Levine Cancer Institute

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: The EGFR T790M mutation is the most common mechanism of drug resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients who have lung cancer with an EGFR mutation (EGFR-mutated lung cancer). In preclinical models, the EGFR inhibitor AZD9291 has been shown to be effective against both EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations. METHODS: We administered AZD9291 at doses of 20 to 240 mg once daily in patients with advanced lung cancer who had radiologically documented disease progression after previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The study included dose-escalation cohorts and dose-expansion cohorts. In the expansion cohorts, prestudy tumor biopsies were required for central determination of EGFR T790M status. Patients were assessed for safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were treated. Among 31 patients enrolled in the dose-escalation cohorts, no dose-limiting toxic effects occurred at the doses evaluated. An additional 222 patients were treated in five expansion cohorts. The most common all-cause adverse events were diarrhea, rash, nausea, and decreased appetite. The overall objective tumor response rate was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45 to 58). Among 127 patients with centrally confirmed EGFR T790M who could be evaluated for response, the response rate was 61% (95% CI, 52 to 70). In contrast, among 61 patients without centrally detectable EGFR T790M who could be evaluated for response, the response rate was 21% (95% CI, 12 to 34). The median progression-free survival was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to not reached) in EGFR T790M-positive patients and 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.3) in EGFR T790M-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: AZD9291 was highly active in patients with lung cancer with the EGFR T790M mutation who had had disease progression during prior therapy with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01802632.).

IMPORTANCE: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) significantly improves tumor control in the brain after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), yet because of its association with cognitive decline, its role in the treatment of patients with brain metastases remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone vs SRS plus WBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: At 34 institutions in North America, patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases were randomized to receive SRS or SRS plus WBRT between February 2002 and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS: The WBRT dose schedule was 30 Gy in 12 fractions; the SRS dose was 18 to 22 Gy in the SRS plus WBRT group and 20 to 24 Gy for SRS alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was cognitive deterioration (decline >1 SD from baseline on at least 1 cognitive test at 3 months) in participants who completed the baseline and 3-month assessments. Secondary end points included time to intracranial failure, quality of life, functional independence, long-term cognitive status, and overall survival. RESULTS: There were 213 randomized participants (SRS alone, n = 111; SRS plus WBRT, n = 102) with a mean age of 60.6 years (SD, 10.5 years); 103 (48%) were women. There was less cognitive deterioration at 3 months after SRS alone (40/63 patients [63.5%]) than when combined with WBRT (44/48 patients [91.7%]; difference, -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P < .001). Quality of life was higher at 3 months with SRS alone, including overall quality of life (mean change from baseline, -0.1 vs -12.0 points; mean difference, 11.9; 95% CI, 4.8-19.0 points; P = .001). Time to intracranial failure was significantly shorter for SRS alone compared with SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.2-5.9; P < .001). There was no significant difference in functional independence at 3 months between the treatment groups (mean change from baseline, -1.5 points for SRS alone vs -4.2 points for SRS plus WBRT; mean difference, 2.7 points; 95% CI, -2.0 to 7.4 points; P = .26). Median overall survival was 10.4 months for SRS alone and 7.4 months for SRS plus WBRT (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.38; P = .92). For long-term survivors, the incidence of cognitive deterioration was less after SRS alone at 3 months (5/11 [45.5%] vs 16/17 [94.1%]; difference, -48.7%; 95% CI, -87.6% to -9.7%; P = .007) and at 12 months (6/10 [60%] vs 17/18 [94.4%]; difference, -34.4%; 95% CI, -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases, the use of SRS alone, compared with SRS combined with WBRT, resulted in less cognitive deterioration at 3 months. In the absence of a difference in overall survival, these findings suggest that for patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases amenable to radiosurgery, SRS alone may be a preferred strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00377156.

BACKGROUND: Daratumumab showed promising efficacy alone and with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in a phase 1-2 study involving patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 569 patients with multiple myeloma who had received one or more previous lines of therapy to receive lenalidomide and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or in combination with daratumumab (daratumumab group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: white cells), as compared with 4.6% of those in the control group (P<0.001); results below the threshold for minimal residual disease were associated with improved outcomes. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 during treatment were neutropenia (in 51.9% of the patients in the daratumumab group vs. 37.0% of those in the control group), thrombocytopenia (in 12.7% vs. 13.5%), and anemia (in 12.4% vs. 19.6%). Daratumumab-associated infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the patients and were mostly of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly lengthened progression-free survival among patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher rate of neutropenia than the control therapy. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; POLLUX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02076009 .).

BACKGROUND: alterations. METHODS: alterations. All the patients had a history of disease progression during or after at least one course of chemotherapy or within 12 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Prior immunotherapy was allowed. We initially randomly assigned the patients to receive erdafitinib in either an intermittent or a continuous regimen in the dose-selection phase of the study. On the basis of an interim analysis, the starting dose was set at 8 mg per day in a continuous regimen (selected-regimen group), with provision for a pharmacodynamically guided dose escalation to 9 mg. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients in the selected-regimen group received a median of five cycles of erdafitinib. Of these patients, 43% had received at least two previous courses of treatment, 79% had visceral metastases, and 53% had a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml per minute. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib therapy was 40% (3% with a complete response and 37% with a partial response). Among the 22 patients who had undergone previous immunotherapy, the confirmed response rate was 59%. The median duration of progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and the median duration of overall survival was 13.8 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, which were managed mainly by dose adjustments, were reported in 46% of the patients; 13% of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: alterations. Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in nearly half the patients. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; BLC2001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02365597.).

BACKGROUND: The Hu5F9-G4 (hereafter, 5F9) antibody is a macrophage immune checkpoint inhibitor blocking CD47 that induces tumor-cell phagocytosis. 5F9 synergizes with rituximab to eliminate B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cells by enhancing macrophage-mediated antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis. This combination was evaluated clinically. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1b study involving patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Patients may have had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma. 5F9 (at a priming dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight, administered intravenously, with weekly maintenance doses of 10 to 30 mg per kilogram) was given with rituximab to determine safety and efficacy and to suggest a phase 2 dose. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (15 with DLBCL and 7 with follicular lymphoma) were enrolled. Patients had received a median of 4 (range, 2 to 10) previous therapies, and 95% of the patients had disease that was refractory to rituximab. Adverse events were predominantly of grade 1 or 2. The most common adverse events were anemia and infusion-related reactions. Anemia (an expected on-target effect) was mitigated by the strategy of 5F9 prime and maintenance dosing. Dose-limiting side effects were rare. A selected phase 2 dose of 30 mg of 5F9 per kilogram led to an approximate 100% CD47-receptor occupancy on circulating white and red cells. A total of 50% of the patients had an objective (i.e., complete or partial) response, with 36% having a complete response. The rates of objective response and complete response were 40% and 33%, respectively, among patients with DLBCL and 71% and 43%, respectively, among those with follicular lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 6.2 months among patients with DLBCL and 8.1 months among those with follicular lymphoma, 91% of the responses were ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The macrophage checkpoint inhibitor 5F9 combined with rituximab showed promising activity in patients with aggressive and indolent lymphoma. No clinically significant safety events were observed in this initial study. (Funded by Forty Seven and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02953509 .).

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better). RESULTS: Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).

BACKGROUND: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is a standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. We sought to determine whether the addition of daratumumab would significantly reduce the risk of disease progression or death in this population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 737 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Treatment was to continue until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: white cells) (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (50.0% in the daratumumab group vs. 35.3% in the control group), anemia (11.8% vs. 19.7%), lymphopenia (15.1% vs. 10.7%), and pneumonia (13.7% vs. 7.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation, the risk of disease progression or death was significantly lower among those who received daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone than among those who received lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone. A higher incidence of neutropenia and pneumonia was observed in the daratumumab group. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MAIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02252172.).

The International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the definition for high-risk (HR) multiple myeloma based on cytogenetics Several cytogenetic abnormalities such as t(4;14), del(17/17p), t(14;16), t(14;20), nonhyperdiploidy, and gain(1q) were identified that confer poor prognosis. The prognosis of patients showing these abnormalities may vary with the choice of therapy. Treatment strategies have shown promise for HR cytogenetic diseases, such as proteasome inhibition in combination with lenalidomide/pomalidomide, double autologous stem cell transplant plus bortezomib, or combination of immunotherapy with lenalidomide or pomalidomide. Careful analysis of cytogenetic subgroups in trials comparing different treatments remains an important goal. Cross-trial comparisons may provide insight into the effect of new drugs in patients with cytogenetic abnormalities. However, to achieve this, consensus on definitions of analytical techniques, proportion of abnormal cells, and treatment regimens is needed. Based on data available today, bortezomib and carfilzomib treatment appear to improve complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p), whereas lenalidomide may be associated with improved progression-free survival in t(4;14) and del(17/17p). Patients with multiple adverse cytogenetic abnormalities do not benefit from these agents. FISH data are implemented in the revised International Staging System for risk stratification.

We identified 420 medically treated and 231 surgically treated patients (coronary graft plus myocardial surgery in 30%) who had severe left ventricular dysfunction manifest by an ejection fraction below 0.36 and markedly abnormal wall motion. Compared with medically treated patients, those treated surgically had more severe angina (56.7% vs 29.0% class III or IV; p less than .001), less heart failure as predominant symptom (11.1% vs 18.8%; p less than .003), more severe coronary disease (66.7% vs 50.2% three-vessel disease; p less than .001), a greater concentration of left main coronary artery lesions greater than 70% (12.6% vs 3.8%: p less than .001), and a greater estimated extent of jeopardized myocardium (p less than .001). Multivariate regression analysis of survival, which adjusts for the above covariates, showed that surgical treatment prolonged survival (p less than .05), although it ranked below severity of heart failure symptoms, age, ejection fraction, and left main stenosis greater than 70% in determining prognosis. Surgical benefit was most apparent for patients with ejection fractions below 0.26 who had a 43% 5 year survival with medical treatment vs 63% with surgery. Surgically treated patients experienced substantial symptomatic benefit compared with medically treated patients if their presenting symptoms were predominantly angina; however, there was no relief of symptoms caused primarily by heart failure. We conclude that patients with predominantly ischemic pain symptoms, despite poor left ventricular function, benefit from surgery; however, operative mortality in this high-risk subset must equal or better the 6.9% obtained in this study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) are limited. In cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab as second or later line of treatment for patients with mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had centrally confirmed mTNBC, ≥1 systemic therapy for metastatic disease, prior treatment with anthracycline and taxane in any disease setting, and progression on or after the most recent therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 2 years. Primary end points were objective response rate in the total and PD-L1-positive populations, and safety. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (percentage of patients with complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks), progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: All enrolled patients (N = 170) were women, 61.8% had PD-L1-positive tumors, and 43.5% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy for metastatic disease. ORR (95% CI) was 5.3% (2.7-9.9) in the total and 5.7% (2.4-12.2) in the PD-L1-positive populations. Disease control rate (95% CI) was 7.6% (4.4-12.7) and 9.5% (5.1-16.8), respectively. Median duration of response was not reached in the total (range, 1.2+-21.5+) and in the PD-L1-positive (range, 6.3-21.5+) populations. Median PFS was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9-2.0), and the 6-month rate was 14.9%. Median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.2), and the 6-month rate was 69.1%. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 103 (60.6%) patients, including 22 (12.9%) with grade 3 or 4 AEs. There were no deaths due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity in a subset of patients with previously treated mTNBC and had a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02447003.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of ≥2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).

PURPOSE: This AUA Guideline focuses on evaluation/counseling/management of adult patients with clinically-localized renal masses suspicious for cancer, including solid-enhancing tumors and Bosniak 3/4 complex-cystic lesions. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer guideline underwent an update literature review which resulted in the 2021 amendment. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). RESULTS: Great progress has been made regarding the evaluation/management of clinically-localized renal masses. These guidelines provide updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation/counseling including the evolving role of renal-mass-biopsy (RMB). Given great variability of clinical/oncologic/functional characteristics, index patients are not utilized and the panel advocates individualized counseling/management. Options for intervention (partial-nephrectomy (PN), radical-nephrectomy (RN), and thermal-ablation (TA)) are reviewed including recent data about comparative-effectiveness/potential morbidities. Oncologic issues are prioritized while recognizing the importance of functional-outcomes for survivorship. Granular criteria for RN are provided to help reduce overutilization of RN while also avoiding imprudent PN. Priority for PN is recommended for clinical T1a lesions, along with selective utilization of TA, which has good efficacy for tumors≤3.0 cm. Recommendations for genetic-counseling have been revised and considerations for adjuvant-therapies are addressed. Active-surveillance and follow-up after intervention are discussed in an adjunctive article. CONCLUSION: Several factors require consideration during counseling/management of patients with clinically-localized renal masses including general health/comorbidities, oncologic-considerations, functional-consequences, and relative efficacy/potential morbidities of various management-strategies.

Importance: Osimertinib mesylate is used globally to treat EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance mediated by the EGFR T790M mutation. Acquired resistance to osimertinib is a growing clinical challenge that is poorly understood. Objective: To understand the molecular mechanisms of acquired resistance to osimertinib and their clinical behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received osimertinib for T790M-positive acquired resistance to prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor were identified from a multi-institutional cohort (n = 143) and a confirmatory trial cohort (NCT01802632) (n = 110). Next-generation sequencing of tumor biopsies after osimertinib resistance was performed. Genotyping of plasma cell-free DNA was studied as an orthogonal approach, including serial plasma samples when available. The study and analysis were finalized on November 9, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mechanisms of resistance and their association with time to treatment discontinuation on osimertinib. Results: Of the 143 patients evaluated, 41 (28 [68%] women) had tumor next-generation sequencing after acquired resistance to osimertinib. Among 13 patients (32%) with maintained T790M at the time of resistance, EGFR C797S was seen in 9 patients (22%). Among 28 individuals (68%) with loss of T790M, a range of competing resistance mechanisms was detected, including novel mechanisms such as acquired KRAS mutations and targetable gene fusions. Time to treatment discontinuation was shorter in patients with T790M loss (6.1 vs 15.2 months), suggesting emergence of pre-existing resistant clones; this finding was confirmed in a validation cohort of 110 patients with plasma cell-free DNA genotyping performed after osimertinib resistance. In studies of serial plasma levels of mutant EGFR, loss of T790M at resistance was associated with a smaller decrease in levels of the EGFR driver mutation after 1 to 3 weeks of therapy (100% vs 83% decrease; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Acquired resistance to osimertinib mediated by loss of the T790M mutation is associated with early resistance and a range of competing resistance mechanisms. These data provide clinical evidence of the heterogeneity of resistance in advanced NSCLC and a need for clinical trial strategies that can overcome multiple concomitant resistance mechanisms or strategies for preventing such resistance.

Thirteen new patients and 174 patients previously reported with coronary arteriovenous fistula (CAVF) were reviewed to delineate the course and management of CAVF and to clarify the role of surgical ligation in the young asymptomatic patient. Patients were grouped according to age: 99 patients (four new and 95 reported) were less than 20 years old and 88 (nine new and 79 reported) were greater than or equal to 20 years old. Of those under 20 years of age, 19% had preoperative symptoms or CAVF-related complications, including congestive heart failure (CHF) in 6%, subacute bacterial endocarditis in 3% and death in one patient. Seventy-six patients younger than 20 years old had CAVF ligation with only one significant complication. In contrast, 63% of the older group and all of our nine older patients had preoperative symptoms or complications, including CHF in 19%, SBE in 4%, myocardial infarction (MI) in 9%, death in 14% and fistula rupture in one patient. Of the 43 ligated older patients, 23% had surgical complications, including MI in three and death in three. Mean pulmonic-to-systemic flow in the entire group was 1.6:1 and did not differ significantly in those with or without symptoms or complications. One of our patients and one previously reported had spontaneous CAVF closure. In summary, early elective ligation of CAVF is indicated in all patients because of the high incidence of late symptoms and complications and the increased morbidity and mortality associated with ligation in older patients.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard frontline therapy for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The addition of daratumumab (D) to RVd (D-RVd) in transplant-eligible NDMM patients was evaluated. Patients (N = 207) were randomized 1:1 to D-RVd or RVd induction (4 cycles), ASCT, D-RVd or RVd consolidation (2 cycles), and lenalidomide or lenalidomide plus D maintenance (26 cycles). The primary end point, stringent complete response (sCR) rate by the end of post-ASCT consolidation, favored D-RVd vs RVd (42.4% vs 32.0%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.82; 1-sided P = .068) and met the prespecified 1-sided α of 0.10. With longer follow-up (median, 22.1 months), responses deepened; sCR rates improved for D-RVd vs RVd (62.6% vs 45.4%; P = .0177), as did minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (10-5 threshold) rates in the intent-to-treat population (51.0% vs 20.4%; P < .0001). Four patients (3.8%) in the D-RVd group and 7 patients (6.8%) in the RVd group progressed; respective 24-month progression-free survival rates were 95.8% and 89.8%. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more common with D-RVd. More infections occurred with D-RVd, but grade 3/4 infection rates were similar. Median CD34+ cell yield was 8.2 × 106/kg for D-RVd and 9.4 × 106/kg for RVd, although plerixafor use was more common with D-RVd. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were comparable. Daratumumab with RVd induction and consolidation improved depth of response in patients with transplant-eligible NDMM, with no new safety concerns. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02874742.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Objective: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. Results: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. Trial Registration: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

Human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8)-negative, idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare and life-threatening disorder involving systemic inflammatory symptoms, polyclonal lymphoproliferation, cytopenias, and multiple organ system dysfunction caused by a cytokine storm often including interleukin-6. iMCD accounts for one third to one half of all cases of MCD and can occur in individuals of any age. Accurate diagnosis is challenging, because no standard diagnostic criteria or diagnostic biomarkers currently exist, and there is significant overlap with malignant, autoimmune, and infectious disorders. An international working group comprising 34 pediatric and adult pathology and clinical experts in iMCD and related disorders from 8 countries, including 2 physicians that are also iMCD patients, was convened to establish iMCD diagnostic criteria. The working group reviewed data from 244 cases, met twice, and refined criteria over 15 months (June 2015 to September 2016). The proposed consensus criteria require both Major Criteria (characteristic lymph node histopathology and multicentric lymphadenopathy), at least 2 of 11 Minor Criteria with at least 1 laboratory abnormality, and exclusion of infectious, malignant, and autoimmune disorders that can mimic iMCD. Characteristic histopathologic features may include a constellation of regressed or hyperplastic germinal centers, follicular dendritic cell prominence, hypervascularization, and polytypic plasmacytosis. Laboratory and clinical Minor Criteria include elevated C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anemia, thrombocytopenia or thrombocytosis, hypoalbuminemia, renal dysfunction or proteinuria, polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia, constitutional symptoms, hepatosplenomegaly, effusions or edema, eruptive cherry hemangiomatosis or violaceous papules, and lymphocytic interstitial pneumonitis. iMCD consensus diagnostic criteria will facilitate consistent diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and collaborative research.