Background Enadenotucirev (formerly ColoAd1) is a tumor-selective chimeric adenovirus with demonstrated preclinical activity. This phase 1 Mechanism of Action study assessed intravenous (IV) delivery of enadenotucirev in patients with resectable colorectal cancer (CRC), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), urothelial cell cancer (UCC), and renal cell cancer (RCC) with a comparator intratumoral (IT) dosed CRC patient cohort. Methods Seventeen patients scheduled for primary tumor resection were enrolled. IT injection of enadenotucirev (CRC only) was administered as a single dose (≤ 3 × 10¹¹ viral particles [vp]) on day 1, followed by resection during days 8–15. IV infusion of enadenotucirev was administered by three separate doses (1 × 10¹² vp) on days 1, 3, and 5, followed by resection during days 8–15 (CRC) or days 10–25 (NSCLC, UCC, and RCC). Enadenotucirev activity was measured using immunohistochemical staining of nuclear viral hexon and quantitative polymerase chain reaction for viral genomic DNA. Results Delivery of enadenotucirev was observed in most tumor samples following IV infusion, with little or no demonstrable activity in normal tissue. This virus delivery (by both IV and IT dosing) was accompanied by high local CD8⁺ cell infiltration in 80% of tested tumor samples, suggesting a potential enadenotucirev-driven immune response. Both methods of enadenotucirev delivery were well tolerated, with no treatment-associated serious adverse events. Conclusions This study provides key delivery and feasibility data to support the use of IV infusion of enadenotucirev, or therapeutic transgene-bearing derivatives of it, in clinical trials across a range of epithelial tumors, including the ongoing combination study of enadenotucirev with the checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab. It also provides insights into the potential immune-stimulating properties of enadenotucirev. Trial registration This MOA study was a phase 1, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label study to investigate the administration of enadenotucirev in a preoperative setting (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02053220).

The introduction of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in prostate cancer is a milestone and provides a pathway to hope in fighting this disease. It is the first time that drugs, based on the concept of synthetic lethality, have been approved for prostate cancer. In addition, it is also the first time that genetic mutation tests have been included in the therapeutic algorithm of this disease, representing a significant step forward for precision and personalized treatment of prostate cancer. The objectives of this review are: (1) understanding the mechanism of action of PARPi in monotherapy and combinations; (2) gaining insights on patient selection for PARPi; (3) exposing the pivotal studies that have allowed its approval, and; (4) offering an overview of the ongoing trials. Nevertheless, many unsolved questions remain, such as the number of patients who could potentially benefit from PARPi, whether to use PARPi in monotherapy or in combination, and when is the best time to use them in advanced or localized disease. To answer these and other questions, many clinical trials are underway. Some of them have recently demonstrated promising results that may favor the introduction of new combinations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PARPi, in combination with ionizing radiation, has demonstrated the ability to enhance cellular radiosensitivity in different tumors. The rationale is that the exposure to radiation leads to both physical and biochemical damage to DNA, prompting cells to initiate three primary mechanisms for DNA repair. Two double-stranded DNA breaks (DSB) repair pathways: (1) non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) and (2) homologous recombination (HR); and (3) a single-stranded DNA break (SSB) repair pathway (base excision repair, BER). In this scenario, PARPi can serve as radiosensitizers by leveraging the BER pathway. This mechanism heightens the likelihood of replication forks collapsing, consequently leading to the formation of persistent DSBs. Together, the combination of PARPi and radiotherapy is a potent oncological strategy. This combination has proven its efficacy in different tumors. However, in prostate cancer, there are only preclinical studies to support it and, recently, an ongoing clinical trial. The objective of this paper is to perform a review of the current evidence regarding the use of PARPi and radiotherapy (RT) in PCa and to give future insight on this topic.

Introduction: Penile cancer (PC) is a rare malignancy with an overall incidence in Europe of 1/100,000 males/year. In Europe, few studies report the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical presentation, and treatment of PC. The aim of this study is to present an updated outlook on the aforementioned factors of PC in Spain. Materials and Methods: A multicentric, retrospective, observational epidemiological study was designed, and patients with a new diagnosis of PC in 2015 were included. Patients were anonymously identified from the Register of Specialized Care Activity of the Ministry of Health of Spain. All Spanish hospitals recruiting patients in 2015 were invited to participate in the present study. We have followed a descriptive narration of the observed data. Continuous and categorical data were reported by median (p25th–p75th range) and absolute and relative frequencies, respectively. The incidence map shows differences between Spanish regions. Results: The incidence of PC in Spain in 2015 was 2.55/100,000 males per year. A total of 586 patients were identified, and 228 patients from 61 hospitals were included in the analysis. A total of 54/61 (88.5%) centers reported ≤ 5 new cases. The patients accessed the urologist for visually-assessed penile lesions (60.5%), mainly localized in the glans (63.6%). Local hygiene, smoking habits, sexual habits, HPV exposure, and history of penile lesions were reported in 48.2%, 59.6%, 25%, 13.2%, and 69.7%. HPV-positive lesions were 18.1% (28.6% HPV-16). The majority of PC was squamous carcinoma (95.2%). PC was ≥cT2 in 45.2% (103/228) cases. At final pathology, PC was ≥pT2 in 51% of patients and ≥pN1 in 17% of cases. The most common local treatment was partial penectomy (46.9% cases). A total of 47/55 (85.5%) inguinal lymphadenectomies were open. Patients with ≥pN1 disease were treated with chemotherapy in 12/39 (40.8%) of cases. Conclusions: PC incidence is relatively high in Spain compared to other European countries. The risk factors for PC are usually misreported. The diagnosis and management of PC are suboptimal, encouraging the identification of referral centers for PC management.

Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody that selectively blocks the interaction between PD-1, which is expressed on activated T cells, and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, which are expressed on immune cells and tumour cells. Patients with severe renal dysfunction and haemodialysis are not enrolled in clinical trials. However, in daily clinical practice, we have patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The scientific evidence about the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in these patients is scarce. We report three cases of mRCC patients with ESRD treated with second-line nivolumab therapy. They received both biweekly and monthly schemes. None of our patients showed grade 2–4 toxicities. Two patients achieved partial response and one progressive disease as best response. Our patients did not show increased toxicity by ESRD; also, two of the three patients had objectifiable clinical benefit. Nivolumab seems to be similarly safe for ESRD or dialysis patients as for patients without impaired kidney function (IKF). Dose adjustments might not be necessary. We suggest that patients on dialysis could be treated with nivolumab in the same way as populations without IKF.