 0
Hypertension 41 14 48 17 10 2
Decreased weight 31 2 48 6 8 0
Stomatitis 29 0 25 2 42 2
Dyspnea 24 0 (2) 21 2 22 8
Dysphonia 20 0 37 0 4 0
Rash 18 0 17 0 22 0
Grade 5 TEAEs
Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 1): Cerebral hemorrhage*; Lenvatinib (n = 3): Myocardial infarction*; Intracranial hemorrhage; Sepsis;
Everolimus (n = 2): Acute respiratory failure; Sepsis
*Treatment-related as per investigator’s assessment
Summary of Efficacy
Lenvatinib/Everolimus
(n = 51)
Lenvatinib
(n = 52)
Everolimus
(n = 50)
Progression-free survival
Median (mo) 14.6 7.4 5.5
95% CI 5.9–20.1 5.6–10.2 3.5–7.1
Benefit vs everolimus P < 0.001 P = 0.048 NA
Objective response rate, % 43 27 6
95% CI 29–58 16–41 1–17
Benefit vs everolimus P < 0.001 P = 0.007 NA
Overall survival (updated)
Median (mo) 25.5 19.1 15.4
95% CI 16.4–NE 13.6–26.2 11.8–19.6
Benefit vs everolimus P = 0.024 P = 0.118 NA
NA, not applicable; NE, not estimable.
Conclusions
 Progression-free survival was longer for lenvatinib/everolimus
and lenvatinib compared with everolimus
 Response rate was higher in both lenvatinib-containing arms
 The highest rate and longest duration of response was observed with
the combination
 Study results suggest an overall survival benefit for
lenvatinib/everolimus over everolimus
Conclusions
 Adverse events were generally higher for the lenvatinib-
containing arms compared with everolimus
 Adverse events were predictable, and generally managed with
dose modifications
 Further study of lenvatinib therapy is warranted in RCC
Final clinical results of a randomized
phase 2 international trial of everolimus vs.
sunitinib in patients with metastatic non-
clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN)
88
Abstract # 4507
Andrew Armstrong, MD, MSc, et al.
Rationale for the ASPEN Trial
• Current NCCN guidelines
provide little clinical guidance
around the optimal front line
therapy for non-clear cell RCC
• ASPEN is the largest
randomized trial conducted to
date in non-clear cell RCC and is
intended to inform on clinical
practice and to develop
predictive biomarkers NCCN RCC guidelines version 2015
ASPEN Trial Schema
Metastatic RCC
• Non-clear cell pathology:
papillary, chromophobe,
unclassified
• No prior therapy
• Measurable disease
Stratified by Histology, MSKCC
Risk Group
Everolimus 10 mg
orally once daily
Days 1-42
Cycle = 6 weeks
Sunitinib 50 mg orally
Days 1-28
Cycle = 6 weeks
n=108
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
Radiographic
PFS Primary
Endpoint
NCT01108445
18 global
sites: 10
USA, 5 UK,
3 in Canada
Duke Cancer Institute was coordinating center and central biorepository for this
multinational randomized open label trial, monitoring by inVentiv Health clinical
No planned
crossover
Baseline Characteristics
Characteristic
Sunitinib
(n=51)
Everolimus
(n=57)
Years of age, median (range) 59 (24-100) 64 (29-90)
Gender (male %) 73 77
Race, Caucasian [white/black %] 82/14 91/9
Papillary histology, n (%)
type 1 papillary, n (%)
65
8
65
4
Chromophobe, n (%)
Unclassified histology, n (%)
Translocation carcinoma, n (%)
20
16
12
11
23
4
Sarcomatoid differentiation (%) 11 27
Prior nephrectomy (%) 80 79
Elevated LDH (%) 27 25
Liver/lung/bone metastases, (%) 31 / 59 / 24 26 / 44 / 26
MSKCC Risk Group (%)
0
1-2
≥ 3
29
63
8
25
56
19
Primary Endpoint: PFS
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Time since randomization (months)
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Progression-FreeSurvival
(probability)
Sunitinib, median PFS 8.3 months
Everolimus, median PFS 5.6 months
51 26 17 10 8 4 1
57 21 8 4 3 2 1
Sunitinib
Everolimus
Number of Patients at Risk
Stratified log-rank HR 1.41, p=0.16*
<0.20 boundary p-value level
PFS According to Pre-specified Subgroups
favors sunitinibfavors everolimus
Median PFS
(S vs. E, months)
Hazard Ratio
(80% CI)
8.3 vs. 5.6 1.41 (1.03-1.92)
14 vs. 5.7 3.07 (1.51-6.28)
6.5 vs. 4.9 1.38 (0.96-2.00)
4.0 vs. 6.1 0.21 (0.06-0.69)
8.1 vs. 5.5 1.52 (1.05-2.20)
5.5 vs. 11.4 0.71 (0.31-1.65)
11.5 vs. 5.6 2.55 (1.01-6.45)
Category
Overall
Good risk
Int. Risk
Poor Risk
Papillary
Chromophobe
Unclassified
Hazard Ratio and 80% CI
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Key Secondary Endpoint: Overall Survival
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Time since randomization (months)
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
OverallSurvival
(probability)
Sunitinib: 32 months
(95% CI 15-NR)
Everolimus: 13 months
(95% CI 10-38)
51 40 34 19 14 10 4
57 44 27 15 9 6 2
Sunitinib
Everolimus
Number of Patients at Risk
Stratified log-rank HR 1.12, p=0.60
Pre-specified two
sided alpha of 0.05
PFS by MSKCC Risk Group and Histologic Subtype
Time since randomization (months)
Progression-FreeSurvival
probability
0
1-2
3+
MSKCC Risk Criteria
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
29 16 11 6 5 0 0
64 25 14 8 6 6 2
15 6 0 0 0 0 0
0
1-2
3+
Number of Patients at Risk
Time since randomization (months)
Progression-FreeSurvival
probability
Papillary
Chromophobe
Unclassified
Histology
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
70 29 15 9 8 6 2
16 8 6 4 2 0 0
22 10 4 1 1 0 0
Papillary
Chromophobe
Unclassified
Number of Patients at Risk
Motzer Sunitinib PFS
(95% CI)
Everolimus PFS
(95% CI)
0 14.0 (2.9, 25.9) 5.7 (5.5, 11.0)
1-2 6.5 (5.3, 11.1) 4.9 (2.7, 6.1)
3+ 4.0 (0.9, 5.8) 6.1 (2.7, 7.6)
Pathology subtype Sunitinib PFS
(95% CI)
Everolimus PFS
(95% CI)
Papillary 8.1 (5.6, 13.0) 5.5 (3.0, 6.9)
Chromophobe 5.5 (1.7, 19.7) 11.4 (4.2, NA)
Unclassified 11.5 (2.7, NA) 5.6 (1.2, 7.3)
RECIST 1.1 Responses
Sunitinib
Everolimus
Endpoint Sunitinib
(n=51)
Everolimus
(n=57)
RECIST 1.1 Best Overall
Response (%)
CR/PR
SD
PD
NE
Clinical Benefit Response:
CR+PR+SD>24 weeks
18
59
19
4
22
9
53
23
15
11
Best tumor change by
RECIST (median %)
+10.7 +2.1
Median duration of
response in months
5.5 3.3
Summary and Conclusions
• Patients with metastatic NC-RCC treated with sunitinib had
a statistically significantly prolonged PFS duration than
patients treated with everolimus
– Sunitinib resulted in improved PFS in good/intermediate risk,
papillary, and unclassified subtypes
– Everolimus resulted in improved PFS in poor risk and
chromophobe subtypes
• Both agents resulted in short PFS times and low response
rates
• Sunitinib and everolimus resulted in different rates of
expected toxicities; more severe toxicities with sunitinib,
but more discontinuations due to toxicity from everolimus.
Initial results from ASSURE (E2805):
Adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib for
unfavorable renal carcinoma, an ECOG-
ACRIN-led, NCTN phase III trial
98
ASCO GU 2015
Naomi Haas, MD, et al.
Stratify
Risk
- Intermediate High
- Very High
Histology
- Clear cell
- Non-clear cell
Performance status
- 0 vs. 1
Surgery
- Open
- Laparoscopic
Arm B Sorafenib
Twice daily for 9 cycles
(1 yr)
Arm C Placebo
Daily for 1 year
• Non-
metastatic
Kidney
Cancer
• Resectable
Disease by
scan
• ≥ T1bNany
(resectable)
M0 disease
Arm A Sunitinib
Daily 4 of 6 weeks for 9
cycles (1 yr)
Surgery
Endpoints:
Disease-Free Survival
Overall Survival
Side Effects
(Including Cardiac, Fatigue)
Correlatives
Starting Dose Sunitinib Sorafenib
Original 50 mg/day 400 mg twice daily
Revised 37.5 mg/day 400 mg/day
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
N = 1943
Toxicity Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo
Grade (%) 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5
Hypertension 16 <1 - 16 <1 - 4 - -
Thrombotic <1 <1 <1 1 1 - <1 <1 -
Bleeding <1 <1 - <1 - - <1 - -
Cardiac ischemia <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 -
LVEF dysfunction 1 - - 1 - - <1 - -
CNS 1 - - <1 - - <1 <1 -
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Adverse Events - Cardiovascular
Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo
Grade (%) 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5
Fatigue 17 1 - 7 - - 3 - -
Rash 2 - - 15 <1 - <1 - -
Hand-foot 15 - - 33 - - 1 - -
Diarrhea 10 - - 9 - - - - -
Anorexia 2 - - 1 - - - - -
Stomatitis 4 <1 - 2 - - <1 - -
Nausea/vomiting 6 - - 2 - - <1 - -
Neuropathy 1 - - 2 <1 - <1 - -
Pain 7 <1 - 9 <1 - 3 <1 -
Renal failure 1 - <1 1 <1 - - - -
Infection/febrile neutropenia 3 - <` 4 <1 <1 2 - -
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Adverse Events - Clinical
Hematologic Adverse Events
Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo
Grade (%) 4 5 4 5 4 5
Thrombocytopenia 1 - <1 - - -
Myelosuppression <1 - - - - -
Anemia <1 <1 - - -
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo
Grade 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5
Percent 57 5 1 67 3 <1 20 4 <1
Worst Degree - All Event Types
Disease-Free Survival
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Events Patients 5-yr DFS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI
Sunitinib 265 647 53.8% 49.0 – 59.1% 1.01 0.83 – 1.23
Sorafenib 272 649 52.8% 48.0 – 58.0% 0.98 0.81 – 1.19
Placebo 270 647 55.8% 51.2 – 60.9%
Median 5.8 yrs
Median 5.8 yrs
Median 6.0 yrs
DFS for Clear Cell Population
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Event
s
Patient
s
5-yr DFS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI
Sunitinib 214 513 52.4% 47.0 – 58.4% 1.01 0.81 – 1.26
Sorafenib 224 519 50.7% 45.4 – 56.7% 1.00 0.81 – 1.24
Placebo 216 509 54.9% 49.7 – 60.6%
Median 5.6 yrs
Median 5.1 yrs
Median 5.7 yrs
Overall Survival
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Event
s
Patient
s
5-yr OS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI
Sunitinib 138 647 76.9% 72.9 – 81.2% 1.10 0.83 – 1.45
Sorafenib 121 649 80.7% 77.0 – 84.6% 0.93 0.69 – 1.23
Placebo 130 647 78.7% 74.8 – 82.8%
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Sunitinib vs. Placebo
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Sorafenib vs. Placebo
Conclusions
• First and largest trial reporting on efficacy of VEGF inhibitors
as adjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced
kidney cancer who are at high risk of recurrence
• Median time to disease recurrence did not differ between
those who received sorafenib or sunitinib after surgery
(median 5.8 years) and those treated with placebo (median
6 years)
• Findings from this study suggest that patients with locally
advanced kidney cancer should not be treated with either
adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib
Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD
Thank You
109

More Related Content

What's hot

Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovaryTreatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
Alok Gupta
 
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
European School of Oncology
 
M rcc reempowering an old dogma
M rcc reempowering an old dogmaM rcc reempowering an old dogma
M rcc reempowering an old dogma
Mohamed Abdulla
 
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
ovarian cancer - angiogenesisovarian cancer - angiogenesis
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
Mohamed Abdulla
 
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancerAdvances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
Alok Gupta
 
2016 urooncology updates
2016 urooncology updates2016 urooncology updates
2016 urooncology updates
Mohamed Abdulla
 
The grey zone in prostate cancer management
The grey zone in prostate cancer managementThe grey zone in prostate cancer management
The grey zone in prostate cancer management
Mohamed Abdulla
 
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancerLHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
Alok Gupta
 
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
madurai
 
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
Astellas   meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019Astellas   meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
Mohamed Abdulla
 
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPCRole of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
Mohamed Abdulla
 
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas AdenocarcinomaUpdate on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
OSUCCC - James
 
CRPC management
CRPC managementCRPC management
CRPC management
Mohamed Abdulla
 
Management of advanced prostate carcinoma
Management of advanced prostate carcinomaManagement of advanced prostate carcinoma
Management of advanced prostate carcinoma
Animesh Agrawal
 
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
Fight Colorectal Cancer
 
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistance
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistanceProstate Cancer . Castration resistance
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistance
Luis Toache
 
Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer   Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer
Mohamed Abdulla
 
Gut talk
Gut talkGut talk
Gut talk
madurai
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign HematologyOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
OSUCCC - James
 
M crpc
M crpcM crpc
M crpc
madurai
 

What's hot (20)

Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovaryTreatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
Treatment of Platinum sensitive relapsed carcinoma ovary
 
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
A. Shamseddine - Prostate and renal cancer - State of the art and update on s...
 
M rcc reempowering an old dogma
M rcc reempowering an old dogmaM rcc reempowering an old dogma
M rcc reempowering an old dogma
 
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
ovarian cancer - angiogenesisovarian cancer - angiogenesis
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
 
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancerAdvances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
Advances in management of hormone sensitive prostate cancer
 
2016 urooncology updates
2016 urooncology updates2016 urooncology updates
2016 urooncology updates
 
The grey zone in prostate cancer management
The grey zone in prostate cancer managementThe grey zone in prostate cancer management
The grey zone in prostate cancer management
 
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancerLHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
LHRH agonist vs antagonist in prostate cancer
 
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
Hepatobiliary tumor board (1)
 
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
Astellas   meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019Astellas   meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
 
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPCRole of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
 
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas AdenocarcinomaUpdate on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
Update on Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
 
CRPC management
CRPC managementCRPC management
CRPC management
 
Management of advanced prostate carcinoma
Management of advanced prostate carcinomaManagement of advanced prostate carcinoma
Management of advanced prostate carcinoma
 
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
June 2016 ASCO in Review #CRCWebinar
 
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistance
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistanceProstate Cancer . Castration resistance
Prostate Cancer . Castration resistance
 
Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer   Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer
 
Gut talk
Gut talkGut talk
Gut talk
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign HematologyOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Benign Hematology
 
M crpc
M crpcM crpc
M crpc
 

Viewers also liked

Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell DisordersOhio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
OSUCCC - James
 
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
ASCO 2016 Thoracic ReviewASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
ASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015 Acute Leukemias and MDS
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015Acute Leukemias and MDSOhio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015Acute Leukemias and MDS
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015 Acute Leukemias and MDS
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO Review Benign Hematology
ASCO Review Benign HematologyASCO Review Benign Hematology
ASCO Review Benign Hematology
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
OSUCCC - James
 
Asco 2016 GU Review
Asco 2016 GU ReviewAsco 2016 GU Review
Asco 2016 GU Review
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma ReviewASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
ASCO 2015 Melanoma ImmunotherapyASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
ASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI CancersASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health DisparitiesASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
OSUCCC - James
 
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer ReviewASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal CancerASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
OSUCCC - James
 

Viewers also liked (17)

Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell DisordersOhio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review T-cell Disorders
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review Blood and Marrow Trasplantation (with Turning Po...
 
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
(Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review) ASH 2015 REVIEW – LYMPHOMA ABSTRACTS
 
ASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
ASCO 2016 Thoracic ReviewASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
ASCO 2016 Thoracic Review
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - BEST OF ASH 2015 MULTIPLE MYELOMA AND PLASMA C...
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015 Acute Leukemias and MDS
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015Acute Leukemias and MDSOhio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015Acute Leukemias and MDS
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - ASH Review 2015 Acute Leukemias and MDS
 
ASCO Review Benign Hematology
ASCO Review Benign HematologyASCO Review Benign Hematology
ASCO Review Benign Hematology
 
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
Ohio State's 2016 ASH Review - Updates in Myeloproliferative Disorders, inclu...
 
Asco 2016 GU Review
Asco 2016 GU ReviewAsco 2016 GU Review
Asco 2016 GU Review
 
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma ReviewASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
ASCO 2016 Sarcoma Review
 
ASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
ASCO 2015 Melanoma ImmunotherapyASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
ASCO 2015 Melanoma Immunotherapy
 
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI CancersASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
ASCO Review 2016 Upper GI Cancers
 
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health DisparitiesASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
ASCO Review 2016 Addressing Health Disparities
 
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
ASCO Review- 2015 What is new in breast cancer?
 
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
Melanoma ASCO Review Update 2016
 
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer ReviewASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
ASCO 2016 Breast Cancer Review
 
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal CancerASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
ASCO Review 2016 Colorectal Cancer
 

Similar to 2015 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Update

What’s New With HER2?
What’s New With HER2?What’s New With HER2?
What’s New With HER2?
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
 
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate CancerNew Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
flasco_org
 
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic NatureProstate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
Mohamed Abdulla
 
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptxCCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
PeterpanNguyen
 
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptxmHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
minhtruong388670
 
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014 Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
Mohamed Abdulla
 
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug developmentECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
European School of Oncology
 
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment ParadigmProstate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
Alok Gupta
 
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.20112 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
European School of Oncology
 
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
European School of Oncology
 
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
Effyciens Marketing Online SL.
 
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
European School of Oncology
 
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstataQuimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
Enrique Gallardo
 
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
European School of Oncology
 
2.1 adj cht cufer
2.1 adj cht cufer2.1 adj cht cufer
2.1 adj cht cufer
European School of Oncology
 
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
European School of Oncology
 
Radiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
RadiologieinterventionnellechctdebaereRadiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
Radiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
Centre Hepato-Biliaire / AP-HP Hopital Paul Brousse
 
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRTASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
Todd Scarbrough
 
NET - Kennecke
NET - KenneckeNET - Kennecke
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
H. Jack West
 

Similar to 2015 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Update (20)

What’s New With HER2?
What’s New With HER2?What’s New With HER2?
What’s New With HER2?
 
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate CancerNew Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
New Trends in the Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
 
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic NatureProstate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
Prostate Cancer: Keep Takling The Androgenic Nature
 
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptxCCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
CCO_Prostate_Cancer_Advances_Downloadable_3.pptx
 
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptxmHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
mHSPC 9.2022 clinicaloptions.pptx
 
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014 Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
Treatment paradigms in the management of mbc bgicc 2014
 
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug developmentECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
ECCLU 2011 - K. Fizazi - Prostate cancer drug development
 
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment ParadigmProstate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
Prostate cancer : Changing Treatment Paradigm
 
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.20112 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
2 predicting response to adt msk.eso 4.3.2011
 
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
NY Prostate Cancer Conference - M.H. Hussain - Session 5: Predicting response...
 
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
12 Quimioterapia, 1ª - 2ª línea y mantenimiento. Cáncer de Pulmón
 
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 2 - T. Le Chevalier - Treatment o...
 
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstataQuimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
Quimioterapia en cáncer de próstata
 
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
Gene Profiling in Clinical Oncology - Slide 11 - J. Albanell Mestres - The Sp...
 
2.1 adj cht cufer
2.1 adj cht cufer2.1 adj cht cufer
2.1 adj cht cufer
 
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
BALKAN MCO 2011 - T. Cufer - Chemotherapy: when, why, prognostic factors, reg...
 
Radiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
RadiologieinterventionnellechctdebaereRadiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
Radiologieinterventionnellechctdebaere
 
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRTASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
ASTRO 07 PROS IGRT
 
NET - Kennecke
NET - KenneckeNET - Kennecke
NET - Kennecke
 
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
Transitioning Survival from Months to Years in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung C...
 

More from OSUCCC - James

In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead GenerationIn Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
OSUCCC - James
 
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety AssaysCell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
OSUCCC - James
 
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug DevelopmentIn-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
OSUCCC - James
 
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable DrugThe Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
OSUCCC - James
 
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
OSUCCC - James
 
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative DisordersOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow TransplantationOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
OSUCCC - James
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in MyelomaOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
OSUCCC - James
 
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
OSUCCC - James
 
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
OSUCCC - James
 
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGCGenetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
OSUCCC - James
 
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncologyASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
OSUCCC - James
 
Survivorship Care Plans
Survivorship Care PlansSurvivorship Care Plans
Survivorship Care Plans
OSUCCC - James
 
Cancer Survivorship Visit
Cancer Survivorship VisitCancer Survivorship Visit
Cancer Survivorship Visit
OSUCCC - James
 
Triage Cancer
Triage CancerTriage Cancer
Triage Cancer
OSUCCC - James
 
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
OSUCCC - James
 
Older Adult Survivorship
Older Adult SurvivorshipOlder Adult Survivorship
Older Adult Survivorship
OSUCCC - James
 
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer SurvivorshipRehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
OSUCCC - James
 
OT Case Study
OT Case StudyOT Case Study
OT Case Study
OSUCCC - James
 

More from OSUCCC - James (20)

In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead GenerationIn Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
In Vitro ADMET Considerations for Drug Discovery and Lead Generation
 
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety AssaysCell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
Cell-Based Ion Channel and Cardiac Safety Assays
 
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug DevelopmentIn-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
In-Vivo Safety - Pre Ind Drug Development
 
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable DrugThe Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
The Path from Chemical Tool to Approvable Drug
 
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
Target Validation / Biochemical and Cellular Assay Development
 
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
Intro to Ohio State's Drug Development Bootcamp: Practical Aspects of Positio...
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative DisordersOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Myeloproliferative Disorders
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow TransplantationOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Blood and Marrow Transplantation
 
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in MyelomaOhio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
Ohio State's ASH Review 2017 - Update in Myeloma
 
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
Surgical (or Non-Surgical) Managment of Thyroid Cancer in the Era of "Over-Di...
 
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
Genetic predisposition to papillary thyroid cancer by Albert de la Chapelle, ...
 
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGCGenetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
Genetic Syndromes and Thyroid Cancer by Pamela Brock, MS, LGC
 
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncologyASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
ASCO 2016 Review Neuro-oncology
 
Survivorship Care Plans
Survivorship Care PlansSurvivorship Care Plans
Survivorship Care Plans
 
Cancer Survivorship Visit
Cancer Survivorship VisitCancer Survivorship Visit
Cancer Survivorship Visit
 
Triage Cancer
Triage CancerTriage Cancer
Triage Cancer
 
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
Survivorship Issues Genetics 2016
 
Older Adult Survivorship
Older Adult SurvivorshipOlder Adult Survivorship
Older Adult Survivorship
 
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer SurvivorshipRehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
Rehabilitation Issues in Breast Cancer Survivorship
 
OT Case Study
OT Case StudyOT Case Study
OT Case Study
 

Recently uploaded

Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptxOutbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
Pratik328635
 
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treatHistopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
DIVYANSHU740006
 
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptxDoes Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
walterHu5
 
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
KafrELShiekh University
 
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdfHiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
Dr. Sujit Chatterjee CEO Hiranandani Hospital
 
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.GawadHemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
NephroTube - Dr.Gawad
 
All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
 All info about Diabetes and how to control it. All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
Gokuldas Hospital
 
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLSComplementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
chiranthgowda16
 
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
Torstein Dalen-Lorentsen
 
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdfCHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
rishi2789
 
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.comAdhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
reignlana06
 
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdfNetter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
BrissaOrtiz3
 
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdfCBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
suvadeepdas911
 
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptxChapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
Earlene McNair
 
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdfMedical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Jim Jacob Roy
 
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấuK CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
HongBiThi1
 
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptxshare - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
Tina Purnat
 
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USENARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
Dr. Ahana Haroon
 
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistryKetone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
Dhayanithi C
 
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptxVestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptxOutbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
Outbreak management including quarantine, isolation, contact.pptx
 
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treatHistopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
 
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptxDoes Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
Does Over-Masturbation Contribute to Chronic Prostatitis.pptx
 
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
OCT Training Course for clinical practice Part 1
 
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdfHiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
Hiranandani Hospital Powai News [Read Now].pdf
 
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.GawadHemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
Hemodialysis: Chapter 4, Dialysate Circuit - Dr.Gawad
 
All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
 All info about Diabetes and how to control it. All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
 
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLSComplementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
Complementary feeding in infant IAP PROTOCOLS
 
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
Physical demands in sports - WCSPT Oslo 2024
 
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdfCHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
 
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.comAdhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.com
 
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdfNetter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy 7.ed.pdf
 
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdfCBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
CBL Seminar 2024_Preliminary Program.pdf
 
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptxChapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
Chapter 11 Nutrition and Chronic Diseases.pptx
 
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdfMedical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
 
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấuK CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
K CỔ TỬ CUNG.pdf tự ghi chép, chữ hơi xấu
 
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptxshare - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptx
 
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USENARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
NARCOTICS- POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ITS USE
 
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistryKetone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
 
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptxVestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
 

2015 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Update

  • 1. 2015 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Update June 13, 2015 Amir Mortazavi, MD Clinical Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine
  • 3. E3805 CHAARTED: ChemoHormonal Therapy versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer 3 ASCO 2014 Christopher Sweeney, MBBS, et al.
  • 4. E3805 – CHAARTED Treatment STRATIFICATION Extent of Mets -High vs. Low Age ≥70 vs < 70yo ECOG PS - 0-1 vs 2 CAB> 30 days -Yes vs. No SRE Prevention -Yes vs. No Prior Adjuvant ADT ≤12 vs. > 12 months R A N D O M I Z E ARM A: ADT + Docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 21 days for maximum 6 cycles ARM B: ADT (androgen deprivation therapy alone) Evaluate every 3 weeks while receiving docetaxel and at week 24 then every 12 weeks Evaluate every 12 weeks Follow for time to progression and overall survival Chemotherapy at investigator’s discretion at progression Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS • ADT allowed up to 120 days prior to randomization. • Intermittent ADT dosing was not allowed • Standard dexamethasone premedication but no daily prednisone (N = 790)
  • 5. Primary endpoint: Overall survival 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 OS (Months) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Probability HR=0.61 (0.47-0.80) p=0.0003 Median OS: ADT + D: 57.6 months ADT alone: 44.0 months Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
  • 6. Causes of Death Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS ADT + Doc (N=397) ADT alone (N=393) N % N % Due to prostate cancer 84 83.2 112 82.6 Due to protocol Rx 1 1.0 0 0.0 Other cause 8 7.9 11 8.2 Unknown 8 7.9 11 8.2 Missing 0 2 Total 101 136
  • 7. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 OS (Months) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Probability 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 OS (Months) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Probability In patients with high volume metastatic disease, there is a 17 month improvement in median overall survival from 32.2 months to 49.2 months OS by extent of metastatic disease at start of ADT High volume Low volume p=0.0006 HR=0.60 (0.45-0.81) Median OS: ADT + D: 49.2 months ADT alone: 32.2 months p=0.1398 HR=0.63 (0.34-1.17) Median OS: ADT + D: Not reached ADT alone: Not reached Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
  • 8. ADT + Docetaxel benefited all subgroups Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
  • 9. Secondary Endpoints ADT + Doc (N=397) ADT alone (N=393) P-value Hazard Ratio (95%CI*) PSA <0.2 ng/mL at 6 months 27.5% 14.0% <0.0001 PSA <0.2 ng/mL at 12 months 22.7% 11.7% <0.0001 Median time to CRPC - biochemical, symptoms, or radiographic (months) 20.7 14.7 <0.0001 0.56 (0.44, 0.70) Median time to clinical progression - symptoms or radiographic (months) 32.7 19.8 <0.0001 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) *CI: confidence intervals Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
  • 10. Conclusion • The combination of standard ADT and 6 cycles of docetaxel significantly improved overall survival compared to standard ADT alone in men with hormone sensitive prostate cancer • The benefit in patients with a high volume of metastases is clear and justifies the treatment burden – longer follow-up is required for patients with low volume metastatic disease Presented by: Christopher J. Sweeney, MBBS
  • 11.
  • 12. Docetaxel and/or zoledronic acid for hormone-naïve prostate cancer: First survival results from STAMPEDE 12 Abstract # 5001 Nicholas James, MD, PhD, et al.
  • 13. • Setting  Hormone therapy the mainstay of treatment since 1940s  Addition of radiotherapy to N0M0 disease improves outcomes • Hypothesis  Early use of active therapies (e.g. docetaxel, zoledronic acid, abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc.) may give a larger absolute benefit in overall survival Setting and hypothesis
  • 14. Inclusion criteria Newly-diagnosed Any of: • Metastatic • Node-Positive • ≥2 of: Stage T3/4 PSA≥40ng/ml Gleason 8-10 Relapsing after previous RP or RT with ≥1 of: • PSA ≥4ng/ml and rising with doubling time <6m • PSA ≥20ng/ml • Node-positive • Metastatic All patients WHO performance status 0-2
  • 15. Outcome measures Primary outcome measure Overall survival Secondary outcome measures Failure-free survival (FFS) Toxicity Quality of life Skeletal-related events Cost effectiveness FFS definition First of: PSA failure Local failure Lymph node failure Distant metastases Prostate cancer death PSA failure definition PSA fall >= 50%  24wk nadir + 50% and  >4ng/ml PSA fall of <50%  failure at t=0
  • 16. Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) design For each research comparison • Allocation ratio of 2 control to 1 research • Target 25% relative improvement in overall survival  HR=0.75 • Interim analysis  3 lack-of-benefit analyses on failure-free survival • Main analysis on primary outcome measure  Requires ~400 control arm deaths  Power and alpha 90% and 0.025, 1-sided Over all original comparisons  Power and alpha 83% and 0.013, 1-sided  Familywise error rate ~5%
  • 17. Docetaxel & ZA comparisons: patients
  • 18. Accrual Comparison Open: Oct-2005 Closed: Mar-2013 Accrual: 2962 Number of patients 1184 A Standard-of-care (SOC) 593 B SOC + zoledronic acid 592 C SOC + docetaxel 593 E SOC + zoledronic acid + docetaxel
  • 19. Patient characteristics 1% WHO PS 2 [s] 21% WHO PS 1 [s] 65yr Median age [s] (min 40, max 84) 61% Metastatic [s] (85% Bony mets) 15% N+M0 24% N0M0 98% LHRH analogues [s] 29% Planned for RT [s] (72% of N0M0 pts) 6% Previous local therapy Balanced by arm [s] Stratification factors + hospital + NSAID/aspirin
  • 20. SOC 750 FFS events SOC+ZA 371 FFS events HR (95%CI) 0.93 (0.82, 1.05) P-value 0.26 Zoledronic acid: Failure-free survival Median FFS (95% CI) SOC 21m (18, 24m) SOC+ZA 21m (18, 25m)
  • 21. Zoledronic acid: Survival SOC 405 deaths SOC+ZA 197 deaths HR (95%CI) 0.93 (0.79, 1.11) P-value 0.44 Median OS (95% CI) SOC 67m (60, 91m) SOC+ZA 80m (70, NR)
  • 22. Docetaxel: Failure-free survival SOC 750 FFS events SOC+Doc 371 FFS events HR (95%CI) 0.62 (0.54, 0.70) P-value <0.0000000001* Median FFS (95% CI) SOC 21m (18, 24m) SOC+Doc 37m (33, 42m)
  • 23. Docetaxel: Survival SOC 405 deaths SOC+Doc 165 deaths HR (95%CI) 0.76 (0.63, 0.91) P-value 0.003 Median OS (95% CI) SOC 67m (60, 91m) SOC+Doc 77m (70, NR)
  • 24. Zoledronic acid + docetaxel: Failure-free survival SOC 750 FFS events SOC+ZA+Doc 371 FFS events HR (95%CI) 0.62 (0.54, 0.71) P-value <0.0000000001*a Median FFS (95% CI) SOC 21m (18, 24m) SOC+ZA+Doc 37m (31, 42m)
  • 25. Zoledronic acid + docetaxel: Survival SOC 405 deaths SOC+ZA+Doc 181 deaths HR (95%CI) 0.81 (0.68, 0.97) P-value 0.02 Median OS (95% CI) SOC 67m (60, 91m) SOC+ZA+Doc 72m (63, 90m)
  • 26. Consistency of treatment effect • Subgroups included:  Metastatic status (M0, M1)  Nodal status (N0, N+, NX)  Gleason sum score (≤7, 8+, unknown)  PSA pre-hormone therapy (0-20ng/ml, 20-40, 40-100, 100+)  Age at randomisation (under 70, 70 or over)  WHO PS (0, 1-2)  NSAID/Aspirin use (no use, uses either) • No good evidence of heterogeneity
  • 27. Treatment effect by metastatic status: FFS +ZA +Doc +ZA+Doc Pre-planned analysis
  • 28. +ZA +Doc +ZA+Doc Pre-planned analysis Treatment effect by metastatic status: Overall survival
  • 29. Docetaxel: Survival – M1 Patients SOC 343 deaths SOC+Doc 134 deaths HR (95%CI) 0.73 (0.59, 0.89) P-value 0.002 Median OS (95% CI) SOC 43m (24, 88m) SOC+Doc 65m (27, NR)
  • 30. Target Dose: 75mg/m2, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (+prednisolone 10mg daily) Doc ZA+Doc Report receiving 6 cycles 76% 69% Report receiving ≥5 cycles 80% 74% Docetaxel treatment
  • 31. Grade 3+ adverse events ever reported A SOC B SOC+ZA C SOC+Doc E SOC+ZA+Doc Patients randomised 1184 593 592 593 Patients with adverse event data 1174 587 579 564 Grade 3-5 AE (G5) N 363 (3) 185 (1) 291 (3) 294 (7) % 31% 31% 51% 52% Endocrine disorder 12% 12% 10% 12% Blood and lymphatic (febrile neutropenia) 1% 2% 12% 12% Blood/bone marrow (neutrophils) 1% 1% 12% 11% General disorder 4% 5% 8% 11% Musculo-skeletal 5% 5% 6% 8% Gastrointestinal disorder 3% 3% 7% 7% Renal 5% 4% 4% 6% - Early peak in toxicity during chemotherapy seems to settle by 1 year
  • 32. • Docetaxel improves survival for hormone-naive prostate cancer • Zoledronic acid does not improve survival • Adding both improves survival but offers no obvious benefit over adding just docetaxel • Multi-arm, multi-stage trials are practicable and efficient • Docetaxel should be:  Considered for routine practice in suitable men with newly-diagnosed metastatic disease  Considered for selected men with high-risk non-metastatic disease in view of substantial prolongation of failure-free survival Conclusions
  • 33. A phase III protocol of androgen suppression and radiotherapy vs AS and RT followed by chemotherapy with docetaxel and prednisone for localized, high-risk prostate cancer (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0521) 33 Abstract # LBA 5002 Howard Sandler, MD, et al.
  • 34. Background • Locally advanced or high-risk localized prostate cancer has a relatively poor prognosis. • Standard management often uses radiotherapy and long term (2-3 years) hormonal treatment. • Improvements in local and systemic treatment are likely to beneficial. • Hypothesis: chemotherapy (docetaxel) known to be beneficial in metastatic, hormone-resistant cancer would improve outcome in non-metastatic, hormone- sensitive prostate cancer
  • 35. RTOG 0521 Stage Gleason score PSA Any T stage ≥9 <150 7-8 ≥20-150 ≥T2 8 <20 Arm 1 Androgen Suppression (24 mos) + External RT (8 wks) High Risk R a n d o m i z e Arm 2 Androgen Suppression (24 mos) + External RT (8 wks) + Docetaxel beginning 4 wks after RT (6 cycles)
  • 36. Characteristic Arm 1 and Arm 2 (N=563) Risk Category (stratification) (%) Gleason ≥9, PSA ≤150, Any T-stage 53 Gleason 8, PSA <20, ≥T2 21 Gleason 8, PSA≥20-150, Any T-stage 10 Gleason 7, PSA≥20-150, Any T-stage 16 Gleason score, no. (%) 7 16 8 31 9-10 53 Serum PSA, ng/mL, Median (Q1-Q3) 15 (7-34) Age, Median 66 cT3-T4 27% pN0 33%
  • 37. Overall Survival 4 yr OS 93% vs. 89% HR 0.70 (90%CI: 0.51-0.98)
  • 38. Biochemical Failure 6 yr BF 74% vs. 66% HR 0.81 (95%CI: 0.58-1.11)
  • 39. Disease-Free Survival 6 yr DFS 65% vs. 55% HR 0.76 (95%CI: 0.58-0.99)
  • 41. Cause of Death* AS+RT (n=59) AS+RT+CT (n=43) Death due to cancer under study 23 16 Death due to protocol treatment 0 2 Death due to other cause 24 16 Death due to second primary 12 5 Unknown cause of death 0 4 *Based on central review blinded to treatment arm
  • 42. Adverse Events Definitely, Probably, or Possibly Related to Treatment Grade AS+RT (%) AS+RT+CT (%) Worst overall 1 17 3 2 53 29 3 21 38 4 1 26 5 0 1
  • 43. Conclusions • For the first time, improvement in overall survival observed with (tolerable) adjuvant chemotherapy for localized, high-risk, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. • Cumulative incidence of distant metastasis was reduced • The potential role of docetaxel in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is consistent with and supported by our data and other studies, such as STAMPEDE and CHAARTED. • This analysis is relatively early and additional follow-up will likely be enlightening.
  • 44. Interest of short hormonotherapy (HT) associated with radiotherapy (RT) as salvage treatment for biological relapse (BR) after radical prostatectomy (RP): Results of the GETUG-AFU 16 phase III randomized trial 44 Abstract # 5006 Christian Carrie, MD, et al.
  • 45.
  • 47.
  • 48.
  • 49.
  • 50.
  • 52. A Phase Ia Study of Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A/Anti-PDL1): Updated Response and Survival Data in Urothelial Bladder Cancer (UBC) 52 Abstract # 4501 Daniel Petrylak, MD, et al.
  • 53. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 53 References: 1. Bellmunt et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009. 2. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Nature. 2014. 3. Kandoth C, et al. Nature. 2013. 4. Lawrence MS, et al. Nature. 2013. 5. Rizvi et al. Science. 2015. • Metastatic UBC is associated with poor outcomes • There are no FDA-approved therapies for patients who relapse after platinum-based therapy – OS ≈ 5-7 months in the second-line setting1 • UBC has a high mutational load due to tobacco/environmental carcinogen exposure2-4 – In other cancers,4,5 high somatic non-synonomous mutational burden has been associated with durable clinical benefit of PD-L1/PD-1–directed therapy5 Metastatic UBC: Unmet Need and Potential for Cancer Immunotherapy
  • 54. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 54 Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) Is a Humanized Anti-PDL1 Anti- body That Inhibits the Binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1 • Inhibiting PD-L1/PD-1 and PD-L1/B7.1 interactions can restore antitumor T-cell activity and enhance T-cell priming • Targeting PD-L1 leaves the PD-L2/PD-1 interaction intact, thereby potentially preserving peripheral immune homeostasis1,2 • PD-L1 is expressed in many cancers3,4 References: 1. Akbari et al. Mucosal Immunol. 2010; 2. Matsumoto et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008. 3. Brown et al. J Immunol. 2003. 4. Latchman et al. Nat Immunol. 2001.
  • 55. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 55 a Safety-evaluable UBC population. b The UBC cohort originally enrolled patients with PD-L1 IC2/3 but was then expanded to include all-comers, primarily recruiting PD-L1 IC0/1 patients. References: Powles et al. ASCO, 2014; Powles et al. Nature, 2014; Bellmunt et al. ESMO, 2014; Xiao et al. SITC, 2014; Kim et al. ASCO-GU, 2015. • Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) administered IV Q3W 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg flat dose Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Phase Ia Study Ongoing dose-expansion phase RCC 1. All- comers 2. PD-L1 selected Melanoma All-comers NSCLC 1. All- comers 2. PD-L1 selected Other Tumor Types 1. PD-L1 selected 2. All- comers UBC N = 92a 1. PD-L1 selected 2. All- comersb TNBC 1. PD-L1 selected 2. All- comers Key Eligibility Criteria: • Measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 • ECOG PS 0 or 1
  • 56. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 56 a Safety-evaluable patients received at least 1 dose of atezolizumab. b Includes lung, liver, non-lymph or soft tissue. c n = 89. Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014. References: 1. Bellmunt et al J Clin Oncol. 2010. 2. Pond et al BJU Int. 2014. Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Baseline Characteristics in UBC (safety evaluable) Characteristic Patients N = 92a Median age, y (range) 66 (36-89) Male, n (%) 69 (75%) ECOG PS, n (%) 0 37 (40%) 1 55 (60%) Site of primary tumor Bladder 73 (79%) Renal pelvis 5 (5%) Ureter 9 (10%) Urethra 5 (5%) Site of metastases at baseline, n (%) Visceralb 73 (79%) Liver 34 (37%) Characteristic Patients N = 92a Prior treatments, n (%) Cystectomy or nephroureterectomy 56 (61%) Platinum-based chemotherapy 86 (94%) Cisplatin-based 69 (75%) Carboplatin-based 35 (38%) ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies (metastatic 66 (72%) ≤ 3 months from last chemotherapy 37 (42%)c Hemoglobin levels < 10 g/dL 16 (17%) GFR < 60 mL/min 38 (41%) • Poor prognostic factors included visceral mets, low hemoglobin levels, ECOG PS 1 and short time (≤ 3 months) from prior chemo1,2
  • 57. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 57 Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Treatment-Related AEs in UBC • Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated – Median safety follow-up was 16+ wk (range, 3 to 86+ wk) • Median duration of treatment was 3 mo (range, 0 to 19 mo) – No treatment-related deaths – 1 discontinuation due to a treatment-related AE – 5% of patients had a Grade 3-4 immune- mediated AE per investigator assessment • Grade 3 AEs: increased AST (n = 3); increased ALT (n = 2); increased blood bilirubin (n = 1); hypophysitis (n = 1) – 37 patients (40%) had a Grade 3-4 AE of any causec a Safety-evaluable patients received at least 1 dose of atezolizumab. b Additional Gr 3-4 AEs (1% each) included anemia, confusional state, decreased blood phosphorus, hypophysitis, increased ALT, increased GGT and thrombocytopenia. c In addition, 2 Grade 5 AEs not related to treatment were seen (acute respiratory failure and alcohol overdose). Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014. Treatment-Related AEs Occurring in ≥ 5% of Patients (All Grade) or in ≥ 2 Patients (Grade 3-4) N = 92a All Grade Grade 3-4b Any AE 60 (65%) 7 (8%) Fatigue 15 (16%) 0 Asthenia 12 (13%) 1 (1%) Nausea 10 (11%) 0 Decreased appetite 9 (10%) 0 Pruritus 9 (10%) 0 Pyrexia 6 (7%) 0 Rash 7 (8%) 0 Diarrhea 5 (5%) 0 Increased AST 2 (2%) 2 (2%)
  • 58. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 58 PD-L1 IHC n = 87b ORR (95% CI), %a IC3 (n = 12) 67% (35%-90%) 50% (35, 65) IC2 (n = 34) 44% (27%-62%) IC1 (n = 26) 19% (7%-39%) 17% (7, 32) IC0 (n = 15) 13% (2%-40%) a Efficacy-evaluable patients with measurable disease at baseline per RECIST v1.1. Responses are investigator assessed (unconfirmed); of 30 unconfirmed responses, 24 have been confirmed by the cutoff date. b 4 IC2/3 patients and 7 IC0/1 patients missing or unevaluable. Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014. • Responses were observed all PD-L1 subgroups, with higher ORRs associated with higher PD-L1 expression in IC • Responders also included patients with visceral metastases at baseline: 38% ORR (95% CI, 21%-56%) in 32 IC2/3 patients and 14% (95% CI, 5%-30%) ORR in 36 IC0/1 patients Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): ORR in UBC by IC Status CR, n (%) PR, n (%) 4 (33%) 9 (20%) 4 (33%) 14 (30%) 5 (15%) 10 (29%) - - 5 (19%) 7 (17%) - 2 (13%)
  • 59. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 59 a Change in SLD > 100%. b Seven patients without post-baseline tumor assessments not included. Asterisks denote 9 CR patients, 6 of whom have been confirmed by data cutoff date (Dec 2, 2014) and 7 of whom had < 100% reduction due to lymph node target lesions. All lymph nodes returned to normal size per RECIST v1.1. • Forty-four of 80 patients (55%) with post-baseline tumor assessments experienced a reduction in tumor burden • Decreased circulating inflammatory marker (CRP) and tumor markers (CEA, CA-19-9) were also observed in patients responding to atezolizumab Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Response in UBC by IC statusa * * * * * *** * IC0 IC1 IC2 IC3MaximumSLDReduction FromBaseline,%b
  • 60. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 60 Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Duration of Treatment and Response in UBC • Median duration of response has not yet been reached in either IC group (range, 0+ to 43 mo) • Median time to response was 62 days – IC2/3 patients: range, 1+ to 10+ mo – IC0/1 patients: range, 1+ to 7+ mo • 20 of 30 responding patients had ongoing responses at the time of data cutoff • 10 patients have been treated for over 1 year, including 3 retreated following protocol amendment a Discontinuation and ongoing response status markers have no timing implication. 4 patients discontinued treatment after cycle 16 prior to 1 year per original protocol. Responses plotted are investigator assessed and have not all been confirmed by the data cutoff (Dec 2, 2014). Patients with UBC and CR or PR as best response
  • 61. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 61 Median OS 7.6 mo (95% CI, 4.7 mo-NE) Median OS Not Reached (95% CI, 9.0 mo-NE) ___ IC2/3 ___ IC0/1 + Censored • PD-L1 IC status appeared to be predictive of benefit from atezolizumab treatment – mPFS and 1-year PFS rates were higher in atezolizumab-treated patients with higher PD-L1 IC expression – The same association was observed for 1-year OS rates, and mOS for IC2/3 patients was not yet reached • Preliminary analysis using SP142 from an independent sample set (n = 110) suggests that PD-L1 IC status is not prognostic for OS in UBC1 Data cutoff, Dec 2, 2014. Reference: 1. Genentech, unpublished data. Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Survival in UBC Survivala N = 92 IC2/3 n = 48 IC0/1 n = 44 PFS Median PFS (range) 6 mo (0+ to 18) 1 mo (0+ to 14+) 1-y PFS (95% CI) 39% (24-54) 10% (0-21) OS Median OS (range) Not reached (1 to 20+ mo) 8 mo (1 to 15+ mo) 1-y survival (95% CI) 57% (41-73) 38% (19-56) Median survival follow-up: 14 mo (IC2/3) 12 mo (IC0/1)
  • 62. Petrylak DP, et al., Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in UBC 62 • Atezolizumab has demonstrated promising clinical activity in a heavily pre-treated metastatic UBC cohort with encouraging survival and clinically meaningful response data – 1-year OS rates were 57% and 38% for IC2/3 and 0/1 patients, respectively – ORRs were 50% and 17% in IC2/3 and 0/1 patients, respectively – Median time to response was 62 days, and median DOR was not reached • Atezolizumab has been well tolerated with manageable side effects – No treatment-related deaths – Grade 3-4 immune-mediated AE rate was 5% • The highly sensitive and specific SP142 IHC assay measures PD-L1 expression on IC, which may be a predictive biomarker for atezolizumab response • Phase II and III studies in UBC are ongoing (NCT02108652 [IMvigor 210] and NCT02302807 [IMvigor 211]), with Phase II data expected later this year Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A): Phase Ia UBC Summary
  • 63. Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) for advanced urothelial cancer: Updated results and biomarker analysis from KEYNOTE-012. 63 Abstract # 4502 Elizabeth Plimack, MD, et al.
  • 64.
  • 65.
  • 66.
  • 67.
  • 68.
  • 69.
  • 70.
  • 71.
  • 72.
  • 73.
  • 74.
  • 76. Randomized phase 2 three-arm trial of lenvatinib (LEN), everolimus (EVE), and LEN+EVE in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma 76 Abstract # 4506 Robert Motzer, MD, et al.
  • 77. Introduction  There is an unmet need for improved treatment outcome of metastatic RCC patients to standard VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors  Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies1  Lenvatinib is a highly potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1–3 and FGFR1–42-4 Kinase inhibitory profile of lenvatinib5 1. Casanovas O, Cancer Cell. 2005; 2. Matsui J, Int J Cancer 2008; 3. Matsui J, Clin Cancer Res 2008; 4. Okamoto K, Cancer Lett 2013; 5. Eisai data on file.
  • 78. Study Design Stratification factors: • Hemoglobin (normal vs low) • Corrected serum calcium (≥ vs < 10 mg/dL) Key eligibility criteria: •Advanced or metastatic RCC •Measurable disease •Progression on/after 1 prior VEGF-targeted therapy •Progression within 9 mos of stopping prior treatment •ECOG PS ≤1 Everolimus 10 mg PO qd Lenvatinib 18 mg PO qd + Everolimus 5 mg PO qd Lenvatinib 24 mg PO qd Patients were treated until: • Disease progression • Unacceptable toxicity R A N D O M I Z E
  • 79. Patient Characteristics and Prior Therapy Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 51) Lenvatinib (n = 52) Everolimus (n = 50) MSKCC risk group, % Favorable 24 21 24 Intermediate 37 35 38 Poor 39 44 38 Prior VEGF-targeted therapy*, % Sunitinib 71 67 56 Pazopanib 18 25 26 Sorafenib 2 0 4 Other 10 8 14 *Lenvatinib/Everolimus total sum exceeds 100% due to rounding In total, 5 patients had prior checkpoint inhibitor therapy and 14 patients had prior cytokine therapy
  • 80. Treatment Administration Lenvatinib/Everolimus Lenvatinib Everolimus Patients Treated, n 51 52 50 Treatment Ongoing at Data Cut-off* 13 7 3 Duration of treatment, mos Median 7.6 7.4 4.1 Range 0.7–22.6 0.1–23.0 0.3–20.1 Dose reductions, % Lenvatinib 71 62 - Everolimus 2 - 26 Primary Reason for Discontinuation, n Adverse Events 9 11 5 Patient Choice 3 0 0 Progression 19 29 35 Other 7 5 7
  • 81. Primary Endpoint: Progression-free Survival Number at risk Lenvatinib/Everolimus 51 41 27 23 16 10 5 1 0 Lenvatinib 52 41 29 20 11 6 4 1 0 Everolimus 50 29 15 11 7 3 1 0 0 Median, mos (95% CI) Lenvatinib/Everolimus 14.6 (5.9– 20.1) Lenvatinib 7.4 (5.6– 10.2) Everolimus 5.5 (3.5– 7.1) 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Time (mos) Progression-freeSurvival 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Lenvatinib/Everolimus vs Everolimus HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.24–0.68); P < 0.001 Lenvatinib vs Everolimus HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.38–0.98); P = 0.048
  • 82. Objective Response Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 51) Lenvatinib (n = 52) Everolimus (n = 50) Objective response rate, % 43 27 6 95% CI 29–58 16–41 1–17 Best overall response, % Complete 2 0 0 Partial 41 27 6 Stable disease 41 52 62 Progression 4 6 24 Not evaluated 12 15 8 Median duration of objective response, (months) 13.0 7.5 8.5 95% CI 3.7–NE 3.8–NE 7.5–9.4 NE, not estimable.
  • 83. Overall Survival (Updated Analysis) 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Time (mos) OverallSurvival 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Median, mos (95% CI) Lenvatinib/Everolimus 25.5 (16.4–NE) Lenvatinib 19.1 (13.6–26.2) Everolimus 15.4 (11.8–19.6) Lenvatinib/Everolimus vs Everolimus HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.30–0.88); P = 0.024 Lenvatinib vs Everolimus HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.41–1.14); P = 0.118 Number at risk: Lenvatinib/Everolimus 51 48 46 44 38 35 29 21 14 6 Lenvatinib 52 50 45 42 37 31 26 16 7 4 Everolimus 50 46 42 38 30 27 20 14 8 2
  • 84. Selected Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 51) Lenvatinib (n = 52) Everolimus (n = 50) Adverse event, % Any grade Grade 3 (4) Any grade Grade 3 (4) Any grade Grade 3 (4) Any TEAE 100 71 (14) 100 83 (10) 100 52 (12) Diarrhea 84 20 71 12 34 2 Fatigue/Asthenia 59 14 50 8 38 0 (2) Vomiting 45 8 39 4 10 0 Nausea 41 6 62 8 16 0 Hypertension 41 14 48 17 10 2 Decreased weight 31 2 48 6 8 0 Stomatitis 29 0 25 2 42 2 Dyspnea 24 0 (2) 21 2 22 8 Dysphonia 20 0 37 0 4 0 Rash 18 0 17 0 22 0 Grade 5 TEAEs Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 1): Cerebral hemorrhage*; Lenvatinib (n = 3): Myocardial infarction*; Intracranial hemorrhage; Sepsis; Everolimus (n = 2): Acute respiratory failure; Sepsis *Treatment-related as per investigator’s assessment
  • 85. Summary of Efficacy Lenvatinib/Everolimus (n = 51) Lenvatinib (n = 52) Everolimus (n = 50) Progression-free survival Median (mo) 14.6 7.4 5.5 95% CI 5.9–20.1 5.6–10.2 3.5–7.1 Benefit vs everolimus P < 0.001 P = 0.048 NA Objective response rate, % 43 27 6 95% CI 29–58 16–41 1–17 Benefit vs everolimus P < 0.001 P = 0.007 NA Overall survival (updated) Median (mo) 25.5 19.1 15.4 95% CI 16.4–NE 13.6–26.2 11.8–19.6 Benefit vs everolimus P = 0.024 P = 0.118 NA NA, not applicable; NE, not estimable.
  • 86. Conclusions  Progression-free survival was longer for lenvatinib/everolimus and lenvatinib compared with everolimus  Response rate was higher in both lenvatinib-containing arms  The highest rate and longest duration of response was observed with the combination  Study results suggest an overall survival benefit for lenvatinib/everolimus over everolimus
  • 87. Conclusions  Adverse events were generally higher for the lenvatinib- containing arms compared with everolimus  Adverse events were predictable, and generally managed with dose modifications  Further study of lenvatinib therapy is warranted in RCC
  • 88. Final clinical results of a randomized phase 2 international trial of everolimus vs. sunitinib in patients with metastatic non- clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN) 88 Abstract # 4507 Andrew Armstrong, MD, MSc, et al.
  • 89. Rationale for the ASPEN Trial • Current NCCN guidelines provide little clinical guidance around the optimal front line therapy for non-clear cell RCC • ASPEN is the largest randomized trial conducted to date in non-clear cell RCC and is intended to inform on clinical practice and to develop predictive biomarkers NCCN RCC guidelines version 2015
  • 90. ASPEN Trial Schema Metastatic RCC • Non-clear cell pathology: papillary, chromophobe, unclassified • No prior therapy • Measurable disease Stratified by Histology, MSKCC Risk Group Everolimus 10 mg orally once daily Days 1-42 Cycle = 6 weeks Sunitinib 50 mg orally Days 1-28 Cycle = 6 weeks n=108 R A N D O M I Z E Radiographic PFS Primary Endpoint NCT01108445 18 global sites: 10 USA, 5 UK, 3 in Canada Duke Cancer Institute was coordinating center and central biorepository for this multinational randomized open label trial, monitoring by inVentiv Health clinical No planned crossover
  • 91. Baseline Characteristics Characteristic Sunitinib (n=51) Everolimus (n=57) Years of age, median (range) 59 (24-100) 64 (29-90) Gender (male %) 73 77 Race, Caucasian [white/black %] 82/14 91/9 Papillary histology, n (%) type 1 papillary, n (%) 65 8 65 4 Chromophobe, n (%) Unclassified histology, n (%) Translocation carcinoma, n (%) 20 16 12 11 23 4 Sarcomatoid differentiation (%) 11 27 Prior nephrectomy (%) 80 79 Elevated LDH (%) 27 25 Liver/lung/bone metastases, (%) 31 / 59 / 24 26 / 44 / 26 MSKCC Risk Group (%) 0 1-2 ≥ 3 29 63 8 25 56 19
  • 92. Primary Endpoint: PFS 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Time since randomization (months) 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 Progression-FreeSurvival (probability) Sunitinib, median PFS 8.3 months Everolimus, median PFS 5.6 months 51 26 17 10 8 4 1 57 21 8 4 3 2 1 Sunitinib Everolimus Number of Patients at Risk Stratified log-rank HR 1.41, p=0.16* <0.20 boundary p-value level
  • 93. PFS According to Pre-specified Subgroups favors sunitinibfavors everolimus Median PFS (S vs. E, months) Hazard Ratio (80% CI) 8.3 vs. 5.6 1.41 (1.03-1.92) 14 vs. 5.7 3.07 (1.51-6.28) 6.5 vs. 4.9 1.38 (0.96-2.00) 4.0 vs. 6.1 0.21 (0.06-0.69) 8.1 vs. 5.5 1.52 (1.05-2.20) 5.5 vs. 11.4 0.71 (0.31-1.65) 11.5 vs. 5.6 2.55 (1.01-6.45) Category Overall Good risk Int. Risk Poor Risk Papillary Chromophobe Unclassified Hazard Ratio and 80% CI 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
  • 94. Key Secondary Endpoint: Overall Survival 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Time since randomization (months) 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 OverallSurvival (probability) Sunitinib: 32 months (95% CI 15-NR) Everolimus: 13 months (95% CI 10-38) 51 40 34 19 14 10 4 57 44 27 15 9 6 2 Sunitinib Everolimus Number of Patients at Risk Stratified log-rank HR 1.12, p=0.60 Pre-specified two sided alpha of 0.05
  • 95. PFS by MSKCC Risk Group and Histologic Subtype Time since randomization (months) Progression-FreeSurvival probability 0 1-2 3+ MSKCC Risk Criteria 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 29 16 11 6 5 0 0 64 25 14 8 6 6 2 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 3+ Number of Patients at Risk Time since randomization (months) Progression-FreeSurvival probability Papillary Chromophobe Unclassified Histology 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 70 29 15 9 8 6 2 16 8 6 4 2 0 0 22 10 4 1 1 0 0 Papillary Chromophobe Unclassified Number of Patients at Risk Motzer Sunitinib PFS (95% CI) Everolimus PFS (95% CI) 0 14.0 (2.9, 25.9) 5.7 (5.5, 11.0) 1-2 6.5 (5.3, 11.1) 4.9 (2.7, 6.1) 3+ 4.0 (0.9, 5.8) 6.1 (2.7, 7.6) Pathology subtype Sunitinib PFS (95% CI) Everolimus PFS (95% CI) Papillary 8.1 (5.6, 13.0) 5.5 (3.0, 6.9) Chromophobe 5.5 (1.7, 19.7) 11.4 (4.2, NA) Unclassified 11.5 (2.7, NA) 5.6 (1.2, 7.3)
  • 96. RECIST 1.1 Responses Sunitinib Everolimus Endpoint Sunitinib (n=51) Everolimus (n=57) RECIST 1.1 Best Overall Response (%) CR/PR SD PD NE Clinical Benefit Response: CR+PR+SD>24 weeks 18 59 19 4 22 9 53 23 15 11 Best tumor change by RECIST (median %) +10.7 +2.1 Median duration of response in months 5.5 3.3
  • 97. Summary and Conclusions • Patients with metastatic NC-RCC treated with sunitinib had a statistically significantly prolonged PFS duration than patients treated with everolimus – Sunitinib resulted in improved PFS in good/intermediate risk, papillary, and unclassified subtypes – Everolimus resulted in improved PFS in poor risk and chromophobe subtypes • Both agents resulted in short PFS times and low response rates • Sunitinib and everolimus resulted in different rates of expected toxicities; more severe toxicities with sunitinib, but more discontinuations due to toxicity from everolimus.
  • 98. Initial results from ASSURE (E2805): Adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib for unfavorable renal carcinoma, an ECOG- ACRIN-led, NCTN phase III trial 98 ASCO GU 2015 Naomi Haas, MD, et al.
  • 99. Stratify Risk - Intermediate High - Very High Histology - Clear cell - Non-clear cell Performance status - 0 vs. 1 Surgery - Open - Laparoscopic Arm B Sorafenib Twice daily for 9 cycles (1 yr) Arm C Placebo Daily for 1 year • Non- metastatic Kidney Cancer • Resectable Disease by scan • ≥ T1bNany (resectable) M0 disease Arm A Sunitinib Daily 4 of 6 weeks for 9 cycles (1 yr) Surgery Endpoints: Disease-Free Survival Overall Survival Side Effects (Including Cardiac, Fatigue) Correlatives Starting Dose Sunitinib Sorafenib Original 50 mg/day 400 mg twice daily Revised 37.5 mg/day 400 mg/day Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD N = 1943
  • 100. Toxicity Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo Grade (%) 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 Hypertension 16 <1 - 16 <1 - 4 - - Thrombotic <1 <1 <1 1 1 - <1 <1 - Bleeding <1 <1 - <1 - - <1 - - Cardiac ischemia <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 - LVEF dysfunction 1 - - 1 - - <1 - - CNS 1 - - <1 - - <1 <1 - Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Adverse Events - Cardiovascular
  • 101. Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo Grade (%) 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 Fatigue 17 1 - 7 - - 3 - - Rash 2 - - 15 <1 - <1 - - Hand-foot 15 - - 33 - - 1 - - Diarrhea 10 - - 9 - - - - - Anorexia 2 - - 1 - - - - - Stomatitis 4 <1 - 2 - - <1 - - Nausea/vomiting 6 - - 2 - - <1 - - Neuropathy 1 - - 2 <1 - <1 - - Pain 7 <1 - 9 <1 - 3 <1 - Renal failure 1 - <1 1 <1 - - - - Infection/febrile neutropenia 3 - <` 4 <1 <1 2 - - Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Adverse Events - Clinical
  • 102. Hematologic Adverse Events Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo Grade (%) 4 5 4 5 4 5 Thrombocytopenia 1 - <1 - - - Myelosuppression <1 - - - - - Anemia <1 <1 - - - Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Sunitinib Sorafenib Placebo Grade 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 Percent 57 5 1 67 3 <1 20 4 <1 Worst Degree - All Event Types
  • 103. Disease-Free Survival Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Events Patients 5-yr DFS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI Sunitinib 265 647 53.8% 49.0 – 59.1% 1.01 0.83 – 1.23 Sorafenib 272 649 52.8% 48.0 – 58.0% 0.98 0.81 – 1.19 Placebo 270 647 55.8% 51.2 – 60.9% Median 5.8 yrs Median 5.8 yrs Median 6.0 yrs
  • 104. DFS for Clear Cell Population Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Event s Patient s 5-yr DFS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI Sunitinib 214 513 52.4% 47.0 – 58.4% 1.01 0.81 – 1.26 Sorafenib 224 519 50.7% 45.4 – 56.7% 1.00 0.81 – 1.24 Placebo 216 509 54.9% 49.7 – 60.6% Median 5.6 yrs Median 5.1 yrs Median 5.7 yrs
  • 105. Overall Survival Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Event s Patient s 5-yr OS 97.5% CI HR 97.5% CI Sunitinib 138 647 76.9% 72.9 – 81.2% 1.10 0.83 – 1.45 Sorafenib 121 649 80.7% 77.0 – 84.6% 0.93 0.69 – 1.23 Placebo 130 647 78.7% 74.8 – 82.8%
  • 106. Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Sunitinib vs. Placebo
  • 107. Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD Sorafenib vs. Placebo
  • 108. Conclusions • First and largest trial reporting on efficacy of VEGF inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced kidney cancer who are at high risk of recurrence • Median time to disease recurrence did not differ between those who received sorafenib or sunitinib after surgery (median 5.8 years) and those treated with placebo (median 6 years) • Findings from this study suggest that patients with locally advanced kidney cancer should not be treated with either adjuvant sorafenib or sunitinib Presented by: Naomi B. Haas, MD